Has Obama ever traveled?

[KG6JTB]

I saw this picture in the latest edition of NEWSWEEK magazine. Note the position of the compass. http://ndn.newsweek.com/media/67/obama-race-white-house-NA01-wide-horizontal.jpg

Dave
KG6JTB

[wa8rti]

Am I the only one who asks 'what compass?' And the answer to your question is 'extensively'.

[K3XR]

Must admit, RTI is correct, Barry is a "travelin' man".

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/africans-celebrate-kenyan-obamas-victory/print

[KU0DM]

A) What compass?
B) That's not Barack Obama, his skin is lighter than that (pardon me if some of you find that racist in any remote way)

[W4DFW]

B) That's not Barack Obama, his skin is lighter than that (pardon me if some of you find that racist in any remote way)

Where did he say it was Obama?? :confused:

[KU0DM]

Has Obama ever traveled?

It's in the title.

[W4DFW]

It's in the title.

Your analytical skills can't be that bad. WHERE does it say those hands are Obama's? YOU are making an assumption, my friend. THAT mistake will get you in serious trouble later on in life.

Read his post again CAREFULLY and tell me again, WHERE does it say those hands are Obama's?? ;)

[KU0DM]

Your analytical skills can't be that bad. WHERE does it say those hands are Obama's? YOU are making an assumption, my friend. THAT mistake will get you in serious trouble later on in life.

Read his post again CAREFULLY and tell me again, WHERE does it say those hands are Obama's?? ;)

I was pointing out the reasons of WHY it CAN'T be Obama.

[W4DFW]

I was pointing out the reasons of WHY it CAN'T be Obama.

Why do you feel the need to point out that the hands aren't Obama's when no one said they were? You are already jumping to a conclusion that no one has rendered.

So I take it that you agree that no where does the author claim those hands were Obama's, correct?

[KU0DM]

Read the title out loud.
Why would he put that title on a topic that you say has nothing to do with the said individual?

[W4DFW]

Read the title out loud.
Why would he put that title on a topic that you say has nothing to do with the said individual?

Why do people say that Bush "lied" about WMDs in Iraq when the accepted definition of that word requires intent? The good-faith use of intelligence, which one believes to be the best available at the time, is not a lie. Yet, people have their agenda, don't they?

Relook at what you wrote that I quoted here. You said that I claimed that the post "has nothing to do with the said individual." Carefully reread what I have said and you will see I never said anything of the kind.

What I pointed out is that you concluded that since "Obama" was in the title, followed by a picture of an apparent Black man's hands, that the author was claiming those hands must be Obama's. I simply pointed out that nowhere does anyone actually say those hands are Obama's.

Much is written today, even here on the ZED, that represents little more than conclusory statements. By that, the author makes one postulate then concludes (erroneously) something not supported by his postulate. I'm concerned that schools today have pretty much ignored analytical skills in reading in favor of emotional assumptions.

This can be easily explained by syllogisms. For example:

1) All men die.
2) Socrates is a man.
3) Socrates will die.

Line 1 represents a well accepted fact. No one can argue its truthfullness (we won't get into life after death, OK?)

Line 2 may or may not be true. However, if we accept that it is true, then one can make the conclusion in line 3, which logically follows lines 1 and 2.

Consider this.

1) A compass will show you the way.
2) A black man's hands are using a compass incorrectly in a picture.
3) Obama does not know his way.

Now, arguably a compass will show you the way, assuming you know how to use it. The picture may or may not show someone using a compass incorrectly. Assuming the picture DOES show the incorrect use of a compass by a black man, I think you will agree that concluding that Obama does not know how to use a compass is not supported logically by the statements. We have not proven that Obama's hands are the ones in the picture.

Similarly, the fact Obama's name appears in the title does not mean those hands are his. You have assumed that and reacted accordingly to something that may or may not have been the intention of the author.

It's a minor point truthfully, but assumptions are part of the reason this political climate is so full of outlandish stupidity. Don't let yourself fall prey to assumptions. If you assume anything, you're more likely to make an "ass" out of "u" and "me."

Class dismissed . . . ;)

[W8EFA]

Why do people say that Bush "lied" about WMDs in Iraq when the accepted definition of that word requires intent?

ROTFLMAO

You would have to be totally clueless or (in this case) have your head up your butt to make such a stupid statement.

Because when " "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." That is called lying.

Or as McLellan recently disclosed " the administration relied on an aggressive "political propaganda campaign" instead of truth to sell the Iraq war".

Or when Tenet told Bush that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. Bush dismissed this top-secret intelligence from Saddam's inner circle which was approved by two senior CIA officers in fact he information was never shared with Congress or even CIA agents examining whether Saddam had such weapons.

Or when he knew the centrifuges were not for a bomb and used that info anyway. ETc. Etc. ETc.

Anyone with a brain and an open mind can see he squashed every bit of evidence there were no WMD's and trumped up evidence that he knew was erroneous.

Bush is a liar plain and simple.

[KG6JTB]

Is anyone else laughing as hard as I am?

You guys really are in the dark!

[W4DFW]

ROTFLMAO

You would have to be totally clueless or (in this case) have your head up your butt to make such a stupid statement.

Now this is exactly what I am talking about, KU0DM!! It was not my intent to get such a quick response from Lib'rul Lunes, but it is what it is. Notice that there is no documentation of the conclusory statements made regarding lies, only innuendo and supposition. Indeed, Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and well. Gentleman, if I may, though I am getting tired of repeating myself, so I think I'll just do a quick cut and past regarding my response to lib'rul's claim that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war, which were many and much more than simple "stockpiles" of WMD. How soon we forget . . .
=================================

UNSCOM inspections 1991-1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)

The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) was set up after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to inspect Iraqi weapons facilities. It was headed first by Rolf Ekéus and later by Richard Butler. During several visits to Iraq by UNSCOM, weapons inspectors interviewed British-educated Iraqi biologist Rihab Rashid Taha. According to a 1999 report from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, the normally mild-mannered Taha exploded into violent rages whenever UNSCOM questioned her about al-Hakam, shouting, screaming and, on one occasion, smashing a chair, while insisting that al-Hakam was a chicken-feed plant.[34] "There were a few things that were peculiar about this animal-feed production plant", Charles Duelfer, UNSCOM's deputy executive chairman, later told reporters, "beginning with the extensive air defenses surrounding it." The facility was destroyed by UNSCOM in 1996.[35]

In 1995, UNSCOM's principal weapons inspector, Dr. Rod Barton from Australia, showed Taha documents obtained by UNSCOM that showed the Iraqi government had just purchased 10 tons of growth medium from a British company called Oxoid. Growth media is a mixture of sugars, proteins and minerals that provides nutrients for microorganisms to grow. It can be used in hospitals and microbiology/molecular biology research laboratories. In hospitals, swabs from patients are placed in dishes containing growth medium for diagnostic purposes. Iraq's hospital consumption of growth medium was just 200 kg a year; yet in 1988, Iraq imported 39 tons of it. Shown this evidence by UNSCOM, Taha admitted to the inspectors that she had grown 19,000 litres of botulism toxin;[36] 8,000 litres of anthrax; 2,000 litres of aflatoxins, which can cause liver failure; Clostridium perfringens, a bacterium that can cause gas gangrene; and ricin, a castor-bean derivative which can kill by impeding circulation. She also admitted conducting research into cholera, salmonella, foot and mouth disease, and camel pox, a disease that uses the same growth techniques as smallpox, but which is safer for researchers to work with. It was because of the discovery of Taha's work with camel pox that the U.S. and British intelligence services feared Saddam Hussein may have been planning to weaponize the smallpox virus. Iraq had a smallpox outbreak in 1971 and the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) believed the Iraqi government retained contaminated material.[23]

UNSCOM also learned that, in August 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Taha's team was ordered to set up a program to weaponize the biological agents. By January 1991, a team of 100 scientists and support staff had filled 157 bombs and 16 missile warheads with botulin toxin, and 50 bombs and five missile warheads with anthrax. In an interview with the BBC, Taha denied the Iraqi government had weaponized the bacteria. "We never intended to use it", she told journalist Jane Corbin of the BBC's Panorama program. "We never wanted to cause harm or damage to anybody." However, UNSCOM found the munitions dumped in a river near al-Hakam. UNSCOM also discovered that Taha's team had conducted inhalation experiments on donkeys from England and on beagles from Germany. The inspectors seized photographs showing beagles having convulsions inside sealed containers.[citation needed]

The inspectors feared that Taha's team had experimented on human beings. During one inspection, they discovered two primate-sized inhalation chambers, one measuring 5 cubic meters, though there was no evidence the Iraqis had used large primates in their experiments. According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter in his 1999 book Endgame: Solving the Iraq Crisis, UNSCOM learned that, between July 1 and August 15, 1995, 50 prisoners from the Abu Ghraib prison were transferred to a military post in al-Haditha, in the northwest of Iraq.[citation needed] Iraqi opposition groups say that scientists sprayed the prisoners with anthrax, though no evidence was produced to support these allegations. During one experiment, the inspectors were told, 12 prisoners were tied to posts while shells loaded with anthrax were blown up nearby. Ritter's team demanded to see documents from Abu Ghraib prison showing a prisoner count. Ritter writes that they discovered the records for July and August 1995 were missing. Asked to explain the missing documents, the Iraqi government charged that Ritter was working for the CIA and refused UNSCOM access to certain sites like Baath Party headquarters.[37] Although Ekéus has said that he resisted attempts at such espionage, many allegations have since been made against the agency commission under Butler, charges which Butler has denied [2][3].

In August 1998, Ritter resigned his position as UN weapons inspector and sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the U.N. Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed. Ritter also accused U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan of assisting Iraqi efforts at impeding UNSCOM's work. "Iraq is not disarming", Ritter said on August 27, 1998, and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." In 1998 the UNSCOM weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq. They were not expelled from the country by Iraq as has often been reported (and as George W. Bush alleged in his infamous "axis of evil" speech). Rather, according to Butler himself in his book Saddam Defiant, it was U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, acting on instructions from Washington, who suggested Butler pull his team from Iraq in order to protect them from the forthcoming U.S. and British airstrikes which eventually took place from December 16-December 19, 1998.

===========================================

The lib'rul lunacy that the Iraq war was SOLELY about "stockpiles" of WMD is Lib'rul Fantasy, designed to do nothing more than to discredit Bush in the hopes it would pave the way for a Democrat President in 2008. Unable to achieve by Democratic election a Democrat for POTUS, Leftwingnuts have resorted to a series of lies and misrepresentations of the true reasons we rid the World of Saddam.

Anytime you lunes want to provide documentation that Bush lied rather than your blathering, flailing around of your minimal cerebral cortex, I'll be more than happy to change my mind. Till then . . . .

TA TA!!

[n2ize]

In August 1998, Ritter resigned his position as UN weapons inspector and sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the U.N. Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed. Ritter also accused U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan of assisting Iraqi efforts at impeding UNSCOM's work. "Iraq is not disarming", Ritter said on August 27, 1998, and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." In 1998 the UNSCOM weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq. They were not expelled from the country by Iraq as has often been reported (and as George W. Bush alleged in his infamous "axis of evil" speech). Rather, according to Butler himself in his book Saddam Defiant, it was U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, acting on instructions from Washington, who suggested Butler pull his team from Iraq in order to protect them from the forthcoming U.S. and British airstrikes which eventually took place from December 16-December 19, 1998.



You also forgot to point out thatg Scott Ritter was also a major critic of Bush's war in Iraq and, while he did not give Iraq a clean bill of health, nor did he feel that Iraq has the WMD capabilities that the Bush administration claimed. He has also been a major critic of the Bush administration particularly with regard to the corrupt Bush war in Iraq.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html

'No threat'

Mr Ritter accused the US Government of deliberately setting new standards of disarmament criteria to maintain UN sanctions and justify continued bombing raids.

He also said Iraq "did co-operate to a very significant degree with the UN inspection process" and blamed the US and the UK for the breakdown.

Mr Ritter essentially repeated those views during his trip to Baghdad last year.

He said the US seemed "on the verge of an historic mistake".

"My government is making a case for war against Iraq that is built upon fear and ignorance," he added.

"The truth of the matter is that Iraq today is not a threat to its neighbours and is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside of its own borders."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2247600.stm

[n2ize]

Why do people say that Bush "lied" about WMDs in Iraq when the accepted definition of that word requires intent? The good-faith use of intelligence, which one believes to be the best available at the time, is not a lie. Yet, people have their agenda, don't they?

Relook at what you wrote that I quoted here. You said that I claimed that the post "has nothing to do with the said individual." Carefully reread what I have said and you will see I never said anything of the kind.

What I pointed out is that you concluded that since "Obama" was in the title, followed by a picture of an apparent Black man's hands, that the author was claiming those hands must be Obama's. I simply pointed out that nowhere does anyone actually say those hands are Obama's.

Much is written today, even here on the ZED, that represents little more than conclusory statements. By that, the author makes one postulate then concludes (erroneously) something not supported by his postulate. I'm concerned that schools today have pretty much ignored analytical skills in reading in favor of emotional assumptions.

This can be easily explained by syllogisms. For example:

1) All men die.
2) Socrates is a man.
3) Socrates will die.

Line 1 represents a well accepted fact. No one can argue its truthfullness (we won't get into life after death, OK?)

Line 2 may or may not be true. However, if we accept that it is true, then one can make the conclusion in line 3, which logically follows lines 1 and 2.

Consider this.

1) A compass will show you the way.
2) A black man's hands are using a compass incorrectly in a picture.
3) Obama does not know his way.

Now, arguably a compass will show you the way, assuming you know how to use it. The picture may or may not show someone using a compass incorrectly. Assuming the picture DOES show the incorrect use of a compass by a black man, I think you will agree that concluding that Obama does not know how to use a compass is not supported logically by the statements. We have not proven that Obama's hands are the ones in the picture.

Similarly, the fact Obama's name appears in the title does not mean those hands are his. You have assumed that and reacted accordingly to something that may or may not have been the intention of the author.

It's a minor point truthfully, but assumptions are part of the reason this political climate is so full of outlandish stupidity. Don't let yourself fall prey to assumptions. If you assume anything, you're more likely to make an "ass" out of "u" and "me."


And yet you are making assumptions to compensate for the ambiguity you introduced in the latter half of your "lesson" in logic.

Class dissed and dismissed.

[W4DFW]

You also forgot to point out thatg Scott Ritter was also a major critic of Bush's war in Iraq and, while he did not give Iraq a clean bill of health, nor did he feel that Iraq has the WMD capabilities that the Bush administration claimed.

Well I am just blown asunder at what he "felt."

What we found after liberating Iraq was that the infrastructure for resuming massive WMD production was still there. Additionally, documents proved that Saddam intended on pursuing nuclear weapons as soon as economic sanctions were lifted.

None of this, of course, changes the fact that Saddam was a ruthless tyrant, the only world leader other than OBL who praised the 9/11 attacks, and was accepted to be a terrorism risk to the world due to his well documented connections with terrorists around the world.

At any rate, does it matter now? He's gone. Would you have rather we waited till Saddam regenerated his WMD program and killed a few thousand innocent people before doing something? Would that make you feel like it was worth taking him out? How would the families of those who died have felt because we didn't do something before? Maybe you'd have preferred we wait till he obtained nuclear weapons and nuked a million innocent people before we did anything?

All bull#### aside, Bush was damned either way and he knew it. He didn't ask to be put in the spot he was, he just decided to act proactively rather than sit by and possibly allow a few thousand more people to lose their lives, then have to listen to the wrath of lib'rul lunes complaining he didn't do more to stop terrorism.

Jesus . . . some lib'rul lunes complain he didn't do enough to stop 9/11, which occurred only a few months after he entered office.

Some folks just ain't happy. Lunes on the left are *never* happy and are parasites to bad news.

............Bob

[n2ize]

Well I am just blown asunder at what he "felt."

What we found after liberating Iraq was that the infrastructure for resuming massive WMD production was still there. Additionally, documents proved that Saddam intended on pursuing nuclear weapons as soon as economic sanctions were lifted.

None of this, of course, changes the fact that Saddam was a ruthless tyrant, the only world leader other than OBL who praised the 9/11 attacks, and was accepted to be a terrorism risk to the world due to his well documented connections with terrorists around the world.

At any rate, does it matter now? He's gone. Would you have rather we waited till Saddam regenerated his WMD program and killed a few thousand innocent people before doing something? Would that make you feel like it was worth taking him out? How would the families of those who died have felt because we didn't do something before? Maybe you'd have preferred we wait till he obtained nuclear weapons and nuked a million innocent people before we did anything?

All bull#### aside, Bush was damned either way and he knew it. He didn't ask to be put in the spot he was, he just decided to act proactively rather than sit by and possibly allow a few thousand more people to lose their lives, then have to listen to the wrath of lib'rul lunes complaining he didn't do more to stop terrorism.

Jesus . . . some lib'rul lunes complain he didn't do enough to stop 9/11, which occurred only a few months after he entered office.

Some folks just ain't happy. Lunes on the left are *never* happy and are parasites to bad news.

............Bob

Yeah yeah yeah sure sure sure. Oh, and it's a bit more that what Ritter "felt". He was on the ground in Iraq and bad a damn good insight into what was going on there with regards to Iraq and it's weapons capacity. Beyond that your full of hot aire. Face it, you've been debunked for several years now.

[W4DFW]

And yet you are making assumptions to compensate for the ambiguity you introduced in the latter half of your "lesson" in logic.


VERY GOOD!! You are showing definite prospect!

Alas, my assumption in the second part concerned the major premise in the logical steps, that the premise was true. If so, then the argument follows logically but fails in the second example. Assuming you know how to use a compass, it will show the way. If you don't, no point in even going to step two. My "assumption" was for arguments sake, nothing more.

I assumed someone like yourself would have realized this.

How interesting! I guess I just can't give you the benefit of the doubt anymore. My bad! ;)

[W4DFW]

Yeah yeah yeah sure sure sure.

<shrugging shoulders>

I'm still waiting for a leftwingnut to prove me wrong. This is getting too boring. So many lunes but so little time . . . . :p

[n2ize]

VERY GOOD!! You are showing definite prospect!

Alas, my assumption in the second part concerned the major premise in the logical steps, that the premise was true. If so, then the argument follows logically but fails in the second example. Assuming you know how to use a compass, it will show the way. If you don't, no point in even going to step two. My "assumption" was for arguments sake, nothing more.

I assumed someone like yourself would have realized this.

How interesting! I guess I just can't give you the benefit of the doubt anymore. My bad! ;)

I know what you were trying to demonstrate. I just wanted to point out that there was a greater degree of ambiguity in your second set of "propositions" as opposed to the classic propositions you used initially and which are a staple part of virtually every basic logic course. There's nothing nessesarilly wrong with that as ambiguities are inherent in everyday langauge.

[AE6IP]

The facility was destroyed by UNSCOM in 1996.[35]

How inconvenient for you that the facility that you are discussing had long since been destroyed when Dubya started his war...

The lib'rul lunacy that the Iraq war was SOLELY about "stockpiles" of WMD is Lib'rul Fantasy, designed to do nothing more than to discredit Bush in the hopes it would pave the way for a Democrat President in 2008

It is convenient that you label all of your strawmen "lib'rul lunacy". it makes it so much easier to realize that you're playing a game of distraction.

Those of us who were paying attention opposed the war from the start, precisely because the administration was paying fast and loose with evidence in ways that you demonstrate in your long excerpt about a plant that had already been destroyed.

There was no credible evidence of a sufficient threat of any nature to justify a war. There is considerable widely available credible documentation that the so-called "evidence" used by the government to justify the war was fabricated and that documentation comes from the government's own records.

Either George W Bush was party to the fabrication, or he was the most incompetent man to ever hold the office of president of the United States. His track record in business, as governor of the state of Texas, and in other aspects of his presidency suggests the later, and I'm more than inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But it matters little. Bush led this country into a quagmire which has reduced, not enhanced our security. He will be recorded by history as the worst president this country has had to date, whether it eventually is determined he was party to the fabrication or fooled by it. Iraq will be recorded as the worst military fiasco in US history, save, possibly, only Custer's stupidity in Montana.

Nor does any of the above have anything to do with the 2008 election. Bush isn't running. McCain will fail to be elected president entirely on his own rather extensive lack of merit; the same lack which washed him out of the navy at such a humble rank, when compared to his ancestors.

[AE6IP]

What we found after liberating Iraq was that the infrastructure for resuming massive WMD production was still there.

Nope. No such infrastructure was found.

Additionally, documents proved that Saddam intended on pursuing nuclear weapons as soon as economic sanctions were lifted.

Documents which were, upon analysis, dismissed as fantasy.

None of this, of course, changes the fact that Saddam was a ruthless tyrant, the only world leader other than OBL who praised the 9/11 attacks, and was accepted to be a terrorism risk to the world due to his well documented connections with terrorists around the world.

There are no 'well documented connections' between Hussain and terrorists around the world. He was an evil man, but he kept his evil local.

At any rate, does it matter now?

Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.


Would you have rather we waited till Saddam regenerated his WMD program and killed a few thousand innocent people before doing something?


And the reason why you're not all gung-ho to cure the evil killing of thousands of innocent people in Myanmar and Darfur is?

And what about the tens of thousands who've died in Iraq since the war, as a consequence of the US's poor planning and poor execution of "nation building"? Doesn't that make Dubya a worse evil than Hussain because he has killed more through his war than Hussain did through his dictatorship?

[Bush] didn't ask to be put in the spot he was, he just decided to act proactively rather than sit by and possibly allow a few thousand more people to lose their lives,

Thousands of innocent people lose their lives every year at the hands of evil people in this world. North Korea is far closer to having nuclear weapons than Iraq would be if left alone for another ten years. Why that particular dictator and not another?

[W8EFA]

The evidence has all been here for years now.

We are able to look back and see that Bush told Richard Clarke he wanted to invade Iraq because of 911. He told him to look again for evidence they were involved when they were not.

He squashed every bit of evidence that there were not WMD's while using evidence he knew was wrong to justify WMD's. He was caught red handed in the Downing Street memos. Former aids have come forward now to tell us he lied.

IT IS A FACT that weapons inspectors had free and unfettered acccess every day for months looking for WMD's in Iraq before we invaded- look it up. That is reason enough not to invade. Why would you invade on the premise of WMD's when you are going to any facility you want unannounced and looking around with free access?

80% of the country now know Bush is a liar an an idiot. There are still 20% that are just complete morons and they all seem to gather here on QRZ.

[W3MIV]

I do not understand the impetus of this need to continually defend Bush. He is a lame duck; indeed, one of the lamest ducks since John Tyler (or, indeed, President "Edith" Wilson). What purpose is served by seeking to justify what is now known to have been a fabrication? "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." In Bush's case, they were clearly "damned lies" in search of statistics. History will measure his suit; leave it for future tailors.

[N9XR]

Your analytical skills can't be that bad. WHERE does it say those hands are Obama's? YOU are making an assumption, my friend. THAT mistake will get you in serious trouble later on in life.

Read his post again CAREFULLY and tell me again, WHERE does it say those hands are Obama's?? ;)

People who make assumptions are indeed of a lower intelligence.

Where did KU0DM say that he was talking about the "hands"?

[W4DFW]

I do not understand the impetus of this need to continually defend Bush. He is a lame duck; indeed, one of the lamest ducks since John Tyler (or, indeed, President "Edith" Wilson). What purpose is served by seeking to justify what is now known to have been a fabrication? "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." In Bush's case, they were clearly "damned lies" in search of statistics. History will measure his suit; leave it for future tailors.

I do not understand the impetus of this need to continually bash Bush. He is a lame duck . . .

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin.

That is what history will read when they examine the curious need of leftwingnuts to distort the truth in their quest to bash Bush. I am not supporting Bush regarding his tactic of using WMD to push the war. I am revealing that no one on the left can prove he purposely lied with the express intent to deceive all regarding this one fact. I will honor you with your attempt, but you don't mind if I don't wait around, will 'ya?

[N9XR]

I do not understand the impetus of this need to continually bash Bush. He is a lame duck . . .

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin.

That is what history will read when they examine the curious need of leftwingnuts to distort the truth in their quest to bash Bush. I am not supporting Bush regarding his tactic of using WMD to push the war. I am revealing that no one on the left can prove he purposely lied with the express intent to deceive all regarding this one fact. I will honor you with your attempt, but you don't mind if I don't wait around, will 'ya?

So you think that crimes of lame ducks should be ignored?

[W3MIV]

I do not understand the impetus of this need to continually bash Bush. He is a lame duck . . .

I am not bashing Bush or anyone else. If you think that my post is bashing, you are either hypersensitive (and should move into a cave in some desert to shield yourself -- maybe Alaska is a better choice, come to think of it) or a large portion of your brain has ceased to function and you should give Ted Kennedy's docs a ring.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin.

Neither novel nor original with Lenin. Bush learned this well; it even worked on Colin Powell. And you, apparently.

That is what history will read when they examine the curious need of leftwingnuts to distort the truth in their quest to bash Bush. I am not supporting Bush regarding his tactic of using WMD to push the war. I am revealing that no one on the left can prove he purposely lied with the express intent to deceive all regarding this one fact. I will honor you with your attempt, but you don't mind if I don't wait around, will 'ya?

And you (nor anyone else) can prove that space is infinite or that there are no residents on some distant orb laughing at the inane attempts to defend a man who has been shown time and again to reject every bit of advice that does not emanate from within his eery mind or from Dick Cheney's hymnal.

I am vastly entertained by your use of the term "leftwingnuts;" like Alice, you have journeyed to the far side of the mirror in your zeal to promote the Right Fringe view of diplomacy -- even Otto von Bismarck would cluck and shake his Pickelhaube back and forth in amazement at your gullibility.

Bush will enter the historical lists well down under Clinton, Hayes, the Harrison boys and Jemmy Cartah. In fact, historians may need to invent a new term for feckless performances of incredible magnitude. Consider now Bush's approval rating; it takes 535 ah's in an entire Congress to achieve a lower rating. That says more than you will ever be able to post.

:D

[W4DFW]

And you (nor anyone else) can prove that space is infinite or that there are no residents on some distant orb laughing at the inane attempts to defend a man who has been shown time and again to reject every bit of advice that does not emanate from within his eery mind or from Dick Cheney's hymnal.

An excellent diversion. Unfortunately, a well described (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) method of avoiding my request for proof. Learned that technique in your high school debating class, did 'ya??

If, as you say, it is *SO* well know that Bush purposefully and intentionally lied (I put those words there to help leftwingnuts understand the widely accepted meaning of "to lie.") one would think that SOMEONE, given the rather large number of people who despise Bush, would have obtained some documentation that would prove the claim. Or, at least Dan Rather would have made up some document and given it to Katie Couric in the hopes she could "enlighten" us all.

I wait patiently with baited breath your proof! Or, shall you engage in more diversion? :rolleyes:

[W3MIV]

I wait patiently with baited breath your proof! Or, shall you engage in more diversion? :rolleyes:

Let's take that last bit first. If your breath is baited, I would suggest that, perhaps, the only takers would be a buzzard or a crow. The term is "bated," which you might want to look up rather than continue to make an ass of yourself.

An excellent diversion. Unfortunately, a well described (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)method of avoiding my request for proof. Learned that technique in your high school debating class, did 'ya??

If, as you say, it is *SO* well know that Bush purposefully and intentionally lied (I put those words there to help leftwingnuts understand the widely accepted meaning of "to lie.") one would think that SOMEONE, given the rather large number of people who despise Bush, would have obtained some documentation that would prove the claim. Or, at least Dan Rather would have made up some document and given it to Katie Couric in the hopes she could "enlighten" us all.

I have sought to make no "diversion" whatever. I merely cited the simple (and irrefutable) fact that you cannot prove your point, and that, given the evidence on the ground over the past few years, the utter absence of any evidence whatever of WMDs speaks far more eloquently to the broad scheme of deception than anything you offer to counter it.

It seems to me that there has been an abundance of documentation in support of the paucity of WMD in Iraq, and a good deal of it has been referred to in other posts in this thread. I am under no obligation to do your work for you. Drop the scales from your eyes and all may be more easily visible.

BTW, your avatar clearly bespeaks a man with no seriousness of purpose on political posts -- a mere offerer of trolls and provocations -- else it indicates a man with the political intellect of a abyssal whelk. Which is the case?

[N9XR]

...

I wait patiently with baited breath your proof... :rolleyes:

bated breath (http://www.mtannoyances.com/?p=800)

[n2ize]

I do not understand the impetus of this need to continually bash Bush. He is a lame duck . . .

Nor the need to continually bash Clinton. He's been out of office for close to 8 years.


"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin.

That is what history will read when they examine the curious need of leftwingnuts to distort the truth in their quest to bash Bush. I am not supporting Bush regarding his tactic of using WMD to push the war. I am revealing that no one on the left can prove he purposely lied with the express intent to deceive all regarding this one fact.
It depends what you mean by "proof". Very few things can be "proved" other than philosophical or mathematical propositions which are proven through rigorous logical argument. How do you "prove" things in a court ? You don't , at least not in an absolute sense, rather you examine the evidence Whether there is enough evidence to convict Bush in a court of lying remains to be seen. However, there is indeed enough evidence to at the very least informally convince the public that various threats were exaggerated, evidence for WMD's was misrepresented, etc. Much of this evidence came directly from the government itself, testimony of key weapons inspectors like Scott Ritter, CIA documents, and other informations which has been discussed in many different articles and venues and which you have apparently missed, perhaps by choice.