otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<t3j8hv4oggrinr8cl41pdvrm7tentn8e92@4ax.com>. ..
> On 15 Jul 2003 11:39:26 -0700, pvos58@yahoo.com (Peter Vos) wrote:
>
> >Tazmanian Weasel <zeppnospam@finestplanet.com> wrote in message news:<sm58hvsj2hkb2an2bqhhu34v845s97ckdt@4ax.com>. ..
> >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:14:59 -0400, otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 15 Jul 2003 07:03:11 -0700, mogulah@hotmail.com (Transition Zone)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>FACT: bush admits lying
> >> >
> >> >Nope. He didn't lie.
> >> >
> >> >Please state one lie GWB made here:
> >>
> >> "Weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq"
> >>
> >> in meeting with EU, May.
> >
> >or
> >
> >"I'm the kind of person that likes to
> >know all the facts before I make a decision."
> >
> >July 3, 2003
> >
> Funny,
>
> What President Bush actually said was *The British government has
> learned* [emphasis added] that Saddam Hussein recently sought
> significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But for some strange
> reason, the DNC left out that whole "British government" part. Gee,
> that changes the entire nature of the president's statement. You don't
> think the DNC left it out on purpose, do you?


The beauty of the net is everything is archived so we don't have to
tolerate incomplete quotes.

We can start with the fact the whole sentence is artfully written to
be literally accurate, yet conveys a threat that was known to be
false. I guess if you repeat a lie you know to be a lie but attribute
it to another liar than you technically are not lying. Of course that
is on par with Clinton's "I did not have *sexual relations* with that
woman" line. Technically it's true, but it intentionally conveys a
meaning known to be false.

I agree with you, the line did not appear in a vacuum. In fact, the
whole paragraph was rotten. The sentence before it is also artful in
it's misrepresentation. The sentence following it is also known to be
patently false. Here is the whole paragraph:

"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that
Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program,
had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different
methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has
learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has
attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for
nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained
these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

George "Nukeliar" Bush is no more of a straight shooter than Slick
Willy. The above paragraph uses an ambiguous historic reference to
imply a current threat, follows it with an artful distortion to
support the claim, rounds it out with an outright falsehood, and
closes with the age-old trial lawyer ploy of *proving* to the jury the
accused must be guilty because he has not defended himself from false
claims.

Bush is now claiming he was told AFTER the 28th it was a bogus claim.
Unfortunately, that doesn't square with the fact the CIA had pulled
this from at least one prior speech in October - almost 4 months
earlier. The British had already been informed it was not credible
and the Australians had been informed as well. Seems like the only
person with a "need to know" who was left out of the loop was the guy
who was actually going to make the statement. That might work for
press secretaries, but I don't think it washes when it's the President
talking. This new claim, if we can believe it, just makes matters
worse.

Since the President now admits he was told it was bogus, we have some
new questions to address:

Was that BEFORE the Vice President said, "We believe [Iraq] has, in
fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -Dick Cheney (March 16,2003)

Clearly Cheney believed that BEFORE the SOTU. Why did he still
believe that after someone specifically on the behest of "the Vice
President's office" had checked it out and found it was bogus almost a
year earlier?

So we agree, the important thing is not 16 words taken out of context.
The important thing is how did we wind up listening to this very
public and important part of a concerted campaign to pursuade the
world Iraq was a legitimate "test case" for a revolutionary new
National Security Strategy unveiled in September 2002 and known as the
"Bush Doctrine."

--
"I'm the kind of person that likes to know
all the facts before I make a decision."
-George "Nukeliar" Bush (July 3, 2003)

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:12:49 -0700, "Fifty1Ford"
<Fifty1Ford@Speed-Racer.com> wrote:

>Well..
>Here is a lie he told YESTERDAY!
>He told it in defense of the lie he told about the nuke claim!!!!
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....html?nav=hpto


Where in the article does it state that Bush lied?




>
>"Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said
>the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the
>inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." "

As stated before the passage of 1441.

...
>
>"The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit
>inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring:
>Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending
>their work because he did not believe them effective."

A part of, but not the entire story. Read the *entire* State of the
Union address for the entire case.
>
>So....

Oh, sorry, didn't you see? Knocked your straw man down 'way back
there.

>Here is a specific lie that Bush told yesterday.
>Another in a long line of lies.

A lie is the result of deliberate intent to make statements *you know
beforehand* aren't the truth.

Like saying "I did not have sexual relations.........".

See? Now *that's* a lie!
>I don't hear any crickets...

I don't hear any crickets either now, but I have yet to see you prove
Bush lied.

Until you do PROVE bush lied; I will be waiting right here.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:14:26 -0700, "Fifty1Ford"
<Fifty1Ford@Speed-Racer.com> wrote:

>
>"Fifty1Ford" <Fifty1Ford@Speed-Racer.com> wrote in message
>news:vh8kra9r5kco5f@corp.supernews.com...
>> Well..
>> Here is a lie he told YESTERDAY!
>> He told it in defense of the lie he told about the nuke claim!!!!
>>
>>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....html?nav=hpto
>> p_ts
>>
>> "Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said
>> the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the
>> inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." "
>>
>> ...
>>
>> "The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit
>> inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this
>spring:
>> Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed
>extending
>> their work because he did not believe them effective."
>>
>>
>> So....
>>
>> Here is a specific lie that Bush told yesterday.
>> Another in a long line of lies.
>>
>> I don't hear any crickets...
>>
>> I do hear the shrill scream of people who disrespect their fellow
>concerned
>> citizens to cover for a politician with nothing but a record of bankrupt
>> businesses, ties to crooks, theft of citizen property, and lies.
>>
>> Now that you have specifically heard a lie that Bush told yesterday, will
>> you rethink you position, or will you continue to be a traitor to America?
>>
>> If Bush is a member of a party you support, it is your duty to make sure
>he
>> does not dishonor your party.
>>
>> Personally, I don't care for "parties", "groups" or the like.
>> The only "group" I support is the group that is composed of all the people
>> of the United States of America.
>>
>> It is not about Repub or Dem.
>> It is about right, wrong, and logic.
>>
>> Is this something a person like you can understand?
>>
>> Fifty1Ford
>>
>>
>> <otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uic8hvc90iq8q33ul7jff318a3g4ot53ld@4ax.com...
>> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:45:40 GMT, "jjavaman" <jjavaman@hotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >yo otis,are u special needs? brain dead? or just plain stupid? Open
>your
>> > >eyes,get your fucking head outta your ass and wake up
>> > ><otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > LOL Lots of name calling!
>> > So, state specifically what lie GWB made!
>> >
>> > (sounds of crickets...)
>> >
>> >
>
>
>Funny..
>I post a lie and all I get from YOU are (sounds of crickets).

LOL You've brought nothing to the table except shrill accusations.

>Wow, I am just amazed at your ability to ignore the truth.

LOL Maybe "your" truth.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:54:06 -0500, SemiScholar
<noemail@spambegone.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:51:34 -0400, otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com
>wrote:
>
>>When the Democratic National Committee sends out a press release about
>>lying, I snap to. It's like getting a stock tip from Martha Stewart or
>>advice on race relations from Dusty Baker.
>>
>>They know of what they speak.
>>
>>"Details Emerge of Bush Administration's Year-Long Deception!" screams
>>the DNC headline. "This may be the first time in recent history that a
>>president knowingly misled the American people during the State of
>>Union address [emphasis added], that last phrase being absolutely
>>vital in preventing Clinton wingman Terry McAuliffe from being laughed
>>into Canada.
>>
>>Presidents who go on TV and knowingly mislead the public? Why no
>>Democrat could imagine such a thing.
>>
>>The Democrats are desperately trying to knock President Bush off his
>>solid poll numbers with claims about "misstatements" and "deception"
>>regarding Iraq. But the press is going to have to land the punches for
>>them. Thanks to their defense of "President O.J." (we all knew what he
>>did, we just wanted to see if he could get away with it), the American
>>Democratic Party simply has no standing.
>>
>>The same people who appeared on TV and told us — with a straight face
>>— that the behavior Clinton engaged in with his intern that resulted
>>in his "DNA material" ending up on her dress WASN'T sex, can't exactly
>>expect a standing ovation in their new role as self-declared defenders
>>of the truth.
>>
>>It isn't helping that the Democrats still can't get their story
>>straight.
>>
>>The DNC is running TV ads that attack President Bush for his "false
>>claim" in the State of the Union speech that "Saddam Hussein recently
>>sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
>>
>>What President Bush actually said was "The British government has
>>learned [emphasis added] that Saddam Hussein recently sought
>>significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But for some strange
>>reason, the DNC left out that whole "British government" part. Gee,
>>that changes the entire nature of the president's statement. You don't
>>think the DNC left it out on purpose, do you?
>
>But what you're leaving out is that Bush knew that the story was
>false.
>
How did he *know* this? Your saying it does not make it so.


>>
>>http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0703/graham.html

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:44:00 -0600, rightwing@nutty.com wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:51:34 -0400, otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com wrote:
>>When the Democratic National Committee sends out a press release about
>>lying, I snap to. It's like getting a stock tip from Martha Stewart or
>>advice on race relations from Dusty Baker.
>
>How so, POOPUS?

Read the article, lad!

somd_jim2002@yahoo.com (Jim) wrote in message news:<1a9cb195.0307150943.5448b334@posting.google. com>...
> mogulah@hotmail.com (Transition Zone) wrote in message news:<3f224cda.0307150603.71dc989a@posting.google. com>...
> > FACT: bush admits lying
> >
> > "White House admits Iraq intelligence error"
> >
> > Sarah Left and agencies
> > Tuesday July 8, 2003
> >
> > The White House has conceded for the first time that the president's
> > assertion in the run up to war that Iraq recently had sought to buy
> > significant quantities of uranium from Africa was based on inaccurate
> > information.
>
> Funny, the Brits are standing by it.
>
> Jim

You going to look for credibility by citing the same guy who told us
they were able to launch WMD attacks with as little as 45 minutes
notice? The same folks who used plagiarized documents to make their
case and tried to pass them off as their own current work?

--
Now THAT brings a whole new meaning to "Grasping at Straws" :-D

otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:54:06 -0500, SemiScholar
> <noemail@spambegone.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:51:34 -0400, otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >>When the Democratic National Committee sends out a press release about
> >>lying, I snap to. It's like getting a stock tip from Martha Stewart or
> >>advice on race relations from Dusty Baker.
> >>
> >>They know of what they speak.
> >>
> >>"Details Emerge of Bush Administration's Year-Long Deception!" screams
> >>the DNC headline. "This may be the first time in recent history that a
> >>president knowingly misled the American people during the State of
> >>Union address [emphasis added], that last phrase being absolutely
> >>vital in preventing Clinton wingman Terry McAuliffe from being laughed
> >>into Canada.
> >>
> >>Presidents who go on TV and knowingly mislead the public? Why no
> >>Democrat could imagine such a thing.
> >>
> >>The Democrats are desperately trying to knock President Bush off his
> >>solid poll numbers with claims about "misstatements" and "deception"
> >>regarding Iraq. But the press is going to have to land the punches for
> >>them. Thanks to their defense of "President O.J." (we all knew what he
> >>did, we just wanted to see if he could get away with it), the American
> >>Democratic Party simply has no standing.
> >>
> >>The same people who appeared on TV and told us — with a straight face
> >>— that the behavior Clinton engaged in with his intern that resulted
> >>in his "DNA material" ending up on her dress WASN'T sex, can't exactly
> >>expect a standing ovation in their new role as self-declared defenders
> >>of the truth.
> >>
> >>It isn't helping that the Democrats still can't get their story
> >>straight.
> >>
> >>The DNC is running TV ads that attack President Bush for his "false
> >>claim" in the State of the Union speech that "Saddam Hussein recently
> >>sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
> >>
> >>What President Bush actually said was "The British government has
> >>learned [emphasis added] that Saddam Hussein recently sought
> >>significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But for some strange
> >>reason, the DNC left out that whole "British government" part. Gee,
> >>that changes the entire nature of the president's statement. You don't
> >>think the DNC left it out on purpose, do you?
> >
> >But what you're leaving out is that Bush knew that the story was
> >false.
> >
> How did he *know* this? Your saying it does not make it so.
>
It's not the story about Iraq trying to get uranium that is false but
the papers that were part of the intelligence suggesting that this had
taken place. There is further intelligence on this subject.

<otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k959hvsm937c21a8r3a4kthafp3rp067om@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:13:26 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
> <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:t3j8hv4oggrinr8cl41pdvrm7tentn8e92@4ax.com.. .
> >> On 15 Jul 2003 11:39:26 -0700, pvos58@yahoo.com (Peter Vos) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Tazmanian Weasel <zeppnospam@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
> >news:<sm58hvsj2hkb2an2bqhhu34v845s97ckdt@4ax.com> ...
> >> >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:14:59 -0400, otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On 15 Jul 2003 07:03:11 -0700, mogulah@hotmail.com (Transition
Zone)
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>FACT: bush admits lying
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nope. He didn't lie.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Please state one lie GWB made here:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq"
> >> >>
> >> >> in meeting with EU, May.
> >> >
> >> >or
> >> >
> >> >"I'm the kind of person that likes to
> >> >know all the facts before I make a decision."
> >> >
> >> >July 3, 2003
> >> >
> >> Funny,
> >>
> >> What President Bush actually said was *The British government has
> >> learned* [emphasis added] that Saddam Hussein recently sought
> >> significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
> >
> >Not when the CIA warned the British government not to use that report
MONTHS
> >before the State of the Union Address, you know--the same CIA that
reports
> >to Bush.
>
> Did the CIA warn GW?

They pulled the 'information' out of earlier speeches.

Does George Bush know how to read?

> I suggest looking at the entire situation.

I suggest you stop trying to apologize for George. It's Waaaaay too late
for that.