1/14 So those mortar shells turned out not to be chemical weapons
at all, why didn't our triumphant anonymous motd post a retraction?
\_ you are a bitter liberal
\_ you are a sheep! -!op
\_ You're all sheeple!!! -- crazy guy on cable access
\_ O'Reilly's interview on ABC's Good Morning America (March 18, 2003)
"Here's, here's the bottom line on this for every American and
everybody in the world, nobody knows for sure, all right? We don't
know what he has. We think he has 8,500 liters of anthrax. But
let's see. But there's a doubt on both sides. And I said on my
program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein
and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation,
and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?
But I'm giving my government the benefit of the doubt. . . ."
.... now, do you recall when he apologized? What? You DON'T?
BECAUSE HE NEVER DID. AND NEITHER WILL THE REST OF THE ASSHOLE
REPUBLICANS.
\_ I wasn't aware O'Reilly posted on the motd. Why don't you
call his show to complain. I don't have to apologise for what
a media and entertainment figure has said. None of them speak
for me and I hope none of them speak for you.
\_ "Where the debate is, is why haven't we found huge stockpiles
and why haven't we found large caches of these weapons? Let's
let the Iraqi Survey Group complete its work." -Colin Powell
\_ Wouldn't it be funny if the survey group said "you know,
we couldn't find anything!" and Powell voluntarily took
the blame and resigned?
\_ there is no point to drill on this. we all know Bush just want
to get Saddam, and there is no rational reason behind it. God damn
I wish my tax dollar could be better spent.
\_ What's to retract? The original URLs all made it very clear that
the shells were being sent for testing. When are you going to
ask that Dean open his records from his time as Governor? What is
he hiding? My favorite so far is his energy commission which held
secret closed door meetings with leaders from the energy industry
from which he formed his energy policy... just like... Dick Cheney!
\_ Because the claims were touted as "look, WMDs may have been
found!" with a small clarification much later "oh they need to
do a little testing." In a case like that you should have the
the decency to correct yourself later.
\_ This is barely worth replying to since in your own statement
you make it clear it was "may have been" as if that's such a
strong statement. If the primary crime is saying "may have
been", there is no need for later clarification that testing
is required. The "may have been" directly implies testing
is required and I think it was nice of the journalists to
state the implied outright instead of making us guess. You
are so full of hatred that you'll take the most reasonable
and non-inflamatory statement such as "may have been" which
we all agree was in the same article as "requires more
testing" and turn it into some twisted bit of evil. You're
really lost and out in the hinterland on this one. There are
lots and lots of valid anti-Bush anti-Iraq-war things you
could go off on. This isn't one of them.
\_ The original point is valid. By caging your claims with
a unheeded qualifier you are confusing people. There have
been tons of stories about "WEAPONS FOUND" (hey remember
those Trailers Of Death?) all of which are touted loudly
as "see, he had them" with a small disclaimer near the
end. There is little or no retraction later by the same
touters when the stories are proven false. This means that
people who don't follow these stories closely get the
impression that weapons were actually found. After all
they keep reading stories about weapons being found,
and repatition DOES lead to people believing rumors.
Claiming otherwise is dishonest.
\_ "People who don't follow these stories closely" are not
my concern. They're the same people who don't vote or
don't care about any of this stuff anyway. The rest of
us are perfectly aware of what is going on. If you have
a beef with how the media reports the news, then you can
join the rest of us on the conservative side of the
country. We've been complaining for decades. Welcome
aboard!
\_ Last I checked Dean's energy policy didn't cost $150 billion.
\_ So it's ok because he was from a small state? So Cheney's
crime wasn't that he did the same thing as Dean, just that
it cost more? If Dean was from a big state or did this as
a member of the federal government then it would be bad? So
a bank robber who gets away with $20 at gun point is ok but
if the bank had more cash on hand that day and it was $1000
then it would be really terrible? Blind, blind, blind....
\_ There is no okay here. There is, however, better and
worse. Dean's energy policy not only didn't cost an
unfathomable $150b, it also did not do so by explicitly
lining the pockets of those who provided input. If you
cannot see how what the Bush admin did was worse than this,
you'll need to start carrying a white cane yourself, so's
we can see that you can't see.
\_ Again, your only defense is that Dean had a smaller
budget to fuck up. His process was *exactly* the same
and it is the *process* that Cheney was being attacked
for (and rightly so IMO). Dean should suffer the same
criticism. Once in office do you think he'll suddenly
change his style or continue as he did as governor?
\_ Right! Dean and Cheney both had suspect processes!
Both needed to fix those! Cheney's processes
resulted in outlandish profits for his croneys!
Dean's processes resulted in no outlandish profits!
Ergo: Cheney is worse than Dean!
\_ Ergo, Dean was dealing with a smaller budget but
his process was equally bad and as president will
be dealing with the exact same budget cheney is
dealing with and will fuck it up exactly the same
way. Ergo, indeed. My ass. Take off the
blinders and learn some basic logic, troll boy.
\_ Remember to vote for your lizard, so the other lizard
doesn't stay in office.
\_ take me to your lizard!
\_ Anything to change the subject. You forgot to mention
that Clinton got a blow job.
\_ And took millions in campaign contributions from
Chicoms for missiles technology.
\_ No facts! No anti-Clinton facts on the motd you hater! |
http://csua.com/feed/