Lenophis
08-25-2004, 10:57 AM
Link (http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/000181.php), n stuff. This is very long, disproving a lot of what Bush has done over the last few years.
28) Regarding the alleged Iraqi-ordered assassination attempt on George H. W. Bush:
"A senior White House official recently told me that one of the seemingly most persuasive elements of the report had been overstated and was essentially incorrect (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02)," said Seymour Hersh in a 1993 article. "And none of the Clinton Administration officials have claimed that there was any empirical evidence - a 'smoking gun' -directly linking Saddam or any of his senior advisers to the alleged assassination attempt. The case against Iraq was, and remains, circumstantial."
Intelligent people have been saying that for a while. Only some crazy people are exaggerating it. Who am I referring to? [/sarcasm]
30) And finally there is my favorite, the British Dossier, a highly anticipated document, touted as the piece of the puzzle that would unconditionally convince the world that Saddam is the greatest threat to humanity since...well... since George W. Bush.
That's right. it was revealed that the UK dossier on Iraq is a sham (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,890916,00.html):
"Downing Street was last night plunged into acute international embarrassment after it emerged that large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" - were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old."
So did "Downing Street" apologize for deceiving the world and presenting heavily plagiarized, years-old information put together by post-graduate students in California? Not on your life. Even after being caught red-handed, they brazenly and unapologetically retorted:
"Dismissing the gathering controversy as the latest example of media obsession with spin, officials insisted it in no way undermines the underlying truth of the dossier, whose contents had been re-checked with British intelligence sources. 'The important thing is that it is accurate,' said one source."
It was not accurate.
So, in summary, remember that you will always be closer to the truth if you simply disbelieve whatever the Administration says. As a rule of thumb, you should remember what the UN inspectors said about the information that they regularly receive from the Bush Administration:
"U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another'. So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage."
30 points in all, I chose 28 and 30 obviously, any thoughts? Remember, I "believe everything I read." [/Danoz]
Personally, I still like it when a CBS Sunday morning political show (Face the Nation) ridiculed Rumsfeld by playing his own "significant threat" back at him. (It was him or Cheney, but because it was one of them quoting that Iraq was a significant threat, then they didn't say it, and actually said that Iraq was never a significant threat.) <img src=smilies/sleep.gif>
<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>
28) Regarding the alleged Iraqi-ordered assassination attempt on George H. W. Bush:
"A senior White House official recently told me that one of the seemingly most persuasive elements of the report had been overstated and was essentially incorrect (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02)," said Seymour Hersh in a 1993 article. "And none of the Clinton Administration officials have claimed that there was any empirical evidence - a 'smoking gun' -directly linking Saddam or any of his senior advisers to the alleged assassination attempt. The case against Iraq was, and remains, circumstantial."
Intelligent people have been saying that for a while. Only some crazy people are exaggerating it. Who am I referring to? [/sarcasm]
30) And finally there is my favorite, the British Dossier, a highly anticipated document, touted as the piece of the puzzle that would unconditionally convince the world that Saddam is the greatest threat to humanity since...well... since George W. Bush.
That's right. it was revealed that the UK dossier on Iraq is a sham (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,890916,00.html):
"Downing Street was last night plunged into acute international embarrassment after it emerged that large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" - were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old."
So did "Downing Street" apologize for deceiving the world and presenting heavily plagiarized, years-old information put together by post-graduate students in California? Not on your life. Even after being caught red-handed, they brazenly and unapologetically retorted:
"Dismissing the gathering controversy as the latest example of media obsession with spin, officials insisted it in no way undermines the underlying truth of the dossier, whose contents had been re-checked with British intelligence sources. 'The important thing is that it is accurate,' said one source."
It was not accurate.
So, in summary, remember that you will always be closer to the truth if you simply disbelieve whatever the Administration says. As a rule of thumb, you should remember what the UN inspectors said about the information that they regularly receive from the Bush Administration:
"U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another'. So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage."
30 points in all, I chose 28 and 30 obviously, any thoughts? Remember, I "believe everything I read." [/Danoz]
Personally, I still like it when a CBS Sunday morning political show (Face the Nation) ridiculed Rumsfeld by playing his own "significant threat" back at him. (It was him or Cheney, but because it was one of them quoting that Iraq was a significant threat, then they didn't say it, and actually said that Iraq was never a significant threat.) <img src=smilies/sleep.gif>
<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>