Re: [biofuel] The Road To Coverup - In Bush We Trust? An Unnecessary War
To be absolutely fair, I believe one has to read exactly what was said, at least in several instances. It's called Poli-Speak. Easy enough to discern if tuned in well. A bit like going to the town council meeting and hearing promises that a matter will be addressed. Well, yeah (in my best valley speak)! Like, ya' know, anyone can address an envelope, but... like... will they ever put a stamp on it, much less put it in the mailbox? Words like insignificant rank right up there as well - all a matter of who's opinion, who's sources, who's preferred outcome, who's loss, who's gain. One corporation's part per billion is another commoner's death nail. So, when Mr. Bush says could, one has to examine if there is a possibility, not necessarily whether there is a probability or not. When Mr. Bush speaks words like if or Rumsfeld says I'm confident or We have sources..., etc, etc, almost ad infinitum, one has to read in all the latitude that they write in for themselves. I too can be as confident as I want in my sources that tell me that if I sprinkle pixie dust on my parsnips that they will all turn into pumpkins. Question is are those sources voices in my head, books of fables from the children's section of the library, exiled Iraqis who have nothing to lose and everything to gain from lieing, or a tidy little disinformation office in the bowels of the White House propaganda machine whipping up lies and pandering them as truth. Same thing happens in commerce, where corporations hire labs and experts whom they are reasonably confident will tell them whatever they want to hear, so they can in turn make declaration and embellishment to the rest of the world about this documented data without having lied or deceived, at least upon superficial examination. And do you wanna' know the truth? It's always possible that if I had a softball sized chunk of refined plutonium, technically I too could have a nuclear bomb by the end of the year. Likely? Not. But I could. Of course if UN weapons inspectors were permitted to continue their regular visits to my farm, it's rather doubtful that I would develop them even if I had the desire or capability. And you (or perhaps only I) really have to like the thought of a bunch of nuclear mujahideen sitting around the table sipping tea and eating crumpettes discussing what if. Is one to suppose that nuclear physicists are expected to discuss the latest Rolling Stone release? Only in America is thinking a crime. Actually, probably not just in America, but only America adjudicates such a crime by military invasion. (Doubtful that Bush's contingency crew spends all its time discussing gardening tips during executive level meetings, or that engineers at Los Alamos consume endless hours discussing the latest Harry Potter release, much less the tacticians at West Point laying down marathon sessions of Stratego. But in the meantime? I'll continue to be confident that the moon is made of swiss cheese (trusting upon my sources, of course) and hope that everyone else will continue to question all those iffy words that give the worms what they apparently believe is enough room to wriggle, while at the same time demanding examination of all those declarations of absolutes that have proven to patent fabrications and lies. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: MH [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] The Road To Coverup - In Bush We Trust? An Unnecessary War I hadn't thought of it that way Todd. When I read The Road To Coverup Is The Road To Ruin Robert C. Byrd is a Democratic Senator from West Virginia. Editor's Note: The following remarks were delivered on the U.S. Senate floor on June 24, 2003. http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8216 I was also thinking about, impart, what Senator Byrd had said elsewhere -- President Bush also elaborated on claims of Iraq's nuclear program when he said: The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahideen' -- his nuclear holy warriors If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. [Cincinnati Museum Center, Oct. 7, 2002, pg. 3-4] This is the kind of pumped up intelligence and outrageous rhetoric that were given to the American people to justify war with Iraq. This is the same kind of hyped evidence that was given to Congress to sway its vote for war on Oct. 11, 2002. And -- The President told the American people that we were compelled to go to war to secure our country from a grave threat. Are we any safer today than we were on March 18, 2003? Our nation has been committed to rebuilding a country ravaged by war and tyranny, and
[biofuel] The Road To Coverup - In Bush We Trust? An Unnecessary War
The Road To Coverup Is The Road To Ruin Robert C. Byrd is a Democratic Senator from West Virginia. Editor's Note: The following remarks were delivered on the U.S. Senate floor on June 24, 2003. http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8216 And yet, seven weeks after declaring victory in the war against Iraq, we have seen nary a shred of evidence to support his claims of grave dangers, chemical weapons, links to Al Qaeda or nuclear weapons. [more] In Bush We Trust? John Moyers is Editor-in-Chief of TomPaine.com http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8210 Opposition worthy of the name would push the GOP-controlled House and Senate hearings beyond the question of what the intelligence community knew about WMD, where it seems stalled. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, could invoke committee rules that would allow his minority party to launch a full investigation. But he won't -- reportedly for fear of being seen as partisan. If this isn't the time for partisanship -- after all, we're talking about manipulations that led the nation into war -- when is? Rockefeller's timidity is allowing committee Republicans to cover what looks more every day like a lie of literally global magnitude. [more] An Unnecessary War Pat Buchanan [a two time candidate for the Republican U.S. presidential nomination] June 4 2003 http://www.theamericancause.org/patanunnecessarywar.htm What was America's real motive for attacking Iraq? Was it oil? Empire? To make the Middle East safe for Sharon? That these questions are being asked, not only by America's critics, is the fault of the administration alone. For its crucial argument as to why it had no choice but to launch the first preventive war in American history is collapsing like a sand castle in a rising surf. Iraq, in retrospect, was no threat whatsoever to the United States. We fought an unnecessary war, and now we must rebuild a nation at a rising cost in blood and treasure. Before the war, many who opposed it argued that no matter the evil character of Saddam, Iraq had not attacked us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, could not defeat us. Why then were we about to invade Iraq? [more] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The Road To Coverup - In Bush We Trust? An Unnecessary War
It would appear that the ultra-conservative Buchanan is attempting to deflect responsibility for the Iraq war and the disinformation stream that led up to it upon Paul Wolfowitz and away from the president of the US. That's one very extensive, elaborate and interesting conspiriacy theory where everyone in the inner sanctum is either player or pawn and the president is isolated from all fact and sound reason. The world is to believe that these lower echelons are principled, ethical and moral enough as to contrive an elaborate and extensive conspiracy network that will exclude the president? ...for what? his own protection?..., yet unscrupulous enough as to propigate mis- and dis-information that will lead a nation to a military assault? If this were true, that the president had no knowledge of the numerous errors being represented as fact, it boldly declares that virtually everyone involved in this conspiracy truly believes that George W. Bush is so absolutely ignorant as to be swayed by anything that he is told - having not one saving thread of intellect or discernment - an imbecile and the moron that so many other international government appointees and electees have stated he as being, whether in print or under breath. I'm sorry, but it's a bit doubtful that even Mr. Bush is that ignorant and equally as doubtful that such a complete conspiracy could be pulled off without his knowledge or participation. It is, however, far more likely that he and his entire adminsistration are arrogant enough to think that they can manipulate an entire nation into support of a war propped up by nothing more than fear, with the unmitigated gall as to expect there to be no consequential fallout from their deception. It is also a fair assessment that up to this point Ari Fleischer is just about the only member of this administration that has an understanding of where the truth will lead. Unfortunately the first time he exercises that understanding in a demonstrable way is to remove his own skin from the daily flogging of public damnation that is inevitable as the truth unravels. As for Mr. Buchanan's intent to deflect and derail? Since when has a leopard ever lost its spots? Todd Swearingen An Unnecessary War Pat Buchanan [a two time candidate for the Republican U.S. presidential nomination] June 4 2003 http://www.theamericancause.org/patanunnecessarywar.htm What was America's real motive for attacking Iraq? Was it oil? Empire? To make the Middle East safe for Sharon? That these questions are being asked, not only by America's critics, is the fault of the administration alone. For its crucial argument as to why it had no choice but to launch the first preventive war in American history is collapsing like a sand castle in a rising surf. Iraq, in retrospect, was no threat whatsoever to the United States. We fought an unnecessary war, and now we must rebuild a nation at a rising cost in blood and treasure. Before the war, many who opposed it argued that no matter the evil character of Saddam, Iraq had not attacked us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, could not defeat us. Why then were we about to invade Iraq? [more] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The Road To Coverup - In Bush We Trust? An Unnecessary War
I hadn't thought of it that way Todd. When I read The Road To Coverup Is The Road To Ruin Robert C. Byrd is a Democratic Senator from West Virginia. Editor's Note: The following remarks were delivered on the U.S. Senate floor on June 24, 2003. http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8216 I was also thinking about, impart, what Senator Byrd had said elsewhere -- President Bush also elaborated on claims of Iraq's nuclear program when he said: The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahideen' -- his nuclear holy warriors If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. [Cincinnati Museum Center, Oct. 7, 2002, pg. 3-4] This is the kind of pumped up intelligence and outrageous rhetoric that were given to the American people to justify war with Iraq. This is the same kind of hyped evidence that was given to Congress to sway its vote for war on Oct. 11, 2002. And -- The President told the American people that we were compelled to go to war to secure our country from a grave threat. Are we any safer today than we were on March 18, 2003? Our nation has been committed to rebuilding a country ravaged by war and tyranny, and the cost of that task is being paid in blood and treasure every day. Being within mixed company this (impart) reminded me of what the other side said about -- An Unnecessary War Pat Buchanan [a two time candidate for the Republican U.S. presidential nomination] June 4 2003 http://www.theamericancause.org/patanunnecessarywar.htm Iraq, in retrospect, was no threat whatsoever to the United States. We fought an unnecessary war, and now we must rebuild a nation at a rising cost in blood and treasure. Before the war, many who opposed it argued that no matter the evil character of Saddam, Iraq had not attacked us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, could not defeat us. Why then were we about to invade Iraq? Mr. Buchanan went on to say -- Came the administration answer: Saddam has ties to al-Qaida. He has an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. He is a year or so away from being able to build a nuclear bomb, and he will use these weapons on us or our allies, or give them to terrorists who will use them in the United States. And these weapons will kill not just the 3,000 who perished on Sept. 11, but tens and even hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans. Do you want to risk that? Do you want to do nothing and risk a mushroom cloud in an American city? Or do you want to remove this mortal threat, now? So went the clinching argument for war. [more] This drew me back to think about what was posted in the beginning -- And yet, seven weeks after declaring victory in the war against Iraq, we have seen nary a shred of evidence to support his claims of grave dangers, chemical weapons, links to Al Qaeda or nuclear weapons. [more - from] The Road To Coverup Is The Road To Ruin Robert C. Byrd is a Democratic Senator from West Virginia. Editor's Note: The following remarks were delivered on the U.S. Senate floor on June 24, 2003. http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8216 I'd like to know why the U.S. coalition forces preemptive War On Iraq was necessary since it doesn't seem that WMD such as nuclear where the reason. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
