George W. Bush



In article <[email protected]>,
"B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>> LOL even harder. Now to prove my assertion that Cheney never linked
>>> 9/11 and Iraq, I have to prove that he DID link 9/11 and Iraq?

>>
>> Even after the 9/11 commission's report, Cheney was saying "Was there
>> a link? We don't know." Those who read the commission's report did
>> know, however.

>
>You're an idiot, Lloyd -- as is anyone with two 'Ls' in their name. (Wait

a
>minute...DOH!)
>
>The commission concluded that a definitive link could not be proven;

that's
>NOT the same as saying one didn't exist.
>
>I know your head hurts now, so I'll stop...

You can't prove a negative (can you prove you've never talked with al
Qaida?).
 
"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> >
>>>> >>You really are that stupid too,
>>>> >>aren't you? Besides, WMD wasn't given as THE reason to go to war.
>>>> >
>>>> > Then you just fell off the turnip truck. That's all we were told.
>>>> ==================
>>>> No, your hate has blinded you, but that's typical. that wasn't THE
>>>> reason
>>>> given.
>>>
>>> do you know how to read, Rick?

>>=========
>>Yes, I do. Apparently better than you. WMD was not THE reason for the

> war.
>
> Welcome to 1984, where neocons think they can rewrite history.

==================
You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by you fools
and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou can
pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.


>
>>
 
"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> BB wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:33:47 -0500, Ian St. John wrote:
>>
>>> Whatever is your problem, get over it.

>>
>> My "problem" is I read the resolutions, not old newspaper articles.
>> And I'm more concerned about what the Security Council does, not why
>> you think they did it.

>
> The problem lies in your rather simplistic and unfounded interpretation of
> real politics.

=================
Says simpleminded ian st stupid....


>
>
 
> You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by you
fools
> and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou can
> pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.
>


Rick, you keep repeating that "WMDs were not the reason that America went
to war" over and over, and yet i haven't seen you give a single credible
reference to support your statement, all i see is you saying "i'm right,
your wrong" to just about everyone.If you have a point to make, PROVE it.
the rest of us, at least, seem to be trying to. Otherwise, kindly be
considerate, and don't reply, because it's just making people download
useless junk to read on thier computers.

i trust you will make the "right" decision.







"rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>>> >
> >>>> >>You really are that stupid too,
> >>>> >>aren't you? Besides, WMD wasn't given as THE reason to go to war.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Then you just fell off the turnip truck. That's all we were told.
> >>>> ==================
> >>>> No, your hate has blinded you, but that's typical. that wasn't THE
> >>>> reason
> >>>> given.
> >>>
> >>> do you know how to read, Rick?
> >>=========
> >>Yes, I do. Apparently better than you. WMD was not THE reason for the

> > war.
> >
> > Welcome to 1984, where neocons think they can rewrite history.

> ==================
> You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by you

fools
> and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou can
> pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.
>
>
> >
> >>

>
>
 
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:


>>> Uh, the white house said Saddam had WMD. You're not helping your
>>> credibility.

>>
>> Uh, I guess the previous White House saying the same thing doesn't
>> help his credibility either. And I guess the UNMOVIC weapons
>> inspection report saying the same thing doesn't help his credibility
>> either.

>
> The Clinton WH said 50% of the people who voted in Afghanistan in 2004
> were women? Did that come from the Dept. of Clairvoyance?


Well if THAT doesn't blow up this thread {Nazi! ******!}, then nothing
will.

Learn to read, Lloyd...
--
BS (no, really)
 
Lloyd Parker wrote:

>> LOL even harder. Now to prove my assertion that Cheney never linked
>> 9/11 and Iraq, I have to prove that he DID link 9/11 and Iraq?

>
> Even after the 9/11 commission's report, Cheney was saying "Was there
> a link? We don't know." Those who read the commission's report did
> know, however.


You're an idiot, Lloyd -- as is anyone with two 'Ls' in their name. (Wait a
minute...DOH!)

The commission concluded that a definitive link could not be proven; that's
NOT the same as saying one didn't exist.

I know your head hurts now, so I'll stop...
--
BS (no, really)
 
Lloyd Parker wrote:

>> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
>> authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
>> because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
>> destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
>> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

>
> See those words "if necessary" there? Turns out it wasn't.


And how was that fact discovered?

Can you imagine the hew and cry if nothing had been done, and then it was
shown that Iraq passed along /even one vial/ of some vile substance that was
subsequently used against innocents* (US or otherwise)? The same Monday
Morning QBs would be screaming for impeachment.

*could still happen, btw.
--
BS (no, really)
 
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>> LOL even harder. Now to prove my assertion that Cheney never
>>>> linked 9/11 and Iraq, I have to prove that he DID link 9/11 and
>>>> Iraq?
>>>
>>> Even after the 9/11 commission's report, Cheney was saying "Was
>>> there a link? We don't know." Those who read the commission's
>>> report did know, however.

>>
>> You're an idiot, Lloyd -- as is anyone with two 'Ls' in their name.
>> (Wait a minute...DOH!)
>>
>> The commission concluded that a definitive link could not be proven;
>> that's NOT the same as saying one didn't exist.
>>
>> I know your head hurts now, so I'll stop...


> You can't prove a negative (can you prove you've never talked with al
> Qaida?).


That's right, you can't prove a negative. So why do you say "Those who read
the commission's report /did know/ (that there was no link)"??? (Italics
added; original quote intact above.)

You've been hosed by your own...um, hose.
--
BS (no, really)
 
"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by you

> fools
>> and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou can
>> pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.
>>

>
> Rick, you keep repeating that "WMDs were not the reason that America went
> to war" over and over, and yet i haven't seen you give a single credible
> reference to support your statement, all i see is you saying "i'm right,
> your wrong" to just about everyone.If you have a point to make, PROVE it.
> the rest of us, at least, seem to be trying to. Otherwise, kindly be
> considerate, and don't reply, because it's just making people download
> useless junk to read on thier computers.

====================
ROTFLMAO You make the ignorant statement first fool.


>
> i trust you will make the "right" decision.

=================
Always do, unlike you...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >>news:[email protected]...
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >>You really are that stupid too,
>> >>>> >>aren't you? Besides, WMD wasn't given as THE reason to go to war.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Then you just fell off the turnip truck. That's all we were told.
>> >>>> ==================
>> >>>> No, your hate has blinded you, but that's typical. that wasn't THE
>> >>>> reason
>> >>>> given.
>> >>>
>> >>> do you know how to read, Rick?
>> >>=========
>> >>Yes, I do. Apparently better than you. WMD was not THE reason for the
>> > war.
>> >
>> > Welcome to 1984, where neocons think they can rewrite history.

>> ==================
>> You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by you

> fools
>> and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou can
>> pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>

>>
>>

>
>
 
Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:59:36 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>>>> i won't deny that Bush had more "reasons" up his sleeve.... but the
>>>> possibility of the usage of WMDs was the ONLY reason given to go to
>>>> war to the public, AT THE TIME IT WAS FIRST STARTED.
>>>
>>> Well, why not see what President Bush said on the eve of the
>>> invasion of Iraq - to the people of Iraq? Let's see if his speech
>>> overwhelmingly was about WMD:

>>
>> Then you admit that Bush invaded Iraq illegally with no
>> justification from a threat to the U.S. as required by the authority
>> granted to him by Congress to defend the nation? And in direct
>> violation of international law?

>
> Silly. Of course we don't need to be attacked in order to
> defend ourselves.


With that non-sequitor, I give you Ken[NY], the stupidest troll on the
planet. Incapable of understanding even the dictionary definition of
'defend'.

< Mr. Bush made it plain before the invasion that he
> was taking action to free the population of Iraq from the dictator.


Which was not a legal justification and thus not the basis that he presented
to the Senate to gain the authority. He is now in violation, not only of
International law, but of U.S. law and really has given the entire Congress
the bird..

> And it was done in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution
> 1441.


No. The U.S. 'went alone' without any authority from the U.N. There are no
U.N. resolutions authorizing member states to attack Iraq. The actions were
solely by the U.S. and without sanction.
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ken [NY] wrote:

>
>>> "I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The
>>> Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections
>>> between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.

>>
>> No. That was the repeated claims that were finally admitted to be
>> false by Rumsfeld. If this is a quote from Cheney, then
>> congratulations for proving the positive that Cheney did make
>> connections between Iraq and 9/11.

>
> If anyone wants proof that "Ian St. John" is a troll, consider that
> first he trims off the portion of Ken's post that clearly indicates
> the quote is from Lee Hamilton, the Democrat vice-chairman of the 9/11
> commission,


Who is refernencing **** Cheneys statements. You forget about that ?

> then constructs a strawman based on the quote being from
> Cheney.


No. I am showing that the statements of Cheney were clearly heard by the
Senate as making the linkage.

>
> I will not feed the troll... I will not feed the troll...


So starve already. And stop denting the rocks with your head.

>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame
 
Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:50:25 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>>> "I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The
>>> Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections
>>> between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.

>>
>> No. That was the repeated claims that were finally admitted to be
>> false by Rumsfeld. If this is a quote from Cheney, then
>> congratulations for proving the positive that Cheney did make
>> connections between Iraq and 9/11.
>>
>>> We don't disagree with that.

>>
>> Sure we do. You just don't understand the issue.

>
> Er, listen. That was a quote by Lee Hamilton (D) vice chairman
> of the 9/11 Commission and former rep., not me.


And what is your point? That Lee Hamilton (D) vice chairman of the 9/11
Commission managed to avoid learning anything about Cheneys speaches?
Imagine that? Must have been a pretty poor investitgation then.

<snip>
 
Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 04 11:57:21 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> claims:
>
>>> Yossef Bodansky, author of "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on
>>> America," written and published well before the Sept. 11 attacks,
>>> documents numerous contacts and meetings between bin Laden's agents
>>> and agents of Hussein. In addition, Bodansky, the U.S. Congress' top
>>> terrorism adviser, said the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida
>>> predated the Sept. 11 attacks by a decade, and continued thereafter.

>>
>> I'll take the 9/11 commission over this yahoo.
>>

> I can live with that, since the 9/11 Commission reported that
> there were extensive links between Iraq and al-Qaeda.


No. They didn't. In fact, they have not a single factual piece of evidence,
only supposition and hypothesis based on what the administration wanted to
believe. Not one solid fact points to a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda which
they DO acknowledge. Try learning to read.
>
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> "B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ian St. John wrote:
>>> The 9/11 attacks are pretty much assumed or believed to be
>>> Al-Quaeda, so a link between Iraq and 9/11 is about a link between
>>> Iraq and Al-Quaeda.

>>
>> If that's an example of his critical thinking skills, then why are we
>> wasting our ions on Ian?!?
>>
>> Freshman Logic...

>
> Pre-freshman logic, actually.
>
> I'm absolutely convinced "Ian St. John" is a troll, and I've resolved
> not to feed the troll any longer. You're right - he's not worth the
> virtual oxygen it takes. It would be more productive to debate with a
> turnip.



Semantic content? Nil.

Guess that is one down and one more troll to go.
 
Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:56:29 GMT, "B i l l S o r n s o n"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>> Ian St. John wrote:
>>> The 9/11 attacks are pretty much assumed or believed to be
>>> Al-Quaeda, so a link between Iraq and 9/11 is about a link between
>>> Iraq and Al-Quaeda.

>>
>> If that's an example of his critical thinking skills, then why are we
>> wasting our ions on Ian?!?

>
> That's a good question. I think it's because Ian is so easy to
> debate, it is like poking away at a retarded person. I feel kind of
> guilty, now that you mention it.


Two down. Semantic content is again nil, so I guess this troll has given up
with the pseudo logic as well.
 
Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:25:08 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>>> "I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The
>>> Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections
>>> between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree
>>> with that.

>>
>> Actually, the 9/11 commission could find no connections (as in
>> cooperation or common planning ) between the two.

>
> Ian, that was the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission
> speaking about the links the commission DID find. Whew, I think you
> are a troll, or rather thick headed. I hope it is just thick
> headedness.


Please show these liinks and the hard evidence that backs them. I have found
nothing in the report that supports your ingorant assertions. Yet you keep
making them as if dumb repetition can make them true..
 
Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:27:11 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>>> NO US OFFICIAL EVER LINKED 9/11 AND IRAQ, EVER!

>>
>> Lie.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm
>> "US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cast doubt on whether
>> there was ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
>> The alleged link was used as a reason by President Bush for invading
>> Iraq. "

>
> Are you really having problems with reading comprehension? As
> I said, no US official ever linked 9/11 with Iraq.


If you can link Iraq and Al-Quaeda, then you have a link to 9/11 as
Al-Quaeda links to 9/11. You really have problems with logic don't you?
 
B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>>> LOL even harder. Now to prove my assertion that Cheney never
>>>>> linked 9/11 and Iraq, I have to prove that he DID link 9/11 and
>>>>> Iraq?
>>>>
>>>> Even after the 9/11 commission's report, Cheney was saying "Was
>>>> there a link? We don't know." Those who read the commission's
>>>> report did know, however.
>>>
>>> You're an idiot, Lloyd -- as is anyone with two 'Ls' in their name.
>>> (Wait a minute...DOH!)
>>>
>>> The commission concluded that a definitive link could not be proven;
>>> that's NOT the same as saying one didn't exist.
>>>
>>> I know your head hurts now, so I'll stop...

>
>> You can't prove a negative (can you prove you've never talked with al
>> Qaida?).

>
> That's right, you can't prove a negative. So why do you say "Those
> who read the commission's report /did know/ (that there was no
> link)"??? (Italics added; original quote intact above.)
>
> You've been hosed by your own...um, hose.


So, because I cannot prove that Martians were behind the Bush election win,
you KNOW that martians were behind the election win??

Try going back to school. Your deficiencies CAN be corrected. Given the
random chance factor that tends to make secrets leak, the lack of evidence
IS evidence of lack, by common sense. Something you lack, of course, in your
desperate attempt to convert an unproven fantasy into some sort of
unfounded assertion.
 
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> no assertions are
>>>>> being made that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in September
>>>>> 11th.
>>>>
>>>> Except by Cheney.
>>>
>>> I'll bet you can't back that up.

>>
>> So? Proving a negative is hard. That does not mean it is true or
>> false. The only proof would be if YOU could come up with a quote by
>> Cheney directly claiming that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Be my
>> guest.
>>
>> Or exit, stage right, whining and whimpering as usual.
>>
>>

>
> Cheney on the Iraq war: "We will have struck a major blow right at the
> heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists
> who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on
> 9/11."
>
> And Bush: In his May 1 speech announcing the end of major combat in
> Iraq, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on
> terror that began on September the 11th, 2001." He added: "With those
> attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the
> United States. And war is what they got."
>
> Now if you continue to link those 2 in the same breath...
>
> And this from Wesley Clark: "It came from the White House, it came
> from other people around the White House. It came from all over. I
> got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying,
> 'you got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism.
> This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'"


Way over their head Lloyd. Way over their heads. I think it must be brain
damage. They make the average citizen ( who understood what was being said )
look smart.
 
Ian St. John wrote:
> Ken [NY] wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:27:11 -0500, "Ian St. John"
>> <[email protected]> claims:
>>
>>>> NO US OFFICIAL EVER LINKED 9/11 AND IRAQ, EVER!
>>>
>>> Lie.
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm
>>> "US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cast doubt on whether
>>> there was ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
>>> The alleged link was used as a reason by President Bush for invading
>>> Iraq. "

>>
>> Are you really having problems with reading comprehension? As
>> I said, no US official ever linked 9/11 with Iraq.

>
> If you can link Iraq and Al-Quaeda, then you have a link to 9/11 as
> Al-Quaeda links to 9/11. You really have problems with logic don't
> you?


So if your mother robs another 7-11, Ian, then the police can arrest you as
an accomplice because you had dinner with her last week?

Sea Kelp.

Soon.
--
BS (no, really)
 

Similar threads