If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good idea? Nope; it is never a good idea to quote the "late Prof. Revilo Oliver" and expect anyone on Usenet to "overlook the political specifics." :-) |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller
("cavelamb himself" wrote)
So my 1/3 scale Dornier DO-X proves I'm nuts? Cool, a four engine homebuilt flying "ship". http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9906/FR9906d.htm Dornier DO-X Paul-Mont |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller
Jim Logajan wrote in
: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good idea? Nope; it is never a good idea to quote the "late Prof. Revilo Oliver" and expect anyone on Usenet to "overlook the political specifics." :-) Very true, I did mean di anyone think the invasion if Iraq was a good idea at this juncture? bertie |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller
Montblack wrote:
("cavelamb himself" wrote) So my 1/3 scale Dornier DO-X proves I'm nuts? Cool, a four engine homebuilt flying "ship". http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9906/FR9906d.htm Dornier DO-X Paul-Mont Uhm, well, actually, would you believe 12 engines??? |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good idea? Nope; it is never a good idea to quote the "late Prof. Revilo Oliver" and expect anyone on Usenet to "overlook the political specifics." :-) Very true, I did mean di anyone think the invasion if Iraq was a good idea at this juncture? I knew what you meant - sorry, was just playing games with your post. All I remember is that when the Iraq invasion was started I thought our military would have no problem winning (but worried a great deal about a good friend who was serving in the military at the time) - but I had this gut feel that what was planned to happen afterword was clear as mud. I believed they'd find WMD. My thinking was: "No way would this administration launch a war without absolute certainty they would turn up WMD. I mean really - if they didn't they'd be absolute toast, finished, and kaput politically." But no WMD were found and yet they weren't fried politically. There's a lesson in there somewhere. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller
("cavelamb himself" wrote)
Uhm, well, actually, would you believe 12 engines??? Cool, a four engine homebuilt flying "ship". http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9906/FR9906d.htm Dornier DO-X 1/3 scale .... :-) Paul-Mont |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller
Montblack wrote:
("cavelamb himself" wrote) Uhm, well, actually, would you believe 12 engines??? Cool, a four engine homebuilt flying "ship". http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9906/FR9906d.htm Dornier DO-X 1/3 scale .... :-) Paul-Mont Ahhh (removes foor from mouth) |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller
Jim Logajan wrote in
: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Jim Logajan wrote: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good idea? Nope; it is never a good idea to quote the "late Prof. Revilo Oliver" and expect anyone on Usenet to "overlook the political specifics." :-) Very true, I did mean di anyone think the invasion if Iraq was a good idea at this juncture? I knew what you meant - sorry, was just playing games with your post. All I remember is that when the Iraq invasion was started I thought our military would have no problem winning (but worried a great deal about a good friend who was serving in the military at the time) - but I had this gut feel that what was planned to happen afterword was clear as mud. I believed they'd find WMD. My thinking was: "No way would this administration launch a war without absolute certainty they would turn up WMD. I mean really - if they didn't they'd be absolute toast, finished, and kaput politically." But no WMD were found and yet they weren't fried politically. There's a lesson in there somewhere. I suppose it's "make your lie big enough and popular enough and it won't matter" I too thought they'd find weapons of mass destruction, but even if they found chemical weapons, it'd be in a fine old traditon. Winston Churchill authorised thier use in Iraq in the thirties. His rationale? (i'm too lazy to look it up so I'll paraphrase) It#s not like we're gassing people who matter..... actually, IIRC what he actually said is evn more shocking. Bertie |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
In a previous article, said: I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming." ... In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved. Atta met with a lot of people who weren't intimately involved in carrying out the 9/11 attacks. Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding." Sorry, I missed the reference to being involved in the 9/11 attacks in that reference. And I hope you don't have doubts about Iraq's funding of other terrorist organizations... state sponsorship of terrorism is the biggest security risk to the civilized world today. I hope that doesn't become clearer than it already is. In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Funny thing - I've had more than a few people throw that quote up as the best proof of their position. Funny thing is, they all leave out the rest of the exchange, immediately following: "MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?" "VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that time was not on our side, that in this part of the world, in particular, given the problems we’ve encountered in Afghanistan, which forced us to go in and take action there, as well as in Iraq, that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11 is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home territory. And it’s a global operation. THAT explains the "connection", but those who traffic in sound bites to get their political opinions tend to miss the nuance. OTOH, the vast majority of links on the 'net that include the Cheney quote you included do NOT include the following clarification. You'd almost think the press and the bloggers were trying to change the meaning of the interview, huh? Check out Wikipedia, for example - the first half is there ("proving" the point you're trying to make), but they conveniently leave out the second half of the story. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...11_challenged/ But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq. To quote VP Cheney in that very article: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know." Besides, the article makes no claim that Cheney claims a direct involvement in the 9/11 attacks by Iraq, only that they had reason to believe that Al Qaeda operatives met wtih Iraqi officials. What do I win? A nice second-place trophy. It was a two-man race though. Mark "would you prefer a cigar?" Hickey |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller
"Weeelerreeiiie" wrote in message .. . "Tim Ward" wrote in : Wonder what you would have made of the Wrights? I wonder what you would have made of Augustus Herring? A sandwich with a litle lettuce and a tomato? Or maybe you meant Augustus Hering. Yes, been to he spot where he may have flown. No, I meant Augustus Herring. http://tinyurl.com/24mj5q I suppose it's possible that like the young Indiana Jones, everybody's lost except for you. http://tinyurl.com/2znaru Tim Ward |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tom Lanphier: Biggest LIAR in U.S. Military History | CHP52659 | Military Aviation | 5 | January 14th 13 04:35 AM |
Billy is a bold faced liar. | Guy Alcala | Military Aviation | 2 | August 5th 04 09:39 PM |
REPUGNIKONG LIAR EVIL | Grantland | Military Aviation | 2 | March 20th 04 06:37 PM |
Chad Irby is a Liar | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 23 | February 7th 04 10:23 PM |
jaun is a liar/ truck titlesJJJJJJ | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 21 | November 16th 03 01:49 AM |