Re: OT:He Lied Again ...

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 02:14:35 GMT, Wage Peace <whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:




On 3/5/06 11:30, in article 364m02teqrpb0en50gng1hnbos2hqe475e@xxxxxxx,
"Phil Earnhardt" <pae@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:54:14 GMT, Wage Peace <whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:




On 3/4/06 12:59, in article shjj021pc7rjfh4ct85506uekvbm5vk788@xxxxxxx, "Jim
Blansett" <jim_blansett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:49:42 GMT, Wage Peace <whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On 3/4/06 02:14, in article shci02laivgi99ifenesocdh5ot8dkps3a@xxxxxxx,
"Phil Earnhardt" <pae@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 06:12:56 GMT, Wage Peace <whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On 3/3/06 15:19, in article d98h0297at5slt7unuehe2sgadl6ebn9g2@xxxxxxx,
"Phil Earnhardt" <pae@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:33:24 GMT, Wage Peace <whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Right. It has nothing to do with the war that has cost hundreds of
thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars.

Multiple hundreds of thousands of lives???

More than one hundred thousand people ... That's multiple as far as I can
tell.

It reeks of sensationalism. If you mean "more than one hundred
thousand people," you should just say that!

It's not over ...

And "sensationalism" is a funny word to use when talking about so many
deaths, don't you think?

But if you want to "split hairs" let's call it just one hundred
thousand. Feel better now?

Where are you pulling these numbers from, Shawn? Are you accounting
for the multiple tens of thousands who died through the years under
Saddam's regime since the end of the Gulf War?

No. I referring to those who died as a result of Dubya's "freedom on the
march" bombing and invasion of Iraq.

So you make no accounting for the tens of thousands that are no longer
dying under Saddam's brutal regime. You're talking about the change
based on the invasion, right? Those numbers should now be subtracted
from your figure.

It has nothing to do with the treason being done in the White House.

That's pure conjecture on your part. Never mind the legal principle of
presumption of innocence -- nobody has even been charged with this
crime.

The outing of a CIA agent is legally treason.

Alleged outing. Do you understand the concept of presumption of
innocence?

As a matter of fact, I do. Except we are not in a court of law, and
someone
did out a CIA agent. Someone committed treason. It is an "alleged" outing
only if you have some reason to doubt that it occurred.

I don't.

Do you have any outrage over the leaking of details of the monitoring
of international telephone calls? Unlike the alleged outing of Plame,
those leaks could actually cause the loss of US lives. Do you have any
outrage about that?

Not one little bit. In fact the "outrage" shown about that is (IMO) more
of
the same bullshit excuse making and accountability avoiding that we have
seen non-stop since this gang of thugs took power. They always attack the
whistle blowers. But those who exposed this actually did the American
people a service by exposing criminal activity in the White House.

As the trial of Libby goes
on,

Libby was NOT charged with the outing of Plame. You know that, right?

Yep.

it is becoming clearer and clearer that that "outing" originated in the
White House.

What does that have to do with the trial of Libby?

Dumb question. Not deserving of an answer. Read the grand jury testimony.
Your answer is there.

Do you think he can find that testimony at newsbusters.org? Or will
it, maybe, be found at some other wing-nut site where he appears to
get the majority of his information? If not, he may well not see it!

Or perhaps he will see it, and then "discredit" it because it doesn't
reconcile Cheney and Libby's treasonous activities with the criminality of
the Johnson administration ...

That's just goofy.

Wage

It is indeed goofy. All of the speculation is silly. The Fitzgerald
grand jury testimony is sealed; there is no place that one can go to
read it.

Why did you ever suggest that anyone go and read that testimony? Doing
such a thing is problematic.

Here's an account of it.

What you said to do, Shawn, was to "Go read the grand jury transcripts
and get back to us on this one."

These are NOT the transcripts; the transcripts are not available. What
you pointed me to was hearsay.

I'm sure if you want to, you can find more.

Aha. Another version of old tired Google Defense.

"I know the answer is out there; *you* just have to search for it."
[And if you don't find it, it's *your* fault. ;-)]

No, thanks.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/cia.leak.ap/

Wage Peace

Shawn: your request to "Go and read the grand jury transcripts" was
more bamboozing nonsense.

--phil






--phil






Once again, you are trafficking in the politics of innnuendo.

And you just did it again!

It has nothing to do with
the incredible amount of lies and corruption coming from this
administration.

Prove it! Demonstrate the "lies" you're talking about, please.

LOL. Glutton for punishment, huh? OK.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of
mass destruction."
Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

And when has it been proven that those WMD Stockpiles have actually
been destroyed?

Cheney said "there is no doubt." But there was plenty of doubt at the time.
The doubt was being expressed by Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, and pretty much
anybody else who was not on Dubya's team.

How is it that you have absolute certainty that some WMD Stockpiles
haven't been moved to another country?

" If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do --
does
it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even
stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"
George W. Bush, October 7, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for
the production of biological weapons."
George W. Bush, September 12, 2002

" We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad
and
east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that
the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
weapons ever devised."
George W. Bush, March 18, 2003

The only thing missing is corresponding and nearly-identical
statements from Democrats. After all, you can't be painting Republican
statements as lying without painting the nearly-identical statements
by Democrats exactly the same way.

Yes, I can. You can paint as you like. You demanded - again - that I show
the lies. I showed you the lies - again.

Select statements from Democrats are available at
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

You seem to be hung up on the political party affiliation thing ... I am
not. The people who had the power and the intention to mislead us into a
war are the ones who's statements I am concerned with.

The fact that other people might have told the same lie does not make it
the
truth.

You have failed to demonstrate that any of those last 4 statements
were false at the time they were said.

Do the words "no doubt" mean anything to you? Because when the president
said those words in that quote, there was plenty of doubt. It was being
expressed by experts in the field. Those experts were being attacked and
discredited by the team of thugs who wanted this war. Thus, the outing of
Valerie Plame ...

<brevity snip>

But it is fascinating that I seem to have so damned much material to
work
with, isn't it?

If you have so much material, why the hell can't you document the
"lies" you claim are so pervasive.

There's five up them right above this paragraph ...

Nope. Nobody has ever proven that Saddam's WMD Stockpiles have been
destroyed. Nobody has ever proven that some of those Stockpiles
weren't moved to another country.

I guess that means that there was "doubt."

So at the very least, Bush and Cheney both lied when they said "there is no
doubt." and Rumsfled lied when he said, "we know where the weapons are."

If those statements were actually "lies", that would be a
prerequisite.

Only one person could have definitively proven the destruction of
Iraq's WMDs: Saddam himself. If he had compiled with the terms of the
Armistice of the Gulf War, that would have happened. Since he did not,
knowing definitively what happened has -- and will almost certainly
continue to be -- problematic.

Actually it is problematic because Dubya started the war and the resulting
chaos in Iraq.

Sorry, Shawn. You've proven nothing.

Once again, I will ask kindly that you use my screen-name in these posts.
Thanks.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Sure does.

I'm not sure. This is not the first time we've talked about the one
person who could have definitively accounted for Iraq's WMDs -- and
who failed to do that.

No it's not. I am presuming that this time will be just as unproductive as
the others.

I see no indication that you've ever actually thought about that.

I see no indication why you think you can definitively account for all
of Saddam's WMD Stockpiles. Where is that accounting? Without such an
accounting, it would be impossible for you to make any statement about
the "lies" you listed above.

The "accounting" was brought to a halt by Dubya's bombing and invasion.

PS He also loves going off "Half
Cocked"...................................

Now now, don't get personal. You've never seen it ...

We've seen it all, Shawn. And, time after time, we've seen your
failure to back it up.

I shared five lies right here in this post ... scroll up and read them
again.

Nope. They are not -- unless you know some things that nobody else on
the planet does.

Now, most smart people on the planet would not bomb a country and kill more
than 100,000 of its people and call it "peace."

I would expect those who would be my leader to be smart enough to get the
facts before they wreck the planet and start a war.

So, if they weren't sure, why did they start the war? If they didn't know
why did they insist that there was no doubt?

You do your best to twist the facts and excuse the criminality of this
administration, and you seem to think that the killing of so many people is
an acceptable way to deal with one dictator who those people did not
choose.

I wonder why you're not over there fighting?

Where do you get off charging an administration with "treason" --
given that nobody has even been charged with any such crime?

The fact that no one has been charged with treason is troubling,
actually.
But not surprising. This administration has repeatedly found ways to
hold
itself above the law. Refusing to ever testify under oath (and being
allowed to get away with it) is one example. Withholding documents and
punishing "whistleblowers" rather than correcting problems is another.

You failed to answer the question.

Nope, as usual you failed to read and accept the answer.

Who the hell accused you of being judge, jury and executioner?

Can you say with absolute certainty that no-one has? By the way, you just
exhibited anger, spewed vitriol and presented a "straw man" and a
"conjecture" in one short sentence. Congratulations!

I think that is the most blatant example of you breaking your own "rules" I
have ever seen from you. Awesome.

What happened to the presumption of innocence -- especially since
nobody has ever been charged?

You may presume as you wish.

Why did you imply earlier in your posting that the Libby trial has
anything at all to do with treason? You said:

Because it most certainly does.

"The outing of a CIA agent is legally treason. As the trial of Libby
goes on, it is becoming clearer and clearer that that "outing"
originated in the White House."

Why do you continue to traffic in innuendo?

Go read the grand jury transcripts and get back to us on this one. I dare
you.

In other words, what is such an allegation other than
trafficking in the politics of innuendo?

Did you learn a new word today?

No. But you did avoid answering my question. Please answer it now.

I have answered it twice.

You abandoned another discussion this week: you couldn't ever
reconcile whether or not Clinton did something "illegal" in the
military actions against Iraq in 1998 and Yugoslavia in 1999. Nobody
who has observed your behavior here is surprised you ditched that
discussion.

That is correct. Nobody who has observed our exchanges is surprised that
I
"ditched" that discussion."

I'm not surprised, either. They point to the ridiculousness of your
"illegal" claims about this war.

Who is pointing?

But to repeat, I am not trying to reconcile what Clinton did or didn't
do.

No kidding! It's painfully obvious to all that you're doing your
damndest to avoid telling the truth on those questions.

It is? Read my next sentence. Slowly.

Clinton is not the president. And he did not start this war.

There. Is that a failure to tell the truth? Or is Clinton still the
president and he started this war?

But he did initiate the 1998 attack on Iraq and he was a key player in
the 1999 invasion of Yugoslavia.

And I have said what I thought about that. Apparently you would rather I
thought something else?

You have repeatedly told us that your "imminence test" is a
black-and-white test.

What was the imminent threat from Iraq in 1998?

What was the imminent threat from Yugoslavia in 1999?

If there was not an imminent threat in both of those actions, how
could you possibly construe them as "legal"?

I will explain that when you show where I construed them as "legal."

I did say that I considered the treatment of Iraq under Bush I, Clinton
and
Dubya to be a crime against humanity of immense proportions.

But you've failed to provide clear answers to the black-and-white
questions above.

I guess that's not good enough for you ...

You've insisted that your "imminence test" is a black-and-white test.
If it actually is, you should be able to answer those questions in a
heartbeat. Why is it that you can't.

I did? I don't recall saying that. I'm sure you can show where I did ...

But never mind that. I did say that it is a legal threshold. All
justifiable actions have such a threshold ... For example, the threshold
for
killing someone justifiably would be that they were clearly about to (and
able to) kill or seriously injure someone.

Too bad.

Your failure to respond to those questions *is* an answer: you cannot
reconcile your "imminence test" against reality.

Yes. I have "failed to respond" to those questions so many times that I am
getting bored with repeating my "failure to respond." Aren't you bored
with
lying about it, yet?

...but I have no doubt you will continue to label this war as
"illegal."

You are absolutely correct. I will continue to label this war as illegal.
And I have some pretty good company on that.

["ad homenim attack" snipped]

Wage Peace

--phil




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT:He Lied Again ...
    ... Saddam's regime since the end of the Gulf War? ... So you make no accounting for the tens of thousands that are no longer ... Demonstrate the "lies" you're talking about, ... Nobody has ever proven that Saddam's WMD Stockpiles have been ...
    (rec.arts.marching.drumcorps)
  • Re: OT:He Lied Again ...
    ... Saddam's regime since the end of the Gulf War? ... So you make no accounting for the tens of thousands that are no longer ... Demonstrate the "lies" you're talking about, ... Nobody has ever proven that Saddam's WMD Stockpiles have been ...
    (rec.arts.marching.drumcorps)
  • Re: OT:He Lied Again ...
    ... Saddam's regime since the end of the Gulf War? ... So you make no accounting for the tens of thousands that are no longer ... Demonstrate the "lies" you're talking about, ... Nobody has ever proven that Saddam's WMD Stockpiles have been ...
    (rec.arts.marching.drumcorps)
  • Re: OT:He Lied Again ...
    ... Saddam's regime since the end of the Gulf War? ... So you make no accounting for the tens of thousands that are no longer ... Demonstrate the "lies" you're talking about, ... Nobody has ever proven that Saddam's WMD Stockpiles have been ...
    (rec.arts.marching.drumcorps)
  • Re: OT:He Lied Again ...
    ... Saddam's regime since the end of the Gulf War? ... So you make no accounting for the tens of thousands that are no longer ... Demonstrate the "lies" you're talking about, ... Nobody has ever proven that Saddam's WMD Stockpiles have been ...
    (rec.arts.marching.drumcorps)