Say Anything Blog

First of all, the Lynch piece is not a story, its a press release. That’s what the corporate media does---retypes Pentagon press releases and calls it “news.”

Secondly, the narrative has shifted several times at the request of the White House.

Remember when it was all about WMDs? When that was revealed as a lie, suddenly it was all about toppling Saddam. When it became obvious that that wasn’t gonna do the job, suddenly it was all about nation building.

Makes you wonder what’s next, and why the White House keeps changing it’s story like a low level criminal getting sweated by the police.

Remember when it was all about WMDs? When that was revealed as a lie, suddenly it was all about toppling Saddam.

Jack,

By now, most of us have learned not to expect anything but standard leftist drivel from you.  Still, it would show a certain surprising maturity on your part if you were a bit more honest in what you write, and a good deal more precise with the language as well.

The word “lie” implies that the person involved knows full well that what he says is not the truth, but says it anyway with a deliberate and/or malicious purpose in mind.  The cry from the small minds of the so-called “progressive” Left that Bush lied is itself belied by the FACT that the very same accusations about Saddam’s WMD capabilities were repeated by both Bush’s ignoble predecessor in office and his vie president, not to mention such intelligence “hold-overs” as George Tenent and Richard Clark.

As for the question of deliberate or malicious intent, even there you are just as oblivious and just as incapable of proving Mr. Bush’s intent as you are just about everything else you write here.

Seems to me that, more than anything else, what you’ve established is that you are the liar… not Mr. Bush.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Remember when it was all about WMDs?

It was never “all about WMD”; there was a long list of reasons, and WMD was down the list.  It’s just that you lying leftie propagandists promulgated that lie, and now you believe it, which is the purpose of propaganda.
BTW, the “W” in WMD stands for “weapons”, which is already plural.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Sorry to inject reality into all this, but there has been another spike in violence in Iraq:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/01/despite-chickenhawk-commentary-violence-explodes-in-iraq/

Oh, and about those lies told to railroad us into Iraq:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

Seems that someone has documented and compiled a list of at least 935 lies told by Bush and his gang of fascist criminal thugs.

Socialist - *snore*

If Bush was lying, so was just about every Congressional Democrat, Russia, France, Germany, the DoD, the UK, American intelligence agencies and on and on.

The whole world lied?

You’re an idiot.

It was never “all about WMD”; there was a long list of reasons, and WMD was down the list

That’s just the latest version. I remember the previous versions.

Do YOU remember the previous versions, or has Oceania always been at war with Eastasia?

That’s just the latest version. I remember the previous versions.

Well, it’s obvious now: Jack is a liar.

He calls other people liars in a vain attempt at hiding his own.

As for the question of deliberate or malicious intent, even there you are just as oblivious and just as incapable of proving Mr. Bush’s intent as you are just about everything else you write here. 

I call this the Reagan Defense. Basically, the premise is that it’s OK to royally fuck up as long as you don’t 100% lie with provable “deliberate or malicious intent.”

Here’a a bit of liberal truth---it is NOT OK to royally fuck up. I realize that you conservatives hate competence (see: Brownie, heck of a job). Liberals know that when someone royally fucks up to the tune of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of deaths there should be consequences.

It was never “all about WMD”; there was a long list of reasons, and WMD was down the list.  It’s just that you lying leftie propagandists promulgated that lie, and now you believe it, which is the purpose of propaganda.

Denial and personal attacks, right on cue.

Well, it’s obvious now: Jack is a liar.

ibid.

Jack: One problem with your leftie screed: Iraq is not a “fuckup” of any kind.  It was the right thing to do in the long war against Islamic terrorism.
Wrong premise, wrong conclusion.  We have freed tens of millions of people with relatively few casualties, and have driven a stake into the heart of a medieval terrorism conspiracy.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

bob:

MORE denial and personal attacks. Don’t you get bored of doing and saying the same thing 15,377 times?

When it comes to comment count, mine’s much bigger than yours!  Sorry about your jealousy problem.

If you had anything to say, you might have a bigger one.

BTW, “wrong premise, wrong conclusion” is just an accurate depiction of what you do.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Jack,

Words have meanings.  And those meanings are not determined by the partisan expediency of nominally literate liberal hacks like you.  To say that someone “lied” implies that that person knew what they said was untrue and stated the known untruth with deliberate or malicious intent.  Despite the tedious liberal inertia of your accusation, the FACT of the matter is you can prove neither!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

That’s just the latest version. I remember the previous versions.

The list was given at the time when Saddam was given the opportunity to give up his weapons and open his country to our inspectors.  He refused, and the invasion to depose him started.  This is the truth; there are no “versions”, except for yours, which is a lie.

Your “1984” reference is more aptly applied to so-called “global warming”.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Jack - Liberals know that when someone royally fucks up to the tune of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of deaths there should be consequences.

Wow.

One wonders when these liberals will take the consequences for their “Great Society”. How many trillions have gone into that one?

Now Jack is going to cry about me “attacking” him. But who cares what he cries about? Jack’s a liar.

Despite the tedious liberal inertia of your accusation, the FACT of the matter is you can prove neither!

We might if we could get the 5,000,000 missing e-mails or copies of the most shredded documents in the history of our presidency or take a peak inside cheney’s man size safe or find out what was said and who said it in any of the early energy policy meeting or if Irving had not lied to Patrick…the rocks are many…

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Hey,...notice that Jack successfully changed the subject? In fact, he never even addressed the subject of the post.

Wonder why that is…

Jack doesn’t want to face up to the truth. All that Jack has managed is to change the story like a low level criminal getting sweated by the police.

R108,

As I came to realize long ago, when you’re packin’ so much more than the other guy, its rude and thoughtless to make a point of your extra endowment relative to his modest or insignificant one.

Apparently, the liberal habit of jealously deriding others whose lives are longer and fuller and more robust than their own extends beyond adjusted gross income.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

the rocks are many…

RBB,

Depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat: Sorry; I couldn’t resist the urge to spank the troll this time.  He’s such an easy target.

Master Baiter: Your conspiracy rantings show your rich imaginary life.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

the most shredded documents in the history of our presidency

You’re wrong there, rbb! (Maybe I could make a macro of that?) I don’t think the Clintons actually shredded the FBI files they had illegally, I think they squirreled them away for later!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Your “1984” reference is more aptly applied to so-called “global warming”.

Huh?

Oh Christalmighty, you’re one of those global-warming-is-a-hoax nutjobs, aren’t you?

What’s next? 9/11 was an inside job? The moon landing is fake? Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintons?

I mean, seriously now...exactly how crazy are you, anyway?

Stop everything!

Jack has all of the answers.

Hey,...notice that Jack successfully changed the subject? In fact, he never even addressed the subject of the post.

Look at the very first comment on this post.

Look at the very first comment on this post.

Already saw it.

My point stands.

I guess you don’t know this, but “human-caused global warming” is an hypothesis, which means “guess”.  It hasn’t yet been established that there is any cause and effect relationship between human activity and global temp, much less a quantifiable one.  So, the wild claims of impending doom from something that has yet to be proven to exist fit the “1984” model perfectly, while radical Islamic terrorism is killing people all over the world every day, and is obviously real.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Jack:

Remember when it was all about WMDs? When that was revealed as a lie, suddenly it was all about toppling Saddam.

Fact check: List of justifications for the war given in the 2002 AUMF:

• Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
• Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[citation needed]
• Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
• Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.
• Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda were “known to be in Iraq.”
• Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

Jack doesn’t know jack as usual.

Speaking of WMD, I suppose Jack was still in his diaper when Clinton authorized air strikes on Iraq in 1998 on the basis of evidence that Saddam posssed WMD and planned to use them on his neighbors.

From Clinton:

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Kind of hard to figure out Jacks’ reasoning here, unless he really thinks that Clinton’s air strike destroyed Saddam’s WMD…

Kind of hard to figure out Jacks’ reasoning here…

Carrick,

I believe the problem is your use of the word “reasoning.” A charitable gesture on your part, to be sure, but totally unwarranted by the circumstances.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Carrick:

Your points have been debunked so often and so completely that I feel no need to go into it here.

The bottom line is that Rush told you to believe it, you believe it unconditionally, and that ends it.

Jack:

Oh Christalmighty, you’re one of those global-warming-is-a-hoax nutjobs, aren’t you?

It’s not a hoax, but it’s overhyped.

The ice sheets really aren’t going to melt in 50 years, that’s just hype from Al Gore. It will take 1000’s based on the science).  The interior ice fields/sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are actually expected to increase due to increased precipitation from warming oceans.

There isn’t going to be an increase in disease, that’s just hype.  Most of the diseases listed in Gore’s movie actually are spread by cold weather, not warm (e.g., TB), or appear in both tropical as well as arctic climates (e.g. malaria), with the difference today being that most countries in tropical climates are impoverished and don[’t treat their mosquito population like they do in wealthier countries.

There won’t be more hurricanes, in fact the last two years have seen the least cyclone activity in 30+ years.  Hurricane genesis is driven by the difference between the temperature at the pole and the equator.  However, global warming is expected to increase the temperature of the poles much more rapidly than the equator, hence decreasing the frequency of hurricanes.  Once formed they are expected to last longer and have somewhat greater intensity (all things being equal, which they aren’t).

Human generated global warming, according to science, didn’t even start until around 1975.  Before that it is believed that all of the global warming, which occurred since the end of the 400-year long Little Ice Age, was natural in origin.  In spite of that, glacial retreat since the end of the LIA is often attributed to human-generated global warming, even though the facts say, only since about 1980 is that even partially true.

Saying that global warming is hyped isn’t like saying we believe in 9/11.  A more apt comparison is with Y2K. Both are heavily hyped by the media, due in part to hype=greater readership.

Jack:

Your points have been debunked so often and so completely that I feel no need to go into it here.

The justifications beyond WMD in the 2002 AUMF, and also given in Bush’s speech to Congress preceding their vote.

Or with the fact that Clinton in 1998 authorized a military strike aimed at reducing the threat of Saddam’s WMD program?

These are unassailable facts.

When you say they’re debunked, you’re simply lying.  You can’t debunk historically documented events.

bob:

Ya got me.

Your comment is so twisted up, divorced from reality, and just plain bugfuck crazy that I don’t even know where to begin.

I was hoping for a reasoned argument but since I obviously won’t get one here I think I’ll leave (you’ll no doubt claim this as a great victory).

Fortunately for us all, the rest of the world has matured beyond you. You’re just the ever-shrinking fringe crazies, and you’re gonna be voted out to pasture this Fall.

Jack - Your points have been debunked so often and so completely that I feel no need to go into it here.

The 2002 AUMF has been debunked?

You’re a hack, Jack.

The bottom line is that Rush told you to believe it, you believe it unconditionally, and that ends it.

What’s this have to do with the 2002 AUMF and the stated reasons for the war, which happen to be very different from your account?

You’re a hack, Jack.

The bottom line is that Rush told you to believe it, you believe it unconditionally, and that ends it.

This troll gives a whole new meaning to ”doesn’t know Jack” doesn’t it?

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Jack the hack is leaving us.

I’m sure we’ll all mourn his departure with an appropriate response.

*shrugs*

I’m done. Anybody else?

When you say they’re debunked, you’re simply lying.

Imagine that!  Jack lying to avoid defending and proving his lame, leftwing assertions.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Your comment is so twisted up, divorced from reality, and just plain bugfuck crazy that I don’t even know where to begin.

Bad case of transfer.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Saying that global warming is hyped isn’t like saying we believe in 9/11. A more apt comparison is with Y2K. Both are heavily hyped by the media, due
in part to hype=greater readership.

True, but the greater danger is that it’s being used to sell one-world totalitarian socialism as the “cure”, when in fact there’s no “disease”.  It’s already being played as an excuse for more taxation and restriction of supply, especially supplies of usable energy.
The Big Lie is: less energy use, less global warming.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I was hoping for a reasoned argument but since I obviously won’t get one here I think I’ll leave

Jack,

You have offered nothing remotely approaching a reasoned argument since you arrived.  And now you choose to whine about it?  Next time, try bringing with you something a bit more rhetorically potent than some leftwing spitballs and a straw.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Apparently, the liberal habit of jealously deriding others whose lives are longer and fuller and more robust than their own extends beyond adjusted gross income.
Bat One on February 2, 2008 at 09:57 am

I thought enzyte was a hoax.
Why is Robert108 still taking it?

I thought enzyte was a hoax.
Why is Robert108 still taking it?

What nonsense are you trying to peddle now, e?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

What nonsense are you trying to peddle now, e?

Apparently, e has an unusual fascination with your crotch, robert!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

e,

I was speaking of the fulsome and satisfying blessing from above, not some “miracle of modern chemistry.”

As for Robert, how would you know what he’s packing?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I guess you don’t know this, but “human-caused global warming” is an hypothesis, which means “guess”.  robert108 on February 2, 2008 at 12:10 pm

I am hypothesizing here that you are not forthcoming as to the meaning of the word hypothesis:

From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis
Pronunciation: \hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses \-ˌsēz\
Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at do
Date: circa 1656
1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

As for Robert, how would you know what he’s packing?
Bat One on February 2, 2008 at 01:19 pm

By the way his projecting himself itis not hard to tell.

1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the
ground for action
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
logical orempirical consequences
3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

In plain language, a guess.

Your trolling, especially the homoerotic stuff, is getting boring again.  Can’t you find someone to gang up with, someone who will give you more confidence?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the
ground for action
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical orempirical consequences
3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
robert108 on February 4, 2008 at 06:16 pm

Once again I am forced by you statement to hypothesize that you are not forthcoming as to the meaning of the word hypothesis.