The Obvious Flaw

[The_Professor]

But, Sirs, if you say it enough....

[sirs]

But, Sirs, if you say it enough....

Well, granted that is the tactic of the warped left.......that still doesn't remove myself and other rationally minded folks to highlight such.  And again, I respect your position on the war, and your definative arguements against going in, since you're actually debating the merits and tactics used, and not based on some cock & bull Bush lied us into war crud.  Your contributions are higly reasoned and respected........if not wrong     

[The_Professor]

But, Sirs, if you say it enough....

Well, granted that is the tactic if the warped left.......that still doesn't remove myself and other rationally minded folks to highlight such.  And again, I respect your position on the war, and your definative arguements against going in, since you're actually debating the merits and tactics used, and not based on some cock & bull Bush lied us into war crud.  Your contributions are higly reasoned and respected........if not wrong     

 

[Michael Tee]

<<That's 1 fatally flawed OPINION. [that the U.S.  started a totally unnecessary war on a completely false pretext and hundreds of thousands of lives were lost as a result. ]  They had every right to act as they did, given the intel they had, and the events following 911.  >>

Actually, not.  The "intel" was pure bullshit and recognized as such by many countries which refused to participate in the venture.  The very idea, regardless of "intel," that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. is absurd. 

<< And last time I checked, every war has a substantial loss of life.  It just so happens this has been one of the least costly wars, in that dept.  Shall we reference the Vietnam war?  The Korean war?  WWI OR II?>>

No - - reference 100,000 Iraqi lives lost by the most conservative estimate or 600,000 by the more generous Lancet-Johns Hopkins estimate, and even the smallest estimate is horrific.  Not to you, of course, but to any decent human being with feelings and compassion for others.  All for nothing.  All for a bullshit "fear" which the U.S. claimed to have had of Iraq - - why it's so ludicrous it's hard to understand why the lying bastards didn't choke on their own words.  Oh, but the "intel" made it all true.  The "intel" made it plausible that the U.S. had a great deal to fear from Iraq.  Never seen such ludicrous bullshit in my life.


<<That garbage [that the U.S. entry into Iraq was dishonest in every way; that there were no WMD, and that even if there had been WMD, there was no genuine threat to the U.S. from them] was debunked long ago . . . >>

Well, of course that's not true either.  It was never debunked.  How can you debunk something that is true?

<< . . . since A) it was believed [by] a vast majority that he had them . . . >>

Also not true, there was no such "vast majority," plenty of people claimed at the time this was bullshit, and besides that, whether he had them or not was totally irrelevant, since his having them in itself did NOT amount to a threat against the U.S. in the absence of any evidence that he was intending to attack the U.S.  The very idea of his attacking the U.S. was ludicrous, since it would have meant instant anihilation.  The idea of his giving them to "terrorists" was even more ludicrous, since it would mean he was willing to surender his and his country's destiny and their very existence, to the whims of a bunch of "terrorists," receiving absolutely nothing of value in return.

<< . . .  including a unanimous concensus by the NIE>>

They're obviously as corrupt and evil as the regime which pays their salaries.  Or so totally incompetent as to produce "intel" which is ludicrous on its face.  Again, even if the NIE produced "evidence" of the existence of the WMD, they had no evidence at all as to what Saddam would do with them. 

<<it was never in reference of Saddam personally attacking the Continental U.S.  It was ALWAYS in reference to his WMD (referenced in A) being used by Terrorists that iraq DID have connections with, using them on the Continental U.S. >>

That's even more ludicrous than the idea of Saddam himself attacking the U.S., since as I have pointed out, it would mean surrendering his own and his country's destiny to the whims of a bunch of "terrorists" and getting nothing in return.  Even a moron could see the absurdity of it.

<<No need to rehash this again, as everytime the challenge was presented to validate this supposed Bush lie, it's been demonstrated that the accusation itself is "dishonest in every way">>

Plenty of need to rehash, as long as there is one person left who peddles the absurd BS that Bush was sincere in bringing the country into the war, or that anyone in his entourage ever was dumb enough to believe that Saddam was a threat to the U.S.A.

[sirs]

<<That's 1 fatally flawed OPINION. [that the U.S.  started a totally unnecessary war on a completely false pretext and hundreds of thousands of lives were lost as a result. ]  They had every right to act as they did, given the intel they had, and the events following 911.  >>

Actually, not.  The "intel" was pure bullshit and recognized as such by many countries which refused to participate in the venture. 

LOL...that is one bizarre and twisted way to ignore the FACTS.  Many countries recognized it for being precisely belieavble & accepted it, but still chose not to participate, France being a perfect example

The very idea, regardless of "intel," that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. is absurd.  

Which is why it's not an issue, since ot was never about the threat of Iraq/Saddam attacking the U.S.  But continue with that baldface distorted lie.  Not my credibility getting screwed

<< And last time I checked, every war has a substantial loss of life.  It just so happens this has been one of the least costly wars, in that dept.  Shall we reference the Vietnam war?  The Korean war?  WWI OR II?>>

No - - reference 100,000 Iraqi lives lost by the most conservative estimate or 600,000 by the more generous Lancet-Johns Hopkins estimate, and even the smallest estimate is horrific.  

You mean the predominantly Iraqi on Iraqi death.  Yea, what about it?  Freedom isn't free.  Shall I reference the lives lost during our Revolutionary war?  Our civil war??  Freedom is gained at the cost of sacrifice, not that you'd care about that, considering how supportive you are of oppressive and dicatorial regimes when they're pushing the correct political ideology.  You'd have fit in nicely in Saddam's cabinet. 

<<That garbage [that the U.S. entry into Iraq was dishonest in every way; that there were no WMD, and that even if there had been WMD, there was no genuine threat to the U.S. from them] was debunked long ago . . . >>

Well, of course that's not true either.  It was never debunked.  How can you debunk something that is true?

By demonstrating over and over and over and over again, the lie it is

<< . . . since A) it was believed [by] a vast majority that he had them . . . >>

Also not true, there was no such "vast majority," plenty of people claimed at the time this was bullshit,

"Plenty" doesn't even come close to a vast majority.  Likely not even a vast minority, when you look at poll after poll, politician after politician, rhetoric after rhetoric, leader after leader, organization after organisation, claiming precisely that, the threat Saddam posed to the region, and the WMD they nearly all believed they had, prior to even this administration. 

and besides that, whether he had them or not was totally irrelevant, since his having them in itself did NOT amount to a threat against the U.S. in the absence of any evidence that he was intending to attack the U.S. 

Interesting tact now....so, basically "even if" the above FACTS I've referenced are true, which they are, now you're going to add the original lie on top of it, to try and deflect the issue and cover up your blackhole of evidence....back to the lie that this was about Saddam preparing to attack the U.S.  Well, as Professor already referenced, you can keep repeating that lie, it still doesn't make it true.

<< . . .  including a unanimous concensus by the NIE>>

They're obviously as corrupt and evil as the regime which pays their salaries.  Or so totally incompetent as to produce "intel" which is ludicrous on its face. 

Now, back to the good'ol Tee, where anything that dares contradict his made up mind, by any official organization or investigative body, is either corrupt, incompotent, or just trying to CYA.....all of course minus 1 shred of actual evidence, outside of Tee's say so and "dot connecting.

<<it was never in reference of Saddam personally attacking the Continental U.S.  It was ALWAYS in reference to his WMD (referenced in A) being used by Terrorists that iraq DID have connections with, using them on the Continental U.S. >>

That's even more ludicrous than the idea of Saddam himself attacking the U.S., since as I have pointed out, it would mean surrendering his own and his country's destiny to the whims of a bunch of "terrorists" and getting nothing in return.  Even a moron could see the absurdity of it.

Yet again, Tee claims ignorance, since no one is claiming Saddam planned to hand over all his WMD.  Nearly all the WMD we discuss, specifically as it relates to chemical & biological weapons, can be carried in small quantities, and again based on the intel, made it perfectly clear how he could sell just small quantities, make a mint in the sale, still have a plthora of stockpiles, and the Terrorists have their new weapon to try hitting the U.S. with.

Ludicrous is the notion that this isn't possible.  Ludicrous is the notion that folks with a common enemy, who made not work together in any organized format, wouldn't try helping each other out against said common enemy, that being the great satan.

<<No need to rehash this again, as everytime the challenge was presented to validate this supposed Bush lie, it's been demonstrated that the accusation itself is "dishonest in every way">>

Plenty of need to rehash, as long as there is one person left who peddles the absurd BS that Bush was sincere in bringing the country into the war, or that anyone in his entourage ever was dumb enough to believe that Saddam was a threat to the U.S.A.

At least you have that lie down to a science

[Michael Tee]

<<LOL...that is one bizarre and twisted way to ignore the FACTS.  Many countries recognized it [the claim that Saddam had WMD] for being precisely belieavble & accepted it, but still chose not to participate, France being a perfect example>>

What a crock of shit.  Show me where French intelligence claim to report that Saddam had WMD.  And even if you can show that, any idiot could see that they were no threat to the U.S.A.

<< . . .it was never about the threat of Iraq/Saddam attacking the U.S.>>

No it was about even bigger bullshit, even more absurd lies - - for some inexplicable reason, Saddam was going to put his whole life and his country's very existence at stake for no visible reward by giving nukes to "terrorists" to attack the U.S., and keeping his fingers crossed that the "terrorists" knew how to keep one big secret.  What kind of fucking MORON would even consider that garbage, let alone believe it?

<<  But continue with that baldface distorted lie.  Not my credibility getting screwed>>

Oh, yes it is.  And very badly.

<<You mean the predominantly Iraqi on Iraqi death.  >>

No, I was talking about lives lost to breast cancer in Central America.

<<Yea, what about it? >>

Typical.

<< Freedom isn't free.  Shall I reference the lives lost during our Revolutionary war?  Our civil war?? >>

Yeah, by all means.  Neither one of them precipitated by and due to a foreign invasion.

<< Freedom is gained at the cost of sacrifice, not that you'd care about that, considering how supportive you are of oppressive and dicatorial regimes when they're pushing the correct political ideology. >>

Oh, right, I FORGOT!!!!   This is all about Iraqi FREEDOM!!!  Thaaaat's why the U.S. invaded, to bring them FREEDOM.  These arguments are clearly aimed at the bottom five per cent of the dumbest 10% in the nation, possibly in the world.  But go on embarrassing yourself - - the U.S.A., which is so tolerant of dictatorship in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc., etc., etc., is blowing half a trill and the life and limb of its prize military in the cause of Iraqi freedom.  And THEN, when they finish bringing the gift of freedom to the Iraqis, they'll bring it to the Egyptians, then the Jordanians, then the Saudis, each in their turn, regardless of cost, because the U.S. has this historic committment to frrrrreeeeeee-dumb in the Middle East.  (Just curious, sirs - - have you ever found even ONE adult who is dumb enough to actually believe this shit?)

<<You'd have fit in nicely in Saddam's cabinet.>>

Yeah, because of my Amnesty International activities.  Saddam's cabinet was just full of AI members.  He wasn't a man to hold grudges.


In answer to my question,   "How can you debunk something that is true?" [i.e., Bush lied, they died,] sirs replied:

<<By demonstrating over and over and over and over again, the lie it is>>

Well, sirs, let me know when you actually accomplish it, even once.


sirs, <<Quote from: Michael Tee on July 27, 2007, 08:52:56 PM
<< . . . since A) it was believed [by] a vast majority that he had them . . . >>

    still quoting me, <<Also not true, there was no such "vast majority," plenty of people claimed at the time this was bullshit>>

and then sirs commented himself:  <<"Plenty" doesn't even come close to a vast majority.  Likely not even a vast minority, when you look at poll after poll, politician after politician, rhetoric after rhetoric, leader after leader, organization after organisation, claiming precisely that, the threat Saddam posed to the region, and the WMD they nearly all believed they had, prior to even this administration. >>

Ah, sirs, don't count"politicians" in your "vast majority."  They're cowardly whores, you know it and I know it.  They're all the John Kerry's of the world, yes I supported it but I didn't really support it, my fingers were crossed behind my back when I voted for it.  Leader after leader, I'm sorry to say you're just full of shit.  Some leaders (like Blair) themselves used faked evidence, others never bought into it.  Your tale of a "vast majority" of leaders supporting this absurd theory is just more BS, I'm afraid.  Put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate it.  Not with Clinton-era quotes, when maybe Saddam still had some WMD, but with quotes from leaders AFTER Saddam made his accounting as demanded by the UN.  AND THEN, show me the leaders (if there were any) who claimed to believe that Saddad had WMD, who also signed on to the totally absurd, cockamamie theory that such weapons constituted a threat to the U.S.A.


<<Quote from: Michael Tee on July 27, 2007, 08:52:56 PM
and besides that, whether he had them or not was totally irrelevant, since his having them in itself did NOT amount to a threat against the U.S. in the absence of any evidence that he was intending to attack the U.S.

<<Interesting tact now....so, basically "even if" the above FACTS I've referenced are true, which they are, now you're going to add the original lie on top of it, to try and deflect the issue and cover up your blackhole of evidence....back to the lie that this was about Saddam preparing to attack the U.S.  Well, as Professor already referenced, you can keep repeating that lie, it still doesn't make it true.>>

Yeah, but it's not a lie that I'm repeating, sirs, it's logic and common sense:  despite Bush's lies about Saddam's WMD, he had none; the "intel" that supported it was based on fakery, some of it actually known by Bush at the time (the yellowcake crap) and yet used by Bush, knowing that it was false, in his State of the Union speech; there was no "vast consensus" about this alleged horde of WMD in Saddam's hands, there were many who never believed in it, and even if Saddam had these weapons, the idea that he, or even more absurdly, someone to whom he would just give them away, would use them on the U.S. is pure fantasy and imbecility.  OTOH, the Big Lies that YOU keep repeating endlessly (including that everything I say has been "debunked") do fall within the Professor's comment that all your repetition will NEVER make it true.



<<Quote from: Michael Tee on July 27, 2007, 08:52:56 PM
<< . . .  including a unanimous concensus by the NIE>>

<<They're [the NIE makers] obviously as corrupt and evil as the regime which pays their salaries.  Or so totally incompetent as to produce "intel" which is ludicrous on its face.

<<Now, back to the good'ol Tee, where anything that dares contradict his made up mind, by any official organization or investigative body, is either corrupt, incompotent, or just trying to CYA.....all of course minus 1 shred of actual evidence, outside of Tee's say so and "dot connecting.>>

Yeah, how foolish.  People on the government payroll lying to back up the Boss, who otherwise would be clearly guilty of major war crimes and mass murder.  No pressure at all on them to come up with that shit.  What you call "intel," sirs, was cooked to order before AND after the invasion.  No surprises there, sirs. 

<<Quote from: Michael Tee on July 27, 2007, 08:52:56 PM . . .

<<The idea that Saddam would give away his nukes to others so THEY could attack the U.S. is] even more ludicrous than the idea of Saddam himself attacking the U.S., since as I have pointed out, it would mean surrendering his own and his country's destiny to the whims of a bunch of "terrorists" and getting nothing in return.  Even a moron could see the absurdity of it.>>

<<Yet again, Tee claims ignorance, since no one is claiming Saddam planned to hand over all his WMD.  Nearly all the WMD we discuss, specifically as it relates to chemical & biological weapons, can be carried in small quantities, and again based on the intel, made it perfectly clear how he could sell just small quantities, make a mint in the sale, still have a plthora of stockpiles, and the Terrorists have their new weapon to try hitting the U.S. with.>>

Once again, you missed the point completely.  Why am I not surprised?  Saddam did not have to give away ALL his WMD to sacrifice his and his country's destiny or place their destiny in the hands of "terrorists."  All he had to give away was enough to make one deadly attack on the U.S.   Once that was accomplished, ONE SINGLE "terrorist" with loose lips would damn both Iraq and Saddam to anihilation.   The blackmail possibilities alone could be enormous.  It's unthinkable that ANY leader, not just Saddam, would just give away weapons developed at great effort and still relatively rare in the world, to anyone else; control of weapons like that is extremely important, and a sacrifice of that control is a very real sacrifice of power.

What on earth could Saddam hope to gain in return from the "terrorists" for putting his entire destiny in their hands?  Money?  Are you kidding?  Did you see this guy's palaces?  He OWNED the second biggest proven oil reserves in the world.  Besides which, what good would the money do him if the U.S. nuked him and his country?

Your theory of Saddam giving away nukes to "terrorists" is just plain ludicrous.  Speaking quite frankly, it is obvious bullshit and nobody but a total moron could take it seriously.

<<Ludicrous is the notion that this isn't possible.  Ludicrous is the notion that folks with a common enemy, who made not work together in any organized format, wouldn't try helping each other out against said common enemy, that being the great satan.>>

There is absolutely nothing the "terrorists" could do with that weapon that Saddam couldn't do himself, and probably do it much better, using Egyptians, Afghans, Saudis or anybody else he wanted.  Ludicrous to think that Saddam would expect better results from a gang of "terrorists," constantly on the run would get a better result than a nation with all the resources of an oil-rich economy at its disposal.


<<At least you have that lie down to a science>>

The Big Lie is and always has been that Saddam was a threat to the U.S.A.  And the only one who "has it down to a science" is you.  The other lies you have down to a science are almost too numerous to enumerate, but I'll take a stab at it anyway - - that Bush and his lying criminal gang really believed that Saddam had WMD, that no attempt was made by Bush and his gang to cook the books on intel, that torture, rape and murder by U.S. forces are (a) not systemic in the U.S. military, (b) the work of a small group of "bad apples," and (c) are fiercely punished whenever discovered; and that oil is not the primary reason for this criminal attack.

[sirs]

<<LOL...that is one bizarre and twisted way to ignore the FACTS.  Many countries recognized it [the claim that Saddam had WMD] for being precisely belieavble & accepted it, but still chose not to participate, France being a perfect example>>

What a crock of shit.  Show me where French intelligence claim to report that Saddam had WMD.  And even if you can show that, any idiot could see that they were no threat to the U.S.A.

I love this, Tee, with the "even if" tactic of defending his position now.  So basically it goes like this, "And even if you show me the facts, I still won't accept them because "X".  In this case "X" = the lie that this was some atempt to prevent Saddam from attacking the U.S.A.  That apparently is his last refuge.  Now, what I'm going to do, before I even look at anything else, is count how many times Tee repeats that LIE, that this was about "Saddam's threat to the U.S.A" ("X") vs what it's always been regarded as, his threat of WMD getting into the hands of terrorists who would then use them against the U.S.

 

for some inexplicable reason, Saddam was going to put his whole life and his country's very existence at stake for no visible reward by giving nukes to "terrorists" to attack the U.S., and keeping his fingers crossed that the "terrorists" knew how to keep one big secret.  What kind of fucking MORON would even consider that garbage, let alone believe it?

LIE #2 since it was NEVER about Saddam passing on nukes, and the infamous "mushroom cloud" continues to be as it always was about, Saddam not using them in the region, such as on Israel or our troops in a desert region.  as you accurately referenced, only a moron would have believed the above, as well as those that keep repeating it as if it were the case being made by the administration.  And the "inexplicable reason" Saddam would actually sell some of his WMD to terrorists, is that they WOULD use them on the U.S.

<< Freedom is gained at the cost of sacrifice, not that you'd care about that, considering how supportive you are of oppressive and dicatorial regimes when they're pushing the correct political ideology. >>

Oh, right, I FORGOT!!!!   This is all about Iraqi FREEDOM!!!  Thaaaat's why the U.S. invaded, to bring them FREEDOM.  

LIE #3, since it wasn't about bringing Freedom to Iraq as to why we went in, simply why we're still there now

And THEN, when they finish bringing the gift of freedom to the Iraqis, they'll bring it to the Egyptians, then the Jordanians, then the Saudis, each in their turn, regardless of cost, because the U.S. has this historic committment to frrrrreeeeeee-dumb in the Middle East.  (Just curious, sirs - - have you ever found even ONE adult who is dumb enough to actually believe this shit?)

Considering no one ever claimed such, the answer would be "no"  Should we call this one a LIE?  Naa, we'll give Tee a break on this one.  Call it confusion on his part

In answer to my question,   "How can you debunk something that is true?" [i.e., Bush lied, they died,] sirs replied:

<<By demonstrating over and over and over and over again, the lie it is>>

Well, sirs, let me know when you actually accomplish it, even once.

Head --> sand.  Embrace the ignorance Tee, it'll set you free

Ah, sirs, don't count"politicians" in your "vast majority."  They're cowardly whores, you know it and I know it.  They're all the John Kerry's of the world, yes I supported it but I didn't really support it, my fingers were crossed behind my back when I voted for it.  Leader after leader, I'm sorry to say you're just full of shit.  Some leaders (like Blair) themselves used faked evidence, others never bought into it.  Your tale of a "vast majority" of leaders supporting this absurd theory is just more BS, I'm afraid.  Put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate it.  Not with Clinton-era quotes, when maybe Saddam still had some WMD,

Gotta love it.  Apparently the world ceased to exist when Clinton left office, and politicans in power, able to facilitate policy don't count in the majority.  And anyone that referenced Saddam's WMD were simply "cowards".  The leaders of Spain, Portugal, Austrailia, Frange, Germany, Russia, etc., etc., etc. are all apparently part of some grand conspiracy when the intel conclusions came forward on Saddam's WMD dispostiion.

OH, but wait, SURELY Tee can demonstrate how all these leaders concluded the intel presented were all a "crock of AMBE".  SURELY Tee can demonstrate this "plenty" of prominet folks & world leaders who claimed it was all bogus.  Let's sit back and watch Tee demonstrate for all to see how widespread it was that the intel on Saddam's WMD was all dren, making sure of course to apply the proper timeline/date of when such "conclusions" were made.  SURELY they'd have been around the time of 911, or even a tad after








































 

<<Quote from: Michael Tee on July 27, 2007, 08:52:56 PM
and besides that, whether he had them or not was totally irrelevant, since his having them in itself did NOT amount to a threat against the U.S. in the absence of any evidence that he was intending to attack the U.S.

Oh this is priceless.  Again with the "even if" defense mode, and the application of the original lie X, making this LIE #4, though it's the 2nd time he lied about X

despite Bush's lies about Saddam's WMD, he had none; the "intel" that supported it was based on fakery, some of it actually known by Bush at the time (the yellowcake crap) and yet used by Bush, knowing that it was false, in his State of the Union speech; there was no "vast consensus" about this alleged horde of WMD in Saddam's hands

LIE #5 as there was VAST concensus.  Your ignorance of that FACT still doesn't negate it

and even if Saddam had these weapons, the idea that he, or even more absurdly, someone to whom he would just give them away,

LIE #6, with the "even if"concession yet again, as no one claimed any "giving away"

would use them on the U.S. is pure fantasy and imbecility. 

Oh, now this is interesting.  So, you've deduced that Islamic Terrorists, calling for Jihad on the U.S., you who salviates over the hope of how many americans they can kill, by getting their butts whipped, that if they did procure some WMD would NOT use them on the U.S.??  You REALLY believe that??  Are you getting enough sleep?

People on the government payroll lying to back up the Boss, who otherwise would be clearly guilty of major war crimes and mass murder.  No pressure at all on them to come up with that shit.  What you call "intel," sirs, was cooked to order before AND after the invasion.  No surprises there, sirs.

The NIE is on the Bush payroll?  The UN?  The French??  How convenient   

Saddam did not have to give away ALL his WMD to sacrifice his and his country's destiny or place their destiny in the hands of "terrorists."  All he had to give away was enough to make one deadly attack on the U.S.   Once that was accomplished, ONE SINGLE "terrorist" with loose lips would damn both Iraq and Saddam to anihilation.   

Apparently Tee has ignored the enemy that the U.S. is supposed to be, both to Iraq (under Saddam) and to Militant Islamists.  Apparently Tee thinks that (despite any evidence to back it up), 1 loose lipped terrorist would be the cause of Iraq becoming 1 heaping mass of rubble.  Apparently Tee can't grasp entities coming toegether to wage war against a common enemy, especially 1 as apparently evil as the U.S. 

Then again, there's a ton of concepts Tee is unable to grasp.  "Even if"

<<Ludicrous is the notion that this isn't possible.  Ludicrous is the notion that folks with a common enemy, who made not work together in any organized format, wouldn't try helping each other out against said common enemy, that being the great satan.>>

There is absolutely nothing the "terrorists" could do with that weapon that Saddam couldn't do himself, and probably do it much better, using Egyptians, Afghans, Saudis or anybody else he wanted.  

Except for actually sacrificing himself by simulataneous detonations of mustard & sarin gas cannisters thru-out the U.S.  Something Saddam obviously couldn't do, but terrorists that could and would, if given the opportunity

<<At least you have that lie down to a science>>

The Big Lie is and always has been that Saddam was a threat to the U.S.A.  

LIE #7 (and the 3rd time Lie X has been repeated)

And the only one who "has it down to a science" is you.  The other lies you have down to a science are almost too numerous to enumerate, but I'll take a stab at it anyway - - that Bush and his lying criminal gang really believed that Saddam had WMD,

Which FACTUALLY most everyone else did as well (no need to pull out the laundry list of quotes and conclusions of such, since we're sure to get the "well, even if...." follow-up)

that no attempt was made by Bush and his gang to cook the books on intel,

That investigation after investigation have FACTUALLY concluded, despite your OPINION that they're all just in CYA mode

that torture, rape and murder by U.S. forces are (a) not systemic in the U.S. military, (b) the work of a small group of "bad apples," and (c) are fiercely punished whenever discovered;  and that oil is not the primary reason for this criminal attack.

Well, you run with those OPINIONS Tee.  The rest of us will live in the land of reality.  And since I'll be unable to check out any responses for a few days, I welcome anyone else to help Tee out in showcasing this "lack of concensus" on Saddam's WMD disposition.

[Michael Tee]

<<So basically it goes like this, "And even if you show me the facts, I still won't accept them because "X".  In this case "X" = the lie that this was some atempt to prevent Saddam from attacking the U.S.A. >>

uh, NO, sirs, it goes like THIS:  It's a lie that Saddam had the WMD (after he accounted for them to the UN.)  It's a lie to say that Bush & Co. believed he had them.  It's a lie to claim that a "vast majority" of intelligence agencies believed that he had them.  And all of those lies were just surplusage, because even if Saddam HAD them, or was BELIEVED to have them, then it is still incredible that Saddam AND his "WMD" together could have been considered a viable threat to the U.S.A.  That last lie is the Big Lie.  The other stuff was just window dressing, distraction.  There are so many morons who, once convinced that Saddam HAD the weapons, or that Bush really believed he had them, that they would never even have bothered to ask the next question, "What difference would it make if he had them?"

<<That apparently is his last refuge. >>

My "last refuge."  So if Bush had only told one lie and I had exposed it, I'd be in a better position than if he had told numerous lies and I exposed all of them.   Who knows, sirs, maybe you've discovered a new kind of logic, one that leaves all the rest of us in the dust.

 <<Now, what I'm going to do, before I even look at anything else, is count how many times Tee repeats that LIE, that this was about "Saddam's threat to the U.S.A" ("X") vs what it's always been regarded as, his threat of WMD getting into the hands of terrorists who would then use them against the U.S.>>

If you want to, be my guest, and count (you'll need all of your fingers and toes for this one, sirs) but you're wasting your time because (warning:  tricky concept ahead!) a direct threat from Saddam and an indirect threat from "terrorists" armed by Saddam are . . . ?  YES, that's right, they are BOTH threats to the U.S.A.

<<LIE #2 since it was NEVER about Saddam passing on nukes . . . >>

Huh??  And just in the preceding paragraph, you were accusing me of lying because I inferred the threat was from Saddam nuking the US himself, whereas you had somehow figured out that he was going to hand over the nukes to the "terrorists" and let THEM nuke the U.S.   But NOW (only one paragraph later, but I guess you've had time to re-think your position between paragraphs) you seem to realize that it was never about Saddam passing on nukes.  That's quite a switch, sirs.  I'm impressed.  And wondering what your position will be in the NEXT paragraph.

<< . . .  and the infamous "mushroom cloud" continues to be as it always was about, Saddam not using them in the region, such as on Israel or our troops in a desert region.  as you accurately referenced, only a moron would have believed the above, as well as those that keep repeating it as if it were the case being made by the administration.  >>

Alright, sirs, I guess you've been having a rough day.  When you translate that paragraph into English, I'll be happy to take anotuer look at it.

<<And the "inexplicable reason" Saddam would actually sell some of his WMD to terrorists, is that they WOULD use them on the U.S.>>

Yeah, and then blackmail Saddam and his government for the rest of their very, very short but happy lives.  So that Saddam, who if he wanted the nukes used on the U.S., instead of controlling himself how, when and where they would go in, decides one day:  Why should a dumb schmuck like myself have to decide how, when and why?  I KNOW WHAT!!  I'll give the nukes to a bunch of terrorists and let THEM decide instead.  They're not only much, much smarter than I am, but I know I can trust 'em to keep their mouths shut and not say anything that'll get me in trouble with the Great Satan. 

sirs, the idea of Saddam - - or anyone else, except maybe  YOU - - being so fucking stupid as to do anything at all like that is, simply, mind-boggling.  I can honestly say, I don't know ANYBODY that stupid.  But you, apparently, think this is something that Saddam or any other Middle Eastern leader, would see nothing wrong with.

<<LIE #3, since it wasn't about bringing Freedom to Iraq as to why we went in, simply why we're still there now>>

OK, now I get it.  They go in to get the nukes, but when the nukes aren't there, instead of just going home, all disappointed for having come so far for nothing, someone stops and has a "Eureka!" moment:  HEY I KNOW WHAT!  Why don't we all just stay in this hell-hole anyway till we can bring these poor benighted bastards some real American-style DEMOCRACY??  Ahh, sirs, and you actually believe this shit, don't you?  "We didn't go in to bring them democracy, but once we were there, we decided we wouldn't go home till we did."  I hope you get your own TV show, you'd be hilarious.

<<Considering no one ever claimed such [that after bringing democracy to the Iraqis, the U.S. would bring it to the Egyptians, the Saudis, etc.] the answer would be "no"  >>

The question was rhetorical, sirs.  That means . . .  ahh, forget it.

<<Should we call this one a LIE?  Naa, we'll give Tee a break on this one.  Call it confusion on his part>>

I'll tell you what you should call it, sirs.  It's irony.  The idea that the U.S. would later bring democracy to anyone is ABSURD, because the U.S. has no intention of bringing "democracy" to anyone, including the Iraqis, which should be apparent to anyone who has watched the events unfold.  To explain away this blatant act of international aggression and criminality as "bringing democracy" is so laughable that even the usual idiots have finally been able to see through it.  But then there are the unusual idiots who can't, I guess.

<<Head --> sand.  Embrace the ignorance Tee, it'll set you free>>

I guess you're the obvious expert on head in the sand and embracing the ignorance, sirs, but the bullshit you are spouting goes WAY beyond simple ignorance.  However, one simple question, if I may:  Assuming you are there to bring "democracy" to the Iraqis, how long are you (not your country, just YOU, sirs) prepared to continue the effort?  One more year, five more years, ten more years?  Does sirs have any personal time limits beyond which even he would feel, hey, this is taking way too long and we gotta stop now?

<<The leaders of Spain, Portugal, Austrailia, Frange, Germany, Russia, etc., etc., etc. are all apparently part of some grand conspiracy when the intel conclusions came forward on Saddam's WMD dispostiion.>>

Oh, sirs, then it should be very easy for you to show me some evidence that each of these leaders did in fact express his opinion after Saddam's accounting that he still had WMD and that he was still a threat.  Because I haven't seen any.  I don't know if they ever said such a thing, but you keep telling me they did.  How do you know that?  Did they tell you themselves, or did you hear it from Bush?

<< . . . SURELY Tee can demonstrate how all these leaders concluded the intel presented were all a "crock of AMBE".  SURELY Tee can demonstrate this "plenty" of prominet folks & world leaders who claimed it was all bogus.  Let's sit back and watch Tee demonstrate for all to see how widespread it was that the intel on Saddam's WMD was all dren, making sure of course to apply the proper timeline/date of when such "conclusions" were made.  SURELY they'd have been around the time of 911, or even a tad after>>

Sadly, sirs, I can't.  I don't read their minds, and they don't confide their secrets in me.  I would conclude from their refusal to take action against Saddam that the leaders of France, Germany, Russia, China, Canada, Belgium and others did not take Bush's "intel" very seriously, but YOU are the guy who keeps insisting that a "vast majority" of world leaders were all on board.  So, put up or shut up, Big Fella - - what vast majority of world leaders swallowed this ridiculous bullshit that Bush was trying to peddle?