Hess

[BT]

The bloody lie was your claims.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The bloody lie was your claims.

==================================
Fallacious! Calumny!
No, I did not say that anything would happen should my views not be accepted and my suggestions implemented.

I said Cheney claimed that the US was in danger of attack if Saddam was not removed. His claim was untrue.

We might be arguing about how big a lie Cheney told, but the fact it that Iraq had no dangerous nuclear anything, and no plan to build any, so it is Cheney who lied. Blood has been spilled because of Cheney's lies, but nothing I have said has caused so much as a hangnail.

[Plane]

<<Did the French have a million boat people leave France in 47?>>

Could you ever find a million people crazy enough to leave France?

During and after the French Revolution there were at least the equivelent in modern percentage who died where they stood, and a great number who managed to escape.

The Vinchy government was dismantled with much less ado.

[BT]

You must have missed Cheney's statement that Saddam had nukes and was all ready to drop them on the US. It was all over the papers and the news.

That was your claim.

Are you retracting it now?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Would it make you happy? Would it bring you peace of mind?
I have the feeling that you would prefer an ongoing conflict.

I will retract if you will admit that Cheney is a despicable lying turd.

[sirs]

<<Context Tee, context.  Let's try to keep it honest.  Only morons believed that was in reference to Saddam nuking Boston>>

Who but a moron would even listen to them?  Who but a moron would ever believe them?  Who but a moron do they aim ANY of their bullshit at?  YOU said no one [in the Bush administration] was ever claiming that Saddam was on the verge of attacking mainland America. 

And your "example" clearly demonstrates that's still the case.  Preventing him from making/getting a nuke has NO reference what-so-ever that he was about to launch one at America.  Once again, YOUR lie has been exposed for what it is, pure hyperbole.

[_JS]

Preventing him from making/getting a nuke has NO reference what-so-ever that he was about to launch one at America.

Once Saddam turned down representatives from the A.Q. Khan network it was unlikely that he would ever have gotten the necessary equipment and materials needed to fabricate nuclear weapons.

Indeed, we went after a far lesser threat in terms of nuclear potential than a number of other nations.

[sirs]

Preventing him from making/getting a nuke has NO reference what-so-ever that he was about to launch one at America.

Once Saddam turned down representatives from the A.Q. Khan network it was unlikely that he would ever have gotten the necessary equipment and materials needed to fabricate nuclear weapons.  Indeed, we went after a far lesser threat in terms of nuclear potential than a number of other nations.

Yet, his nuclear ambition was simply another component to the threat Saddam was determined to be.  Again, the key component to his threat though, and the reason we went in, in the 1st place, were the non-nuclear WMD he was known to have had, and used before.  And it were those WMD potentially getting into the hands of terorists, who'd have no reservations what-so-ever in detonating them within the U.S., if they could manage to get them across the border..............which of course is a whole other issue.   

[Michael Tee]

<<And your "example" clearly demonstrates that's still the case.  Preventing him from making/getting a nuke has NO reference what-so-ever that he was about to launch one at America.  Once again, YOUR lie has been exposed for what it is, pure hyperbole.>>

When Rice spoke of the smoking gun turning into a mushroom cloud, she was pressing buttons that did not respond to mushroom clouds over Teheran or Tel Aviv.  She was pressing buttons that would respond to mushroom clouds over New York, Chicago and/or Los Angeles.

Most sane, normal and reasonably intelligent people knew exactly what Rice meant when she spoke of the smoking gun turning into a mushroom cloud.  You apparently did not.  What can I say?  You have a perfect right to understand or misunderstand Ms. Rice's comment any way you see fit.  But I sure as hell don't have to agree with it and neither does anyone else with a working, functioning brain.  Enjoy your own little fantasy world of lies and ignorance.  You deserve it.

[BT]

I will retract if you will admit that Cheney is a despicable lying turd.

I have no problem admitting that Cheney's turdiness is in the eye of the beholder.

Your claim however had no basis in fact.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I have no problem admitting that Cheney's turdiness is in the eye of the beholder.


======================================
That is not the same as admitting that Cheney is a despicable lying turd. Surely you know that I know a copout when I see it.

You are allowed to change the order of the words: a lying despicable turd, a turdy, despicable liar, or something like that. Be creative. But be aware that there are rules. It's a bit like haiku.

[sirs]

<<And your "example" clearly demonstrates that's still the case.  Preventing him from making/getting a nuke has NO reference what-so-ever that he was about to launch one at America.  Once again, YOUR lie has been exposed for what it is, pure hyperbole.>>

When Rice spoke of the smoking gun turning into a mushroom cloud, she was pressing buttons that did not respond to mushroom clouds over Teheran or Tel Aviv.  She was pressing buttons that would respond to mushroom clouds over New York, Chicago and/or Los Angeles.

Maybe to a moron.  I wasn't going to place you into that category, but if you say so.  A) he didn't have them, B) he didn't have the means to drop them here, C) it was only a piece to the WMD threat Saddam posed to the region.  His non-nuclear WMD in the hands of terrorists was our big concern, which has consistently been presented, vs the hyperbole you're trying to shovel

[BT]

That is not the same as admitting that Cheney is a despicable lying turd. Surely you know that I know a copout when I see it.

Certainly you know that determining the level of Cheney's turdiness is a subjective exercise. I don't agree that he is a lying dispicable turd. I do however acknowledge your right to come to a different conclusion.

But claiming that Cheney said one thing then offering as documentation him saying quite another is not an exercise in subjectivity. It is an exercise in proving facts. And you failed miserably at that.

 

[Michael Tee]

<<Maybe to a moron. >>

Well, there you are.  Their whole fucking audience are morons.  Who else would believe what they say?

<<  A) he didn't have them, B) he didn't have the means to drop them here,>>

You know that.  I know that.  But Condi nevertheless voiced her concern with mushroom clouds, which to her audience had to mean a nuke attack on America.  So when you said that nobody in the Bush administration claimed that a nuclear attack from Saddam on America was imminent, that was not correct, because that's exactly what Condi DID say.

<< C) it was only a piece to the WMD threat Saddam posed to the region.  His non-nuclear WMD in the hands of terrorists was our big concern. . . >>

That's not true either, because Condi's words did not specify precisely who would launch the attack, she spoke only of a mushroom cloud suddenly appearing, which had to be avoided - - by invading Iraq.  I don't think her audience gave a shit when threatened with mushroom clouds whether the attack was launched by Saddam personally or by one of his chosen terrorists, which is probably why Condi never addressed the issue.  The fact is that she threatened America with a "mushroom cloud" which could only be averted by invading Iraq, so your claim that this threat was never made is contradicted by the words of Condoleeza Rice herself.

 <<which has consistently been presented, vs the hyperbole you're trying to shovel>>

Well, obviously it WASN'T consistently presented because Condi didn't even mention it.  Obviously when the audience is threatened with nuclear attack from Saddam, they don't really give a shit whether she means Saddam himself or via an intermediary.  Either way, the lie results in approval of the invasion of Iraq.

[sirs]

<<Maybe to a moron. >>

Well, there you are.  Their whole fucking audience are morons.  Who else would believe what they say?

Apparently you do, as that's what you keep arguing was said

<<  A) he didn't have them, B) he didn't have the means to drop them here,>>
You know that.  I know that.  But Condi nevertheless voiced her concern with mushroom clouds, which to her audience had to mean a nuke attack on America.

Well, that's 1 completely irrational unobjective opinion, but at least your consistent.  The MORE rationally minded would have understood that the point was in preventing Saddam from aquiring nukes, PERIOD.

<< C) it was only a piece to the WMD threat Saddam posed to the region.  His non-nuclear WMD in the hands of terrorists was our big concern. . . >>

That's not true either, because Condi's words did not specify precisely who would launch the attack, she spoke only of a mushroom cloud suddenly appearing, which had to be avoided - - by invading Iraq.  I don't think her audience gave a shit when threatened with mushroom clouds whether the attack was launched by Saddam personally or by one of his chosen terrorists, which is probably why Condi never addressed the issue. 

And again, for the more rationally minded folks, it was completely in context to the threat.  Threat A were the WMD that he had, as concluded by nearly everyone, and with the ties that WERE present to terrorists, was why we went in, in the 1st place,  Threat B was the potential of Saddam aquiring nukes, and unleashing them with any of his scuds, be it Kuwait, Israel, even Saudi Arabia.  You'll note that YOUR interpretation of Condi's words demonstrates for all to see that NO WHERE was she referencing the U.S.  That's your twisted go at it.

The fact is that she threatened America with a "mushroom cloud" which could only be averted by invading Iraq, so your claim that this threat was never made is contradicted by the words of Condoleeza Rice herself.

Now you've come full circle to simply tossing out completely hyperbolic and unsubstantiated accusations.  Minus of course YOUR tee leaf reading, of course, because you just know, despite the FACT Condi NEVER SAID SUCH.  "Mushroom cloud", yes.  "Mushroom cloud threatening America", would be a NO

Either way, the lie results in approval of the invasion of Iraq.

Boy, if you culd only substantiate that lie, you might actually have something.  Too bad