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

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
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.
Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.

Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion.

Only because our intelligence community lied through their
teeth at the behest of their neocon masters in the Bush
administration and many of them subsequently resigned in
disgust.

You conveniently clipped the list of people NOT under
the control of the "neocon masters" who believed it.
Also clipped was the fact that Clinton believed it
as did plenty of democrats with intelligence information
from before Bush came into office.

You can paint Bush as the big bad guy, but people
believed it well before he came to office.
- Ken

Ken wrote ...

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it.

Without getting into the particulars of the debate starring Mr. Cottrell, et
al, I'd like to know just what the hell is wrong with "revisionist history?"

I don't know what your connection to Oregon State is, but if you're around
the campus, go ask someone (ideally a tenured faculty member) in the history
department what "revisionist history" is.

You'll likely find that history gets "revised" because of a few things, but
first and foremost is the revelation of new information.

To be against revising history to reflect the totality of the fact base for
the subject in question is either ignorant, stupid, moronic, or some
combination of all three.

Some groups may be happy with the stories as told in the "first draft," but
that first telling rarely reflects the totality of the situation. History
itself is "argument without end" (1) and to halt that argument because
something new may not fit with a power group's established paradigm is
intellectually abhorrent.

Dan
(1) Pieter Geyl

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
And I'm guessing come election day the American people will
demonstrate how ****ed off they are too, nitwits like you
notwithstanding.

--
Ken Fortenberry

you had me agreeing right up to this part, Ken....I suspect
you might be disappointed at how glacial the overall change will be, and how
underwhelming the level of "****ed off" is transmitted. Hope I'm wrong, but
I see numbers that depress me in some key areas.....
Tom

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
t...
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

Well nitwits like you don't listen very well. The video I referred to in the
original post clearly shows all of those people denouncing Iraq for WMDs,
some, long before GW Bush even got elected. Clinton's remarks were from
1998 - You nitwit!!!

Gene

Gene Cottrell wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
t...
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

Well nitwits like you don't listen very well. The video I referred to in the
original post clearly shows all of those people denouncing Iraq for WMDs,
some, long before GW Bush even got elected. Clinton's remarks were from
1998 - You nitwit!!!

Gene

This just keeps getting funnier and funnier.

Wolfgang

"Gene Cottrell" wrote in

original post clearly shows all of those people denouncing Iraq for WMDs,
some, long before GW Bush even got elected. Clinton's remarks were from
1998 - You nitwit!!!

Gene

I assume that you are comfortable with the idea that what was known about
the situation in 1998 is identical to what should have been known by
2002/2003? That video is a clear attempt to obscure the real issues with
outdated statements by those, in some cases, with little or no control over
the handling of those issues. In short, a partisan hack job. Thanks, Gene,
so much for sharing.
Tom

Gene Cottrell wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
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.

Well nitwits like you don't listen very well. The video I referred to in the
original post clearly shows all of those people denouncing Iraq for WMDs,
some, long before GW Bush even got elected. Clinton's remarks were from
1998 - You nitwit!!!

LOL !! Never mind.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Gene Cottrell wrote:
"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.

No, you weren't doing anything of the sort. As a matter of fact,
you're a liar.....you weren't even TRYING to do that. Moreover, the
people you are referring to as idiots (oh, irony, thy name is gene!)
DID NOT have the same information as the idiot in chief......they only
had the lies they were fed by the idiot in chief.

Then when things turn bad, as
they most certainly have,

Actually, things didn't turn bad......they STARTED that way. They
turned out to be just as many of us told you they would.

attack like a bunch of wolves and pretend that
they knew all along that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq

Many people knew all along that "we" shouldn't have gone into Iraq. We
said so.

and that there are no WMDs in Iraq.

Well, that pretense is holding up rather well thus far, wouldn't you
say?

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.

Hm.....

You just can't make up what we will generously refer to as your mind
about which idiots and/or morons did or did not know how much or how
little about what and when, can you? As to the Congress, let us
suppose that you are a congr......um......well, what Twain
said.....know what I mean? And the rest of the nations of the world (I
will take the liberty of assuming here that you are referring to the
world I live in)? If you had been here 3 or 4 years ago (and you
should have.....it was an interesting time) you would doubtless know
that unanimity wasn't exactly the hallmark of international diplomacy
long about then.

Dumbass.

Wolfgang
who, to continue a previous train of thought, hastens to add that he
doesn't actually mind that they don't stop.....free entertainment IS
worth at least much as one pays for it.....he just doesn't undertand
why.

"Gene Cottrell" wrote in news:IVu1h.55$0j7.10
@newsfe08.lga:

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

It remains to be seen whether all those idiots had the same information.
The Senate investigation that was promised has never gotten off the ground.
One might think that if everyone would come out of such an investigation
smelling of roses, that the investigation would be well on its way by now.

I just chalk it up to a do-nothing Congress that gave up on any oversight
duties.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Gene Cottrell" wrote in news:IVu1h.55$0j7.10
@newsfe08.lga:

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

So, calling a war is no reason to go checking your facts.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply