Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying

Gene Cottrell wrote:
Here are a bunch of liars: http://www.6URL.com/0Z5A

What an interesting world you live in. Here, on our planet, we make a
serious effort (not always successful, it is true.....but we try) to
label those who formulate and disseminate lies as liars and
hypocrites......not those who believe them.

Wolfgang
who confesses that he has a really hard time understanding why those
who invariably demonstrate that they have absolutely no idea of what
they are saying don't simply stop.

Wolfgang wrote:
who confesses that he has a really hard time understanding why those
who invariably demonstrate that they have absolutely no idea of what
they are saying don't simply stop.

I'll defer to Bertrand Russell on that: "The whole problem with the
world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves,
and wiser people so full of doubts."

Joe F.

On 30 Oct 2006 06:48:52 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

Wolfgang wrote:
who confesses that he has a really hard time understanding why those
who invariably demonstrate that they have absolutely no idea of what
they are saying don't simply stop.

OK, I'll bite...regardless of your difficulty in understanding, what's
your excuse?

I'll defer to Bertrand Russell on that: "The whole problem with the
world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves,
and wiser people so full of doubts."

Boy, it sounds like he was certain that he was, in fact, stating the
WHOLE problem...but feel free to defer away...

I can't say it's the WHOLE problem, but if a lot more people did a lot
less deferring, maybe it would at least seem there were a lot fewer
"fools" and fanatics and a lot more "wiser" people...

HTH,
R

Joe F.

wrote:
...I can't say it's the WHOLE problem....

A natural and inevitable consequence of the fact that you are, as you
have once again demonstrated here, incapable of saying ANYTHING.

Wolfgang
o.k.now, everybody who can hardly wait to find out what dicklet has to
say in response to this, raise your right hand.

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gene Cottrell wrote:
Here are a bunch of liars: http://www.6URL.com/0Z5A

What an interesting world you live in. Here, on our planet, we make a
serious effort (not always successful, it is true.....but we try) to
label those who formulate and disseminate lies as liars and
hypocrites......not those who believe them.

Wolfgang
who confesses that he has a really hard time understanding why those
who invariably demonstrate that they have absolutely no idea of what
they are saying don't simply stop.

Well, I'm just pointing out that all those idiots that had the same
information as GW came to the same conclusion. Then when things turn bad, as
they most certainly have, attack like a bunch of wolves and pretend that
they knew all along that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq and that there are
no WMDs in Iraq. And then a bunch of morons, who pretend to know more than
the Congress and the rest of the nations of the world, jump on the
bandwagon.

Gene

Gene Cottrell wrote:

Well, I'm just pointing out that all those idiots that had the same
information as GW came to the same conclusion. ...

That right there is precisely why you're wrong. Shrub and
his neocon rat-*******s manipulated, hid, obfuscated, and
flat out lied about the information and passed along only
what was twisted to support a regime change in Iraq. The
invasion of Iraq was pre-ordained just as soon as Shrub
took the oath but helped enormously by 9-11. They lied to
us Gene, they lied to the Congressional opposition and they
lied to the Brits. Thank god the Congressional opposition
and the Brits have sense enough to be ****ed off about it.
And I'm guessing come election day the American people will
demonstrate how ****ed off they are too, nitwits like you
notwithstanding.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Gene Cottrell wrote:

Well, I'm just pointing out that all those idiots that had the same
information as GW came to the same conclusion. ...

That right there is precisely why you're wrong. Shrub and
his neocon rat-*******s manipulated, hid, obfuscated, and
flat out lied about the information and passed along only
what was twisted to support a regime change in Iraq.

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
- Ken

" wrote in
oups.com:

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
- Ken



Our own CIA, though, didn't, at least not before the State of the Union.
When they vetted the speech, they made Bush say something along the lines
of "the Brits think that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from...", because
the CIA didn't believe it. There's an investigation that needs to be done.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:
" wrote in
oups.com:

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
- Ken



Our own CIA, though, didn't, at least not before the State of the Union.
When they vetted the speech, they made Bush say something along the lines
of "the Brits think that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from...", because
the CIA didn't believe it.

The CIA didn't believe that piece of intelligence (and they were
right not to).
- Ken

" wrote in
ups.com:


Scott Seidman wrote:
" wrote in
oups.com:

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
- Ken



Our own CIA, though, didn't, at least not before the State of the
Union. When they vetted the speech, they made Bush say something
along the lines of "the Brits think that Iraq was trying to buy
uranium from...", because the CIA didn't believe it.

The CIA didn't believe that piece of intelligence (and they were
right not to).
- Ken



So, you don't think it was wrong for the pres to state to the American
people that the British believe this, although it was extremely clear
that the CIA did not? If we didn't believe this, don't you think he
should have added "but we don't believe this" after he said it? Couldn't
you call this "cherry-picking" if you were wont to do so?

He said this because he wanted to scare us into going to war. It's a lie
of omission, and a very clear one at that. Is this a revisionist
opinion? One wonders just what other lies were put forth. It's high
time for this long delayed investigation to happen.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply