U.S. Attorney Gets 28 months Prison For Aiding terrorist.

[Michael Tee]

<<It was Saddam that was lieing, the Sanctions did not kill a million Iriquis  , if they had the death rate would have been above the rate at present .>>

That's incomprehensible too.  "The death rate?"  What death rate for what year are you talking about and what does the present death rate have to do with anything? 

<<The Math is not hard, a million vs .6 million >>

A million what?  when?  where?  Point six million what?  when?  where?  You remind me of the announcer in the Flying Purple People Eater, giving out the ball scores:  "Here are the ball scores, four to three, six to two and eight to one."

<<In a long list of accusations why is it required that each one be disproven?>>

That's not the point.  The point is how can you disprove one by disproving another?  It would be like marking all the test questions wrong because one was wrong.  I don't think you'd appreciate it if your own exams were marked that way.

[The_Professor]

Plane: "Do you suppose that a case could be made on the charges of blocking traffic?"

I would hope so. If I was on the way to work and was late due to this, I would hope they were at least cited? Were they, Plane?

[The_Professor]

JS: Quote
Do you suppose that a case could be made on the charges of blocking traffic?

Would it were that more people had such conviction."

All well and good and if I had a case I believe needed to be made in this way, then I would certainly do it. BUT, you must be willing to take your medicine when or if the time comes as well, wouldn't you agree? The disciples in the Bible, for example, took the heat for their convictions and not once whined about it.

I have participated in anti-seal hunting ventures in the past. I believed in my cause (still do), just like those folks laying down on thestreet.. I was willing to take my medicine if needed. I hope they were as well. Does anyone know what happened here?

[Amianthus]

That's not the point.  The point is how can you disprove one by disproving another?  It would be like marking all the test questions wrong because one was wrong.  I don't think you'd appreciate it if your own exams were marked that way.

The point is that you were asked to present one or two of the best to be examined and discussed. You demurred, and instead said to take one of our own from "thousands" documented on the web.

If you would care to present some, then you couldn't complain about the ones chosen.

A better comparison would be a student (you, in this case) turns in a blank sheet to the teacher, saying "I know the answers to all the questions. Just fill in the sheet yourself." Then wonders why he got a failing grade.

[Amianthus]

I would hope so. If I was on the way to work and was late due to this, I would hope they were at least cited? Were they, Plane?

Actually, they weren't. Which was the justification for MT to claim that they were arrested solely because they complained about the administration. They weren't charged, so obviously, they weren't doing anything wrong.

<sarcasm>
Couldn't have been that the cops were being lenient, or wanted to save themselves some paperwork for a relatively petty offense. Nah. They're all just Bush flunkies, and those photos were obviously faked.
</sarcasm>

[Lanya]

<<Oh good greif.

<<What is that website again>>

It isn't one website, there's dozens of them.  I can't even remember which particular ones I posted, there are so many and they all refer more or less to the same pack of lies.  Just go to Google and search Bush Lied Lies and you will come up with thousands of sites devoted to his lies.  The better ones are near the top of the search and have titles like Bush Lies or 100 Bush Lies.  The really big lie, of course, is the Weapons of Mass Destruction/Saddam Failed to Account/Saddam Kicked Out the Inspectors/The Need to Act Now is Urgen/Can't Wait Longer lie or part or parts of it, and then there's lots of smaller lies and some of the sites also have the big pre-Presidential lie to SEC investigators about Bush's insider trading (lying to the SEC being the same offence for which Martha Stewart did jail time.)

Here's one:

 Home > Claim vs Fact


This new database charts conservatives' dishonesty and compares it with the truth. Each conservative quote will be matched against well-documented facts, so users can get a more accurate picture of the issues. And we need your help. If we're missing a lie or distortion you know of, please submit an entry. If it checks out, we will gladly add it to the database.




Showing 1-9 of 9 records (1 pages), records per page.
Topic:  Iraq - Pre-Invasion

Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  3/6/2003

Quote/Claim:
"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for [a U.N.] vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam. [Source: White House Web site]"

Fact:
"At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written. - Washington Post, 3/18/03"

Reference   Reference 

Topic:  Iraq - Pre-Invasion

Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  3/6/2003

Quote/Claim:
"I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country. [Source: White House Web site]"

Fact:
"The inspections are not getting us there, the president said, getting down to business. The U.N. inspectors were just sort of stumbling around, and Hussein was showing no intention of real compliance. 'I really think I'm going to have to do this.' The president said he had made up his mind on war. The United States should go to war. - 1/13/04, from Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward, reprinted in Washington Post, 4/18/04 "

Reference   Reference 

Topic:  Iraq - Pre-Invasion

Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  3/6/2003

Quote/Claim:
"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. [Source: White House Web site]"

Fact:
"On March 17, 2003, with a possible resolution waiting in the wings, Bush announced he would not call for a vote, saying, 'The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.' - Slate, 9/23/03"

Reference   Reference 

Topic:  Iraq - Pre-Invasion

Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  2/8/2004

Quote/Claim:
"The thing about the Vietnam War that troubles me, as I look back, was it was a political war. We had politicians making military decisions. And it's lessons that any president must learn, and that is to the set the goal and the objective and allow the military to come up with the plans to achieve that objective. And those are essential lessons to be learned from the Vietnam War. [Source: Meet the Press transcript]"

Fact:
"Donald Rumsfeld has become the Iraq conflict's McNamara. His second-guessing of the deployment orders in the months before the fighting started is being blamed by retired and serving officers alike for the thinly protected 300-mile supply lines on which US troops are now depending. - Guardian, 3/31/03"

Reference   Reference 

Topic:  Iraq - Pre-Invasion

Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  12/28/2001

Quote/Claim:
"I'm right now focused on the military operations in Afghanistan, [Source: White House Web site]"

Fact:
"Following an important meeting on Iraq war planning in late 2001, President Bush told the public that the discussions were about Afghanistan. He made no mention afterward about Iraq even though that was the real focus of the session at his ranch. - AP, 4/18/04"

Reference   Reference 

Topic:  Iraq - Pre-Invasion

Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  12/15/2003

Quote/Claim:
"In Iraq, there was a lot of diplomacy that took place before there was any military action. [Source: White House Web site]"

Fact:
"Time Magazine reports that as early as March, 2002, President Bush showed little interest in debating what to do about Saddam. Instead, he became notably animated, according to one person in the room, used a vulgar epithet to refer to Saddam and concluded with four words that left no one in doubt about Bush's intentions: 'We're taking him out.' - Time, 5/5/02
"

Reference   Reference 

Topic:  Iraq - Pre-Invasion

Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  11/4/2003

Quote/Claim:
"[Saddam Hussein] is no longer threatening people.” [Source: White House Web site]"

Fact:
"At the time of this statement, the New York Times reported, Saddam Hussein may be playing a significant role in coordinating and directing attacks by his loyalists against American forces in Iraq, senior American officials said.” - NY Times, 10/31/03"

Reference   Reference 

Topic:  Iraq - Pre-Invasion

Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  10/22/2003

Quote/Claim:
"I made it clear that a [diplomatic] process had gone on way before I made the decision to use military force.” [Source: White House Web site]"

Fact:
"According to Bush’s State Department Director of Policy and Planning Richard Haas, the decision to go to war had been made by July of 2002 – 8 months before the invasion.  When asked whether there was a particular moment when he realized war in Iraq was definite, Haas said, The moment was the first week of July (2002), when I had a meeting with Condi…She said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath.” - New Yorker, 3/31/03

Time reported in May (2002) that in late March of 2002 Vice President Dick Cheney told Senators The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq...The only question was when. - Time, 5/6/02 "

Reference   Reference 

Topic:  Iraq - Pre-Invasion

Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  10/17/2003

Quote/Claim:
"The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. [Source: White House Web site]"

Fact:
"According to testimony from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 10/16/03 the Bush Administration had deployed 1 soldier for every 189 people in Iraq, and 1 soldier for every 1,913 people in Afghanistan. Both were dramatically worse ratios than Kosovo (1 per 48), Bosnia (1 per 58) and East Timor (1 per 86)--the deployments of the Clinton years which Bush maligned during his campaign.  "

Reference   Reference 
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702&lftnav=claimvsfact

NOTE: you have to go to the link I listed above in order for the links to work.  The links go to various sources: whitehouse.gov, MSNBC, etc. 

[Michael Tee]

<<The point is that you were asked to present one or two of the best to be examined and discussed. You demurred, and instead said to take one of our own from "thousands" documented on the web.

<<If you would care to present some, then you couldn't complain about the ones chosen.>>

You're totally out to lunch.   I'm not complaining about anything.  plane picked what he picked, gave it his best, I reviewed his effort and tore it to shreds.  I was delighted that I was able to demolish the attack on a "Bush Lie" chosen at random by the other side.

<<A better comparison would be a student (you, in this case) turns in a blank sheet to the teacher, saying "I know the answers to all the questions. Just fill in the sheet yourself." Then wonders why he got a failing grade.>>

How would that be a better comparison?  It doesn't bear the remotest resemblance to what happened.  I had (foolishly, perhaps) vouched for ALL the answers on the sheet.  plane asked for a web-site, followed my directions, picked a site, chose (as I had allowed him to do) any one of the literally dozens of Bush lies that the site could have contained, and then proceeded to find that that the site's allegations that one lie was a lie were wrong, not because of any intrinsic error in the reasoning about it, but because of an alleged error the site made in dealing with another Bush lie.  Far from handing in a blank sheet, I had given plane a sheet with many answers, of which he looked at two, decided that since one of the two questions was erroneously answered, the other one must also have been wrong.

[Plane]

<<The point is that you were asked to present one or two of the best to be examined and discussed. You demurred, and instead said to take one of our own from "thousands" documented on the web.

<<If you would care to present some, then you couldn't complain about the ones chosen.>>

You're totally out to lunch.   I'm not complaining about anything.  plane picked what he picked, gave it his best, I reviewed his effort and tore it to shreds.  I was delighted that I was able to demolish the attack on a "Bush Lie" chosen at random by the other side.

<<A better comparison would be a student (you, in this case) turns in a blank sheet to the teacher, saying "I know the answers to all the questions. Just fill in the sheet yourself." Then wonders why he got a failing grade.>>

How would that be a better comparison?  It doesn't bear the remotest resemblance to what happened.  I had (foolishly, perhaps) vouched for ALL the answers on the sheet.  plane asked for a web-site, followed my directions, picked a site, chose (as I had allowed him to do) any one of the literally dozens of Bush lies that the site could have contained, and then proceeded to find that that the site's allegations that one lie was a lie were wrong, not because of any intrinsic error in the reasoning about it, but because of an alleged error the site made in dealing with another Bush lie.  Far from handing in a blank sheet, I had given plane a sheet with many answers, of which he looked at two, decided that since one of the two questions was erroneously answered, the other one must also have been wrong.

So you maintain that both these two things are true.

That in the years before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the death rate for Iriquis was so low that it was lower than any EU country.

That in the years of the sanctions almost twice as many Iriquis die due to the sanctions as have died due to the invasion.


These seem to be incompatible assertions . How do you accept them both?

[Plane]

I would hope so. If I was on the way to work and was late due to this, I would hope they were at least cited? Were they, Plane?

Actually, they weren't. Which was the justification for MT to claim that they were arrested solely because they complained about the administration. They weren't charged, so obviously, they weren't doing anything wrong.

<sarcasm>
Couldn't have been that the cops were being lenient, or wanted to save themselves some paperwork for a relatively petty offense. Nah. They're all just Bush flunkies, and those photos were obviously faked.
</sarcasm>

http://www.warresisters.org/RNC_CD.htm


This is the cite cited by MT in Post #33 that is where I found the picture of a "Die In".
Those locked up after this were supposedly being persecuted for haveing said something uncomplementary about the president.

Not Blocking traffic , an offence of which they are obviously innocent.

[Michael Tee]

So you maintain that both these two things are true.

That in the years before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the death rate for Iriquis was so low that it was lower than any EU country.

That in the years of the sanctions almost twice as many Iriquis die due to the sanctions as have died due to the invasion.


These seem to be incompatible assertions . How do you accept them both?

plane, no offence, but while you may know what you're talking about, I don't have a clue.  I already told you that I didn't know what your numbers were referring to, only that you seemed to be attacking a certain base-line on the basis of an article in Pyjamas Media and when I checked the article, it was not what you claimed it to be - - I mean the attack on the base-line was as you quoted in your post, but then the objections were answered satisfactorily by the author of the post.

If you ever want to take the time and trouble to lay out a clear statement of what mortality rates are alleged for what years, and by whom, and where you think the incompatiblity lies, and why, I'll be happy to look at it and let you know what I think, but until you lay down the basic groundwork, I'm afraid anything I could say in response to your questions would be a good example of the GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) Principle.

[Plane]

" I'm afraid anything I could say in response to your questions would be a good example of the GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) Principle."



This is the complete explanation of your beleif that Bush has been lieing.


take it is steps.



Are the People of Iraq dieing at a higher rate now than they were in the period between  1994- 2002?


If so then the Pajama Site is more correct.


Are people dieing at a lower rate during the period since the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the present than they were during the sanctions period?

If they are then the Socialist party site is more correct.


It seems impossible that both of these things are correct , I prefer the Pajama site because it seems to have a more carefull method.