Fred Stone wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1112587661.092750.218890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

It's very reassuring that you've so comprehensively proven that

The

Hypocrite absolutely does not support the death penalty, being,
instead, overwhelmingly in favor of a culture of life.

I see you like your strawmen.

I see you like to dance the side-step.

I see you like "Turkey in the straw".

Cute, Fred. I could tell you I like my turkey wild, but that would
bring us right back to Duke.

Fred, almost **HALF** of the 23 preamble "Whereas..." statements
talked of weapons of mass destruction - not one of which actually
existed in Iraq. Did you read only the *right* side of the page?

That is misleading. Many of those talk about the requirement for

Saddam

to disarm *and to prove that he has done so*, and to *not obstruct

the

UN Inspectors* in the process.

But that brings us back to the work the inspectors were doing which
The Hypocrite wouldn't let them finish.

As the inspectors themselves
frustratedly commented, if The Hypocrite had all this evidence
indicting Hussein, why didn't he give it to them so they could support
it with on-the-ground facts?

The first clause was nothing but an introduction, having nothing
whatsoever to do with reasons for starting a new war as did one or
two other paragraphs.

Several clauses talked about a "threat to the US" which did not
exist from Iraq.

That's a lie.

Hardly. What threat did Iraq pose?

And if it was so bad, why didn't
Bush The Previous finish the job when he had the chance instead of
letting Hussein go loose, which is one of the main contributing
factors to the mess we're in now?

Obviously daddy didn't think Hussein was a threat.

But "you can call
me George" clearly has something to prove, doesn't he? I wonder what
it is?

The seventh clause talked of brutal repression of civilians which

The

Hypocrite's actions have served only to continue unabated so far

That's a lie.

Not hardly. There was no rampant terrorism in Iraq prior to the wars.

Hussein did his share, of course, but for your average Iraqi, life was
pretty good.

Now they live under the daily threat of starvation,

kidnapping,

the worst to me.

The penultimate "Whereas..." is a direct lie! Iraq was not a
threat to US citizens then. But it *is* now! And far from
bringing "peace and security to the Persian Gulf region", the
invasion has done precisely the opposite.

And that's another lie.

Fred you can chant your mantra all you want, but when you consistently
fail to back it up with facts, it's really just noise.

The inspectors were in process of the *and prove that he did so*
issue, Fred. But The Hypocrite couldn't keep it in his pants,
could he?

Saddam was *obstructing* them. And no, we couldn't just keep waiting
forever, which is what Blix has admitted that he was trying to do.

The problem was that it never occurred to The Hypocrite that the
obstruction had nothing to do with hiding weapons, which we now know
Iraq didn't have, but with maintaining face in the Arab world, and
simply being bloody-minded and playing a dangerous game of
brinkmanship, things which Hussein was known for.

And in January of 2003, just two months before the war, Blix was
demanding Iraq come clean for its own sake. So as long as we're
denouncing liars here, your claim about Blix willing to go forever was
deceitful at best.

He may have been willing to *monitor* Iraq
forever, but it's thoroughly dishonest of you to portray that as a
resolution to blindly play games with Hussein forever.

Remember, it wasn't that anyone *knew* Iraq had these weapons, but
that Iraq had done a poor job of documenting their destruction, which
The Hypocrite was *insisting* meant that they actually still had them.
Obviously he was wrong.

We waited for TEN YEARS.

Makes you wonder why, doesn't it?

Bush The Previous could have
settled it way back in the nineties, but he pulled the plug and put us
in this mess, setting up that pathetic oil-for-food program which was
badly planned, poorly monitored, and open to abuse.

Bush went to the UN. He pushed and he prodded
and they *wouldn't act*.

Act on what? The Hypocrite's inability to keep it in his pants?
*They* were questioning the intelligence. What they should also have
been questioning was The Hypocrite's intelligence - or lack of it.
*They* were waiting on the inspectors, who were doing their job and
*finding nothing*.

He claimed they had WMD and that the threat of imminent use

He never said "imminent" and you know it. Quite the contrary, he
argued that waiting for it to become "imminent" would be a mistake.

So when someone asked Ari Fleischer, right after the war was declared
over (another lie!) if we went to war because weapons of mass
destruction were a an imminent threat to the U.S. and he replied,
"Absolutely", that never happened, Fred?

The Hypocrite, in Sep 2002 never said, "He's a threat we must deal
with as quickly as possible."

And The Hypocrite, in Oct 2002, never said, "...the danger is already
significant and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam
Hussein has dangerous weapons today - and we do - does it make any
sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger
and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

And The Hypocrite, in Nov 2002, never said, "The world is also uniting
to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq..."?

In January 2003, Cheney never said that Iraq poses "terrible threats
to the civilized world."?

In Mar 2003, Rumsfeld never said that Iraq threatens the USA and that
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be
removed"?

When asked in Jan 2003 if Saddam was an "imminent threat" to U.S.
interests, the White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett never
said, "Of course he is"?

And in Jan 2003, The Hypocrite never said, "That's why I say Iraq is a
threat, a real threat."

(this is your cue to hedge and hum and har, and shift the goalposts,
and toss out a couple of straw men. You know, your usual two-step,
Fred.

of which was why he needed to jump the gun and go into Iraq
forthwith, without waiting for UN or allied approval or for
inspections to run their course.

The UN was never going to approve. France saw to that.

I'm sure you can back that up with the facts....

But you seem to conveniently forget that the US has never been overrun
and occupied (since the white man overran and occupied native American
lands, that is), whereas much of Europe has, and within living memory.
France knows what it costs to invade and occupy another country
because it has paid the cost of being overrun and occupied. It's
pretty pathetic when knee-jerk hot heads brush off and insult allies
when they're also acting in the best interests of peace and security -
but with far more wisdom than The Hypocrite can muster.

He only *claimed* that we knew Iraq had WMD. But we *do* know for

a

fact that women are being raped and children are dying in Sudan to

the

tune of 300,000 people. Your "rationalising" his inaction with

talk

of him following proper channels is at best rather bizarre.

Oh, *now* you want unilateral action? Why don't *you* make up your
"mind"? Hypocrite!

Fred, you need to learn to read what I actually write, not what you
pretend to yourself that I write, and also to put it into the context
of the thread in which I write it.

It's going to be really tedious if I have to frame in detail, with
footnotes, every single thing I post in the desperate hope that you
won't completely misunderstand it in the same gullible and predictable
way that Duck ***** does.

My point is not necessarily that anyone should take unilateral action,
but that George W. Bush is a hypocrite in claiming a 'culture of life'
(remember that, Fred? It's in the thread header) while he can, on the
one hand, rampage into Iraq on the flimsiest of pretexts, while
ignoring a much more solid and far greater pretext in Sudan. It's
that simple. I'm sorry it's apparently over your head.

The fact is that if he hadn't spread the US so thin with both
Afghanistan (where the action was to depose the Taliban and get bin
Laden, only half of which has been achieved,

bin Laden is far less than half of the Taliban.

Here we go again. I listed two items, only one of which has been
achieved, therefore half the goals have been achieved. When did you
last study math? And your claim that it's less than half is at best,
grossly subjective. Bin Laden is still free, still an inspiration to
terrorists everywhere, and still directing and encouraging activity in
both Afghanistan and Iraq. Taking him out by himnself and leaving the
Taliban alone would have been a greater blow to terrorism than doing
the other way around.

Now go ahead and get the wrong end of this stick and beat yourself
over the head with it by accusing me of supporting the Taliban, why
don't you, as long as you're so consistently backing the wrong horses
here.

Maintain the status quo. Taiwan's de facto freedom while not

pressuring

the PRC.

We'll see where that "resolve" goes when China starts muscling up to
Taiwan in the not-too-distant future.

I'm quite aware of the US contribution to worldwide CO2 emissions
from the burning of fossil fuels. I am also quite aware of the US
progress in cleaning up the environment, to the point where CO2
emissions are about the only thing left for the whiny Greens to
complain about.

So the single most serious problem we can ignore, huh?

I didn't say that, liar.

I didn't say you did say that, but it's indicative of the weakness of
your position that you're so raw.

I have cited just as much support as you have.

You've cited nothing but the Iraq resolution which I've shown was top
heavy with WMD lies. Everything else has been your simply trying to
gainsay (without supporting material) the case I've made for Bush
being a hypocrite with his simpering blather about a 'culture of
life'!

Your faux pas is thinking this has to do with politics, but it has to
do with blind faith, so I don't even know why you're knee-jerking on
this one. I'd have made the same case had Kerry won and gone the same
blathering way. Would you have tried to defend Karry in those
circumstances? I doubt it. You'd have joined me in tarring and
feathering him.

And I am, of
course, sure that your opinion outweighs the collective opinion of
**ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY ONE OF THE EARTH'S NATIONS**

Most of whom care more about screwing the US than they do about

cleaning

up their own environments.

Rampant, unthinking paranoia. That's pretty sad, but I know it's the
best you can do.

Yep, CO2 is the only thing left. If, of course, you ignore the

rape

of wilderness areas,

Which aren't being raped.

Tell that to Alaska

acid rain,

Which has been drastically reduced in the US.

That's actually not true. SO2 emissions have been reduced, but the US
has achieved only half of what Europe achieved, and it's more accurate
to say we've reduced the *rate of increase* rather than absolutely
reduced it. NOX emissions haven't been addressed at all as far as I'm
aware. Even with the present piddling action, it's going to be a
quarter century before we see any significant improvement.

deforestation,

Which isn't happening.

Wrong. The US's deforestation rate is one sixth that of Brazil, which
is typically cited as atrocious. Although these things are relative.
But it *is* happening, Fred, even in the US.

mercury pollution,

Which has been reduced to a point so far below *natural* levels that
it can hardly even be detected.

Sorry, Fred. Wrong again:

If it's undetectable, why is The Hypocrite issuing regulations?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7185001/

But The hypocrite says it's okay to pollute grossly in one locality if
you can buy enough credits from a locality that has spent the time and
money to clean up its act. No child left brain working?

Autism link, Fred. Hardly undetectable:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18524913.900

48 tons per annum, Fred. Hardly undetectable:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0317-05.htm

45 states have issued fish consumption advisories, Fred. Hardly
undetectable:
http://www.cleartheair.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=24640

Sorry Fred, I'm losing concentration here, it must be the mercury
rising. Now, what were you saying?

And the US does happen to be a 25% contributor.

25% *from the burning of fossil fuels*. I have yet to see a citation
of *other* sources. You know, volcanic, respiration, forest fires?

We really don't have a heck of a lot of control over volcanoes, Fred.
Yawn. Now are we through with your straw men before you're finally
forced to admit that the US contributes 25% of global CO2 emissions,

but rampant pursuit of yet another fast buck prevents us from
addressing it?

And The Hypocrite
does happen to have, by his own admission, political capital that
he's willing to spend. And the Hypocrite does claim to support a
culture of life. But The Hypocrite won't do anything about this
global problem, 25% of which his own nation causes.

Won't do anything? Another lie.

You're right, I misspoke - he isn't doing anything and gives
absolutely no indication of doing anything. There, that's better.

Perhaps he's hoping that it will take care of itself: as everyone gets
rich from social security, they'll upgrade to green systems and CO2
will naturally decline....

I never talk about that, Fred and you know it. He did steal the
first,

Whoops, another lie.

You're surely not trying to claim that he had the absolute largest
number of votes, are you?

but he won the second (not least of which because Kerry was
paradoxically a stuffed shirt and a limp candidate - rather like
Gore, who was a stronger candidate but still a stuffed shirt).

Let's see what happens in 2007 when the Hillary Clinton-Barak Obama

Oh, please do. Please please please run Hillary and Barak.

Be careful what you wish for. I'd hate to see The Hypocrite's
religious cronies subtlely slipping their misogyny and racism cards
from their sleeves, but having seen their tactics in the last
election, there really isn't anything they *won't* do, is there?

Hey, if even a moron like Earl can get it right once in a while,
what's your excuse?

But he *doesn't ever* get it right! You ought to know that by now!

You're running a close second.

Not according to the facts, Fred. But let's not look at those, eh?

wink< Then you can pretend you're right.