Discussion:
Can you spot the lie?
(too old to reply)
DL
2003-09-18 01:51:39 UTC
Permalink
GeorgeW. Bush, in a statement today: "We've had no evidence that
Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."


George W. Bush, in a letter to the Speaker of the House and the
President Pro Tempore of the Senate, March 18, 2003:
...(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243
[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution]
of is consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001...




--

DL


Always be excellent.
Tony Rice
2003-09-18 02:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Well, as pertains to the below, maybe not. Or so George said. However,
the word "including" to me, unless followed by "only" inherently means
that you are referring to a subset.
define "is"
DL
2003-09-18 02:44:58 UTC
Permalink
news:Lc8ab.1564$d92.43515091
Post by DL
GeorgeW. Bush, in a statement today: "We've had no evidence
that
Post by DL
Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
including those nations,
That's Hussein's government
Post by DL
organizations,
Baath party falls in here but it covers other organizations as
well
Post by DL
or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001...



--

DL

Always be excellent.
Kokopeli
2003-09-18 03:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by DL
GeorgeW. Bush, in a statement today: "We've had no evidence that
Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
George W. Bush, in a letter to the Speaker of the House and the
...(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243
[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution]
of is consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against
international terrorists and
not Hussein, still working on this one, we'll be working on this one for
a while.
Post by DL
terrorist organizations,
ditto
Post by DL
including those nations,
That's Hussein's government
Post by DL
organizations,
Baath party falls in here but it covers other organizations as well
Post by DL
or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001...
This isn't a black and white issue. No matter how hard anyone tries to
make it that way it wont work.
So... you saying that the Ba'ath party was supporting Al-Queda without
Saddam knowing about it? If not, what organization in that country
planned/authorized/committed/aided Al-Queda, why didn't Saddam do anything
about it (since he saw any armed group in that country as a threat to his
power and ruthlessly crushed them), and why didn't we just go after them?

So, apparently, Saddam didn't have WMDs, and he didn't have any part in
9/11. If those two items are off the list, what compelling reason did we
have to invade Iraq THIS YEAR? I'm not talking about EVER, I'm talking about
THIS YEAR. I mean, the whole case to invade THIS YEAR turned on these two
items, right?
dw
Dennis
2003-09-18 03:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kokopeli
Post by DL
GeorgeW. Bush, in a statement today: "We've had no evidence that
Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
George W. Bush, in a letter to the Speaker of the House and the
...(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243
[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution]
of is consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against
international terrorists and
not Hussein, still working on this one, we'll be working on this one for
a while.
Post by DL
terrorist organizations,
ditto
Post by DL
including those nations,
That's Hussein's government
Post by DL
organizations,
Baath party falls in here but it covers other organizations as well
Post by DL
or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001...
This isn't a black and white issue. No matter how hard anyone tries to
make it that way it wont work.
So... you saying that the Ba'ath party was supporting Al-Queda without
Saddam knowing about it? If not, what organization in that country
planned/authorized/committed/aided Al-Queda, why didn't Saddam do anything
about it (since he saw any armed group in that country as a threat to his
power and ruthlessly crushed them), and why didn't we just go after them?
So, apparently, Saddam didn't have WMDs, and he didn't have any part in
9/11. If those two items are off the list, what compelling reason did we
have to invade Iraq THIS YEAR? I'm not talking about EVER, I'm talking about
THIS YEAR. I mean, the whole case to invade THIS YEAR turned on these two
items, right?
dw
Ohhh EYE ELLL OIIIIILLLL OH EYE ELL OILLL ...




"education is the progressive discovery of our own ignorance" --Will Durant
"people who read the tabloids deserve to be lied to " Jerry Seinfeld
"if we don't have a sense of humor, we can't have a sense of perspective --Wayne Thiboux
Czar Christopher I
2003-09-18 03:44:56 UTC
Permalink
DL <***@sbcglobalnospam.net> wrote:
: GeorgeW. Bush, in a statement today: "We've had no evidence that
: Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
:
:
: George W. Bush, in a letter to the Speaker of the House and the
: President Pro Tempore of the Senate, March 18, 2003:
: ...(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243
: [Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution]
: of is consistent with the United States and other countries
: continuing to take the necessary actions against international
: terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
: organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
: aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001...

Misleading, but not a lie. Iraq did fund Hamas, and the sentence
does say, "including those nations..." Which implies, "not limited
to."

The Bushies are really really good at this stuff.
--
Czar Christopher I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
DL
2003-09-18 06:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Christopher I
: GeorgeW. Bush, in a statement today: "We've had no evidence
that
Post by Czar Christopher I
: Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
: George W. Bush, in a letter to the Speaker of the House and
the
Post by Czar Christopher I
: ...(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law
107-243
Post by Czar Christopher I
: [Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution]
Post by Czar Christopher I
: of is consistent with the United States and other countries
: continuing to take the necessary actions against international
: terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those
nations,
Post by Czar Christopher I
: organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
: aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001...
Post by Czar Christopher I
Misleading, but not a lie. Iraq did fund Hamas, and the
sentence
Post by Czar Christopher I
does say, "including those nations..." Which implies, "not
limited
Post by Czar Christopher I
to."
The Bushies are really really good at this stuff.
I think it's misleading to the point of being a lie. By tying
Sept. 11 so tightly to the Iraq resolution, the administration
essentially implicated Saddam in the attacks. Ask the 70% of
Americans who think Saddam attacked us on Sept. 11 if they feel
lied to.


--

DL

Always be excellent.
Charles Beauchamp
2003-09-18 07:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by DL
Post by Czar Christopher I
: GeorgeW. Bush, in a statement today: "We've had no evidence
that
Post by Czar Christopher I
: Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
: George W. Bush, in a letter to the Speaker of the House and
the
Post by Czar Christopher I
: ...(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law
107-243
Post by Czar Christopher I
: [Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution]
Post by Czar Christopher I
: of is consistent with the United States and other countries
: continuing to take the necessary actions against international
: terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those
nations,
Post by Czar Christopher I
: organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed,
or
Post by Czar Christopher I
: aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001...
Post by Czar Christopher I
Misleading, but not a lie. Iraq did fund Hamas, and the
sentence
Post by Czar Christopher I
does say, "including those nations..." Which implies, "not
limited
Post by Czar Christopher I
to."
The Bushies are really really good at this stuff.
I think it's misleading to the point of being a lie. By tying
Sept. 11 so tightly to the Iraq resolution, the administration
essentially implicated Saddam in the attacks. Ask the 70% of
Americans who think Saddam attacked us on Sept. 11 if they feel
lied to.
--
DL
Always be excellent.
Except that the administration did no such thing. The left including
various posters in this newsgroup who tend to call the President names
constantly made the point that there is no evidence linking Saddam to the
911 attacks...which was a strawman because the right side was not out there
saying he was! The argument for the war on terrorism has always been and
remains that we must attack terrorists and those who give them comfort where
they live. It was the argument in September of 2001. It is still the
argument today.

v/r Beau
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-18 08:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
saying he was! The argument for the war on terrorism has always been and
remains that we must attack terrorists and those who give them comfort where
they live. It was the argument in September of 2001. It is still the
argument today.
Saudi Arabia.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Mike Dahmus
2003-09-18 14:53:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:25:38 GMT, Czar Christopher I
: > saying he was! The argument for the war on terrorism has always been and
: > remains that we must attack terrorists and those who give them comfort where
: > they live. It was the argument in September of 2001. It is still the
: > argument today.
: Saudi Arabia.
And Pakistan.
You guys owe me dollers.

---
Mike Dahmus
m dah mus @ at @ io.com
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-18 16:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dahmus
: > saying he was! The argument for the war on terrorism has always been
: > and
: > remains that we must attack terrorists and those who give them comfort
: > where
: > they live. It was the argument in September of 2001. It is still the
: > argument today.
: Saudi Arabia.
And Pakistan.
You guys owe me dollers.
Hi. ($2)
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Charles Beauchamp
2003-09-18 15:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Post by Charles Beauchamp
saying he was! The argument for the war on terrorism has always been and
remains that we must attack terrorists and those who give them comfort where
they live. It was the argument in September of 2001. It is still the
argument today.
Saudi Arabia.
Send Bill Goldberg

v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
2003-09-18 03:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by DL
GeorgeW. Bush, in a statement today: "We've had no evidence that
Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
George W. Bush, in a letter to the Speaker of the House and the
...(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243
[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution]
of is consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001...
--
DL
Always be excellent.
There is no lie.

v/r Beau
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-18 04:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by DL
GeorgeW. Bush, in a statement today: "We've had no evidence that
Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
George W. Bush, in a letter to the Speaker of the House and the
...(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243
[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution]
of is consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001...
There is no lie.
Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

I sold you and you sold me under the spreading chestnut tree.

Oh yeah, war is peace.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Charles Beauchamp
2003-09-18 07:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by DL
GeorgeW. Bush, in a statement today: "We've had no evidence that
Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
George W. Bush, in a letter to the Speaker of the House and the
...(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243
[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution]
of is consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001...
There is no lie.
Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
I sold you and you sold me under the spreading chestnut tree.
Oh yeah, war is peace.
You sound like you are quoting a member of the DNC

v/r Beau
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-18 08:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by DL
GeorgeW. Bush, in a statement today: "We've had no evidence that
Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
There is no lie.
Oh yeah, war is peace.
You sound like you are quoting a member of the DNC
Pathetic.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-18 16:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by DL
GeorgeW. Bush, in a statement today: "We've had no evidence that
Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
There is no lie.
Oh yeah, war is peace.
You sound like you are quoting a member of the DNC
Pathetic.
Yes they are!
No skin off my teeth, jackass. I don't tend to vote for Democrats at
the national level. No point in it where I live.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Czar Christopher I
2003-09-18 04:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Dennis <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
: Czar Christopher I <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> startled small
: woodland creatures when they said:
:
: >Dennis <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
: >
: >: it's as strong a case as they had for Impeaching Bill...
: >
: >Yep. It's no case at all.
:
: ahh but lets get a special prosecuter and waste Hundreds of Millions
: of Dollars to be sure....

Good point!
--
Czar Christopher I rec.sport.football.college
"His insufferable smugness would be much more credible
if he weren't such a drooling simpleton." --Daniel Seriff
Seises de Corazones
2003-09-18 05:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by DL
GeorgeW. Bush, in a statement today: "We've had no evidence that
Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
George W. Bush, in a letter to the Speaker of the House and the
...(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243
[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution]
of is consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001...
I don't see one. "Including" does not mean "Including ONLY".
--
Ted Rathkopf
Alex Kotara
2003-09-18 05:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by DL
GeorgeW. Bush, in a statement today: "We've had no evidence that
Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
George W. Bush, in a letter to the Speaker of the House and the
...(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243
[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution]
of is consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001...
DL
Always be excellent.
You guys are way off, the lie is that the letter is forged. Had G-Dub
actually written it, it would not have said "pursuant to," as we should
all know that the proper form is "in pursuancy" (or some such other
misspelling. )
Charles Beauchamp
2003-09-18 07:20:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Christopher I
Post by Czar Christopher I
: it's as strong a case as they had for Impeaching Bill...
Yep. It's no case at all.
ahh but lets get a special prosecuter and waste Hundreds of Millions
of Dollars to be sure....
Ahem..the President was impeached because he comitted perjury. What is so
hard to understand about that? Further, that special prosecutor was able to
uncover evidence leading to several convictions. I imagine that a lot less
would have needed to be spent in that persuit if the administration at that
time wasn't so set on obstruction and misleading statements (what is is).

v/r Beau
Trent Woodruff
2003-09-18 09:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Trevor Zion Bauknight was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.



Trent
Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger

...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Bryan S. Slick
2003-09-18 14:21:20 UTC
Permalink
[Randolph M. Jones (***@colby.edu)]
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:05:51 -0400]

:Trent Woodruff wrote:
:>>Trevor Zion Bauknight was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
:>
:>
:>>Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
:>
:>
:> No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.
:
:Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
:I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.

"I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."

If the above statement were made under oath, is that perjury?

Just checking.
--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Randolph M. Jones
2003-09-18 14:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:05:51 -0400]
:>>Trevor Zion Bauknight was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
:>
:>
:>>Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
:>
:>
:> No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.
:Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
:I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.
"I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."
If the above statement were made under oath, is that perjury?
Just checking.
If someone neglects to show up for military duty without permission to
do so, is that AWOL?

I don't know a lot about perjury, but I've heard it's pretty hard to
prove, even when the person is known to have lied, so I think the answer
to your question may well be "not necessarily". Apparently, being AWOL
is similar, which again appears to have been Trevor's point here.
Randolph M. Jones
2003-09-19 02:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Randolph M. Jones was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Trent Woodruff
Trevor Zion Bauknight was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.
Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.
"I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."
If the above statement were made under oath, is that perjury?
Just checking.
If someone neglects to show up for military duty without permission to
do so, is that AWOL?
See, that's the key here...we have no "without permission" in this
whole definition. Order change all the time. I've personally been
away from work for weeks at a time to PLAY BASEBALL without being on
official leave. My commander simply authorized it. There was no
paper trail to it.
You'd apparently try to claim that I was AWOL, as well...
For the sake of argument, let's say that one of your buddies on the
baseball team was also away from work for those weeks, but was *not*
authorized by his commander. What would it take to consider him to be
AWOL? With no paper trail, how would you prove that he was AWOL, and
you were not?
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-19 04:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Trent Woodruff
Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.
Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.
"I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."
If the above statement were made under oath, is that perjury?
Just checking.
If someone neglects to show up for military duty without permission to
do so, is that AWOL?
See, that's the key here...we have no "without permission" in this
whole definition. Order change all the time.
Well, I'm sure it's an innocent explanation like that, since the
President has been so willing to be forthcoming about his whereabouts.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Trent Woodruff
2003-09-19 07:50:30 UTC
Permalink
Trevor Zion Bauknight was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Trent Woodruff
Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.
Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.
"I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."
If the above statement were made under oath, is that perjury?
Just checking.
If someone neglects to show up for military duty without permission to
do so, is that AWOL?
See, that's the key here...we have no "without permission" in this
whole definition. Order change all the time.
Well, I'm sure it's an innocent explanation like that, since the
President has been so willing to be forthcoming about his whereabouts.
You can keep hoping and expecting to see what you want to see, but
you're just making yourself look stupid.



Trent
Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger

...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-19 07:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trent Woodruff
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Trent Woodruff
Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.
Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.
"I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."
If the above statement were made under oath, is that perjury?
Just checking.
If someone neglects to show up for military duty without permission to
do so, is that AWOL?
See, that's the key here...we have no "without permission" in this
whole definition. Order change all the time.
Well, I'm sure it's an innocent explanation like that, since the
President has been so willing to be forthcoming about his whereabouts.
You can keep hoping and expecting to see what you want to see, but
you're just making yourself look stupid.
What I'd like to see is a President willing to account for his lack of
fulfilling his military duty while preening around the deck of a carrier
in a flight suit, chin-waving to Iceman and Mav.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Dave Reid
2003-09-18 14:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
"I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."
He wasn't under oath when he made that statement.

dave
Bryan S. Slick
2003-09-18 15:07:15 UTC
Permalink
[Dave Reid (***@blarg.net)]
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:55:02 -0000]

:> "I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."
:
: He wasn't under oath when he made that statement.

Au contraire: http://www.presidentsusa.net/oathofoffice.html
--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Randolph M. Jones
2003-09-18 15:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:55:02 -0000]
:> "I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."
: He wasn't under oath when he made that statement.
Au contraire: http://www.presidentsusa.net/oathofoffice.html
If that's the oath you meant, then the answer is clearly, "No, that's
not perjury."
Jeffrey Davis
2003-09-18 18:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:55:02 -0000]
:> "I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."
: He wasn't under oath when he made that statement.
Au contraire: http://www.presidentsusa.net/oathofoffice.html
If Starr could have goten a perjury conviction, he'd have prosecuted
Clinton.
Dave Reid
2003-09-18 22:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Au contraire: http://www.presidentsusa.net/oathofoffice.html
If that was the standard, then every president since Washington would
be guilty of perjury.

dave
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-18 15:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Reid
Post by Bryan S. Slick
"I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."
He wasn't under oath when he made that statement.
Actually, he was under the oath of office; but in any case, to be even
more fair, he said some other things during his testimony which weren't
true. They had nothing to do with what he was testifying about, and
were part of the larger fishing expedition into Clinton's sordid life;
therefore, they weren't really perjerous...if they were, nobody ever
thought enough of it to bring charges.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Dave Reid
2003-09-18 22:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Actually, he was under the oath of office; but in any case, to be even
more fair, he said some other things during his testimony which weren't
true.
I'm not saying that at all, just that the statement that Slick
referenced was not made under oath, and therefore not perjury.

dave
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-18 15:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
:>>Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
:>
:>
:> No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.
:Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
:I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.
"I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."
If the above statement were made under oath, is that perjury?
Just checking.
Not unless it's material to the testimony being given. Clinton was
never charged with perjury, therefore he never committed perjury.
Similarly, Bush was never charged with being AWOL.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Jeffrey Davis
2003-09-18 19:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Post by Bryan S. Slick
:>>Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
:>
:>
:> No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.
:Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
:I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.
"I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."
If the above statement were made under oath, is that perjury?
Just checking.
Not unless it's material to the testimony being given. Clinton was
never charged with perjury, therefore he never committed perjury.
Similarly, Bush was never charged with being AWOL.
Why did the judge in the case take away his license to practice law
again?
So why do you guys, who know the answer, have to be dragged kicking and
screaming to this point?
Mike Dahmus
2003-09-18 19:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Not unless it's material to the testimony being given. Clinton was
never charged with perjury, therefore he never committed perjury.
Similarly, Bush was never charged with being AWOL.
Why did the judge in the case take away his license to practice law
again?
Or, why didn't anybody punish Bush for not showing up?

Because in Clinton's case, the guys doing the punishing chose to
punish. In Bush's case, the guys who would have had to punish him were
right-wing fucktards like you who will excuse any behavior possible
from a guy as long as he's one of your frat brothers.

---
Mike Dahmus
m dah mus @ at @ io.com
John Rogers
2003-09-18 19:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dahmus
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Not unless it's material to the testimony being given. Clinton was
never charged with perjury, therefore he never committed perjury.
Similarly, Bush was never charged with being AWOL.
Why did the judge in the case take away his license to practice law
again?
Or, why didn't anybody punish Bush for not showing up?
Because in Clinton's case, the guys doing the punishing chose to
punish. In Bush's case, the guys who would have had to punish him were
right-wing fucktards like you who will excuse any behavior possible
from a guy as long as he's one of your frat brothers.
So just like the rest of the loony-left, the LACK of evidence and
punishment is PROOF that something actually occurred.

Thanks, Rev. Sharpton.


John M. Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
RSFCs Jack O'Hearts
RSFC Secretary of Family and Child Development

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself
to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very
freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way.
Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand at post.
Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"
(Colonel Nathan Jessup, USMC)
Mike Dahmus
2003-09-18 20:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Rogers
Post by Mike Dahmus
Or, why didn't anybody punish Bush for not showing up?
Because in Clinton's case, the guys doing the punishing chose to
punish. In Bush's case, the guys who would have had to punish him were
right-wing fucktards like you who will excuse any behavior possible
from a guy as long as he's one of your frat brothers.
So just like the rest of the loony-left, the LACK of evidence and
punishment is PROOF that something actually occurred.
No, you fucktard, the point is that he never showed up; and people
would have noticed if he had shown up.

If I claim to have rushed 40 times in the latest Auburn game, all it
takes is a LACK OF EVIDENCE to show that I didn't.

---
Mike Dahmus
m dah mus @ at @ io.com
Bryan S. Slick
2003-09-18 20:55:14 UTC
Permalink
[Mike Dahmus (***@io.com)]
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:28:27 -0500]

:If I claim to have rushed 40 times in the latest Auburn game, all it
:takes is a LACK OF EVIDENCE to show that I didn't.

I hope he doesn't actually believe the above crap.

What it would actually take is a game box score.. which is NOT a lack of
evidence, it is a presentation of evidence, without Dahmus' name on it.
Such word-twisting chop-logic as Dahmus is trying makes my brane hurt.
--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Jeffrey Davis
2003-09-18 21:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:28:27 -0500]
:If I claim to have rushed 40 times in the latest Auburn game, all it
:takes is a LACK OF EVIDENCE to show that I didn't.
I hope he doesn't actually believe the above crap.
What it would actually take is a game box score.. which is NOT a lack of
evidence, it is a presentation of evidence, without Dahmus' name on it.
Such word-twisting chop-logic as Dahmus is trying makes my brane hurt.
No. There's all kinds of evidence by absence. The dog that didn't bark,
f'rinstance.

Wossamattayudontreadsherlockholmes?
Trent Woodruff
2003-09-18 23:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Mike Dahmus was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Post by John Rogers
Post by Mike Dahmus
Or, why didn't anybody punish Bush for not showing up?
Because in Clinton's case, the guys doing the punishing chose to
punish. In Bush's case, the guys who would have had to punish him were
right-wing fucktards like you who will excuse any behavior possible
from a guy as long as he's one of your frat brothers.
So just like the rest of the loony-left, the LACK of evidence and
punishment is PROOF that something actually occurred.
No, you fucktard, the point is that he never showed up; and people
would have noticed if he had shown up.
You're the fucktard for arguing about AWOL when you clearly don't
understand the first thing about it.



Trent
Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger

...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Randolph M. Jones
2003-09-18 19:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Post by Bryan S. Slick
:>>Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
:>
:>
:> No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.
:Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
:I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.
"I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."
If the above statement were made under oath, is that perjury?
Just checking.
Not unless it's material to the testimony being given. Clinton was
never charged with perjury, therefore he never committed perjury.
Similarly, Bush was never charged with being AWOL.
Why did the judge in the case take away his license to practice law
again?
I'm pretty sure that happened because they decided they were unable to
convict him of perjury.
John Rogers
2003-09-18 19:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph M. Jones
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Post by Bryan S. Slick
:>>Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
:>
:>
:> No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.
:Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
:I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.
"I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."
If the above statement were made under oath, is that perjury?
Just checking.
Not unless it's material to the testimony being given. Clinton was
never charged with perjury, therefore he never committed perjury.
Similarly, Bush was never charged with being AWOL.
Why did the judge in the case take away his license to practice law
again?
I'm pretty sure that happened because they decided they were unable to
convict him of perjury.
The JUDGE decided that she was unable to convict him of perjury? Have
you got any evidence at all that the JUDGE in this case was part of
the prosecutorial decision making process?


John M. Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
RSFCs Jack O'Hearts
RSFC Secretary of Family and Child Development

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself
to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very
freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way.
Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand at post.
Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"
(Colonel Nathan Jessup, USMC)
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-18 19:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Post by Bryan S. Slick
:Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
:I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.
"I did not.. have.. sexual relations with.. that woman."
If the above statement were made under oath, is that perjury?
Just checking.
Not unless it's material to the testimony being given. Clinton was
never charged with perjury, therefore he never committed perjury.
Similarly, Bush was never charged with being AWOL.
Why did the judge in the case take away his license to practice law
again?
Perjury?
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Charles Beauchamp
2003-09-18 15:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Trent Woodruff
Trevor Zion Bauknight was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.
Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.
So then he was comparing the truth to a rumor. Trevor often makes points
like that.

v/r Beau
Randolph M. Jones
2003-09-18 15:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Trent Woodruff
Trevor Zion Bauknight was cut from the Baylor football team for
saying...
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Trent Woodruff
Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.
Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.
So then he was comparing the truth to a rumor. Trevor often makes points
like that.
Rumors can't be true?
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-18 16:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Trent Woodruff
Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.
Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.
So then he was comparing the truth to a rumor. Trevor often makes points
like that.
Hey idiot, here's truth for ya:

Clinton was never charged with perjury. Bush was never charged with
AWOL. Clinton lied, Bush failed to show up where he was supposed to be.
See the pattern?
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
John Rogers
2003-09-18 18:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Trent Woodruff
Trevor Zion Bauknight was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.
Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.
I'm pretty sure the judge in the case agreed with Charles.


John M. Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
RSFCs Jack O'Hearts
RSFC Secretary of Family and Child Development

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself
to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very
freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way.
Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand at post.
Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"
(Colonel Nathan Jessup, USMC)
Randolph M. Jones
2003-09-18 19:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Rogers
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Trent Woodruff
Trevor Zion Bauknight was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
No technicality about it. He wasn't AWOL...period.
Charles agrees with you but also says that Clinton committed perjury.
I'm pretty sure that's the point Trevor was trying to make.
I'm pretty sure the judge in the case agreed with Charles.
The judge that convicted Bush of going AWOL, or the judge that convicted
Clinton of perjury?
Dennis
2003-09-18 12:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Czar Christopher I
Post by Czar Christopher I
: it's as strong a case as they had for Impeaching Bill...
Yep. It's no case at all.
ahh but lets get a special prosecuter and waste Hundreds of Millions
of Dollars to be sure....
Ahem..the President was impeached because he comitted perjury. What is so
hard to understand about that? Further, that special prosecutor was able to
uncover evidence leading to several convictions. I imagine that a lot less
would have needed to be spent in that persuit if the administration at that
time wasn't so set on obstruction and misleading statements (what is is).
v/r Beau
yeah a "Misdemenor" for the "high crimes and Misdemenors" clause in
the constitution... the GOP would have tried to impeach him if he got
a parking ticket.....




"education is the progressive discovery of our own ignorance" --Will Durant
"people who read the tabloids deserve to be lied to " Jerry Seinfeld
"if we don't have a sense of humor, we can't have a sense of perspective --Wayne Thiboux
Bill Deems
2003-09-18 13:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis
yeah a "Misdemenor" for the "high crimes and Misdemenors" clause in
the constitution... the GOP would have tried to impeach him if he got
a parking ticket.....
Once more. "High crimes and misdemeanors" was an 18th Century usage for
someone who had acted in such a way as to bring embarassment, etc to himself
and his office. Clinton's action very much met the criteria. (And no, I don't
think he should've been impeached....but then neither should have Johnson.
Nixon should have been, but resigned.)
Dennis
2003-09-18 14:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Deems
Post by Dennis
yeah a "Misdemenor" for the "high crimes and Misdemenors" clause in
the constitution... the GOP would have tried to impeach him if he got
a parking ticket.....
Once more. "High crimes and misdemeanors" was an 18th Century usage for
someone who had acted in such a way as to bring embarassment, etc to himself
and his office. Clinton's action very much met the criteria. (And no, I don't
think he should've been impeached....but then neither should have Johnson.
Nixon should have been, but resigned.)
I think lying (o.k. misleading to put on kid gloves) to invade another
country might fit that criteria as well


"education is the progressive discovery of our own ignorance" --Will Durant
"people who read the tabloids deserve to be lied to " Jerry Seinfeld
"if we don't have a sense of humor, we can't have a sense of perspective --Wayne Thiboux
Charles Beauchamp
2003-09-18 15:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Czar Christopher I
Post by Czar Christopher I
: it's as strong a case as they had for Impeaching Bill...
Yep. It's no case at all.
ahh but lets get a special prosecuter and waste Hundreds of Millions
of Dollars to be sure....
Ahem..the President was impeached because he comitted perjury. What is so
hard to understand about that? Further, that special prosecutor was able to
uncover evidence leading to several convictions. I imagine that a lot less
would have needed to be spent in that persuit if the administration at that
time wasn't so set on obstruction and misleading statements (what is is).
v/r Beau
yeah a "Misdemenor" for the "high crimes and Misdemenors" clause in
the constitution... the GOP would have tried to impeach him if he got
a parking ticket.....
You know you would have excused him for probably anything short of
murder...err...hmmm...well...Vince Fost....um...nevermind.

v/r Beau
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-18 16:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Dennis
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Ahem..the President was impeached because he comitted perjury.
What is so hard to understand about that? Further, that special
prosecutor was able to uncover evidence leading to several
convictions. I imagine that a lot less would have needed to be
spent in that persuit if the administration at that time wasn't so
set on obstruction and misleading statements (what is is).
yeah a "Misdemenor" for the "high crimes and Misdemenors" clause in
the constitution... the GOP would have tried to impeach him if he got
a parking ticket.....
You know you would have excused him for probably anything short of
murder...err...hmmm...well...Vince Fost....um...nevermind.
Oh, go ahead and say what it is you believe! Say it, you prick! "The
Clintons murdered Vince Foster." Don't be such a puss.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Charles Beauchamp
2003-09-18 15:02:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Czar Christopher I
Post by Czar Christopher I
: it's as strong a case as they had for Impeaching Bill...
Yep. It's no case at all.
ahh but lets get a special prosecuter and waste Hundreds of Millions
of Dollars to be sure....
Ahem..the President was impeached because he comitted perjury.
Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
I am sure that Clinton lied under oath. That is a matter of recorded fact.
Bush wasn't AWOL anymore then I was AWOL for not arriving on board USS
Midway not later then July 15, 1987 (that set of orders was superceded).

v/r Beau
Randolph M. Jones
2003-09-18 15:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Czar Christopher I
Post by Czar Christopher I
: it's as strong a case as they had for Impeaching Bill...
Yep. It's no case at all.
ahh but lets get a special prosecuter and waste Hundreds of Millions
of Dollars to be sure....
Ahem..the President was impeached because he comitted perjury.
Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
I am sure that Clinton lied under oath. That is a matter of recorded fact.
Even if this is correct, that does not make it perjury. Just like what
you folks are saying about AWOL.
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Bush wasn't AWOL anymore then I was AWOL for not arriving on board USS
Midway not later then July 15, 1987 (that set of orders was superceded).
How is this similar. Don't "superseded orders" imply "leave"? Do you
have knowledge that Bush had superseded orders?
Randolph M. Jones
2003-09-18 17:18:35 UTC
Permalink
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:22:41 -0400]
:> Bush wasn't AWOL anymore then I was AWOL for not arriving on board USS
:> Midway not later then July 15, 1987 (that set of orders was superceded).
:How is this similar. Don't "superseded orders" imply "leave"? Do you
:have knowledge that Bush had superseded orders?
No, superseded orders do not imply leave.
My original set of orders (after basic training) had me going to Camp
Casey, Korea. A second set of orders, sending me to Fort Carson, CO,
arrived two weeks later. I was not marked AWOL in Korea, though they
likely had me on their computer for a while, with an asterisk by my name
once they researched the matter. Some paperwork somewhere from the
original "Who's coming here" file probably had me as still on my way to
Korea on some NCO's desk.
While at Fort Carson, I was given an assignment to go to Recruiting
School. I had previously re-enlisted for an assignment to Fort Stewart,
Georgia. In this case, the orders to Fort Stewart, Georgia took
precedence, as I had re-enlisted specifically for those orders. I was
not marked as AWOL or missing assignment, etc.. from Recruiting School
(Fort Knox, Kentucky).
I'm not sure how your story here supports the claim "No, superseded
orders do not imply leave." On the contrary, you seem to be supporting
the notion that you can be absent (the A in AWOL), but that your other
orders gave you leave (the L in AWOL) to be absent.
Jeffrey Davis
2003-09-18 18:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph M. Jones
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:22:41 -0400]
:> Bush wasn't AWOL anymore then I was AWOL for not arriving on board USS
:> Midway not later then July 15, 1987 (that set of orders was superceded).
:How is this similar. Don't "superseded orders" imply "leave"? Do
you :have knowledge that Bush had superseded orders?
No, superseded orders do not imply leave.
My original set of orders (after basic training) had me going to Camp
Casey, Korea. A second set of orders, sending me to Fort Carson, CO,
arrived two weeks later. I was not marked AWOL in Korea, though they
likely had me on their computer for a while, with an asterisk by my
name once they researched the matter. Some paperwork somewhere from
the original "Who's coming here" file probably had me as still on my
way to Korea on some NCO's desk.
While at Fort Carson, I was given an assignment to go to Recruiting
School. I had previously re-enlisted for an assignment to Fort
Stewart, Georgia. In this case, the orders to Fort Stewart, Georgia
took precedence, as I had re-enlisted specifically for those orders.
I was not marked as AWOL or missing assignment, etc.. from Recruiting
School (Fort Knox, Kentucky).
I'm not sure how your story here supports the claim "No, superseded
orders do not imply leave." On the contrary, you seem to be supporting
the notion that you can be absent (the A in AWOL), but that your other
orders gave you leave (the L in AWOL) to be absent.
Jeffrey Davis
2003-09-18 18:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randolph M. Jones
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:22:41 -0400]
:> Bush wasn't AWOL anymore then I was AWOL for not arriving on board USS
:> Midway not later then July 15, 1987 (that set of orders was superceded).
:How is this similar. Don't "superseded orders" imply "leave"? Do
you :have knowledge that Bush had superseded orders?
No, superseded orders do not imply leave.
My original set of orders (after basic training) had me going to Camp
Casey, Korea. A second set of orders, sending me to Fort Carson, CO,
arrived two weeks later. I was not marked AWOL in Korea, though they
likely had me on their computer for a while, with an asterisk by my
name once they researched the matter. Some paperwork somewhere from
the original "Who's coming here" file probably had me as still on my
way to Korea on some NCO's desk.
While at Fort Carson, I was given an assignment to go to Recruiting
School. I had previously re-enlisted for an assignment to Fort
Stewart, Georgia. In this case, the orders to Fort Stewart, Georgia
took precedence, as I had re-enlisted specifically for those orders.
I was not marked as AWOL or missing assignment, etc.. from Recruiting
School (Fort Knox, Kentucky).
I'm not sure how your story here supports the claim "No, superseded
orders do not imply leave." On the contrary, you seem to be supporting
the notion that you can be absent (the A in AWOL), but that your other
orders gave you leave (the L in AWOL) to be absent.
Real world intrusion: Bush has never accounted for his year away. If
there was "nothing wrong", he would have.
John Rogers
2003-09-18 19:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Davis
Post by Randolph M. Jones
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:22:41 -0400]
:> Bush wasn't AWOL anymore then I was AWOL for not arriving on board USS
:> Midway not later then July 15, 1987 (that set of orders was superceded).
:How is this similar. Don't "superseded orders" imply "leave"? Do
you :have knowledge that Bush had superseded orders?
No, superseded orders do not imply leave.
My original set of orders (after basic training) had me going to Camp
Casey, Korea. A second set of orders, sending me to Fort Carson, CO,
arrived two weeks later. I was not marked AWOL in Korea, though they
likely had me on their computer for a while, with an asterisk by my
name once they researched the matter. Some paperwork somewhere from
the original "Who's coming here" file probably had me as still on my
way to Korea on some NCO's desk.
While at Fort Carson, I was given an assignment to go to Recruiting
School. I had previously re-enlisted for an assignment to Fort
Stewart, Georgia. In this case, the orders to Fort Stewart, Georgia
took precedence, as I had re-enlisted specifically for those orders.
I was not marked as AWOL or missing assignment, etc.. from Recruiting
School (Fort Knox, Kentucky).
I'm not sure how your story here supports the claim "No, superseded
orders do not imply leave." On the contrary, you seem to be supporting
the notion that you can be absent (the A in AWOL), but that your other
orders gave you leave (the L in AWOL) to be absent.
Real world intrusion: Bush has never accounted for his year away. If
there was "nothing wrong", he would have.
It isn't incumbent upon someone who had done nothing wrong to
"account" for any type of wrongdoing.

I would like for you to "account" for all those weeks that you missed
work over the years when you weren't really sick.


John M. Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
RSFCs Jack O'Hearts
RSFC Secretary of Family and Child Development

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself
to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very
freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way.
Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand at post.
Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"
(Colonel Nathan Jessup, USMC)
Bryan S. Slick
2003-09-18 19:51:30 UTC
Permalink
[Jeffrey Davis (***@alltel.net)]
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:06:07 -0400]

:> I would like for you to "account" for all those weeks that you missed
:> work over the years when you weren't really sick.
:
:McIntoshes and Granny Smiths. When I run for president, it would become
:germane. If there were any weekends as you allege.

AHA! He didn't say "weekends"! You have just implicated yourself! If
you ever become President, you will be IMPEACHED!!1!1!!!
--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Jeffrey Davis
2003-09-18 19:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:06:07 -0400]
:> I would like for you to "account" for all those weeks that you missed
:> work over the years when you weren't really sick.
:McIntoshes and Granny Smiths. When I run for president, it would become
:germane. If there were any weekends as you allege.
AHA! He didn't say "weekends"! You have just implicated yourself! If
you ever become President, you will be IMPEACHED!!1!1!!!
Does that mean I can count on your vote?
Bryan S. Slick
2003-09-18 20:13:25 UTC
Permalink
[Jeffrey Davis (***@alltel.net)]
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:57:29 -0400]

:
:
:Bryan S. Slick wrote:
:
:> [Jeffrey Davis (***@alltel.net)]
:> [Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:06:07 -0400]
:>
:> :> I would like for you to "account" for all those weeks that you missed
:> :> work over the years when you weren't really sick.
:> :
:> :McIntoshes and Granny Smiths. When I run for president, it would become
:> :germane. If there were any weekends as you allege.
:>
:> AHA! He didn't say "weekends"! You have just implicated yourself! If
:> you ever become President, you will be IMPEACHED!!1!1!!!
:>
:
:Does that mean I can count on your vote?

Are you making an assumption here?

(that you know what I did on November 3, 2000?) (or 4th or whatever)
--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Jeffrey Davis
2003-09-18 20:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:57:29 -0400]
:> [Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:06:07 -0400]
:>
:> :> I would like for you to "account" for all those weeks that you missed
:> :> work over the years when you weren't really sick.
:> :McIntoshes and Granny Smiths. When I run for president, it would become
:> :germane. If there were any weekends as you allege.
:>
:> AHA! He didn't say "weekends"! You have just implicated yourself! If
:> you ever become President, you will be IMPEACHED!!1!1!!!
:>
:Does that mean I can count on your vote?
Are you making an assumption here?
You can't get impeached until you get elected!!
Bryan S. Slick
2003-09-18 19:50:29 UTC
Permalink
[Randolph M. Jones (***@colby.edu)]
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:18:35 -0400]

:> No, superseded orders do not imply leave.
:>
:> My original set of orders (after basic training) had me going to Camp
:> Casey, Korea. A second set of orders, sending me to Fort Carson, CO,
:> arrived two weeks later. I was not marked AWOL in Korea, though they
:> likely had me on their computer for a while, with an asterisk by my name
:> once they researched the matter. Some paperwork somewhere from the
:> original "Who's coming here" file probably had me as still on my way to
:> Korea on some NCO's desk.
:>
:> While at Fort Carson, I was given an assignment to go to Recruiting
:> School. I had previously re-enlisted for an assignment to Fort Stewart,
:> Georgia. In this case, the orders to Fort Stewart, Georgia took
:> precedence, as I had re-enlisted specifically for those orders. I was
:> not marked as AWOL or missing assignment, etc.. from Recruiting School
:> (Fort Knox, Kentucky).
:>
:
:I'm not sure how your story here supports the claim "No, superseded
:orders do not imply leave." On the contrary, you seem to be supporting
:the notion that you can be absent (the A in AWOL), but that your other
:orders gave you leave (the L in AWOL) to be absent.

I wasn't absent, is the point, in any official sense. As far as the
Army was concerned, I was supposed to be where I was.
--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Randolph M. Jones
2003-09-18 20:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:18:35 -0400]
:> No, superseded orders do not imply leave.
:>
:> My original set of orders (after basic training) had me going to Camp
:> Casey, Korea. A second set of orders, sending me to Fort Carson, CO,
:> arrived two weeks later. I was not marked AWOL in Korea, though they
:> likely had me on their computer for a while, with an asterisk by my name
:> once they researched the matter. Some paperwork somewhere from the
:> original "Who's coming here" file probably had me as still on my way to
:> Korea on some NCO's desk.
:>
:> While at Fort Carson, I was given an assignment to go to Recruiting
:> School. I had previously re-enlisted for an assignment to Fort Stewart,
:> Georgia. In this case, the orders to Fort Stewart, Georgia took
:> precedence, as I had re-enlisted specifically for those orders. I was
:> not marked as AWOL or missing assignment, etc.. from Recruiting School
:> (Fort Knox, Kentucky).
:>
:I'm not sure how your story here supports the claim "No, superseded
:orders do not imply leave." On the contrary, you seem to be supporting
:the notion that you can be absent (the A in AWOL), but that your other
:orders gave you leave (the L in AWOL) to be absent.
I wasn't absent, is the point, in any official sense. As far as the
Army was concerned, I was supposed to be where I was.
Gotcha, and I apologize for my confusion. Allow me to rephrase, then:

How is this similar? Don't "superseded orders" imply "not absent"? Do
you have knowledge that Bush had superseded orders?
Randolph M. Jones
2003-09-19 11:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Randolph M. Jones was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Post by Bryan S. Slick
I wasn't absent, is the point, in any official sense. As far as the
Army was concerned, I was supposed to be where I was.
How is this similar? Don't "superseded orders" imply "not absent"? Do
you have knowledge that Bush had superseded orders?
A better question is...Do you have knowledge that Bush DIDN'T have
superceded orders?
I mean, this strikes me a lot like "Throw a lot of shit at the wall
and let's see what sticks to it".
You may be right. Buy on the other hand you have asserted that Bush
"wasn't AWOL...period." You could have said "there is no evidence
that Bush was AWOL", but you said Bush "wasn't AWOL...period." So do
you have evidence to support that, or are you guilty of doing the same
thing you are accusing others of doing?

I don't know whether he was AWOL, but at least some reasonable
evidence has been provided that he was absent from an ordered station.
You say that doesn't mean AWOL if there were superseded orders, so
the natural order of discourse would suggest that's the next thing to
look for.
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-18 16:03:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Czar Christopher I
Post by Czar Christopher I
: it's as strong a case as they had for Impeaching Bill...
Yep. It's no case at all.
ahh but lets get a special prosecuter and waste Hundreds of Millions
of Dollars to be sure....
Ahem..the President was impeached because he comitted perjury.
Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
I am sure that Clinton lied under oath. That is a matter of recorded fact.
Yes, but you said he committed perjury.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Bryan S. Slick
2003-09-18 19:49:28 UTC
Permalink
[Trevor Zion Bauknight (***@comcast.net)]
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:03:58 -0400]

:> I am sure that Clinton lied under oath. That is a matter of recorded fact.
:
:Yes, but you said he committed perjury.

From dictionary.com:

perjury:

Law.

The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete
testimony under oath.
--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-18 19:55:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
:> I am sure that Clinton lied under oath. That is a matter of recorded fact.
:Yes, but you said he committed perjury.
Law.
The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete
testimony under oath.
A lame appeal to authority. Dictionary.com? You could at least cite a
legal document.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Daniel Seriff
2003-09-18 20:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I am sure that Clinton lied under oath. That is a matter of recorded fact.
Yes, but you said he committed perjury.
Law.
The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete
testimony under oath.
A lame appeal to authority. Dictionary.com? You could at least cite a
legal document.
Stop it, Trevor. You're making the internet dumner.
--
Daniel Seriff

He who has the last word loses.
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-19 04:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Seriff
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Post by Charles Beauchamp
I am sure that Clinton lied under oath. That is a matter of recorded fact.
Yes, but you said he committed perjury.
Law.
The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete
testimony under oath.
A lame appeal to authority. Dictionary.com? You could at least cite a
legal document.
Stop it, Trevor. You're making the internet dumner.
Seriously, is the Dictionary.com definition the one that, say, they
would have used to indict Clinton for the crime, or is there some other,
more legally rigorous one with attendant requirements, caveats and so
forth? I'm sensing that maybe the Dictionary.com definition is a little
light in the loafers, so to speak...true, but leaving a lot unsaid.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Daniel Seriff
2003-09-19 08:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
Post by Daniel Seriff
Post by Bryan S. Slick
Post by Trevor Zion Bauknight
I am sure that Clinton lied under oath. That is a matter of recorded
fact.
Yes, but you said he committed perjury.
Law.
The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete
testimony under oath.
A lame appeal to authority. Dictionary.com? You could at least cite a
legal document.
Stop it, Trevor. You're making the internet dumner.
Seriously, is the Dictionary.com definition the one that, say, they
would have used to indict Clinton for the crime, or is there some other,
more legally rigorous one with attendant requirements, caveats and so
forth? I'm sensing that maybe the Dictionary.com definition is a little
light in the loafers, so to speak...true, but leaving a lot unsaid.
In general, "perjury" simply means "breaking an oath" (as per its original
Latin meaning), but that usage has become quite rare in modern English. In a
legal context, there's only one relevant oath - the one that requires those
giving testimony to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth". If you break that oath, you've perjured yourself. It really is as
simple as that.

It's not a very complex concept. It doesn't need a baroque, jargonistic
explanation written in barely comprehensible legalese.
--
Daniel Seriff

UMass Outing Club - We take people out in the woods and do things with them.
Randolph M. Jones
2003-09-18 20:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:03:58 -0400]
:> I am sure that Clinton lied under oath. That is a matter of recorded fact.
:Yes, but you said he committed perjury.
Law.
The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete
testimony under oath.
awol

adj 1: absent without permission
2: (military) having deserted your post or station without leave
n : one who is away or absent without leave

Isn't this fun?
Randolph M. Jones
2003-09-18 20:27:31 UTC
Permalink
[Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:03:22 -0400]
:> :Yes, but you said he committed perjury.
:>
:>
:>
:> Law.
:>
:> The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete
:> testimony under oath.
:>
:>
:awol
:adj 1: absent without permission
:2: (military) having deserted your post or station without leave
:n : one who is away or absent without leave
:Isn't this fun?
It would be, 'cept I'm not arguing the President Bush/AWOL item. I
don't know enough about what he's accused of or what actually took place
to do so. I was addressing whether or not Clinton committed perjury.
Oh, okay. I was just trying to make people (Beauchamp, specifically) be
consistent, so I guess we were talking at cross purposes.
Trent Woodruff
2003-09-18 23:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Randolph M. Jones was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
awol
adj 1: absent without permission
2: (military) having deserted your post or station without leave
n : one who is away or absent without leave
Very good! And there's STILL no proof that Bush was even remotely
AWOL.




Trent
Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger

...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Jeffrey Davis
2003-09-18 23:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trent Woodruff
Randolph M. Jones was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
awol
adj 1: absent without permission
2: (military) having deserted your post or station without leave
n : one who is away or absent without leave
Very good! And there's STILL no proof that Bush was even remotely
AWOL.
No proof, but, all things condsidered, the most plausible hypothesis is
that he was and that his family connections short-circuited any punishment.
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-19 07:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Davis
Post by Trent Woodruff
Post by Randolph M. Jones
awol
adj 1: absent without permission
2: (military) having deserted your post or station without leave
n : one who is away or absent without leave
Very good! And there's STILL no proof that Bush was even remotely
AWOL.
No proof, but, all things condsidered, the most plausible hypothesis is
that he was and that his family connections short-circuited any punishment.
WHY is that the most plausible hypothesis?
I find it telling that those who keep up this stupid AWOL claim are
all individuals who haven't served in the military and so really don't
understand what AWOL is.
I find it telling that you military types keep hiding behind your
military service so that when a service-related question arises, you can
dismiss it easily with a quick "you're not in the military, so you can't
possibly understand." Screw you. Why *wouldn't* Bush release his
military records? I'm sure he's proud of his service to his country.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Bryan S. Slick
2003-09-19 11:39:09 UTC
Permalink
[Trevor Zion Bauknight (***@comcast.net)]
[Fri, 19 Sep 2003 03:57:45 -0400]

:I find it telling that you military types keep hiding behind your
:military service so that when a service-related question arises, you can
:dismiss it easily with a quick "you're not in the military, so you can't
:possibly understand." Screw you.

If the boots fit..
--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-19 16:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
:I find it telling that you military types keep hiding behind your
:military service so that when a service-related question arises, you can
:dismiss it easily with a quick "you're not in the military, so you can't
:possibly understand." Screw you.
If the boots fit..
The fact that I have made conscious decisions throughout my life to
avoid service in the military in no way indicates that I *can't*
understand your acronyms. I understand that AWOL has a specific meaning
in the military, and that Bush was not *officially* AWOL. I also
understand that there is evidence suggesting Bush's absence from duty
and that it's entirely possible that there is a good, honorable
explanation for that. You'd think Bush would want to give that out when
people start asking questions, instead of stonewalling and sending out
redacted documents which only fuel further speculation that there's
something to the story he'd rather us not know. No, he's under no real
obligation to answer questions about his military service; but some of
us feel that he really should, given his propensity for acting like a
real military man now that it's convenient to do so.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Bryan S. Slick
2003-09-19 20:57:48 UTC
Permalink
[Trevor Zion Bauknight (***@comcast.net)]
[Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:36:31 -0400]

:No, he's under no real
:obligation to answer questions about his military service; but some of
:us feel that he really should, given his propensity for acting like a
:real military man now that it's convenient to do so.

You think he put on the flight suit to jack himself up, make himself
look good, don't you? I seriously doubt that's why he did it, but I
have reasons for thinking so that you simply wouldn't understand.
That's not conceit, it's not arrogance.. it's simply the truth.

You can probably look the term up, though: esprit de corps

The President was at the time giving those he commands a nice and
perfectly innocent way of showing that he's "right there with 'em". If
not on the battlefield, then in heart and spirit. Whether you like it
or not, that means a lot. Many liberals have done everything they could
within their minds to see something small and petty about why their
President would put on a military uniform, and chosen to denigrate him
because of said action. It's petty, snipish, and frankly given the
climate in the world at the time it makes me rather sick. He didn't
wear that uniform for himself, nor for you sitting back there on your
couch eating Cheetos and watching War On TV. He wore it for us, and I
appreciated it. A lot of the guys in my unit saw it and said much the
same, with comments along the lines of, "That's pretty cool.", etc.

I keep telling myself not to get involved in these political threads,
basically because a liberal will twist anything into a negative against
a politician they don't like, and I don't like pissing matches, but oh
well I guess I went and got into this one. (Yes, I know there's
conservatives who will do the same thing.. but it seems to be Item One
on the syllabus in Being A Liberal 1001.)
--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net

"It honestly makes me feel safer that there are unstable, bloodthirsty
psychofreaks like Slick on our side." -- Rock Walker
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-19 04:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trent Woodruff
Randolph M. Jones was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
awol
adj 1: absent without permission
2: (military) having deserted your post or station without leave
n : one who is away or absent without leave
Very good! And there's STILL no proof that Bush was even remotely
AWOL.
There is, however, evidence suggesting he was not where he was assigned
to be. Perhaps he did get some superceding orders, or perhaps they just
let him off the hook after the fact because of who is Daddy was. What I
want is for Dubya to tell us, if he can remember. It's the least he
could do if he's gonna prance around the deck of an aircraft carrier in
a flight suit.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Trent Woodruff
2003-09-19 07:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Trevor Zion Bauknight was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Post by Trent Woodruff
Randolph M. Jones was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
awol
adj 1: absent without permission
2: (military) having deserted your post or station without leave
n : one who is away or absent without leave
Very good! And there's STILL no proof that Bush was even remotely
AWOL.
There is, however, evidence suggesting he was not where he was assigned
to be.
SUGGESTIONS! EGADS! Heavens, let's claim AWOL based on
SUGGESTIONS!!!

Stop the stupidity, people.




Trent
Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger

...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trent Woodruff
2003-09-19 07:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Lazlo Hollyfeld was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Post by Trent Woodruff
Randolph M. Jones was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
awol
adj 1: absent without permission
2: (military) having deserted your post or station without leave
n : one who is away or absent without leave
Very good! And there's STILL no proof that Bush was even remotely
AWOL.
Maybe dereliction of duties then?
Definition: \Der`e*lic"tion\, n. [L. derelictio.]
1. The act of leaving with an intention not to reclaim or
resume; an utter forsaking abandonment.
Cession or dereliction, actual or tacit, of other
powers. --Burke.
2. A neglect or omission as if by willful abandonment.
A total dereliction of military duties. --Sir W.
Scott.
3. The state of being left or abandoned.
There isn't anything to show this, either. You can continue to quote
definitions for every bad word that you want to. Apparently, your
tactic is just to keep throwing this shit out there until someone
tires of responding to the idiocy...at which point you'll claim that's
the one!
But both accounts are contradicted by copies of Bush's military records,
obtained by the Globe.
I'll have to see a cite for this, complete with copies of his records
therein. Because as far as I'm aware, Bush has not made his military
records available...and if the Globe has copies of them without his
authorization, they're in some pretty deep shit. So...cite or
bullshit?




Trent
Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger

...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Lazlo Hollyfeld
2003-09-19 14:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trent Woodruff
Lazlo Hollyfeld was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Post by Trent Woodruff
Randolph M. Jones was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
awol
adj 1: absent without permission
2: (military) having deserted your post or station without leave
n : one who is away or absent without leave
Very good! And there's STILL no proof that Bush was even remotely
AWOL.
Maybe dereliction of duties then?
Definition: \Der`e*lic"tion\, n. [L. derelictio.]
1. The act of leaving with an intention not to reclaim or
resume; an utter forsaking abandonment.
Cession or dereliction, actual or tacit, of other
powers. --Burke.
2. A neglect or omission as if by willful abandonment.
A total dereliction of military duties. --Sir W.
Scott.
3. The state of being left or abandoned.
There isn't anything to show this, either. You can continue to quote
definitions for every bad word that you want to. Apparently, your
tactic is just to keep throwing this shit out there until someone
tires of responding to the idiocy...at which point you'll claim that's
the one!
But both accounts are contradicted by copies of Bush's military records,
obtained by the Globe.
I'll have to see a cite for this, complete with copies of his records
therein. Because as far as I'm aware, Bush has not made his military
records available...and if the Globe has copies of them without his
authorization, they're in some pretty deep shit. So...cite or
bullshit?
http://www.talion.com/georgebush.html
John Rogers
2003-09-18 18:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Beauchamp
Post by Czar Christopher I
Post by Czar Christopher I
: it's as strong a case as they had for Impeaching Bill...
Yep. It's no case at all.
ahh but lets get a special prosecuter and waste Hundreds of Millions
of Dollars to be sure....
Ahem..the President was impeached because he comitted perjury.
Are you sure? Bush wasn't AWOL, you know, technically.
The judge in the case didn't make Clinton give up his license to
practice law out of spite.

How much was Bush punished for his "crime", Mr. UCMJ Expret?


John M. Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
RSFCs Jack O'Hearts
RSFC Secretary of Family and Child Development

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself
to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very
freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way.
Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand at post.
Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"
(Colonel Nathan Jessup, USMC)
Jeffrey Davis
2003-09-18 12:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by DL
GeorgeW. Bush, in a statement today: "We've had no evidence that
Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
George W. Bush, in a letter to the Speaker of the House and the
...(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243
[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution]
of is consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against
international terrorists and
not Hussein, still working on this one, we'll be working on this one for
a while.
Post by DL
terrorist organizations,
ditto
Post by DL
including those nations,
That's Hussein's government
Post by DL
organizations,
Baath party falls in here but it covers other organizations as well
Post by DL
or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001...
This isn't a black and white issue. No matter how hard anyone tries to
make it that way it wont work.
Lies aren't testimony, i.e. unlike a defendant, a liar doesn't get to
finagle the language in such a way to construe a true statement. A lie
is a moral act and the intent in Bush's letter is to give the
impression that Iraq was linked with 9/11 sufficiently to mandate war.
("suggestio falsi" if you're scoring this at home)
Tony Rice
2003-09-18 13:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Davis
Lies aren't testimony, i.e. unlike a defendant, a liar doesn't get to
finagle the language in such a way to construe a true statement. A lie
is a moral act and the intent in Bush's letter is to give the
impression that Iraq was linked with 9/11 sufficiently to mandate war.
("suggestio falsi" if you're scoring this at home)
Yeah, because everything was crystal clear back then. Bush and his
henchmen were in dark backrooms of the whitehouse wringing their hands
together as they put together this dastardly plot.

Oh please.
Trevor Zion Bauknight
2003-09-18 16:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Rice
Post by Jeffrey Davis
Lies aren't testimony, i.e. unlike a defendant, a liar doesn't get to
finagle the language in such a way to construe a true statement. A lie
is a moral act and the intent in Bush's letter is to give the
impression that Iraq was linked with 9/11 sufficiently to mandate war.
("suggestio falsi" if you're scoring this at home)
Yeah, because everything was crystal clear back then. Bush and his
henchmen were in dark backrooms of the whitehouse wringing their hands
together as they put together this dastardly plot.
The plot was already written by PNAC...they just needed the proper
actors and set of events, which were provided neatly on 11Sep.
--
Trev

"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff
Jeffrey Davis
2003-09-18 18:35:17 UTC
Permalink
"Oh please" is right.
Cherry picking data doesn't happen by accident. They knew the contrary
evidence and chose not to put it into the public debate.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in those critising the Bush
administration for picking and choosing facts to bolster their arguments.
How much irony do you need in your life?

W led us into war based on an argument he knew to be bogus.
Mike Dahmus
2003-09-18 18:53:24 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:24:51 -0500, Tony Rice
"Oh please" is right.
Cherry picking data doesn't happen by accident. They knew the contrary
evidence and chose not to put it into the public debate.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in those critising the Bush
administration for picking and choosing facts to bolster their arguments.
No. The other people who talk like you are just as much of a
blithering fuckbrane as you are.

I expect more out of our President than I do out of a bunch of guys
running for office or stirring up people on a street corner. It's sad
that you don't.

HTH,
---
Mike Dahmus
m dah mus @ at @ io.com
Jeffrey Davis
2003-09-18 19:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Rice
Post by Jeffrey Davis
Lies aren't testimony, i.e. unlike a defendant, a liar doesn't get to
finagle the language in such a way to construe a true statement. A lie
is a moral act and the intent in Bush's letter is to give the
impression that Iraq was linked with 9/11 sufficiently to mandate war.
("suggestio falsi" if you're scoring this at home)
Yeah, because everything was crystal clear back then. Bush and his
henchmen were in dark backrooms of the whitehouse wringing their hands
together as they put together this dastardly plot.
Oh please.
Don'ut be surprised that Jeffrey believes EXACTLY what you just
suggested.
Don't be silly. There are no dark backrooms in the whitehouse.

And, I don't get baroque about it. Each of them probably wrung their own
hands.

But you guys still have to account for the fact that even a cursory
examination of all of the evidence at W's disposal clearly indicates
that there were no nukes and no intention to build nukes. They sexed up
the argument, pure and simple.

Have I mentioned "suppresio veri". Another form of lying for those of
you scoring at home.
Jeffrey Davis
2003-09-18 19:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Davis
But you guys still have to account for the fact that even a cursory
examination of all of the evidence at W's disposal clearly indicates
that there were no nukes and no intention to build nukes. They sexed up
the argument, pure and simple.
It's easy to analyze the information when it's been so conveniently
filtered for you by time and history. And pundints have convenient labeled
everything for you with little post-its that say "lies".
Not so easy when there is mountains of intel to weed through and it's
confidence level is not so black and white.
Crap. The "mountain of intel" had the fact that Iraq's nuclear
scientists were off doing other things. Not exactly an insignificant detail.
Jeffrey Davis
2003-09-18 20:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Davis
Crap. The "mountain of intel" had the fact that Iraq's nuclear
scientists were off doing other things. Not exactly an insignificant detail.
And it also said they were busily making bad things in their labs.
Hindsight is 20-20.
Speaking of making things in their lab: the neo-cons called for war
against Iraq 3 years before 9/11. Cheney spent several days at the CIA
arm-twisting the boyos to come up with a rationale that would sell. The
sprit of independent inquiry was absent from the start and never
intruded. That W would have included the previously discredited
yellow-cake detail is evidence of that: can we state this thing so that
it isn't a technical lie? Holy hindsight, Batman.
Tony Rice
2003-09-18 20:18:53 UTC
Permalink
I'm curious. When there are mountains of intel to weed through and its
confidence level is not so black and white, and it comes time to present
your case, do you advocate omitting the parts that are inconsistent with
the hypothesis you have settled on?
I see you read about the scientific method in middle school "earth
science" class
Randolph M. Jones
2003-09-18 20:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Rice
I'm curious. When there are mountains of intel to weed through and its
confidence level is not so black and white, and it comes time to present
your case, do you advocate omitting the parts that are inconsistent with
the hypothesis you have settled on?
I see you read about the scientific method in middle school "earth
science" class
Sorry, your message was garbled. The internet truncated the part where
you answered the question.
John Rogers
2003-09-18 18:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Czar Christopher I
Post by Czar Christopher I
: it's as strong a case as they had for Impeaching Bill...
Yep. It's no case at all.
ahh but lets get a special prosecuter and waste Hundreds of Millions
of Dollars to be sure....
Oh, absolutely. There's no doubt that the Democratic stupidity is the
very equal of Republican stupidity.

Their only saving grace is that their minority status is saving them
from their overwhelming stupidity and bitterness.


John M. Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
RSFCs Jack O'Hearts
RSFC Secretary of Family and Child Development

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself
to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very
freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way.
Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand at post.
Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"
(Colonel Nathan Jessup, USMC)
Tony Rice
2003-09-18 19:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Rogers
Post by Czar Christopher I
ahh but lets get a special prosecuter and waste Hundreds of Millions
of Dollars to be sure....
Oh, absolutely. There's no doubt that the Democratic stupidity is the
very equal of Republican stupidity.
Their only saving grace is that their minority status is saving them
from their overwhelming stupidity and bitterness.
There is wisdom in this post
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...