On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 21:09:56 -0500, Peter A >
wrote:

>In article <z7IFh.6686$Rf7.1968@trnddc02>,
>says...
>> Tell it to them. All of a sudden what the claimed was a moral outrage is
>> suddenly a non-issue.
>>
>
>Sort of like the hypocrites that fumed and bloviated about Clinton's
>moral objection to the Vietnam war and then ignored Shrubby's cowardly
>behavior and AWOL.

Another left wingnut fantasy. Bush had more then enough requirements
to be discharged. Was never Awol.

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 15:46:06 -0500, Peter A >
wrote:


>> And the wing nut left, continues their mantra "Bush Lied".
>> Two bipartisan committees said he didn't.
>>
>
>Two bipartisan committees with Republican majorities.
Oh and the Dems went along with the report, because there were Repub.
majorities?
>
>There are dozens and dozens of well-documented incidents of Bush or his
>administration presenting information that they either knew was false or
>should have known was false, by any reasonable measure of competence.

So all the Dems that went along with these incidents, were
incompetence? Gee some of those dems are running for president.

The big lie will no longer work.

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:24:55 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:


>
>But they had such good proof of Saddam's vast arsenal of WMDs.
Was that the same proof that Clinton, and most other Dems in congress,
agreed with?, And were did the WMDs go? Some old ones were found.

> Then there was the outing of the wife of the
>diplomat who revealed the forgery as a CIA agent.

She wasn't and agent she was an annalist, and she was the one who
suggested her husband for a nepotistic investigation.
Further more her husband, was the one to have problems with the truth,
in his report.

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:59:07 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> wrote:

>
>Most of the "intel" on Iraq came from a CIA informant long known to them as
>Curveball. He was regarded as a totally unreliable hack, an alcoholic and a
>serial liar. But he told them what they wanted to hear including the vast
>fleets of mobile bacteria labs.
>
>Paul
>
Tell me, was this same "Curveball" agent, also working for the
Russians, and British, and other security services?

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:56:31 -0600, Emma Thackery >
wrote:


>At a fundraiser for Rep. Rick Renzi, Bush said, "One hundred and
>seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we
>ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists' ".
I seem to remember a lot of Dems condemning listening to the
conversations of terrorist.
>
>Yet the White House staff was unable to document a single instance of
>even one democrat who said that or anything like it.

> Bush also lied and
>was deliberately misleading when he said the White House had no warnings
>about 9-11. They in fact had at least several warnings about planes
>being flown into buildings.
From what I remember, one FBI agent questioned the number of arab male
aliens, attending flight school. No I could be wrong so some cites
would be appreciated.
>
>Bush lies and makes misleading, silly-sophistic statements all the time
>as do others in his bungling administration. He is a person of
>uncommonly feckless character, incapable of defending the staggering
>incompetence of his administration with anything but lies and utterly
>dopey, imbecilic rhetoric.

And now you are getting into your opinions, and not facts.
Because in my opinion, the above might be imbecilic rhetoric, but that
would be a personal attack and have no meaning.

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:27:37 -0600, Pan Ohco > wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:56:31 -0600, Emma Thackery >
>wrote:
>
>
>>At a fundraiser for Rep. Rick Renzi, Bush said, "One hundred and
>>seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we
>>ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists' ".
>I seem to remember a lot of Dems condemning listening to the
>conversations of terrorist.
>>

you seem to remember a lot of things that aren't true. they objected
to listening to american citizens *without getting a warrant*, which
is required by the constitution, and could be obtained with about as
much effort as going to the post office. here's a clue: rush
limbaugh is not the best source of information on this or any other
topic.

your pal,
blake

your pal,
blake

In article >,
Pan Ohco > wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:56:31 -0600, Emma Thackery >
> wrote:
>
> >At a fundraiser for Rep. Rick Renzi, Bush said, "One hundred and
> >seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we
> >ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists' ".

> I seem to remember a lot of Dems condemning listening to the
> conversations of terrorist.

Dems? Oooh.... Rovespeak. Well aren't you just out to dazzle everyone
with your language acuity and long-term recall. It must be so difficult
for someone as enrightened as you to pull yourself away from those
sacred sleazocon slimers like Coulter and Limbaugh. I suggest you just
add me to your "evildoers" file and run off to grab the latest copy of
the Washington Times.

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 15:46:06 -0500, Peter A >
> wrote:
>
>
> >> And the wing nut left, continues their mantra "Bush Lied".
> >> Two bipartisan committees said he didn't.
> >>
> >
> >Two bipartisan committees with Republican majorities.
> Oh and the Dems went along with the report, because there were Repub.
> majorities?
> >
> >There are dozens and dozens of well-documented incidents of Bush or his
> >administration presenting information that they either knew was false or
> >should have known was false, by any reasonable measure of competence.
>
> So all the Dems that went along with these incidents, were
> incompetence? Gee some of those dems are running for president.
>
> The big lie will no longer work.

The only big lie was the one told by Bush. That the dems and everyone else
believed it at the time is not something that can be held against them. All
of this has come out long after the fact. And a great many republicans who
went along have now withdrawn that support in light of the truth.

Paul

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:21:20 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> wrote:


>
>The only big lie was the one told by Bush. That the dems and everyone else
>believed it at the time is not something that can be held against them. All
>of this has come out long after the fact. And a great many republicans who
>went along have now withdrawn that support in light of the truth.
>
>Paul
>
So Paul, when a Democrat, with access to the same information as a
Republican, reaches the same conclusion as the Republican, only the
Republican lied.

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:00:53 GMT, blake murphy >
wrote:

>>I seem to remember a lot of Dems condemning listening to the
>>conversations of terrorist.
>>>
>
>you seem to remember a lot of things that aren't true. they objected
>to listening to american citizens *without getting a warrant*, which
>is required by the constitution, and could be obtained with about as
>much effort as going to the post office. here's a clue: rush
>limbaugh is not the best source of information on this or any other
>topic.
>
So if an american is talking to a terrorist, you can only listen to
the terrorist side?

Oh by the way, I haven't listen to Rush in about 15 years.

Personal attacks lessen the impact of your statements.

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:28:13 -0600, Emma Thackery >
wrote:


>
>> I seem to remember a lot of Dems condemning listening to the
>> conversations of terrorist.
>
>Dems? Oooh.... Rovespeak. Well aren't you just out to dazzle everyone
>with your language acuity and long-term recall. It must be so difficult
>for someone as enrightened as you to pull yourself away from those
>sacred sleazocon slimers like Coulter and Limbaugh. I suggest you just
>add me to your "evildoers" file and run off to grab the latest copy of
>the Washington Times.

Personal attacks will not dazzle anyone, with your language acuity.
I don't think that your an evildoer, I just wish you would stick with
factual arguments.

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:56:31 -0600, Emma Thackery >
> wrote:
>
>
>>At a fundraiser for Rep. Rick Renzi, Bush said, "One hundred and
>>seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we
>>ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists' ".
> I seem to remember a lot of Dems condemning listening to the
> conversations of terrorist.
>>
>>Yet the White House staff was unable to document a single instance of
>>even one democrat who said that or anything like it.
>
>> Bush also lied and
>>was deliberately misleading when he said the White House had no warnings
>>about 9-11. They in fact had at least several warnings about planes
>>being flown into buildings.
> From what I remember, one FBI agent questioned the number of arab male
> aliens, attending flight school. No I could be wrong so some cites
> would be appreciated.
>>
>>Bush lies and makes misleading, silly-sophistic statements all the time
>>as do others in his bungling administration. He is a person of
>>uncommonly feckless character, incapable of defending the staggering
>>incompetence of his administration with anything but lies and utterly
>>dopey, imbecilic rhetoric.
>
> And now you are getting into your opinions, and not facts.
> Because in my opinion, the above might be imbecilic rhetoric, but that
> would be a personal attack and have no meaning.
>

lol

You sound upset about something. Your boy going down in FLAMES,
maybe? wah hahahaa

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:21:20 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >The only big lie was the one told by Bush. That the dems and everyone
else
> >believed it at the time is not something that can be held against them.
All
> >of this has come out long after the fact. And a great many republicans
who
> >went along have now withdrawn that support in light of the truth.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> So Paul, when a Democrat, with access to the same information as a
> Republican, reaches the same conclusion as the Republican, only the
> Republican lied.


You have it all wrong. The "intelligence" itself was all a pack of lies.
Bush lied. His lies were believed at the time and for those who were
dubious they felt they had no choice but to take him at his word. His
evidence was later found to be extremely dubious. His sources were found to
be crackpots. He lied. He fabricated intelligence, cherry picked the rest
and took still more completely out of context. The whole of Congress was
duped. And you apparently still remain duped even in light of the truth
having emerged.

Paul

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:00:53 GMT, blake murphy >
> wrote:
>
> >>I seem to remember a lot of Dems condemning listening to the
> >>conversations of terrorist.
> >>>
> >
> >you seem to remember a lot of things that aren't true. they objected
> >to listening to american citizens *without getting a warrant*, which
> >is required by the constitution, and could be obtained with about as
> >much effort as going to the post office. here's a clue: rush
> >limbaugh is not the best source of information on this or any other
> >topic.
> >
> So if an american is talking to a terrorist, you can only listen to
> the terrorist side?
>

Bush had ALL the power he needed to monitor ANY call he wanted to - but he
had to go through the legal process of informing a FISA judge. He even
could monitor the call and then had 72 hours to tell the judge. What he did
was to do it completely OUTSIDE of the law. Why? Well obviously he knew
that even the FISA court would deny his request because he wanted to do it
in complete secrecy. Even today they refuse to release details of whose
calls they listened in on and have ignored judges rulings on the matter. It
was a blatant and flagrant violation of the Constitution and the existing
FISA laws.

> Oh by the way, I haven't listen to Rush in about 15 years.

Sure, sure. Funny thing about Limbaugh's listernership - they almost always
deny listinening to him.

> Personal attacks lessen the impact of your statements.

Rush Limbaugh will one day be a synonym for idiot. Even more so than he is
now.

Paul

In article <1F6Gh.348$NA4.174@trnddc07>,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:

> You have it all wrong. The "intelligence" itself was all a pack of lies.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee>

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 04:23:13 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> wrote:

>
>"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
.. .

>> So if an american is talking to a terrorist, you can only listen to
>> the terrorist side?
>>
>
>Bush had ALL the power he needed to monitor ANY call he wanted to - but he
>had to go through the legal process of informing a FISA judge. He even
>could monitor the call and then had 72 hours to tell the judge. What he did
>was to do it completely OUTSIDE of the law. Why? Well obviously he knew
>that even the FISA court would deny his request because he wanted to do it
>in complete secrecy. Even today they refuse to release details of whose
>calls they listened in on and have ignored judges rulings on the matter. It
>was a blatant and flagrant violation of the Constitution and the existing
>FISA laws.

Isn't it nice when you can ask a question and answer it, with no
facts, or cites, but just with your opinion.
>
>> Oh by the way, I haven't listen to Rush in about 15 years.
>
>Sure, sure. Funny thing about Limbaugh's listernership - they almost always
>deny listinening to him.
Once again your assumptions are wrong. But then personal attacks,
generally are.

>Rush Limbaugh will one day be a synonym for idiot. Even more so than he is
>now.
>
Isn't it nice that a liberal can find a drug abuser that he dislikes?
>

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 04:17:01 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> wrote:


>> So Paul, when a Democrat, with access to the same information as a
>> Republican, reaches the same conclusion as the Republican, only the
>> Republican lied.
>
>
>You have it all wrong. The "intelligence" itself was all a pack of lies.
>Bush lied. His lies were believed at the time and for those who were
>dubious they felt they had no choice but to take him at his word. His
>evidence was later found to be extremely dubious. His sources were found to
>be crackpots. He lied. He fabricated intelligence, cherry picked the rest
>and took still more completely out of context. The whole of Congress was
>duped. And you apparently still remain duped even in light of the truth
>having emerged.
>
>Paul
>
No Paul , two bipartisan committees determined that there was no ,
cherry picking nor lies. The findings of the two committees was bad
intelligence, not malfeasance.
And the Democratic member of the intelligence committee had access to
the same intelligence as the president.

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:30:21 -0600, Pan Ohco > wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:00:53 GMT, blake murphy >
>wrote:
>
>>>I seem to remember a lot of Dems condemning listening to the
>>>conversations of terrorist.
>>>>
>>
>>you seem to remember a lot of things that aren't true. they objected
>>to listening to american citizens *without getting a warrant*, which
>>is required by the constitution, and could be obtained with about as
>>much effort as going to the post office. here's a clue: rush
>>limbaugh is not the best source of information on this or any other
>>topic.
>>
>So if an american is talking to a terrorist, you can only listen to
>the terrorist side?
>
presumably you would have been listening to the terrorist. bush
decided that if any citizen had a conversation with a 'suspected
terrorist,' or made any foreign phone calls of any kind, he could
listen to *all* of that citizen's conversations *without a warrant*,
which was not difficult to get.

>Oh by the way, I haven't listen to Rush in about 15 years.
>
if not rush, some other echo of karl rove's talking points. it
doesn't really matter who.

>Personal attacks lessen the impact of your statements.

i didn't see it as a personal attack. you complained upthread about
someone's argument lacking facts. i'm saying regurgitations of
questionable assertions by the administration are not facts.

these people seem to find it easier to lie than tell the truth in most
instances. bush himself has referred to the constitution as 'a piece
of paper.' if you believe that as well, i guess everything is
jim-dandy. i do not.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:44:57 -0500, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>
>"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:56:31 -0600, Emma Thackery >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>At a fundraiser for Rep. Rick Renzi, Bush said, "One hundred and
>>>seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we
>>>ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists' ".
>> I seem to remember a lot of Dems condemning listening to the
>> conversations of terrorist.
>>>
>>>Yet the White House staff was unable to document a single instance of
>>>even one democrat who said that or anything like it.
>>
>>> Bush also lied and
>>>was deliberately misleading when he said the White House had no warnings
>>>about 9-11. They in fact had at least several warnings about planes
>>>being flown into buildings.
>> From what I remember, one FBI agent questioned the number of arab male
>> aliens, attending flight school. No I could be wrong so some cites
>> would be appreciated.
>>>
>>>Bush lies and makes misleading, silly-sophistic statements all the time
>>>as do others in his bungling administration. He is a person of
>>>uncommonly feckless character, incapable of defending the staggering
>>>incompetence of his administration with anything but lies and utterly
>>>dopey, imbecilic rhetoric.
>>
>> And now you are getting into your opinions, and not facts.
>> Because in my opinion, the above might be imbecilic rhetoric, but that
>> would be a personal attack and have no meaning.
>>
>
>lol
>
>You sound upset about something. Your boy going down in FLAMES,
>maybe? wah hahahaa
>

how the midget has fallen.

your pal,
blake

Pan Ohco wrote:
>
>
> >But they had such good proof of Saddam's vast arsenal of WMDs.
> Was that the same proof that Clinton, and most other Dems in congress,
> agreed with?, And were did the WMDs go? Some old ones were found.
>
> > Then there was the outing of the wife of the
> >diplomat who revealed the forgery as a CIA agent.
>
> She wasn't and agent she was an annalist,

She wasn't an agent? That is odd because I did a quick Google search and
all the sites that cam back indicated that she was a CIA agent. I suppose
that it is remotely possible that they are all wrong and you are right.

> and she was the one who > suggested her husband for a nepotistic investigation.

According to the Washington Post, senior CIA disagree with that suggestion.
He was sleeted to go by the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation
division (CPD)because he had previous been to Nigeria on a similar
project, and his wife was asked on the day of his selection to write a
memo about his credentials.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081001918.html


> Further more her husband, was the one to have problems with the truth,
> in his report.


He has a credibility problem??? That is interesting in view of the fact
that you say she was not a CIA while other more credible sources say that
she was. You say that it was her idea to send him to Nigeria but more
credible sources say she did not. After posting untruths on those two
issues you expect us to dismiss him because you, having had problems with
the truth in those first two issues, suggest that he lied. Good luck on
that one.

Face it. Your administration got caught in a lie. One of their lies was
that the Saddam was getting uranium from Nigeria. Someone was sent to check
it out. He reported that it didn't happen. Then he heard the president say
it happened. He went public. The administration then tried to attack his
credibility. They exposed his wife as a CIA agent and then lied about doing
that. It is generally not a good idea to use people with a track record
for lying as proof that someone else lied.

In article >,
says...
> No Paul , two bipartisan committees determined that there was no ,
> cherry picking nor lies. The findings of the two committees was bad
> intelligence, not malfeasance.
> And the Democratic member of the intelligence committee had access to
> the same intelligence as the president.
>

Do you depend on Rush and O'Reilly for your news? I think so, because
everything in your post (and 99% of things in your other posts) is
false.

Don't you care about the truth? Don't you care about the US? Apparently
you are so bent on defending Bush and his gaggle of incompetents that
you have totally divorced yourself from truth and patriotism. Shame on
you.

--
Peter Aitken

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 04:17:01 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> So Paul, when a Democrat, with access to the same information as a
> >> Republican, reaches the same conclusion as the Republican, only the
> >> Republican lied.
> >
> >
> >You have it all wrong. The "intelligence" itself was all a pack of lies.
> >Bush lied. His lies were believed at the time and for those who were
> >dubious they felt they had no choice but to take him at his word. His
> >evidence was later found to be extremely dubious. His sources were found
to
> >be crackpots. He lied. He fabricated intelligence, cherry picked the
rest
> >and took still more completely out of context. The whole of Congress was
> >duped. And you apparently still remain duped even in light of the truth
> >having emerged.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> No Paul , two bipartisan committees determined that there was no ,
> cherry picking nor lies. The findings of the two committees was bad
> intelligence, not malfeasance.
> And the Democratic member of the intelligence committee had access to
> the same intelligence as the president.

Except there never has been any committee appointed to investigate the Iraq
intelligence. Not one. As the republicans like to bleat "we are at war and
you do not investigate a war during wartime." And since the war on terra
has no ending, well follow the logic. However investigations are now just
beginning and already what they've uncovered is extremely damning.

As for congressman having the same access to intel, that is absolutely
false. They do not. Perhaps a very few do, who are on select committees
but overall they can not just go into the CIA and demand a briefing. They
are only allowed to see what the WH permits them to see.

You have a very weak grasp of facts and an even weaker grasp of reality.

Paul

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:32:26 -0500, Peter A >
wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>> No Paul , two bipartisan committees determined that there was no ,
>> cherry picking nor lies. The findings of the two committees was bad
>> intelligence, not malfeasance.
>> And the Democratic member of the intelligence committee had access to
>> the same intelligence as the president.
>>
>
>Do you depend on Rush and O'Reilly for your news? I think so, because
>everything in your post (and 99% of things in your other posts) is
>false.
N.B.C,FOX, Wall Street Journal, Mobile Press Register, U.S.A. Today,
News Week, and you?


>
>Don't you care about the truth? Don't you care about the US? Apparently
>you are so bent on defending Bush and his gaggle of incompetents that
>you have totally divorced yourself from truth and patriotism. Shame on
>you.

O.K. Peter prove me wrong, give me cites.
And again personal attacks, and foolish ones at that.

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:57:26 GMT, blake murphy >
wrote:


>
>>Personal attacks lessen the impact of your statements.
>
>i didn't see it as a personal attack. you complained upthread about
>someone's argument lacking facts. i'm saying regurgitations of
>questionable assertions by the administration are not facts.
>
>these people seem to find it easier to lie than tell the truth in most
>instances. bush himself has referred to the constitution as 'a piece
>of paper.' if you believe that as well, i guess everything is
>jim-dandy. i do not.
>
>your pal,
>blake

So Blake what here, in your post is a fact, that you can prove?
Prove me wrong.

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:18:36 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Pan Ohco wrote:
>>
>>
>> >But they had such good proof of Saddam's vast arsenal of WMDs.
>> Was that the same proof that Clinton, and most other Dems in congress,
>> agreed with?, And were did the WMDs go? Some old ones were found.
>>
>> > Then there was the outing of the wife of the
>> >diplomat who revealed the forgery as a CIA agent.
>>
>> She wasn't and agent she was an annalist,
>
>She wasn't an agent? That is odd because I did a quick Google search and
>all the sites that cam back indicated that she was a CIA agent. I suppose
>that it is remotely possible that they are all wrong and you are right.

It might be that she had not been an undercover agent, in over five
years. That may be why Libby is not charged with revealing an under
cover agents identity.
>
>> and she was the one who > suggested her husband for a nepotistic investigation.
>
>According to the Washington Post, senior CIA disagree with that suggestion.
>He was sleeted to go by the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation
>division (CPD)because he had previous been to Nigeria on a similar
>project, and his wife was asked on the day of his selection to write a
>memo about his credentials.
>
>
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081001918.html
>
>
Maybe You shouldn't depend upon the Washington post.

>> Further more her husband, was the one to have problems with the truth,
>> in his report.
>
>
>He has a credibility problem??? That is interesting in view of the fact
>that you say she was not a CIA while other more credible sources say that
>she was. You say that it was her idea to send him to Nigeria but more
>credible sources say she did not.

Robert Novac stated that CIA officials told him that she recommended
that her husband be sent.

>After posting untruths on those two
>issues you expect us to dismiss him because you, having had problems with
>the truth in those first two issues, suggest that he lied. Good luck on
>that one.

Try rechecking the information on her husbands report.
The New York Times, 7/18/04 . Not what you would call a conservatives
news paper
British commission reviewing Intelligence, that Blair use to enter
war, found that Hussein did try to buy uranium in Niger.
French officials also reported that Hussein sought uranium in Niger

Pan Ohco wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >He has a credibility problem??? That is interesting in view of the fact
> >that you say she was not a CIA while other more credible sources say that
> >she was. You say that it was her idea to send him to Nigeria but more
> >credible sources say she did not.
>
> Robert Novac stated that CIA officials told him that she recommended
> that her husband be sent.


There you go with your credibility problem again. Robert Novak reported
"Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested
sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its
counterproliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to
contact him." Notice the difference there. The guys from the adminstration
that is trying to smear Wilson and Plame say that she suggested him while
the CIA says it CFP committee suggested him.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102000874.html




>
> >After posting untruths on those two
> >issues you expect us to dismiss him because you, having had problems with
> >the truth in those first two issues, suggest that he lied. Good luck on
> >that one.
>
> Try rechecking the information on her husbands report.
> The New York Times, 7/18/04 . Not what you would call a conservatives
> news paper
> British commission reviewing Intelligence, that Blair use to enter
> war, found that Hussein did try to buy uranium in Niger.
> French officials also reported that Hussein sought uranium in Niger

Blair was using the uranium story, which had been foisted on him by US
sources, to justify going along with the US. It was pretty embarrassing
for him to go along with the US on the basis of forged documents, so he
insisted that British intelligence had other evidence. A Parliamentary
committee looking into that came to the conclusion that there was no proof
to support the yellow cake claim.

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:03:51 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Pan Ohco wrote:

>> Robert Novac stated that CIA officials told him that she recommended
>> that her husband be sent.
>
>
>There you go with your credibility problem again. Robert Novak reported
>"Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested
>sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its
>counterproliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to
>contact him." Notice the difference there. The guys from the adminstration
>that is trying to smear Wilson and Plame say that she suggested him while
>the CIA says it CFP committee suggested him.
>
You are right I miss typed. So, which part of the government believe.
" Senior Administration " , or the CIA reporting a different story ,
which would get them out of a nepotism charge?
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102000874.html
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >After posting untruths on those two
>> >issues you expect us to dismiss him because you, having had problems with
>> >the truth in those first two issues, suggest that he lied. Good luck on
>> >that one.
>>
>> Try rechecking the information on her husbands report.
>> The New York Times, 7/18/04 . Not what you would call a conservatives
>> news paper
>> British commission reviewing Intelligence, that Blair use to enter
>> war, found that Hussein did try to buy uranium in Niger.
>> French officials also reported that Hussein sought uranium in Niger
>
>Blair was using the uranium story, which had been foisted on him by US
>sources, to justify going along with the US. It was pretty embarrassing
>for him to go along with the US on the basis of forged documents, so he
>insisted that British intelligence had other evidence. A Parliamentary
>committee looking into that came to the conclusion that there was no proof
>to support the yellow cake claim.

Could you give a cite on that Parliamentary committee.
The British commission was reported 2004.

Pan Ohco wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> Try rechecking the information on her husbands report.
> >> The New York Times, 7/18/04 . Not what you would call a conservatives
> >> news paper
> >> British commission reviewing Intelligence, that Blair use to enter
> >> war, found that Hussein did try to buy uranium in Niger.
> >> French officials also reported that Hussein sought uranium in Niger
> >
> >Blair was using the uranium story, which had been foisted on him by US
> >sources, to justify going along with the US. It was pretty embarrassing
> >for him to go along with the US on the basis of forged documents, so he
> >insisted that British intelligence had other evidence. A Parliamentary
> >committee looking into that came to the conclusion that there was no proof
> >to support the yellow cake claim.
>
> Could you give a cite on that Parliamentary committee.
> The British commission was reported 2004.

I am sure that you know how to use Google. You have been passing on every
lie that came your way because it suited your agenda and tried to discredit
everything that contradicts it. I am not going to play that game.

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:55:31 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> wrote:

>
>"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
.. .

>> >and took still more completely out of context. The whole of Congress was
>> >duped.
The whole of congress was duped?
Was both Clintons,Teddy,Kerry ect. duped before Bush became the
president?

>> No Paul , two bipartisan committees determined that there was no ,
>> cherry picking nor lies. The findings of the two committees was bad
>> intelligence, not malfeasance.
>> And the Democratic member of the intelligence committee had access to
>> the same intelligence as the president.
>
>Except there never has been any committee appointed to investigate the Iraq
>intelligence.

Your right no committee was appointed. But the Senate Intelligence
committee, in the Robb-Silberman commission looked into the pre war
intelligence, and said Bush didn't lie.

>As for congressman having the same access to intel, that is absolutely
>false. They do not. Perhaps a very few do, who are on select committees

Like the Democratic members of the intelligence committee that I
mentioned above?
>
>You have a very weak grasp of facts and an even weaker grasp of reality.
>
>Paul
>
Maybe you should check your "facts" before you make the personal
attacks such as this.

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:41:52 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Pan Ohco wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Try rechecking the information on her husbands report.
>> >> The New York Times, 7/18/04 . Not what you would call a conservatives
>> >> news paper
>> >> British commission reviewing Intelligence, that Blair use to enter
>> >> war, found that Hussein did try to buy uranium in Niger.
>> >> French officials also reported that Hussein sought uranium in Niger
>> >
>> >Blair was using the uranium story, which had been foisted on him by US
>> >sources, to justify going along with the US. It was pretty embarrassing
>> >for him to go along with the US on the basis of forged documents, so he
>> >insisted that British intelligence had other evidence. A Parliamentary
>> >committee looking into that came to the conclusion that there was no proof
>> >to support the yellow cake claim.
>>
>> Could you give a cite on that Parliamentary committee.
>> The British commission was reported 2004.
>
>I am sure that you know how to use Google. You have been passing on every
>lie that came your way because it suited your agenda and tried to discredit
>everything that contradicts it. I am not going to play that game.

Oh I see, I give you cites of where I get my information, you can't
give cites and I'm playing games?

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:59:11 -0600, Pan Ohco > wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 06:01:03 GMT, "Paul M. Cook" >
>wrote:
>
>
>>. Clinton got a blow job from an intern, and the right-wing
>>> fruitcakes thought this was the end of the world,
>>> Then, Bush lies to the people and Congress repeatedly.
>>
>>
>>And further exemplified by the support being thrown at Rudy Giuliani by many
>>rabid Clinton haters who condemned him for his extra-marital peccadilloes as
>>reason enough to force him from office. However, when it comes to Rudy,
>>they give him a total pass. Even forgetting the fact that Rudy was a routine
>>cheater and even was known for boinking his mistress in his wife's bed while
>>they were still married - undoubtedly some kind of sick thrill.
>>
>>That, they have no issues with. And no issues with Newt Gingrich, who
>>dumped his wife for his mistress while the wife was in the hospital
>>recovering from cancer surgery. Then dumped wife #2 for one of his very
>>young office assistants who he later married after cheating with her on wife
>>#2.
>>
>>Paul
>>
>Paul isn't this a little strange? When people complained about
>Clinton's lies, the Dems response was "it's only about sex"
>And now you are condemning Giuliani and Gingrich for their sexual
>activities.
>You can't have it both ways.
>I never condemned Clinton for a blow job, but you must admit that
>J.F.K. had better taste in women.
>
I didn't notice anyone condeming, Pan. I only saw them say... pot,
kettle, black.

--
See return address to reply by email

> >You have a very weak grasp of facts and an even weaker grasp of reality.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> Maybe you should check your "facts" before you make the personal
> attacks such as this.

Sometimes the truth sounds like a personal attack. But the truth is you are
delusional, defensive and hard-headed.

Paul

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:41:52 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> >Pan Ohco wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Try rechecking the information on her husbands report.
> >> >> The New York Times, 7/18/04 . Not what you would call a
conservatives
> >> >> news paper
> >> >> British commission reviewing Intelligence, that Blair use to enter
> >> >> war, found that Hussein did try to buy uranium in Niger.
> >> >> French officials also reported that Hussein sought uranium in Niger
> >> >
> >> >Blair was using the uranium story, which had been foisted on him by US
> >> >sources, to justify going along with the US. It was pretty
embarrassing
> >> >for him to go along with the US on the basis of forged documents, so
he
> >> >insisted that British intelligence had other evidence. A Parliamentary
> >> >committee looking into that came to the conclusion that there was no
proof
> >> >to support the yellow cake claim.
> >>
> >> Could you give a cite on that Parliamentary committee.
> >> The British commission was reported 2004.
> >
> >I am sure that you know how to use Google. You have been passing on every
> >lie that came your way because it suited your agenda and tried to
discredit
> >everything that contradicts it. I am not going to play that game.
>
> Oh I see, I give you cites of where I get my information, you can't
> give cites and I'm playing games?


You provide no cites. None. Your kind always plays the defensive. Always
the picked on and misunderstood victim. And like all of them, you engage in
total projection. What you blame others for, is precisely what *you* are
doing. It's a classic defense mechanism employed by delusional individuals
meant to put your adversary on the defensive because you have been put into
an indefensible posture.

Paul

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>

> >
> > Oh I see, I give you cites of where I get my information, you can't
> > give cites and I'm playing games?
>
> You provide no cites. None. Your kind always plays the defensive. Always
> the picked on and misunderstood victim. And like all of them, you engage in
> total projection. What you blame others for, is precisely what *you* are
> doing. It's a classic defense mechanism employed by delusional individuals
> meant to put your adversary on the defensive because you have been put into
> an indefensible posture.


It is amazing how much information he can miss, and how he twist what he
does find to suit his agenda..... like where he said that Novak reported
that the CIA claimed that Plame recommended her husband for the Niger
investigation when the report was that it was the Administration that said
it was Plame, and in the next sentence of the article is indicated that the
CIA said it was their counterpriliferation committee. In other words.....
the Administration says A.... CIA says B....... Pan's version is that CIA
said A.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> > > Oh I see, I give you cites of where I get my information, you can't
> > > give cites and I'm playing games?
> >
> > You provide no cites. None. Your kind always plays the defensive.
Always
> > the picked on and misunderstood victim. And like all of them, you
engage in
> > total projection. What you blame others for, is precisely what *you*
are
> > doing. It's a classic defense mechanism employed by delusional
individuals
> > meant to put your adversary on the defensive because you have been put
into
> > an indefensible posture.
>
>
> It is amazing how much information he can miss, and how he twist what he
> does find to suit his agenda..... like where he said that Novak reported
> that the CIA claimed that Plame recommended her husband for the Niger
> investigation when the report was that it was the Administration that said
> it was Plame, and in the next sentence of the article is indicated that
the
> CIA said it was their counterpriliferation committee. In other words.....
> the Administration says A.... CIA says B....... Pan's version is that CIA
> said A.


Laura Bush recently said something to the effect that everything in Iraq was
just stellar. Not just good, but stellar, wonderful, just peachy, a triumph
of her husband's leadership and vision. And then she added that it was a
shame some nattering nabobs making a fuss over 1 bombing a day make the
whole thing look bad. She actually said this, clearly her meaning was that
a stellar achievement can be negated by a couple or two of bad press
articles. As if any true victory could so easily be hidden by a few
partisan op-ed columnists. And then in the following days her words have
been spreading like wildfire all over the wingnut media. If the vicodin
princess said it, it's a fact. Iraq is a triumph!!! And Pan Ohco is a true
believer ad I do not even have to hear his/her opinion to know this.

The world must be so much simpler when you divest yourself of your own mind
and all its independent thoughts.

Paul

In article <laaHh.7049$as.629@trnddc04>,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:

> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh I see, I give you cites of where I get my information, you can't
> > > > give cites and I'm playing games?
> > >
> > > You provide no cites. None. Your kind always plays the
> > > defensive. Always the picked on and misunderstood victim. And
> > > like all of them, you engage in total projection...... [...]

> > It is amazing how much information he can miss, and how he twist
> > what he does find to suit his agenda..... [...]

> Laura Bush recently said something to the effect that everything in Iraq was
> just stellar. Not just good, but stellar, wonderful, just peachy, a triumph
> of her husband's leadership and vision. And then she added that it was a
> shame some nattering nabobs making a fuss over 1 bombing a day make the
> whole thing look bad. She actually said this, clearly her meaning was that
> a stellar achievement can be negated by a couple or two of bad press
> articles. As if any true victory could so easily be hidden by a few
> partisan op-ed columnists. And then in the following days her words have
> been spreading like wildfire all over the wingnut media. If the vicodin
> princess said it, it's a fact. Iraq is a triumph!!! And Pan Ohco is a true
> believer ad I do not even have to hear his/her opinion to know this.
>
> The world must be so much simpler when you divest yourself of your own mind
> and all its independent thoughts.

Easier I suspect. Easier to justify immoral, unethical, hateful
behavior towards others if you convince yourself or pretend those others
are "godless commies", "femi-nazis" who just can't wait to have another
abortion, "elitist librels" (sic), traitors, or whatever. Things
haven't really changed all that much in recent years for Pan and his
ilk. Only 20 or so years ago, Eileen Gardner of the Heritage
Foundation, speaking against public education for children with
disabilities, proclaimed that people acquired disabilities because they
were spiritually faulty. How much that still sounds like
white-supremist slave-owner talk.

It's so simple for Laura Bush (and others) to speak from the insulated
fortress of the newly Royalized White House where no one dare challenge
lest they risk Plamegate style retribution.

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:55:52 -0600, Emma Thackery >
wrote:

>In article <laaHh.7049$as.629@trnddc04>,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Oh I see, I give you cites of where I get my information, you can't
>> > > > give cites and I'm playing games?
>> > >
>> > > You provide no cites. None. Your kind always plays the
>> > > defensive. Always the picked on and misunderstood victim. And
>> > > like all of them, you engage in total projection...... [...]
I give you the date and location of the information that I based my
argument on, and that not a cite. I ask you for a cite and you respond
with psycho babble, that you are not qualified to give.?
>
>> > It is amazing how much information he can miss, and how he twist
>> > what he does find to suit his agenda..... [...]
Dave i asked why you will not believe some in the governments, but
will others in the government? And those you believe, might open
themselves to a charge of nepotism. Second question, Why was Wilson
sent, when there are CIA operatives, close by in American legations in
africa.
>
>> Laura Bush recently said something to the effect that everything in Iraq was
>> just stellar. Not just good, but stellar, wonderful, just peachy, a triumph
>> of her husband's leadership and vision. And then she added that it was a
>> shame some nattering nabobs making a fuss over 1 bombing a day make the
>> whole thing look bad. She actually said this, clearly her meaning was that
>> a stellar achievement can be negated by a couple or two of bad press
>> articles. As if any true victory could so easily be hidden by a few
>> partisan op-ed columnists. And then in the following days her words have
>> been spreading like wildfire all over the wingnut media. If the vicodin
>> princess said it, it's a fact. Iraq is a triumph!!! And Pan Ohco is a true
>> believer ad I do not even have to hear his/her opinion to know this.
I don't care what Laura Bush said, she is not co-president.
And I can see your hatred for Laura Bush , by calling her the Vicodin
Princess. Now if you have a cite, declaring her a drug addict, you
should post it. On top of all this if she is addicted, you liberals
would be saying, that she is sick and needs treatment, not castigation
her.
>> The world must be so much simpler when you divest yourself of your own mind
>> and all its independent thoughts.

Yes it is Paul, and please for your own good, stop paying attention to
the left wingnut media.
>
>Easier I suspect. Easier to justify immoral, unethical, hateful
>behavior towards others if you convince yourself or pretend those others
>are "godless commies", "femi-nazis" who just can't wait to have another
>abortion, "elitist librels" (sic), traitors, or whatever. Things
>haven't really changed all that much in recent years for Pan and his
>ilk. Only 20 or so years ago, Eileen Gardner of the Heritage
>Foundation, speaking against public education for children with
>disabilities, proclaimed that people acquired disabilities because they
>were spiritually faulty. How much that still sounds like
>white-supremist slave-owner talk.
>
>It's so simple for Laura Bush (and others) to speak from the insulated
>fortress of the newly Royalized White House where no one dare challenge
>lest they risk Plamegate style retribution.

And it is so easy for you to sit behind a computer screen and, and
babble on about others not doing it right.
What have you done (talking is not doing) to make right what you
perceive to be evils in this world.

In article >,
says...
> And it is so easy for you to sit behind a computer screen and, and
> babble on about others not doing it right.
> What have you done (talking is not doing) to make right what you
> perceive to be evils in this world.
>

LOL! This from the great Pan who sits behind his computer screen and
spews onto the newsgroup the bilious tripe that he gets from Rush and
O'Reilly and Coulter.

The great Laura Bush, who has been quoted as saying (I paraphrase) that
the media should not report the "1 bombing a day" in Iraq but focus on
the positive. The great Laura Bush, who has spent her 6+ years as first
lady accomplishing essentially nothing.


--
Peter Aitken

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 19:16:14 -0500, Peter A >
wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>> And it is so easy for you to sit behind a computer screen and, and
>> babble on about others not doing it right.
>> What have you done (talking is not doing) to make right what you
>> perceive to be evils in this world.
>>
>
>LOL! This from the great Pan who sits behind his computer screen and
>spews onto the newsgroup the bilious tripe that he gets from Rush and
>O'Reilly and Coulter.
And how do you know if I have done something, to make this a better
world, or not? And have you?
>
>The great Laura Bush, who has been quoted as saying (I paraphrase) that
>the media should not report the "1 bombing a day" in Iraq but focus on
>the positive. The great Laura Bush, who has spent her 6+ years as first
>lady accomplishing essentially nothing.
Laura Bush is not a co-president. I don't care what Laura bush has to
say!!!
And if you are going to quote someone, don't paraphrase, cite.

Clinton did what i believe all of them do ONLY he was unlucky enough to
be caught. After all, boys will be boys.
How do we know what goes on day in and day out? We don't.
At least he (Clinton) used Oval Office and not a Cloak Room like Mr.
Harding did and Harding got more than just a blow job.