KNOWN false information was in the State of the Union Address
____________________________________________________________________
The Bush Administration knew it false information because Ex-ambassador
Wilson went to Niger and reported that the nuclear link to Iraq did not exist.
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
| User: "E.E.Bud Keith" |
|
| Title: Re: KNOWN false information was in the State of the Union Address |
01 Oct 2003 11:37:32 PM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bs5nnvgp62t58n4o9r12qhcpa00bbqaadj@4ax.com...
KNOWN false information was in the State of the Union Address
____________________________________________________________________
The Bush Administration knew it false information because Ex-ambassador
Wilson went to Niger and reported that the nuclear link to Iraq did not
exist.
Yhats a bunch of Crap because British intelligence still says that there
information was reliable. And beside that when could anyone trust anything a
democrat said.
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: KNOWN false information was in the State of the Union Address |
02 Oct 2003 04:22:14 PM |
|
|
In article <bs5nnvgp62t58n4o9r12qhcpa00bbqaadj@4ax.com>, wrote:
KNOWN false information was in the State of the Union Address
Yes, but it's okay because it didn't have anything to do with the President's
private life - it was only about something of vital importance to the American
people and Congress in determining whether to support war or not.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: KNOWN false information was in the State of the Union Address |
02 Oct 2003 08:19:58 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aG0fb.22167$mg.10866@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <bs5nnvgp62t58n4o9r12qhcpa00bbqaadj@4ax.com>,
grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
KNOWN false information was in the State of the Union Address
Yes, but it's okay because it didn't have anything to do with the
President's
private life - it was only about something of vital importance to the
American
people and Congress in determining whether to support war or not.
Woods
There is a very simple test, if you thought that Iraq was not a threat,
then the war was the wrong choice. Of course the problem with that
conclusion is that you will have to known if that was the right choice or
the wrong choice because. until we have proof, i.e. are we attacke by Iraq
or not. Which is an answer we proably will never know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "warren stupidity" |
|
| Title: Re: KNOWN false information was in the State of the Union Address |
05 Oct 2003 06:29:58 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 01:19:58 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aG0fb.22167$mg.10866@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <bs5nnvgp62t58n4o9r12qhcpa00bbqaadj@4ax.com>,
grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
KNOWN false information was in the State of the Union Address
Yes, but it's okay because it didn't have anything to do with the
President's
private life - it was only about something of vital importance to the
American
people and Congress in determining whether to support war or not.
Woods
There is a very simple test, if you thought that Iraq was not a threat,
then the war was the wrong choice. Of course the problem with that
conclusion is that you will have to known if that was the right choice or
the wrong choice because. until we have proof, i.e. are we attacke by Iraq
or not. Which is an answer we proably will never know.
Indeed we cannot absolutely know if any nation or even any person is a
threat to us until they have attacked us. By your reasoning we should
invade all nations on earth in order to determine if they represent a
threat or not. But even then, as we have seen, invading a country,
deposing its government, and occupying its territory is not
sufficient. We cannot find any evidence of WMD in Iraq and yet our
Great Leaders cling to the fiction that they exist, and all of the
sheeple bleat: "they must exist Our Leaders said so."
==
Mark Roddy
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event like a
new Pearl Harbor."
-- Project for a New American Century,
-- the neocon cabal's blueprint for world empire.
http://www.newamericancentury.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: KNOWN false information was in the State of the Union Address |
05 Oct 2003 12:04:37 PM |
|
|
"warren stupidity" <weaselMark@nospam.spam> wrote in message
news:rrvvnv45o1nl8m9k1vf6cla22j17oua1tm@4ax.com...
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 01:19:58 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aG0fb.22167$mg.10866@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <bs5nnvgp62t58n4o9r12qhcpa00bbqaadj@4ax.com>,
grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
KNOWN false information was in the State of the Union Address
Yes, but it's okay because it didn't have anything to do with the
President's
private life - it was only about something of vital importance to the
American
people and Congress in determining whether to support war or not.
Woods
There is a very simple test, if you thought that Iraq was not a threat,
then the war was the wrong choice. Of course the problem with that
conclusion is that you will have to known if that was the right choice
or
the wrong choice because. until we have proof, i.e. are we attacke by
Iraq
or not. Which is an answer we proably will never know.
Indeed we cannot absolutely know if any nation or even any person is a
threat to us until they have attacked us. By your reasoning we should
invade all nations on earth in order to determine if they represent a
threat or not. But even then, as we have seen, invading a country,
deposing its government, and occupying its territory is not
sufficient. We cannot find any evidence of WMD in Iraq and yet our
Great Leaders cling to the fiction that they exist, and all of the
sheeple bleat: "they must exist Our Leaders said so."
I am not sure I can respond to your points adequately, but I will try. How
a leader of any country makes the determination that someone poses a threat
to them, really depends on that leader. Remember Yugoslavia. How much of a
"threat" did they present to the United States. But our President at the
time, felt that there was the possibility that what was happening in the
region of the world could result in a wider conflict, so he acted. And I
did not say we should invade all nations on earth in order to determine if
they represented a threat or not. I said that apparently, this President
(and I might add the previous President) felt that Iraq was a threat to this
country. This President acted because he felt that the treat was serious
enough to go to war. Now you can argue that he was wrong, but then once
again, we will never know that unless they uncover some evidence to support
that theory. And let me suggest that this line of reasoning, that because
you decide that one country presents a serious enough threat that you went
to war, and that translates to meaining that you should go to war with every
country that you think poses a threat, it seems to me is a little over
board. President's, or any other leader, makes a personal decision, when to
go to war and when not to. This President has so far said that we are not
going to war with North Korea, or Iran. Obviously, both "can" pose a threat
to the national security of the U.S..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
