40X Fool David Casey <davidca...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>...let's ...
You're trying to pretend you'd represent others when you do not.
>see examples *in your own words* ...
What's the matter, were there too many syllables in all those ones from the experts for you to handle?
COVER STORY . VOL 24 #1182 . PUBLISHED 7/30/03 BRING 'EM ON! by Steve Perry The Bush administration's Top 40 Lies about war and terrorism Bring 'em On! By Steve Perry
Editor's note: In the interest of relative brevity I've stinted on citing and quoting sources in some of the items below. You can find links to news stories that elaborate on each of these items at my online Bush Wars column, www.bushwarsblog.com. 1) The administration was not bent on war with Iraq from 9/11 onward.
THE EMPEROR HAS NO FLIGHT SUIT In recent weeks, the press and some Democrats have finally taken up a critical White House deception about Iraq and uranium. What took them so long? And what about all the other lies?
HIGH CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS Throughout the year leading up to war, the White House publicly maintained that the U.S. took weapons inspections seriously, that diplomacy would get its chance, that Saddam had the opportunity to prevent a U.S. invasion. The most pungent and concise evidence to the contrary comes from the president's own mouth. According to Time's March 31 road-to-war story, Bush popped in on national security adviser Condi Rice one day in March 2002, interrupting a meeting on UN sanctions against Iraq. Getting a whiff of the subject matter, W peremptorily waved his hand and told her, "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out." Clare Short, Tony Blair's former secretary for international development, recently lent further credence to the anecdote. She told the London Guardian that Bush and Blair made a secret pact a few months afterward, in the summer of 2002, to invade Iraq in either February or March of this year.
Last fall CBS News obtained meeting notes taken by a Rumsfeld aide at 2:40 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The notes indicate that Rumsfeld wanted the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden].... Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz, the Bushmen's leading intellectual light, has long been rabid on the subject of Iraq. He reportedly told Vanity Fair writer Sam Tanenhaus off the record that he believes Saddam was connected not only to bin Laden and 9/11, but the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
The Bush administration's foreign policy plan was not based on September 11, or terrorism; those events only brought to the forefront a radical plan for U.S. control of the post-Cold War world that had been taking shape since the closing days of the first Bush presidency. Back then a small claque of planners, led by Wolfowitz, generated a draft document known as Defense Planning Guidance, which envisioned a U.S. that took advantage of its lone-superpower status to consolidate American control of the world both militarily and economically, to the point where no other nation could ever reasonably hope to challenge the U.S. Toward that end it envisioned what we now call "preemptive" wars waged to reset the geopolitical table.
After a copy of DPG was leaked to the New York Times, subsequent drafts were rendered a little less frank, but the basic idea never changed. In 1997 Wolfowitz and his true believers--Richard Perle, William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld--formed an organization called Project for the New American Century to carry their cause forward. And though they all flocked around the Bush administration from the start, W never really embraced their plan until the events of September 11 left him casting around for a foreign policy plan.
2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.
Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Right. But they did not come under the heading of self-defense.
We now know how the Bushmen gathered their prewar intelligence: They set out to patch together their case for invading Iraq and ignored everything that contradicted it. In the end, this required that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. set aside the findings of analysts from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (the Pentagon's own spy bureau) and stake their claim largely on the basis of isolated, anecdotal testimony from handpicked Iraqi defectors. (See #5, Ahmed Chalabi.) But the administration did not just listen to the defectors; it promoted their claims in the press as a means of enlisting public opinion. The only reason so many Americans thought there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda in the first place was that the Bushmen trotted out Iraqi defectors making these sorts of claims to every major media outlet that would listen.
Here is the verdict of Gregory Thielman, the recently retired head of the State Department's intelligence office: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq. This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude--we know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers." Elsewhere he has been quoted as saying, "The principal reasons that Americans did not understand the nature of the Iraqi threat in my view was the failure of senior administration officials to speak honestly about what the intelligence showed."
3) Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger.
Lies and distortions tend to beget more lies and distortions, and here is W's most notorious case in point: Once the administration decided to issue a damage-controlling (they hoped) mea culpa in the matter of African uranium, they were obliged to couch it in another, more perilous lie: that the administration, and quite likely Bush himself, thought the uranium claim was true when he made it. But former acting ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6 that exploded the claim. Wilson, who traveled to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium claims at the behest of the CIA and Dick Cheney's office and found them to be groundless, describes what followed this way: "Although I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in U.S. government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a CIA report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure."
4) The aluminum tubes were proof of a nuclear program.
The very next sentence of Bush's State of the Union address was just as egregious a lie as the uranium claim, though a bit cagier in its formulation. "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." This is altogether false in its implication (that this is the likeliest use for these materials) and may be untrue in its literal sense as well. As the London Independent summed it up recently, "The U.S. persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges." [emphasis added]
5) Iraq's WMDs were sent to Syria for hiding.
Or Iran, or.... "They shipped them out!" was a rallying cry for the administration in the first few nervous weeks of finding no WMDs, but not a bit of supporting evidence has emerged.
6) The CIA was primarily responsible for any prewar intelligence errors or distortions regarding Iraq.
Don't be misled by the news that CIA director George Tenet has taken the fall for Bush's falsehoods in the State of the Uranium address. As the journalist Robert Dreyfuss wrote shortly before the war, "Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency. The Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the agency to produce intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq. ... Morale inside the U.S. national-security apparatus is said to be low, with career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify the push for war."
In short, Tenet fell on his sword when he vetted Bush's State of the Union yarns. And now he has had to get up and fall on it again.
7) An International Atomic Energy Agency report indicated that Iraq could be as little as six months from making nuclear weapons.
Alas: The claim had to be retracted when the IAEA pointed out that no such report existed.
8) Saddam was involved with bin Laden and al Qaeda in the plotting of 9/11.
One of the most audacious and well-traveled of the Bushmen's fibs, this one hangs by two of the slenderest evidentiary threads imaginable: first, anecdotal testimony by isolated, handpicked Iraqi defectors that there was an al Qaeda training camp in Iraq, a claim CIA analysts did not corroborate and that postwar U.S. military inspectors conceded did not exist; and second, old intelligence accounts of a
...
David Casey <davidca...@spamcop.net> wrote: >... should try something more original like facts ...
I suggest you do so at your earliest convenience.
>...have major problems ...
You sure do. If only you could wise up enough to do better for yourself.
>I don't have to pick anything because I haven't made the claim Bush is >lying. You have.
Actually, I've merely pointed out what those who know say.
>So, let's see examples *in your own words* of where Bush >is lying.
Can't you read the ones you already got?
Here, get someone to read this to you:
The clueless David Casey <davidca...@spamcop.net> wrote of his total inability to learn anything for himself, even things of significance:
>But we're not asking Bush to back up ...
You, if not your fleas, should start expecting better of your employees than to tell you lies that get your defenses diminished.
>... trying to shift the job to someone >else and be a man for once...
You really ought to go for that if you can.
>Which false claims?
Pick anything Bush has said to you. Perhaps your inability to close your gaping maw is what has your critical thought process shut down.
COVER STORY . VOL 24 #1182 . PUBLISHED 7/30/03 BRING 'EM ON! by Steve Perry The Bush administration's Top 40 Lies about war and terrorism Bring 'em On! By Steve Perry
Editor's note: In the interest of relative brevity I've stinted on citing and quoting sources in some of the items below. You can find links to news stories that elaborate on each of these items at my online Bush Wars column, www.bushwarsblog.com. 1) The administration was not bent on war with Iraq from 9/11 onward.
THE EMPEROR HAS NO FLIGHT SUIT In recent weeks, the press and some Democrats have finally taken up a critical White House deception about Iraq and uranium. What took them so long? And what about all the other lies?
HIGH CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS Throughout the year leading up to war, the White House publicly maintained that the U.S. took weapons inspections seriously, that diplomacy would get its chance, that Saddam had the opportunity to prevent a U.S. invasion. The most pungent and concise evidence to the contrary comes from the president's own mouth. According to Time's March 31 road-to-war story, Bush popped in on national security adviser Condi Rice one day in March 2002, interrupting a meeting on UN sanctions against Iraq. Getting a whiff of the subject matter, W peremptorily waved his hand and told her, "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out." Clare Short, Tony Blair's former secretary for international development, recently lent further credence to the anecdote. She told the London Guardian that Bush and Blair made a secret pact a few months afterward, in the summer of 2002, to invade Iraq in either February or March of this year.
Last fall CBS News obtained meeting notes taken by a Rumsfeld aide at 2:40 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The notes indicate that Rumsfeld wanted the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden].... Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz, the Bushmen's leading intellectual light, has long been rabid on the subject of Iraq. He reportedly told Vanity Fair writer Sam Tanenhaus off the record that he believes Saddam was connected not only to bin Laden and 9/11, but the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
The Bush administration's foreign policy plan was not based on September 11, or terrorism; those events only brought to the forefront a radical plan for U.S. control of the post-Cold War world that had been taking shape since the closing days of the first Bush presidency. Back then a small claque of planners, led by Wolfowitz, generated a draft document known as Defense Planning Guidance, which envisioned a U.S. that took advantage of its lone-superpower status to consolidate American control of the world both militarily and economically, to the point where no other nation could ever reasonably hope to challenge the U.S. Toward that end it envisioned what we now call "preemptive" wars waged to reset the geopolitical table.
After a copy of DPG was leaked to the New York Times, subsequent drafts were rendered a little less frank, but the basic idea never changed. In 1997 Wolfowitz and his true believers--Richard Perle, William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld--formed an organization called Project for the New American Century to carry their cause forward. And though they all flocked around the Bush administration from the start, W never really embraced their plan until the events of September 11 left him casting around for a foreign policy plan.
2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.
Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Right. But they did not come under the heading of self-defense.
We now know how the Bushmen gathered their prewar intelligence: They set out to patch together their case for invading Iraq and ignored everything that contradicted it. In the end, this required that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. set aside the findings of analysts from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (the Pentagon's own spy bureau) and stake their claim largely on the basis of isolated, anecdotal testimony from handpicked Iraqi defectors. (See #5, Ahmed Chalabi.) But the administration did not just listen to the defectors; it promoted their claims in the press as a means of enlisting public opinion. The only reason so many Americans thought there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda in the first place was that the Bushmen trotted out Iraqi defectors making these sorts of claims to every major media outlet that would listen.
Here is the verdict of Gregory Thielman, the recently retired head of the State Department's intelligence office: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq. This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude--we know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers." Elsewhere he has been quoted as saying, "The principal reasons that Americans did not understand the nature of the Iraqi threat in my view was the failure of senior administration officials to speak honestly about what the intelligence showed."
3) Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger.
Lies and distortions tend to beget more lies and distortions, and here is W's most notorious case in point: Once the administration decided to issue a damage-controlling (they hoped) mea culpa in the matter of African uranium, they were obliged to couch it in another, more perilous lie: that the administration, and quite likely Bush himself, thought the uranium claim was true when he made it. But former acting ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6 that exploded the claim. Wilson, who traveled to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium claims at the behest of the CIA and Dick Cheney's office and found them to be groundless, describes what followed this way: "Although I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in U.S. government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a CIA report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure."
4) The aluminum tubes were proof of a nuclear program.
The very next sentence of Bush's State of the Union address was just as egregious a lie as the uranium claim, though a bit cagier in its formulation. "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." This is altogether false in its implication (that this is the likeliest use for these materials) and may be untrue in its literal sense as well. As the London Independent summed it up recently, "The U.S. persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges." [emphasis added]
5) Iraq's WMDs were sent to Syria for hiding.
Or Iran, or.... "They shipped them out!" was a rallying cry for the administration in the first few nervous weeks of finding no WMDs, but not a bit of supporting evidence has emerged.
6) The CIA was primarily responsible for any prewar intelligence errors or distortions regarding Iraq.
Don't be misled by the news that CIA director George Tenet has taken the fall for Bush's falsehoods in the State of the Uranium address. As the journalist Robert Dreyfuss wrote shortly before the war, "Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency. The Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the agency to produce intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq. ... Morale inside the U.S. national-security apparatus is said to be low, with career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured
...
>>... should try something more original like facts ...
> I suggest you do so at your earliest convenience.
>>...have major problems ...
> You sure do. If only you could wise up enough to > do better for yourself.
>>I don't have to pick anything because I haven't made the claim Bush is >>lying. You have.
> Actually, I've merely pointed out what those who know say.
>>So, let's see examples *in your own words* of where Bush >>is lying.
> Can't you read the ones you already got?
> Here, get someone to read this to you:
[snip rest of usual crap]
Wow, nice job editing. Did you learn that in the Soviet Union?
BTW, dodging of the issue and questions asked of you noted. I guess all you can do is cut and paste the same old tired junk when you're unable to actually provide facts or form your own opinion. ;-)
Dave As if you can't tell, I'm simply toying with you. I already have you chalked down as a fool and idiot yet you seem to keep wanting to prove it with every post. You may proceed. ;-) -- You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us! US Army Signal Corps!! www.geocities.com/davidcasey98
Failing to maintain attributions and committing other Usenet errors, including the refusal to post anything about the actual topic, David Casey <davidca...@spamcop.net> blathered:
>... crossposting ...
(That's offtopic for at least some of the groups to which you crossposted it.)
The topic is about how those who actually care about America won't support crooks such as Bush when they harm it.
>[snip rest of usual crap] >... learn that in the Soviet Union ...
You must love the loss of privacy and due process being imposed on Americans, then.
>BTW, dodging of the issue and questions asked ...
If you could read, perhaps you'd do better than that.
>... the same old tired junk when ... unable to >actually provide facts ... >Dave >... a fool and idiot ...wanting to prove it >with every post. ...
That's why you haven't managed to address the actual subject at all.
It's the way you shouldn't accept lies from crooks that get troops killed.
David Casey <davidca...@spamcop.net> wrote: >... should try something more original like facts ...
I suggest you do so at your earliest convenience.
>...have major problems ...
You sure do. If only you could wise up enough to do better for yourself.
>I don't have to pick anything because I haven't made the claim Bush is >lying. You have.
Actually, I've merely pointed out what those who know say.
>So, let's see examples *in your own words* of where Bush >is lying.
Can't you read the ones you already got?
Here, get someone to read this to you:
The clueless David Casey <davidca...@spamcop.net> wrote of his total inability to learn anything for himself, even things of significance:
>But we're not asking Bush to back up ...
You, if not your fleas, should start expecting better of your employees than to tell you lies that get your defenses diminished.
>... trying to shift the job to someone >else and be a man for once...
You really ought to go for that if you can.
>Which false claims?
Pick anything Bush has said to you. Perhaps your inability to close your gaping maw is what has your critical thought process shut down.
COVER STORY . VOL 24 #1182 . PUBLISHED 7/30/03 BRING 'EM ON! by Steve Perry The Bush administration's Top 40 Lies about war and terrorism Bring 'em On! By Steve Perry
Editor's note: In the interest of relative brevity I've stinted on citing and quoting sources in some of the items below. You can find links to news stories that elaborate on each of these items at my online Bush Wars column, www.bushwarsblog.com. 1) The administration was not bent on war with Iraq from 9/11 onward.
THE EMPEROR HAS NO FLIGHT SUIT In recent weeks, the press and some Democrats have finally taken up a critical White House deception about Iraq and uranium. What took them so long? And what about all the other lies?
HIGH CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS Throughout the year leading up to war, the White House publicly maintained that the U.S. took weapons inspections seriously, that diplomacy would get its chance, that Saddam had the opportunity to prevent a U.S. invasion. The most pungent and concise evidence to the contrary comes from the president's own mouth. According to Time's March 31 road-to-war story, Bush popped in on national security adviser Condi Rice one day in March 2002, interrupting a meeting on UN sanctions against Iraq. Getting a whiff of the subject matter, W peremptorily waved his hand and told her, "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out." Clare Short, Tony Blair's former secretary for international development, recently lent further credence to the anecdote. She told the London Guardian that Bush and Blair made a secret pact a few months afterward, in the summer of 2002, to invade Iraq in either February or March of this year.
Last fall CBS News obtained meeting notes taken by a Rumsfeld aide at 2:40 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The notes indicate that Rumsfeld wanted the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden].... Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz, the Bushmen's leading intellectual light, has long been rabid on the subject of Iraq. He reportedly told Vanity Fair writer Sam Tanenhaus off the record that he believes Saddam was connected not only to bin Laden and 9/11, but the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
The Bush administration's foreign policy plan was not based on September 11, or terrorism; those events only brought to the forefront a radical plan for U.S. control of the post-Cold War world that had been taking shape since the closing days of the first Bush presidency. Back then a small claque of planners, led by Wolfowitz, generated a draft document known as Defense Planning Guidance, which envisioned a U.S. that took advantage of its lone-superpower status to consolidate American control of the world both militarily and economically, to the point where no other nation could ever reasonably hope to challenge the U.S. Toward that end it envisioned what we now call "preemptive" wars waged to reset the geopolitical table.
After a copy of DPG was leaked to the New York Times, subsequent drafts were rendered a little less frank, but the basic idea never changed. In 1997 Wolfowitz and his true believers--Richard Perle, William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld--formed an organization called Project for the New American Century to carry their cause forward. And though they all flocked around the Bush administration from the start, W never really embraced their plan until the events of September 11 left him casting around for a foreign policy plan.
2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.
Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Right. But they did not come under the heading of self-defense.
We now know how the Bushmen gathered their prewar intelligence: They set out to patch together their case for invading Iraq and ignored everything that contradicted it. In the end, this required that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. set aside the findings of analysts from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (the Pentagon's own spy bureau) and stake their claim largely on the basis of isolated, anecdotal testimony from handpicked Iraqi defectors. (See #5, Ahmed Chalabi.) But the administration did not just listen to the defectors; it promoted their claims in the press as a means of enlisting public opinion. The only reason so many Americans thought there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda in the first place was that the Bushmen trotted out Iraqi defectors making these sorts of claims to every major media outlet that would listen.
Here is the verdict of Gregory Thielman, the recently retired head of the State Department's intelligence office: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq. This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude--we know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers." Elsewhere he has been quoted as saying, "The principal reasons that Americans did not understand the nature of the Iraqi threat in my view was the failure of senior administration officials to speak honestly about what the intelligence showed."
3) Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger.
Lies and distortions tend to beget more lies and distortions, and here is W's most notorious case in point: Once the administration decided to issue a damage-controlling (they hoped) mea culpa in the matter of African uranium, they were obliged to couch it in another, more perilous lie: that the administration, and quite likely Bush himself, thought the uranium claim was true when he made it. But former acting ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6 that exploded the claim. Wilson, who traveled to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium claims at the behest of the CIA and Dick Cheney's office and found them to be groundless, describes what followed this way: "Although I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in U.S. government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a CIA report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure."
4) The aluminum tubes were proof of a nuclear program.
The very next sentence of Bush's State of the Union address was just as egregious a lie as the uranium claim, though a bit cagier in its formulation. "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." This is altogether false in its implication (that this is the likeliest use for these materials) and may be untrue in its literal sense as well. As the London Independent summed it up recently, "The U.S. persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges."
...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:26:31 -0400, Bush Screws the wrote:
[groups trimmed to comply with uma charter]
>>... crossposting ...
> (That's offtopic for at least some of the groups to which you > crossposted it.)
> The topic is about how those who actually care about America > won't support crooks such as Bush when they harm it.
Oh, I thought the topic was about how dumb you can look with each post.
>>[snip rest of usual crap] >>... learn that in the Soviet Union ...
> You must love the loss of privacy and due process being imposed > on Americans, then.
You know, folks keep saying this yet I'm able to do the same things today I was able to do years ago. Privacy is relative in this day of the Internet and debit cards, too bad you don't realize that. Due process? The system seems to be working fine to me. Don't break a law, you won't have to deal with the justice system.
>>BTW, dodging of the issue and questions asked ...
> If you could read, perhaps you'd do better than that.
LOL!
>>... the same old tired junk when ... unable to >>actually provide facts ... >>Dave >>... a fool and idiot ...wanting to prove it >>with every post. ...
> That's why you haven't managed to address the actual subject at all.
I've addressed the subject that you're an idiot many times. You just keep proving it for me making my job that much easier. In fact, I'd be willing to bet if I made an empty post with only one word, say the word "hi", you'd manage to post and look stupid in reply.
> It's the way you shouldn't accept lies from crooks that get troops killed.
What lies? What crooks? ;-)
Dave What's the BI up to anyway? -- You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us! US Army Signal Corps!! www.geocities.com/davidcasey98
Failing to maintain attributions and committing other Usenet errors, including the refusal to post anything about the actual topic, David Casey <davidca...@spamcop.net> blathered:
>... crossposting ...
(That's offtopic for at least some of the groups to which you crossposted it.)
The topic is about how those who actually care about America won't support crooks such as Bush when they harm it.
>[snip rest of usual crap] >... learn that in the Soviet Union ...
You must love the loss of privacy and due process being imposed on Americans, then.
>BTW, dodging of the issue and questions asked ...
If you could read, perhaps you'd do better than that.
>... the same old tired junk when ... unable to >actually provide facts ... >Dave >... a fool and idiot ...wanting to prove it >with every post. ...
That's why you haven't managed to address the actual subject at all.
It's the way you shouldn't accept lies from crooks that get troops killed.
David Casey <davidca...@spamcop.net> wrote: >... should try something more original like facts ...
I suggest you do so at your earliest convenience.
>...have major problems ...
You sure do. If only you could wise up enough to do better for yourself.
>I don't have to pick anything because I haven't made the claim Bush is >lying. You have.
Actually, I've merely pointed out what those who know say.
>So, let's see examples *in your own words* of where Bush >is lying.
Can't you read the ones you already got?
Here, get someone to read this to you:
The clueless David Casey <davidca...@spamcop.net> wrote of his total inability to learn anything for himself, even things of significance:
>But we're not asking Bush to back up ...
You, if not your fleas, should start expecting better of your employees than to tell you lies that get your defenses diminished.
>... trying to shift the job to someone >else and be a man for once...
You really ought to go for that if you can.
>Which false claims?
Pick anything Bush has said to you. Perhaps your inability to close your gaping maw is what has your critical thought process shut down.
COVER STORY . VOL 24 #1182 . PUBLISHED 7/30/03 BRING 'EM ON! by Steve Perry The Bush administration's Top 40 Lies about war and terrorism Bring 'em On! By Steve Perry
Editor's note: In the interest of relative brevity I've stinted on citing and quoting sources in some of the items below. You can find links to news stories that elaborate on each of these items at my online Bush Wars column, www.bushwarsblog.com. 1) The administration was not bent on war with Iraq from 9/11 onward.
THE EMPEROR HAS NO FLIGHT SUIT In recent weeks, the press and some Democrats have finally taken up a critical White House deception about Iraq and uranium. What took them so long? And what about all the other lies?
HIGH CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS Throughout the year leading up to war, the White House publicly maintained that the U.S. took weapons inspections seriously, that diplomacy would get its chance, that Saddam had the opportunity to prevent a U.S. invasion. The most pungent and concise evidence to the contrary comes from the president's own mouth. According to Time's March 31 road-to-war story, Bush popped in on national security adviser Condi Rice one day in March 2002, interrupting a meeting on UN sanctions against Iraq. Getting a whiff of the subject matter, W peremptorily waved his hand and told her, "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out." Clare Short, Tony Blair's former secretary for international development, recently lent further credence to the anecdote. She told the London Guardian that Bush and Blair made a secret pact a few months afterward, in the summer of 2002, to invade Iraq in either February or March of this year.
Last fall CBS News obtained meeting notes taken by a Rumsfeld aide at 2:40 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The notes indicate that Rumsfeld wanted the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden].... Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz, the Bushmen's leading intellectual light, has long been rabid on the subject of Iraq. He reportedly told Vanity Fair writer Sam Tanenhaus off the record that he believes Saddam was connected not only to bin Laden and 9/11, but the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
The Bush administration's foreign policy plan was not based on September 11, or terrorism; those events only brought to the forefront a radical plan for U.S. control of the post-Cold War world that had been taking shape since the closing days of the first Bush presidency. Back then a small claque of planners, led by Wolfowitz, generated a draft document known as Defense Planning Guidance, which envisioned a U.S. that took advantage of its lone-superpower status to consolidate American control of the world both militarily and economically, to the point where no other nation could ever reasonably hope to challenge the U.S. Toward that end it envisioned what we now call "preemptive" wars waged to reset the geopolitical table.
After a copy of DPG was leaked to the New York Times, subsequent drafts were rendered a little less frank, but the basic idea never changed. In 1997 Wolfowitz and his true believers--Richard Perle, William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld--formed an organization called Project for the New American Century to carry their cause forward. And though they all flocked around the Bush administration from the start, W never really embraced their plan until the events of September 11 left him casting around for a foreign policy plan.
2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.
Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Right. But they did not come under the heading of self-defense.
We now know how the Bushmen gathered their prewar intelligence: They set out to patch together their case for invading Iraq and ignored everything that contradicted it. In the end, this required that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. set aside the findings of analysts from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (the Pentagon's own spy bureau) and stake their claim largely on the basis of isolated, anecdotal testimony from handpicked Iraqi defectors. (See #5, Ahmed Chalabi.) But the administration did not just listen to the defectors; it promoted their claims in the press as a means of enlisting public opinion. The only reason so many Americans thought there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda in the first place was that the Bushmen trotted out Iraqi defectors making these sorts of claims to every major media outlet that would listen.
Here is the verdict of Gregory Thielman, the recently retired head of the State Department's intelligence office: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq. This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude--we know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers." Elsewhere he has been quoted as saying, "The principal reasons that Americans did not understand the nature of the Iraqi threat in my view was the failure of senior administration officials to speak honestly about what the intelligence showed."
3) Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger.
Lies and distortions tend to beget more lies and distortions, and here is W's most notorious case in point: Once the administration decided to issue a damage-controlling (they hoped) mea culpa in the matter of African uranium, they were obliged to couch it in another, more perilous lie: that the administration, and quite likely Bush himself, thought the uranium claim was true when he made it. But former acting ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6 that exploded the claim. Wilson, who traveled to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium claims at the behest of the CIA and Dick Cheney's office and found them to be groundless, describes what followed this way: "Although I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in U.S. government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a CIA report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure."
4) The aluminum tubes were proof of a nuclear program.
The very next sentence of Bush's State of the Union address was just as egregious a lie as the uranium claim, though a bit cagier in its formulation. "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." This is altogether false in its implication (that this is the likeliest use for these materials) and may be untrue in its literal sense as well. As the London Independent summed it up recently, "The U.S. persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges."
...
Has anyone seen the latest report on SARS being created by secret bio-weapons facilities in Israel and that David Kelly had been to the Tel Aviv suburb airlocked compound several times in a revolving door deal between the Pentagon, Mossad and MI6? Then he became a hot potato rather than an asset and he went the same way as Vincent Foster and JFK.
Yes. Ozone is really horrible shitty stuff and toxic. It is not what protects our atmosphere from UV and radioactive rays. So to speak of an "ozone layer" as something cool is already to fuck with our heads.
The outer shell of our atmosphere and ionosphere is protected by noctilucent super-ice water nano-particles that are also bound up tightly in the center of our earth and called Amorphous Solid Water and/or Supercooled Liquid water down in there, depending on its many transition states. It has non-quantum magnetic characteristics that cannot be converted to electricity.
I'm still laughing at all the fools who believed the tripe about "molten nickel" and deuterium and highly radioactive core elements of the earth. Then why would fucking water be so elemental in our seas, life cycles, plant cycles, bio cycles, oceans, clouds, atmosphere, and ionosphere?
There are rare forms of water way up there over our little heads too along with lots of argon and some other noble elements, e.g. krypton and neon and xenon. All the raging heat and flourine and salt compounds and gypsum and tuffa and lapiz lazuli and fainz is down in those disgusting volcanoes that litter our earth like pock marks on a pitted teenager's face suffering from pimples, and they are no more than twenty or at most fifty miles deep ... beneath that is the old earth and its magical water properties, that defy all our current scientific beliefs, which are very very narrow.
The heat wave in Europe is directly attributable to the global boiling process proceeding at an alarming rate now, and it is time to plug volcanoes, desist from burning oil, which is an alien substance and not originating from fossils [we could power the earth and outer space projects just by converting human and pig shit into fuel], and especially ban refrigerants and exhausts that are disruptive and destructive of our fine lady of a planet.
We also need to blast meteors out of our solar system with weapons of comet destruction [WCDs] whenever sighted [and NEVER our planet or living creatures in it and on it] ... they are menacing us with cometary space viruses that take over the nervous system of host species and then destroy the originals.
> > HAARP point #1 [of a three-point matching surface]: 180 72-foot > > antennas distributed over 33 acres, in Gakona Alaska, capable of the > > power in gigawatts of a nuclear bomb.
> > HAARP: Three-Wave Matching Surface
> > [Gakona, Alaska, point 1; Norway, point 2; Greenland, point 3; backup > > point 4, Puerto Rico]
> > from PHYSICS OF PLASMAS, Vol. 8, No. 1, by A.D. Ryutov and S.C. Cowely
> > Jan. 2001
> > [note: even though the funding for massive HAARP expansion was taken > > away from transparent channels, there is extensive activity and > > payouts being made in HAARP applications, today and since 1995].
> > There is now a unique opportunity to study beat wave excitation in the > > ionosphere above Alaska. HAARP and HIPAS can both irradiate the same > > patch of ionosphere.
> > Beat wave experiments to excite upper-hybrid waves are being performed > > at HIPAS and HAARP. In this paper we develop the theory of beat wave > > excitation in an inhomogeneous plasma where the waves have wavelengths > > short compared to the length over which the plasma varies.
> > Primary waves are excited by antennas. The HAARP facility has a > > minimum potential of effective radiated power of 1.7 Gigawatts [nearly > > 2 billion watts]. A ten billion watt generator running for one hour > > would deliver a quantity of energy equal to that of the Hiroshima > > atomic bomb.
> > THREE WAVE RESONANCE:
> > Alaska--Norway--Iceland > > [with Puerto Rico facilities as a smaller backup system]
> > The width of the three wave matching region can be estimated as the > > distance from the three wave matching surface over which the phase > > difference between the nonlinear source and the free wave changes by > > Pi.
> > Says the Russian Duma, "when these three wave resonance microwave > > frequencies are launched into space from Norway, Alaska, and > > Greenland, a closed contour will be created with a truly fantastic > > integral potential for influencing the near Earth medium."
> > from PHYSICS LETTERS, Aug 2002, Vol. 301
> > "The theory of nonlinear large scale structuring in ionospheric > > modifications is developed. The results of an experiment in the > > northern ionosphere are presented. The ionospheric modification was > > produced by HAARP facility Alaska and the plasma disturbances were > > measured using the Polar Orbiting OSCAR 27 satellite."
> > The comparison shows a reasonable agreement between observational data > > and the theory. For the first time the existence of artificially > > produced plasma depletion structure elongated along magnetic field > > lines at hundreds of kilometers has been established.
> > Professor Kathryn Kelley of University of Albany has noted that the > > brain implant research affiliated with the HAARP microwave technology > > and Elfwaves is funded by the NSA [National Security Agency] and the > > DoD [Department of Defense] to the annual tune of $2 billion minimum > > annually, and is used most frequently on unwitting political > > dissidents, even if they be troublesome housewives who spoke their > > mind on related issues.
> > "When short wave operators transmit to or scan RAATs, short for > > radiowave, auditory, assaultive transmitting IMPLANTS in victims > > [alleged dissidents], they can talk to the victims remotely and > > anonymously, and hear the victim's speech and thoughts." The powerful > > NIH and several of its numerous directors deny any such involvement in > > this project.
> > There are two main methods to get clear brain signals without > > IMPLANTS. Shave a person's head or put conductive gel in their hair. > > Non contact cryogenic SQUID sensors have been used too.
> > Arrays of 1000 elements with a resolution of 5 mm may be possible said > > the researchers.
> > 48 year old Diana Anapolis has filed in court a charge that Stephen > > Spielberg and his actress wife Kate Capshaw were members of a satanic > > cult that implanted a microchip in her brain called a "soul catcher" > > that was controlling her.
> > The shooters at Columbine High School had made the same claims also, > > but they could not identify the grand master behind the implants and > > Elfwaves.
> > Theordore Kaczynski the Unabomber made a similar claim. He said that > > as a 16 year old genius math student at Berkeley in the early 1960s he > > was subjected to years of mind control experiments under the NSA > > psychologist, Henry Murray, who had been a friend of Carl Jung.
> > The prime contractors for HAARP have been ARCO Atlantic Richfield Oil, > > Bernard Eastlund's patents based on the work of Nicolas Tesla, and > > E-Systems, the CIA's favorite contractor, besides Halliburton and > > Wackenhut, Kellogg Root Brown and Coots & Boots.
> > The Brookhaven Lab on Long Island is working on this today, stretching > > back to the Montauk and Philadelphia Experiments of the 1950s and > > 1970s.
> > The satanic Aleister Crowley played his hand in these projects also.
High speed microwaves can penetrate into electronic systems by the "front door" or by the "back door".
Magnetrons, linear beam tubes, and vircators operate at high peak powers below about 10 GHz [GIGAHERTZ] aka, 1,000,000,000 periods per second. Cavity dimensions and frequency are inversely related. High frequencies, then, mean smaller cavity dimensions, higher power densities, http://infoserve.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/techlib/access-control.pl/2001/01...
HAARP and ELF: Some other important supporting technologies for an HPM weapon system are target tracking and aiming equipment and methods of damage assessment. Target tracking and aiming for HPM weapons is, in one sense, easier than for lasers because the beam width and spot size are so much larger.
The research of original systems is to be preferred to the simulation. Thus, to shoot down a space shuttle would be a very beneficial test and piece of scientific documentation.
On the other hand, since one advantage of the microwave region is its ability to penetrate smoke, clouds,
...
bernard_bedwetter_ker...@yahoo.com (Bernard Kerick) wrote in message <news:ec8ea69a.0308131849.3561936f@posting.google.com>... > Has anyone seen the latest report on SARS being created by secret > bio-weapons facilities in Israel and that David Kelly had been to the > Tel Aviv suburb airlocked compound several times in a revolving door > deal between the Pentagon, Mossad and MI6? Then he became a hot > potato rather than an asset and he went the same way as Vincent Foster > and JFK.
> Yes. Ozone is really horrible shitty stuff and toxic. It is not what > protects our atmosphere from UV and radioactive rays. So to speak of > an "ozone layer" as something cool is already to fuck with our heads.
> The outer shell of our atmosphere and ionosphere is protected by > noctilucent super-ice water nano-particles that are also bound up > tightly in the center of our earth and called Amorphous Solid Water > and/or Supercooled Liquid water down in there, depending on its many > transition states. It has non-quantum magnetic characteristics that > cannot be converted to electricity.
> I'm still laughing at all the fools who believed the tripe about > "molten nickel" and deuterium and highly radioactive core elements of > the earth. Then why would fucking water be so elemental in our seas, > life cycles, plant cycles, bio cycles, oceans, clouds, atmosphere, and > ionosphere?
> There are rare forms of water way up there over our little heads too > along with lots of argon and some other noble elements, e.g. krypton > and neon and xenon. All the raging heat and flourine and salt > compounds and gypsum and tuffa and lapiz lazuli and fainz is down in > those disgusting volcanoes that litter our earth like pock marks on a > pitted teenager's face suffering from pimples, and they are no more > than twenty or at most fifty miles deep ... beneath that is the old > earth and its magical water properties, that defy all our current > scientific beliefs, which are very very narrow.
> The heat wave in Europe is directly attributable to the global boiling > process proceeding at an alarming rate now, and it is time to plug > volcanoes, desist from burning oil, which is an alien substance and > not originating from fossils [we could power the earth and outer space > projects just by converting human and pig shit into fuel], and > especially ban refrigerants and exhausts that are disruptive and > destructive of our fine lady of a planet.
> We also need to blast meteors out of our solar system with weapons of > comet > destruction [WCDs] whenever sighted [and NEVER our planet or living > creatures in it and on it] ... they are menacing us with cometary > space viruses that take over the nervous system of host species and > then destroy the originals.
> > look up "noctilucent clouds" and "supercooled liquid water" on google, > > and then go to:
> > > HAARP point #1 [of a three-point matching surface]: 180 72-foot > > > antennas distributed over 33 acres, in Gakona Alaska, capable of the > > > power in gigawatts of a nuclear bomb.
> > > HAARP: Three-Wave Matching Surface
> > > [Gakona, Alaska, point 1; Norway, point 2; Greenland, point 3; backup > > > point 4, Puerto Rico]
> > > from PHYSICS OF PLASMAS, Vol. 8, No. 1, by A.D. Ryutov and S.C. Cowely
> > > Jan. 2001
> > > [note: even though the funding for massive HAARP expansion was taken > > > away from transparent channels, there is extensive activity and > > > payouts being made in HAARP applications, today and since 1995].
> > > There is now a unique opportunity to study beat wave excitation in the > > > ionosphere above Alaska. HAARP and HIPAS can both irradiate the same > > > patch of ionosphere.
> > > Beat wave experiments to excite upper-hybrid waves are being performed > > > at HIPAS and HAARP. In this paper we develop the theory of beat wave > > > excitation in an inhomogeneous plasma where the waves have wavelengths > > > short compared to the length over which the plasma varies.
> > > Primary waves are excited by antennas. The HAARP facility has a > > > minimum potential of effective radiated power of 1.7 Gigawatts [nearly > > > 2 billion watts]. A ten billion watt generator running for one hour > > > would deliver a quantity of energy equal to that of the Hiroshima > > > atomic bomb.
> > > THREE WAVE RESONANCE:
> > > Alaska--Norway--Iceland > > > [with Puerto Rico facilities as a smaller backup system]
> > > The width of the three wave matching region can be estimated as the > > > distance from the three wave matching surface over which the phase > > > difference between the nonlinear source and the free wave changes by > > > Pi.
> > > Says the Russian Duma, "when these three wave resonance microwave > > > frequencies are launched into space from Norway, Alaska, and > > > Greenland, a closed contour will be created with a truly fantastic > > > integral potential for influencing the near Earth medium."
> > > from PHYSICS LETTERS, Aug 2002, Vol. 301
> > > "The theory of nonlinear large scale structuring in ionospheric > > > modifications is developed. The results of an experiment in the > > > northern ionosphere are presented. The ionospheric modification was > > > produced by HAARP facility Alaska and the plasma disturbances were > > > measured using the Polar Orbiting OSCAR 27 satellite."
> > > The comparison shows a reasonable agreement between observational data > > > and the theory. For the first time the existence of artificially > > > produced plasma depletion structure elongated along magnetic field > > > lines at hundreds of kilometers has been established.
> > > Professor Kathryn Kelley of University of Albany has noted that the > > > brain implant research affiliated with the HAARP microwave technology > > > and Elfwaves is funded by the NSA [National Security Agency] and the > > > DoD [Department of Defense] to the annual tune of $2 billion minimum > > > annually, and is used most frequently on unwitting political > > > dissidents, even if they be troublesome housewives who spoke their > > > mind on related issues.
> > > "When short wave operators transmit to or scan RAATs, short for > > > radiowave, auditory, assaultive transmitting IMPLANTS in victims > > > [alleged dissidents], they can talk to the victims remotely and > > > anonymously, and hear the victim's speech and thoughts." The powerful > > > NIH and several of its numerous directors deny any such involvement in > > > this project.
> > > There are two main methods to get clear brain signals without > > > IMPLANTS. Shave a person's head or put conductive gel in their hair. > > > Non contact cryogenic SQUID sensors have been used too.
> > > Arrays of 1000 elements with a resolution of 5 mm may be possible said > > > the researchers.
> > > 48 year old Diana Anapolis has filed in court a charge that Stephen > > > Spielberg and his actress wife Kate Capshaw were members of a satanic > > > cult that implanted a microchip in her brain called a "soul catcher" > > > that was controlling her.
> > > The shooters at Columbine High School had made the same claims also, > > > but they could not identify the grand master behind the implants and > > > Elfwaves.
> > > Theordore Kaczynski the Unabomber made a similar claim. He said that > > > as a 16 year old genius math student at Berkeley in the early 1960s he > > > was subjected to years of mind control experiments under the NSA > > > psychologist, Henry Murray, who had been a friend of Carl Jung.
> > > The prime contractors for HAARP have been ARCO Atlantic Richfield Oil, > > > Bernard Eastlund's patents based on the work of Nicolas Tesla, and > > > E-Systems, the CIA's favorite contractor, besides Halliburton and > > > Wackenhut, Kellogg Root Brown and Coots & Boots.
> > > The Brookhaven Lab on Long Island is working on this today, stretching > > > back to the Montauk and Philadelphia Experiments of the 1950s and > > > 1970s.
> > > The satanic Aleister Crowley played his hand in these projects also.
> High speed microwaves can penetrate into electronic systems by the > "front door" or by the "back door".
> Magnetrons, linear beam tubes, and vircators operate at high peak > powers below about 10 GHz [GIGAHERTZ] aka, 1,000,000,000 periods per > second. Cavity dimensions and frequency are inversely related. High > frequencies, then, mean smaller cavity dimensions, higher power > densities,
