On Sunday 30 March 2003 20:51, Andrew Mathews wrote:
> Lee wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >
> And they turned in the 12,000 pounds of missing anthrax, ricin, and
> assorted gasses gas to who? I don't want to be the one discovering it as
> it slowly vaporizes above our heads.

And where did you get this figure? The UN inspectors haven't made that claim. 
The only figure that came up was when Bush was playing heads I win tails you 
lose with Iraq, or the Bush version of if you admit it we'll go to war with 
you for having it, if you deny it then you're lying and we'll go to war with 
you for lying. 
>
> >SNIP

> So who's speaking the truth and who's lying, and how will you know?

I read more than Republican Party literature. Example: the story about Bush 
knowing his claim that Iraq was buying nuclear material from Nigeria was 
based on forged documents and the names of the CIA analysis who blew the 
whistle on little Georgie ran in the New York Times two days ago. As for the 
constant dance on the reasons just why we're going to war you had to look no 
further than the Newspaper headlines since 9/11. First the media tagged it as 
the War on Terrorism based on Bush's claims, then when no link could be 
found, we switched to the war on weapons of mass destruction based on info 
like the forged Nigeria documents and claims of evidence that was on a need 
to know basis. As if the average citizen has no right to know just why he and 
his children are being dragged into a war that has no reason beyond the fact 
that Iraq made Georgie's daddy look bad.  
>
> >SNIP 
> That's very demeaning to your own intelligence. Do you categorize
> everyone in that manner to qualify your own sense of self worth and
> argumentative justifications? If that's the type of hypocritical
> generalizations that you sincerely believe are true, then I have to
> question your ability to discern truth from fiction. The dignity of your
> service is tainted by your prejudicial statements, and I'm a bit ashamed
> to have even acknowledged this as a worthy comment, as it's certainly
> not an intelligent argument, only the sadly mistaken comment from one
> who can only criticize, condemn, and complain, while offering no
> substantiative solution of their own.

As for Bush and the truth look no further than General Walker who told the 
press that the war wasn't going as planned and that it would last longer than 
expected. Bush and his Washington party circuit generals didn't waste any 
time slapping him down and reassuring the media that things were going as 
planned. Apparently, Bush and his toadies want us to believe that they 
expected their supply column to bog down and become a target for rag-heads 
with 303s, and the advance would stop for lack of troops that had to be 
reassigned to guard the supply train, or the marine battalion that was told 
that they were going to be sent home and has just been assigned to help guard 
the supply lines.But, Bush claims that they expected this all along! Duh.



The name calling was started by the brain dead jingoes slapping a label of 
Commie, peacenik, socialist, liberal, and non-Christian on anyone who dared 
to question the motives for war. When it comes to defending this country I 
and 50,000 others who didn't come back from Viet Nam did our part. The draft 
dodger in the White House didn't. But don't worry about it. You jingoes can 
feel good about yourselves by reading passages from Bush's war record between 
chorus' s of Remember the Maine.  


_______________________________________________
General mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/general

Reply via email to