"My daughter had a right to be on the road that night," Innis said. "He didn't."

Sam A. Kersh wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:47:16 GMT, Stephan Rothstein
> > wrote:
>
>
>> gringo wrote:
>>
>>> Sam A. Kersh wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:57:28 -0700, "P.Roehling"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Stephan Rothstein" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides which, it is totally irrelevant to anything since she has
>>>>>> never yet held public office and holds no authority. You are blaming
>>>>>> people she would not meet for 15 years for actions they could not
>>>>>> possibly be involved in. You may not be one, but you sure sound like
>>>>>> a typical Democrat whiner to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> *BING* Oh, sorry; and you were doing so *well* right up until that
>>>>> final sentence!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that gringo is an atypical Democrat whiner?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sammy, you should look at the top of the postings you reply to. I was
>>> not mentioned in either post. I don't whine, BTW. I growl.
>>>
>>>
>> Gringo, you need to check the threads better before you take someone
>> else to task. I responded to one of your posts and stated that you
>> sounded like a typical democrat whiner to me. P. Roehling questioned me
>> about the statement, and Sam asked him if you were an atypical democrat
>> whiner in response to the way he questioned me.
>>
>> Steve Rothstein
>>
>
> On the mark.
>
> Gringo, beso me culo, tonto.
>
>
>
Váyase. Chupe un pene de elefante. Uselo a lubricar su ano para la Bush
de ****ing nos ha estado dando todo.

--
*fas-cism* (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.
-- The American Heritage Dictionary, 1983



"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
------George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999

gringo wrote:
> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>> gringo wrote:
>>> The war is legal and honorable *for the soldiers* who are doing the
>>> fighting and dying. It is dishonorable for the nation--because most
>>> of us sat mute while Bush lied us into it.
>>
>> I am not as sure as you that we sat quietly by or that Bush lied to us
>> about it. I thought he was very clear about why we were there. I
>> disagreed with his reasoning, but I have yet to find any evidence of a
>> lie. And I define lie as any deliberate attempt to mislead me, not
>> just as a false statement.
>>
>
> Where have you been? Of course he lied.
>
> 1) He claimed that Saddam had the makings of nuclear weapons, a proven lie.
> /
> “Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium
> in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful
> scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director
> general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N.
> Security Council.�/
>
> And the Administration’s response?
>
> /"’We fell for it,’ said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents."/

This proves that Bush did not lie. He may have been suckered by someone
else, but he did not lie, as per my earlier definition of knowingly
trying to mislead us. Being given false information, believing it, and
then relying on it and repeating it is not a lie, especially if you
admit you were taken in by false information when you find out it was false.



>
> *3) The administration claimed *they had satellite photographs that
> showed new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. However, when the
> U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing"
> <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/printable537096.shtml>.

So, there were new buildings there, as the satellite photos showed.
Again, there was no lie or the UN could not have gone into the
buildings, right? Just so you can think about it, a photo from the
outside just shows the existence of the building.

>
> *4) The administration asserted *that specific presidential palaces were
> places the inspectors would find incriminating evidence. Again, they
> found "nothing"
> <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/printable537096.shtml>.
>

So they were wrong. It does not prove it a lie. This happens every day
in the US when a search warrant based on real probable cause comes up empty.


> *5) It was reported *that an al Qaeda informant claimed
> <http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12246176,00.html> that
> terrorists had found a way of smuggling radioactive material through
> airports without being detected.
>
> Unfortunately, the “informant� then failed a polygraph test.

Again, if they had an informant that told them a lie, then they did not
lie. The informant made the claim but the informant lied.

>

> *6) Rupert Murdoch helped the Administration by spreading this lie
> <http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5921220%255E663,00.html>*
> (as though Fox News and the NY Post wasn't enough):

Again, I repeat that you cannot hold Bush responsible for what the media
claims and reports.

> *7) As a centerpiece to it's argument *for invading Iraq, the
> Administration has boldly pursued the idea that Saddam and al Qaeda are
> in cahoots. The CIA and the FBI disagree
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/international/middleeast/02INTE.html>:

Note that the date is after the invasion. Hindsight says they misused
real data. That is not proving a lie. They had the data and placed the
wrong emphasis on it. You have to prove more than that to prove it was a
lie.

>
> /"…analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that
> senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of
> some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible
> links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for
> war, government officials said."/
>
> and…
>
> /"At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they
> were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link
> between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this
> hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's
> there," a government official said."/
>
> *This is consistent *with what they were saying
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14056-2002Oct24.html>
> back in October:
>
> /"They are politicizing intelligence, no question about it," said
> Vincent M. Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief. "And they
> are undertaking a campaign to get George Tenet [the director of central
> intelligence] fired because they can't get him to say what they want on
> Iraq."/

So what makes this FORMER employee more believable than the current
administration? You are choosing to believe what you agree with.

>
> In addition, in a January 30, interview, Blix revealed
> <http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520548.html> that:
>
> /“ …he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al Qaeda,
> which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech.� /

Blix is also a very poor choice for a source based on the politics
involved. IIRC he was the weapons inspector who Bush was claiming had
been kept in the dark. How qualified is he to make statements on other
areas?

>
> *Bush's national security adviser*, Condoleezza Rice alleged that
> al-Qaeda operatives have had a direct relationship with the Iraqi
> government:
>
> /"There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be
> documented,"/
>
> *She did not document them *and a U.S. official, speaking on condition
> of anonymity, indicated the evidence for linkage is tenuous
> <http://www.pressdemocrat.com/efriend/eprint.cfm?eprint=/local/wnews/28iraqfacts_a4.html>,
> based on sources of varying reliability.

So, believing an anonymous source who admits there are some contacts but
claims they are tenuous proves she is lying when she says there are
contacts? Sorry, but not strong enough evidence for me.
> *So, in summary*, remember that you will always be closer to the truth
> if you simply disbelieve whatever the Administration says.

Without going through the rest of your evidence piece by piece, it looks
like you are choosing who to believe based on your statement above. In
each case, you are taking some statement or later action to try to prove
Bush deliberately lied and it does not do so. Even the conclusion that
there has been no weapons found does not prove Bush lied, just that he
was mistaken, which is a different thing altogether.

I am sorry, but looking objectively at the evidence, I don't see the
proof that Bush lied.

>>> BTW, our military handily won the war; Bush and Rumsfeld have lost
>>> the occupation. Even George's daddy was too wise to get bogged down
>>> in an occupation he knew we cannot win.
>>
>> No, The elder bush was stopped because he went in on a treaty
>> obligation and the obligation had very specific limits on it. If he
>> could have done so, Bush the Elder would have taken Hussein down also,
>> and that would have obligated us to stay there.
>
> Wrong. I'll prove it in the Bush family's own words.
>
> "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
> explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for
> the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved
> and when they will be withdrawn."
> -George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999

This has nothing to do with anything the Elder Bush did or could have
done, and you know it.

>
> "Had we gone the invasion route, the United States would end up an
> occupying force in a bitterly hostile land."
> --- George H. W. Bush, 1993

As I said before, this is a politician making a statement to uphold what
he had to do anyway. It is an accurate statement also,but it does not
prove that he would not have done it if he could have done so.

>
>>
>>> Popeye, think about something. I trained 6 weeks in basic and another
>>> 10 weeks in AIT and the US Army considered me fully trained to fight
>>> America's battles. I assume your story is similar? Twenty weeks from
>>> standing on a corner to trained soldier. We've been training Iraqis
>>> going on four years to fight their own battles, and they still can't
>>> make their own camps safe from looters.
>>
>> If this is the best example of your thinking ability, it is very clear
>> that the Army was mistaken about you. You are comparing training an
>> individual soldier with an established infrastructure to trying to
>> establish the infrastructure and train the soldiers at the same time.
>> Consider how many years it took to get the NCO's trained to teach you,
>> and ask yourself how long we can expect it to take to train the NCO's
>> in Iraq. And that is without the officers and higher ranking NCO's to
>> consider, let alone the establishing of the rest of the infrastructure.
>
>
> You ignore something. This was not grabbing people off the street.
> Iraq's army was larger than ours--half the population was already
> trained for war: they fought Iran to a standstill (using WMDs sold to
> her by the US). Even Rumsfeld has said it "was probably a mistake" to
> totally dismantle Iraq's existing army and police at the time of the
> invasion.

Again, you show a bad logic. The Iraqi Army was decimated in fighting
against us, and most especially, we dismantled its infrastructure and
upper management. The new Iraqi government was not going to trust any of
the upper ranking soldiers that had been in Hussein's Army, so we were
essentially starting over again from scratch to build the infrastructure
and management.

> Then there's the example of thirteen small colonies, no military
> training or trainers till late in the War of Independence. Yet we fought
> our own battles and kicked the best trained soldiers on Earth in the
> teeth, the mighty British Empire.

Where do you get that there was no military training or experience in
the colonies? Study history again. For example, Washington was a
military veteran, trained by the British and had served as an officer in
the British Army during earlier wars against the Indians.

We had an infrastructure and we used experienced men for the war. And
note that it took years, even with the impetus of an on-going war that
was supported by the populace to get a properly armed, equipped, and
managed Army.

And you also ignore history if you think we fought all our own battles
and kicked the British in the teeth. You forget that their Army and
attention was also tied up with other things, especially during the
start of the war, and you forget that there are very strong arguments
that we could not have won the war without the help of the French.

Steve Rothstein

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:53:13 GMT, Stephan Rothstein
> wrote:

>gringo wrote:
>> The war is legal and honorable *for the soldiers* who are doing the
>> fighting and dying. It is dishonorable for the nation--because most of
>> us sat mute while Bush lied us into it.
>
>I am not as sure as you that we sat quietly by or that Bush lied to us
>about it. I thought he was very clear about why we were there. I
>disagreed with his reasoning, but I have yet to find any evidence of a
>lie. And I define lie as any deliberate attempt to mislead me, not just
>as a false statement.

I seem to recall something about attempts to aquire Uranium from
Niger. I recall Rumsfeld talking to the UN. I can recall all sorts of
administration official statements that they must have known were
false long before they made them.
>
>> BTW, our military handily won
>> the war; Bush and Rumsfeld have lost the occupation. Even George's
>> daddy was too wise to get bogged down in an occupation he knew we cannot
>> win.
>
>No, The elder bush was stopped because he went in on a treaty obligation
>and the obligation had very specific limits on it. If he could have done
>so, Bush the Elder would have taken Hussein down also, and that would
>have obligated us to stay there.

Yes, and if Bush the Younger had paid some attention to our allies, we
wouldn't be bogged down there today. Gas would be cheaper, and we
might even have managed to do something about alQaeda.
>
>> Popeye, think about something. I trained 6 weeks in basic and
>> another 10 weeks in AIT and the US Army considered me fully trained to
>> fight America's battles. I assume your story is similar? Twenty weeks
>> from standing on a corner to trained soldier. We've been training
>> Iraqis going on four years to fight their own battles, and they still
>> can't make their own camps safe from looters.
>
>If this is the best example of your thinking ability, it is very clear
>that the Army was mistaken about you. You are comparing training an
>individual soldier with an established infrastructure to trying to
>establish the infrastructure and train the soldiers at the same time.
>Consider how many years it took to get the NCO's trained to teach you,
>and ask yourself how long we can expect it to take to train the NCO's in
>Iraq. And that is without the officers and higher ranking NCO's to
>consider, let alone the establishing of the rest of the infrastructure.

There is a problem, of course. There are plenty of experienced Iraqi
non-coms, but most of them seem to be in the resistance.
>
>> No, Halliburton has
>> earned enough; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld have been screwing our nation long
>> enough.
>
>I have to agree that I feel Bush has been screwing our country long
>enough. Fortunately, I also understand he has two more years and there
>is very little I can do about it. IF, and it is a very big if, you can
>get some evidence of an impeachable offense, I would be happy to see him
>out earlier. I just don't think it is going to happen.
>
We not only need an impeachable offense, there would have to be
democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature. There are
plenty of offenses out their waiting for use, but no point in using
them if they aren't going to go anywhere.

Al Moore
DoD 734

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:32:51 -0500, gringo > wrote:

<snip>

>> gringo, if you are going to rely on the crap on the Democratic
>> Underground's web site rather than finding the truth, you're not woth
>> the time and effort to discuss things with.
>>
>> Este cabron no tiene cesos.
>>
>>
>Usted es demasiado ignorante respirar a menos que alguien constantemente
>lo patee en el como.
>
>
>Why do research for one who is too ****ing stupid to understand it. Take
>reading lessons. George says that he larned a lot plodding through "My
>Pet Goat" and the third graders who helped him with the big words.

They did figure out his problem eventually.

http://www.truckerphoto.com/Bush%20w...own%20book.jpg

Al Moore
DoD 734

Alan Moore wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:32:51 -0500, gringo > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>> gringo, if you are going to rely on the crap on the Democratic
>>> Underground's web site rather than finding the truth, you're not woth
>>> the time and effort to discuss things with.
>>>
>>> Este cabron no tiene cesos.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Usted es demasiado ignorante respirar a menos que alguien constantemente
>> lo patee en el como.
>>
>>
>> Why do research for one who is too ****ing stupid to understand it. Take
>> reading lessons. George says that he larned a lot plodding through "My
>> Pet Goat" and the third graders who helped him with the big words.
>>
>
> They did figure out his problem eventually.
>
> http://www.truckerphoto.com/Bush%20w...own%20book.jpg
>
> Al Moore
> DoD 734
>


LOL. He is a stupid ****, ain't he.

--
*fas-cism* (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.
-- The American Heritage Dictionary, 1983



"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
------George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999

Alan Moore wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:53:13 GMT, Stephan Rothstein
> > wrote:
>
>> gringo wrote:
>>> The war is legal and honorable *for the soldiers* who are doing the
>>> fighting and dying. It is dishonorable for the nation--because most of
>>> us sat mute while Bush lied us into it.
>> I am not as sure as you that we sat quietly by or that Bush lied to us
>> about it. I thought he was very clear about why we were there. I
>> disagreed with his reasoning, but I have yet to find any evidence of a
>> lie. And I define lie as any deliberate attempt to mislead me, not just
>> as a false statement.
>
> I seem to recall something about attempts to aquire Uranium from
> Niger. I recall Rumsfeld talking to the UN. I can recall all sorts of
> administration official statements that they must have known were
> false long before they made them.

I would love to see any proof that they knew the statements were false
at the time they made them. So far, all I have seen is admissions that
they were taken in by forged intel, or that they may have misapplied
some of the intel they did have. That is not lying, just being mistaken.


>>> BTW, our military handily won
>>> the war; Bush and Rumsfeld have lost the occupation. Even George's
>>> daddy was too wise to get bogged down in an occupation he knew we cannot
>>> win.
>> No, The elder bush was stopped because he went in on a treaty obligation
>> and the obligation had very specific limits on it. If he could have done
>> so, Bush the Elder would have taken Hussein down also, and that would
>> have obligated us to stay there.
>
> Yes, and if Bush the Younger had paid some attention to our allies, we
> wouldn't be bogged down there today. Gas would be cheaper, and we
> might even have managed to do something about alQaeda.

Yeah, allies like France and Germany that were trading with Iran despite
their agreements not to, or like the UN and their oil for food program?
Sorry, but I cannot fault Bush for taking an independent stance based on
what he feels best for our country, and without regard to what is best
for other countries. He is supposed to be looking out for our interests,
and so far, all I have seen is proof that he made some errors while
doing his best to do that. No proof yet of any deliberate lies.

>>> Popeye, think about something. I trained 6 weeks in basic and
>>> another 10 weeks in AIT and the US Army considered me fully trained to
>>> fight America's battles. I assume your story is similar? Twenty weeks
>>> from standing on a corner to trained soldier. We've been training
>>> Iraqis going on four years to fight their own battles, and they still
>>> can't make their own camps safe from looters.
>> If this is the best example of your thinking ability, it is very clear
>> that the Army was mistaken about you. You are comparing training an
>> individual soldier with an established infrastructure to trying to
>> establish the infrastructure and train the soldiers at the same time.
>> Consider how many years it took to get the NCO's trained to teach you,
>> and ask yourself how long we can expect it to take to train the NCO's in
>> Iraq. And that is without the officers and higher ranking NCO's to
>> consider, let alone the establishing of the rest of the infrastructure.
>
> There is a problem, of course. There are plenty of experienced Iraqi
> non-coms, but most of them seem to be in the resistance.
>>> No, Halliburton has
>>> earned enough; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld have been screwing our nation long
>>> enough.
>> I have to agree that I feel Bush has been screwing our country long
>> enough. Fortunately, I also understand he has two more years and there
>> is very little I can do about it. IF, and it is a very big if, you can
>> get some evidence of an impeachable offense, I would be happy to see him
>> out earlier. I just don't think it is going to happen.
>>
> We not only need an impeachable offense, there would have to be
> democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature. There are
> plenty of offenses out their waiting for use, but no point in using
> them if they aren't going to go anywhere.


Sorry, but again I disagree. You need an impeachable offense, and there
has not yet been any proof of one committed. I have not yet heard any
allegations of one committed, let alone proof. I am convinced, though I
freely admit I could be wrong, that there are enough honest (well, as
honest as any politician ever is) congressmen that if Bush committed an
impeachable offense, he would be impeached.

Steve Rothstein

Alan Moore wrote:

>
> >I am not as sure as you that we sat quietly by or that Bush lied to us
> >about it. I thought he was very clear about why we were there. I
> >disagreed with his reasoning, but I have yet to find any evidence of a
> >lie. And I define lie as any deliberate attempt to mislead me, not just
> >as a false statement.
>
> I seem to recall something about attempts to aquire Uranium from
> Niger. I recall Rumsfeld talking to the UN. I can recall all sorts of
> administration official statements that they must have known were
> false long before they made them.

They came up with some paperwork that indicated the sale of some yellowcake to
Iraq. A CIA agent went to investigate and discovered that it was untrue and
that the paperwork was fraudulent. In retaliation, the administration leaked
the identity of a CIA operative, which in my opinion, is a serious offence.


> >No, The elder bush was stopped because he went in on a treaty obligation
> >and the obligation had very specific limits on it. If he could have done
> >so, Bush the Elder would have taken Hussein down also, and that would
> >have obligated us to stay there.
>
> Yes, and if Bush the Younger had paid some attention to our allies, we
> wouldn't be bogged down there today. Gas would be cheaper, and we
> might even have managed to do something about alQaeda.

True. Your friends tried to tell you that it was not a good idea, that they
didn't believe that Saddam had WMDs and more important, that invading Iraq and
ousting Saddam would open up a hornets nest. Bush got all snotty over his
allies refusing to jump at his command and started with the for us or against
us crap.

> There is a problem, of course. There are plenty of experienced Iraqi
> non-coms, but most of them seem to be in the resistance.

They went to ground when the war start. Any fool could predict that the Iraqis
had to know they could not beat the US in a conventional war. They stashed
their arms and supplies and went underground to fight a war of insurgency.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:47:24 -0500, gringo > wrote:

>Alan Moore wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:32:51 -0500, gringo > wrote:

>>
>> They did figure out his problem eventually.
>>
>> http://www.truckerphoto.com/Bush%20w...own%20book.jpg
>>
>> Al Moore
>> DoD 734
>>
>
>
>LOL. He is a stupid ****, ain't he.

Never heard of Photoshop, have you, tonto?

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:32:51 -0500, gringo > wrote:

>You're too ****ing stupid to breathe without help. There is ZERO
>documentation proving that Saddam Hussein ever had possession of
>weapons-grade uranium or the materials for making same.

gringo, you're even dumber than you originally appear. Check here or
find the Butler Report itself.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

gringo is a typical Democrat whiner; too freaking stupid to be bothered
to find the facts; gets all his info from the Democratic Undergraound.

What a putz.

>>>
>>>
>>> Why do research for one who is too ****ing stupid to understand it. Take
>>> reading lessons. George says that he larned a lot plodding through "My
>>> Pet Goat" and the third graders who helped him with the big words.
>>>
>>
>> They did figure out his problem eventually.
>>
>> http://www.truckerphoto.com/Bush%20w...own%20book.jpg
>>
>> Al Moore
>> DoD 734
>>
>
>
> LOL. He is a stupid ****, ain't he.
> --
Not as stupid as someone who believes that photo! Do you really think the
photographer would have allowed that?