Pattern of deception

[Richpo64]

>>... an international oligarchy ...<<

<shiver>
 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I the World of Richie Poo, there are no international companies. Oil companies, banks and such are entirely national in scope.

[Michael Tee]

<<I would like to know how President Bush and Vice -President Cheny could perform Cherry picking on Downing street.>>

This is akin to the guy in the tatoo parlour asking how come the big tatoos cost more than the little ones.  However:

Blair, a.k.a. Bush's poodle, cherry-picks from HIS (U.K.) intelligence and Bush cherry-picks from HIS (U.S.).  Since they've both agreed to commit the same crime together, they both pick the same kind of cherries.

Next question.

[sirs]

<<I would like to know how President Bush and Vice -President Cheny could perform Cherry picking on Downing street.>>

Blair, a.k.a. Bush's poodle, cherry-picks from HIS (U.K.) intelligence and Bush cherry-picks from HIS (U.S.).  Since they've both agreed to commit the same crime together, they both pick the same kind of cherries.  Next question.

Well, it would include the actual official reports (you know, the kind Tee was demanding about the respective country's intel agency's position on Saddam's WMD situation) that have systematically debunked the notion of cherry picking from either leader, but we already know how facts to foaming at the mouth leftists is like kryptonite to superman, so no further questions are necessary

[Michael Tee]

The "official report" that "systematically debunked" the notion of Blair's cherry-picking was even more blatantly and openly a whitewash than Silberman-Robb.

The next "proof" that I expect to see from sirs that there was no cherry-picking by Bush is a Supreme Court ruling.  A 5-4 split, with Scalia, Roberts, Alito and the incomparable Clarence Thomas all on the majority side.

Well that's just the opinion of one foaming-at-the-mouth leftist.  I'm sure the considered, well-informed, logical and sensible opinions of thoughtful, knowledgeable and detached observers like sirs are much more reliable.

[sirs]

The "official report" that "systematically debunked" the notion of Blair's cherry-picking was even more blatantly and openly a whitewash than Silberman-Robb.

As we've already seen, demands for official reports, are then transitioned to said reports being trashed as whitewashed, with not one SHRED of evidence to boot.  So why even bother?

The next "proof" that I expect to see from sirs that there was no cherry-picking by Bush is a Supreme Court ruling.  A 5-4 split, with Scalia, Roberts, Alito and the incomparable Clarence Thomas all on the majority side.

With of course the overt ommission that the Court at the time was left leaning, 3 Conservative, 2 moderates, and 4 LIBERALS.  So much for that long been put to bed lie

[Michael Tee]

<<As we've already seen, demands for official reports, are then transitioned to said reports being trashed as whitewashed, with not one SHRED of evidence to boot.  So why even bother?>>

When the membership of the body that submits the report is carefully cherry-picked to exclude anyone who is prepared to ask the hard questions, and to include pitchers who throw only underhand lobs and who gladly take "no" for an answer, it's pretty much of a foregone conclusion that the results of the "official inquiry," as you insist on calling it, will be a whitewash.  The same principles apply here as in the U.K.

Why even bother?  Because I enjoy watching you respond to my challenges time after time with the tired bullshit of "exonerated by official inquiries" and listing a bunch of transparent whitewashes as evidence in your support.  Because I enjoy that you are not able to find a shred of independent evidence to back up your absurd contentions.  Not one body that wasn't hand-picked by the "President" and his supporters.

<<With of course the overt ommission that the Court at the time was left leaning, 3 Conservative, 2 moderates, and 4 LIBERALS.  So much for that long been put to bed lie>>

I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about.  I was referring facetiously to a future event that will never occur, not to an actual decision the Court had made.

[sirs]

Which of course reinforces the original point that facts to foaming at the mouth leftists is like kryptonite to superman

[Michael Tee]

Get back to me when you've got something to say that's actually on-topic and not too obviously childish, so I can at least maintain the illusion that I am debating someone with a modicum of intelligence, OK, sirs?

[sirs]

On topic here is continuing to highlight your AMBE, regarding, pretty much everything Bush & U.S. military, which includes the laughable claims of whitewash to official reports/conclusions, following demands for offical reports/conclusions that would have been released by folks who'd be vetting their own material as well

[Plane]

<<I would like to know how President Bush and Vice -President Cheny could perform Cherry picking on Downing street.>>

This is akin to the guy in the tatoo parlour asking how come the big tatoos cost more than the little ones.  However:

Blair, a.k.a. Bush's poodle, cherry-picks from HIS (U.K.) intelligence and Bush cherry-picks from HIS (U.S.).  Since they've both agreed to commit the same crime together, they both pick the same kind of cherries.

Next question.

How exactly did Blair ever start being known as "Bush's poodle" ?  He got along well with Clinton too and ddn't become known as "Clinton's poodle" nor did Chirchill become known as "FDR's poodle" when they discovered that they thought alike .

What benefit Blair was supposed to be getting from the relationship is hard to suppose , if you rule out the possibility that they really both thought Saddam was dangerous.

FDR and Chirchill agreed that Hitler was dangerous ,which one was the "poodle"?

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . following demands for offical reports/conclusions that would have been released by folks who'd be vetting their own material as well>>

Ridiculous.  What was demanded was investigation and report from IMPARTIAL investigators NOT hand-picked by the "President" and his handlers from a coterie of don't-rock-the-boat public figures who scratch one another's backs and bury the bodies for both sides.  An investigation and report from shit-disturbers who take nothing for granted, who would not have allowed the "President" to testify with Cheney at his side and who would have dug out the evidence in short order.

[Michael Tee]

How exactly did Blair ever start being known as "Bush's poodle" he got along well with Clinton too and ddn't become known as "Clinton's poodle" nor did Chirchill become known as "FDR's poodle" when they discovered that they thought alike .

What benefit Blair was supposed to be getting from the relationship is hard to suppose , if you rule out the possibility that they really both thought Saddam was dangerous.

FDR and Chirchill agreed that Hitler was dangerous which one was the "poodle".

In your last question lies the key to all your other questions - - Hitler WAS dangerous.  Neither Churchill nor FDR had to fake anything.  The generally accepted theory is that Bush and the neocons dreamed up the attack on Iraq and either appealed to Blair's vanity or blackmailed or threatened him to get him to join in the attack.  Earlier in the week, I had lunch with a very sophisticated Iranian businessman in his mid-70s who thinks that the British were behind the whole thing and that they suckered the U.S. into it and are still stage-managing it all from behind the scenes.  Take your pick.

[sirs]

<< . . . following demands for offical reports/conclusions that would have been released by folks who'd be vetting their own material as well>>

Ridiculous.  What was demanded was investigation and report from IMPARTIAL investigators

No, what was demanded was some official report by the the Intel Agencies involved in determining Saddam's WMD disposition.  The words of those involved weren't enough, you wanted some actual press release report, as if there were any, that would have been vetted by the same folks.  Since you have demonstrated no intention of listening to those involved, you think you're fooling anyone in that you'd listen to a report generated from the same folks, that you already have ignored?? 

NOT hand-picked by the "President" and his handlers

How the hell does Bush "handpick" the congress critters that are involved in Congressional oversight and investigations??  How does he "handpick" the Intel Agents who have gone on record as to referencing Saddam's WMD dispostion, just prior to the war?  Pray tell, how does he pull that off??

An investigation and report from shit-disturbers who take nothing for granted, who would not have allowed the "President" to testify with Cheney at his side and who would have dug out the evidence in short order.

All of course is 100% PURE unadulterated speculation, devoid of ANY necessary evidence, outside of your not so subtle hatred of Bush & America.   That's all you have to debunk the official findings regarding cherry picked intel, coercision of intel agents, and lying us into war.....in otherwords AMBE, as it relates to any validity to ANY of your pathetic Bush is evil diatribes

[Plane]

How exactly did Blair ever start being known as "Bush's poodle" he got along well with Clinton too and ddn't become known as "Clinton's poodle" nor did Chirchill become known as "FDR's poodle" when they discovered that they thought alike .

What benefit Blair was supposed to be getting from the relationship is hard to suppose , if you rule out the possibility that they really both thought Saddam was dangerous.

FDR and Chirchill agreed that Hitler was dangerous which one was the "poodle".

In your last question lies the key to all your other questions - - Hitler WAS dangerous.  Neither Churchill nor FDR had to fake anything.  The generally accepted theory is that Bush and the neocons dreamed up the attack on Iraq and either appealed to Blair's vanity or blackmailed or threatened him to get him to join in the attack.  Earlier in the week, I had lunch with a very sophisticated Iranian businessman in his mid-70s who thinks that the British were behind the whole thing and that they suckered the U.S. into it and are still stage-managing it all from behind the scenes.  Take your pick.

Bot of those are unlikely and I have another , that FDR and Chirchill knew all about the attak on Pearl Harbor months ahead of time but suckered the Japaneese into enrageing the American people .

People invent these things when they don't like the truth.

So I consider the idea of "cherry picking" simularly well proven to the theroy of moon landings being staged from Hollywood.

Neiter you nor your friend fom Iran  know how, exactly, these plans would siphon profit for the plotters does he? I am sure that given time he could imagne some way , some fancifull way .