StRaying The Course
~”….Now, for when (not "if" but "when") Russia decides to set their foot over there I sure am glad that Bush already has us standing and waiting. It's going to happen, it's just when is it going to happen.....All in the name of Oil….”~
Recently, a well-meaning friend made this comment on an earlier post: "And He is Us." I started to respond with a comment in that same section, but it sort of took on a life of its own and I felt it significant enough to warrant posting in this forum. Enjoy.
First things first:
So that someone reading will understand when I use the word ‘poster’ here.. I am referring to the person who Posted the response to my blog; as in “one who posts”.
MY RESPONSE: to the delusional tirade, or notion that The President knew what he was doing all along:
I was going to ask the 'poster' "is that your final answer"?? - and are you SURE that this is the point you want to make? I wanted to mercifully give you some avenue by which you could back out.. to give you the opportunity to say.. "Gotcha! I was just kidding." But since I know you well old friend, I'll forge ahead.
However, before I do:
Let's first of all define and illustrate (that would be "explain" for those of us educated in government schools) the concept of an incorrect premise vs. a correct premise:
If I were to ask you if your mother still "works the corner" at Peachtree and Sixteenth street - Yes or No?? You could not Answer that with a yes or no.
The reason you cannot answer with a yes or no is for the simple fact that your mother does not, nor has she EVER worked the corner at Peachtree and Sixteenth. My question to you is based on a completely Incorrect Premise; the premise your mother ever worked ANY corner anywhere; which in fact, she has not.
Your comments on this blog speak to a premise that is non-existent in this debate. (Like the politician who would not dare answer the question he had been ASKED, but will instead answer the question he WISHES HAD BEEN ASKED).
I understand that your hatred for liberalism (whatever that is) is so strong that you will defy logic to support ANY supposed opposition. But in this case...the so-called opposition is so unbelievably and provably spot-on that it is difficult to imagine any rational person taking exception.
My point was, and still is, that they claimed there were weapons of mass destruction - and there were none. They said THEY KNEW... that these were not suppositions... They KNEW. They lied.
Our Commander in Thief NEVER, EVER made assertions about protecting Iraqi or Iranian oil deposits from the Russians, with regard to the march to war in Iraq. What he did tell us however was that Saddam Hussein had "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and that he was a "Threat" to our national security. He spoke of "Mushroom Clouds" and "Unmanned Aircraft", possessing capabilities which would allow them to easily deliver "Chemical Weapons" to any of our major cities. THAT's what the President said.
Think about that for a moment - The Commander in Chief of the world's preeminent fighting force and intelligence gathering apparatus NEVER EVER, EVER, EVER TOLD US that we needed to protect 25% of the world’s light crude (as YOU Said) or that we needed to keep the Russians out of the thing they’d long hoped for: a Warm Water Port. I might have even been able to accept that, HAD THAT BEEN THE PREMISE he chose to send us into battle. But he didn’t.
He ……Never ……Said those things.
What he SAID was that we were in "Grave and Immanent Danger".
What those “Democraps”, as you call them, DO understand, for the most part …is the English Language, and those words or assertions NEVER CAME UP …in English.
(For the record, I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, as I cannot see any difference in either party other than the spelling of the names. I am a registered Libertarian)
He NEVER said “All in the name of oil” Never said that, my friend. He said: “Immanent Danger”.
And when ambassador Joseph Wilson went to Nigeria, Africa to substantiate the claim that Iraq was purchasing yellowcake uranium from them, and came back with the news that there was no sale of yellowcake uranium from Niger to Iraq – his wife, Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative was thrown under a bus and out-ed by our very own vice president and his own henchmen, destroying years of networking and undercover status for many covert operatives working in the area.
Apparently the only Real parties to be in “Immanent Danger” were those who understood (Please see the ‘Downing Street Memo’) that this whole Iraq thing was totally bogus, and would seek to expose the madness and lies.
From the United States Senate Iraq Report, July 2004:
1999
An Algerian businessman, Baraka, allegedly arranged a trip for the Iraqi Ambassador to the Vatican, Niger and other African countries.
2001
On 11 September 2001, terrorists attacked the United States.
On 15 October 2001, the CIA issued a report, credited to a foreign government service, that Niger planned to sell several tons of uranium to Iraq.
On 18 October 2001, the CIA wrote a finished intelligence report that said, in part (36-37)
According to a foreign government source, Niger as of early this year planned to send several tons of uranium to Iraq under an agreement concluded last year.
Iraq and Niger had been negotiating the shipment since at least early 1999, but the state court of Niger only this year approved it, according to the service.
There is NO corroboration from other sources that such an agreement was reached or that uranium was transferred.
United Nations Security Council (UNSF) Resolution 687 prohibits Iraq from purchasing uranium although the transfer would not require the application of safeguards.
In view of the origin, the uranium probably is in the form of yellowcake and will need further processing to be used in an uranium enrichment plant.
Iraq has NO known facilities for processing or enriching the material.
The quantity of yellowcake to be transferred could support the enrichment of enough uranium for at least one nuclear weapon.
On 20 November 2001, the Director General of Niger's French-led consortium said "there was no possibility" that Niger had diverted any of the 3,000 tons of yellowcake produced in its two uranium mines.
2002
On 5 February 2002, the CIA issued another intelligence report from the same foreign government service. This report included more detail and indicated that the agreement between Iraq and Niger totalled 500 tons of uranium a year.
In a 15 February 2002 report, the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) aserts: "Iraq probably is searching abroad for natural uranium to assist in its nuclear weapons program."
NOTE: that two key qualifiers observed in the original CIA report are unchanged: there is no new source corroborating the claims and no new data on Iraq's (in)ability to process yellowcake. Also, there is no evidence offered to counter Niger's denial. However, the DIA reports to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.
This is from the United States Senate Report on Iraq, for the love of God – And even if any of the Complete Fabrications (those would be "LIES" to you and me) were even remotely true – none of them reflect the PREMISE that you, the poster, established in your response to my blog, which was that we were actually there to KEEP RUSSIA FROM GETTING IT’S HANDS ON A WARM WATER PORT SUCH AS IRAN.
I could go on all day, literally, and put up one fact and truth for every lie the administration wants to tell, but A: I don’t have the time, and B: nor do I have the space.
What I do have, however, is the wonderful use of modern-day technology to show them in their own words just what miserable, lying, treasonous bastards they are:
"Misperception"? Wow!
In conclusion –
Liar in Chief??…..you be the judge.. EITHER…. We went to war….to keep Russia from getting their hands on a Warm Water Port…. And to control 25% of the world’s light crude...
OR…… as the President Said, we went to war because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.. and we must act Now.
I’d have just much rather seen him come out and tell it like it REALLY is/was… rather than to have to wonder constantly about what other lies were being told to me.
(You see, a liar isn't a liar because he tells lies,,, he tells lies BECAUSE he is a liar... and can't stop... any more than the alchoholic can stop drinking 'any time they want.'
"A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways." (James 1:8 KJV) )
But what is disconcerting to me in the extreme is that it's not just that he seems to lack the ability to do that ..... apparently, what he lacks is the capacity.
_____________________________________________________________
Addendum:
The story is told of a man in a mental institution who is convinced that he is dead. His Doctor, his wife and his children exasperated, keep telling him he is not dead. But he continues to insist that he is dead.
They try telling him, "Look, you're not dead; you're walking and talking and breathing; how can you be dead?" But he continues to insist he is dead.
Finally, after a bit of inspiration the doctor, thinking that the man simply doesn't have enough information; that once he is shown by way of medical fact and data that there is no way that he can be dead - will see the light and come to his senses.
So the good doctor pulls out some medical books and is able to demonstrate to the man that dead men do not bleed. After some time, the man is able to admit that dead men do not bleed.
The doctor then takes the man's hand and a needle and pokes the end of his finger.
The man begins to bleed. Armed with his new awareness he looks at the wound and says:
"Well, what do you know? Dead people DO bleed!!"
Recently, a well-meaning friend made this comment on an earlier post: "And He is Us." I started to respond with a comment in that same section, but it sort of took on a life of its own and I felt it significant enough to warrant posting in this forum. Enjoy.
First things first:
So that someone reading will understand when I use the word ‘poster’ here.. I am referring to the person who Posted the response to my blog; as in “one who posts”.
MY RESPONSE: to the delusional tirade, or notion that The President knew what he was doing all along:
I was going to ask the 'poster' "is that your final answer"?? - and are you SURE that this is the point you want to make? I wanted to mercifully give you some avenue by which you could back out.. to give you the opportunity to say.. "Gotcha! I was just kidding." But since I know you well old friend, I'll forge ahead.
However, before I do:
Let's first of all define and illustrate (that would be "explain" for those of us educated in government schools) the concept of an incorrect premise vs. a correct premise:
If I were to ask you if your mother still "works the corner" at Peachtree and Sixteenth street - Yes or No?? You could not Answer that with a yes or no.
The reason you cannot answer with a yes or no is for the simple fact that your mother does not, nor has she EVER worked the corner at Peachtree and Sixteenth. My question to you is based on a completely Incorrect Premise; the premise your mother ever worked ANY corner anywhere; which in fact, she has not.
Your comments on this blog speak to a premise that is non-existent in this debate. (Like the politician who would not dare answer the question he had been ASKED, but will instead answer the question he WISHES HAD BEEN ASKED).
I understand that your hatred for liberalism (whatever that is) is so strong that you will defy logic to support ANY supposed opposition. But in this case...the so-called opposition is so unbelievably and provably spot-on that it is difficult to imagine any rational person taking exception.
My point was, and still is, that they claimed there were weapons of mass destruction - and there were none. They said THEY KNEW... that these were not suppositions... They KNEW. They lied.
Our Commander in Thief NEVER, EVER made assertions about protecting Iraqi or Iranian oil deposits from the Russians, with regard to the march to war in Iraq. What he did tell us however was that Saddam Hussein had "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and that he was a "Threat" to our national security. He spoke of "Mushroom Clouds" and "Unmanned Aircraft", possessing capabilities which would allow them to easily deliver "Chemical Weapons" to any of our major cities. THAT's what the President said.
Think about that for a moment - The Commander in Chief of the world's preeminent fighting force and intelligence gathering apparatus NEVER EVER, EVER, EVER TOLD US that we needed to protect 25% of the world’s light crude (as YOU Said) or that we needed to keep the Russians out of the thing they’d long hoped for: a Warm Water Port. I might have even been able to accept that, HAD THAT BEEN THE PREMISE he chose to send us into battle. But he didn’t.
He ……Never ……Said those things.
What he SAID was that we were in "Grave and Immanent Danger".
What those “Democraps”, as you call them, DO understand, for the most part …is the English Language, and those words or assertions NEVER CAME UP …in English.
(For the record, I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, as I cannot see any difference in either party other than the spelling of the names. I am a registered Libertarian)
He NEVER said “All in the name of oil” Never said that, my friend. He said: “Immanent Danger”.
And when ambassador Joseph Wilson went to Nigeria, Africa to substantiate the claim that Iraq was purchasing yellowcake uranium from them, and came back with the news that there was no sale of yellowcake uranium from Niger to Iraq – his wife, Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative was thrown under a bus and out-ed by our very own vice president and his own henchmen, destroying years of networking and undercover status for many covert operatives working in the area.
Apparently the only Real parties to be in “Immanent Danger” were those who understood (Please see the ‘Downing Street Memo’) that this whole Iraq thing was totally bogus, and would seek to expose the madness and lies.
From the United States Senate Iraq Report, July 2004:
1999
An Algerian businessman, Baraka, allegedly arranged a trip for the Iraqi Ambassador to the Vatican, Niger and other African countries.
2001
On 11 September 2001, terrorists attacked the United States.
On 15 October 2001, the CIA issued a report, credited to a foreign government service, that Niger planned to sell several tons of uranium to Iraq.
On 18 October 2001, the CIA wrote a finished intelligence report that said, in part (36-37)
According to a foreign government source, Niger as of early this year planned to send several tons of uranium to Iraq under an agreement concluded last year.
Iraq and Niger had been negotiating the shipment since at least early 1999, but the state court of Niger only this year approved it, according to the service.
There is NO corroboration from other sources that such an agreement was reached or that uranium was transferred.
United Nations Security Council (UNSF) Resolution 687 prohibits Iraq from purchasing uranium although the transfer would not require the application of safeguards.
In view of the origin, the uranium probably is in the form of yellowcake and will need further processing to be used in an uranium enrichment plant.
Iraq has NO known facilities for processing or enriching the material.
The quantity of yellowcake to be transferred could support the enrichment of enough uranium for at least one nuclear weapon.
On 20 November 2001, the Director General of Niger's French-led consortium said "there was no possibility" that Niger had diverted any of the 3,000 tons of yellowcake produced in its two uranium mines.
2002
On 5 February 2002, the CIA issued another intelligence report from the same foreign government service. This report included more detail and indicated that the agreement between Iraq and Niger totalled 500 tons of uranium a year.
In a 15 February 2002 report, the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) aserts: "Iraq probably is searching abroad for natural uranium to assist in its nuclear weapons program."
NOTE: that two key qualifiers observed in the original CIA report are unchanged: there is no new source corroborating the claims and no new data on Iraq's (in)ability to process yellowcake. Also, there is no evidence offered to counter Niger's denial. However, the DIA reports to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.
This is from the United States Senate Report on Iraq, for the love of God – And even if any of the Complete Fabrications (those would be "LIES" to you and me) were even remotely true – none of them reflect the PREMISE that you, the poster, established in your response to my blog, which was that we were actually there to KEEP RUSSIA FROM GETTING IT’S HANDS ON A WARM WATER PORT SUCH AS IRAN.
I could go on all day, literally, and put up one fact and truth for every lie the administration wants to tell, but A: I don’t have the time, and B: nor do I have the space.
What I do have, however, is the wonderful use of modern-day technology to show them in their own words just what miserable, lying, treasonous bastards they are:
"Misperception"? Wow!
In conclusion –
Liar in Chief??…..you be the judge.. EITHER…. We went to war….to keep Russia from getting their hands on a Warm Water Port…. And to control 25% of the world’s light crude...
OR…… as the President Said, we went to war because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.. and we must act Now.
I’d have just much rather seen him come out and tell it like it REALLY is/was… rather than to have to wonder constantly about what other lies were being told to me.
(You see, a liar isn't a liar because he tells lies,,, he tells lies BECAUSE he is a liar... and can't stop... any more than the alchoholic can stop drinking 'any time they want.'
"A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways." (James 1:8 KJV) )
But what is disconcerting to me in the extreme is that it's not just that he seems to lack the ability to do that ..... apparently, what he lacks is the capacity.
_____________________________________________________________
Addendum:
The story is told of a man in a mental institution who is convinced that he is dead. His Doctor, his wife and his children exasperated, keep telling him he is not dead. But he continues to insist that he is dead.
They try telling him, "Look, you're not dead; you're walking and talking and breathing; how can you be dead?" But he continues to insist he is dead.
Finally, after a bit of inspiration the doctor, thinking that the man simply doesn't have enough information; that once he is shown by way of medical fact and data that there is no way that he can be dead - will see the light and come to his senses.
So the good doctor pulls out some medical books and is able to demonstrate to the man that dead men do not bleed. After some time, the man is able to admit that dead men do not bleed.
The doctor then takes the man's hand and a needle and pokes the end of his finger.
The man begins to bleed. Armed with his new awareness he looks at the wound and says:
"Well, what do you know? Dead people DO bleed!!"
posted by Mr. Miller at 8:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home