2. The British government did learn it.

This reminds me of your claim that Ann Coulter might not have meant "gay" when she called Edwards a "Faggot".

Remarkably silly.

Come on dharma, being a liberal you should respect such things, as you seem to live by them. Remember the definition of IS is?

Come on dharma, being a liberal you should respect such things....
Yeah, like when Ahmadinejad didn't actually say, "wipe Israel off the map" in Farsi.

ya, he never actually used the word "wipe". The liberals have a gret talent for what I like to call "selective specification". One minute they want to be very specific and to the point, the next minute they want to be vague and see something in twenty shades of grey. I suppose we do that too, thats what makes them libs and us conservatives, the timing of when we want to do each.

I suppose we do that too,

Gee, ya think? :rolleyes:

someone smack this jerk, please.

someone smack this jerk, please.

*Smacks Trav20*

Happy now?

:lolhit:

1. The Brits don't have to stick to their story to make the President's statement true at the time he said it.

The Decider in Chief clearly stated --""British intelligence has learned that...""--

......THAT is a defacto declaration on the part of Crawford Texas' village idiot that it was factual.

It was NOT factual, since we now know that British intelligence had **learned** no such thing.

Bush's statment was a LIE....and recent revelations have made it embarrassingly apparent that he KNEW it was a lie while he was telling it.

2. The British government did learn it. I don't get which hair you're splitting here.

For them to have *learned* it would require that it be true.

It wasn't. They did not learn it. If Smirky had said --""British intelligence THINKS that Saddam may have.....""-- then he might have some plausible deniability.

But he didn't say that.

And he cannot deny that what he said was false. The Downing Street memo clearly ilustrates the intention of Bush and other of his co-conspirators to massage the facts and to bend them in order to "make the facts fit the policy".

It is a matter of historical record that Bush fully intended to attack Iraq, and had made up his mind to do so prior to 9/11.

You and the other little Bush apologists have NO leg to stand on in this argument.

1. This reminds me of your claim that Ann Coulter might not have meant "gay" when she called Edwards a "Faggot".
2. I suggest you educate yourself by reading the investigative journalism of the BBC reporter, Greg Palast.1. I never claimed to know definitively what she meant by it. To do so I would be claiming to read her mind, which would be a ridiculous claim (your very same claim notwithstanding).
I think it's possible she was suggesting he was an effete nerd.
Your are saying she absolutely means he is a homosexual man.

2. I will consider Greg Palast to be an "investigative journalist" when you do the same for Rush Limbaugh.
He has been brought up here before (usually by the political centrist Freethinker).
Currently on his website, three or four of his last five stories are negative stories about President Bush.
I don't think anybody would describe him as merely an "investigative journalist".

But here's a point you can ignore if you like: If Greg's Palast's story turns out to be false, does that make you a liar? Consider this when assessing the British claims quoted in the State of the Union Address.

1. For them to have *learned* it would require that it be true.
It wasn't. They did not learn it.
2. If [Bush] had said --""British intelligence THINKS that Saddam may have.....""-- then he might have some plausible deniability.1. That's not correct. For the President to claim that they learned it would require them to say that they did.
For you to be correct (according to your argument) that they didn't "learn" it requires you to prove the story isn't true.
They still claim it is true. Does your investigation involve any more than Googling?
I'll re-ask you what I asked Dharma: If Greg Palast's story turns out to be untrue, does that make liars out of those who quote him?

2. You're so full of crap. Please tell me that if the President had worded it that way, you and Dharma and Sedan and the media would have let this slide. Suuuurrrrre.

(Note to Sedan - the association I am making between you and these other commentators extends no further than the fact that you all happen to be taking this position on this particular thread. There is no offense intended)

You're so full of crap. Please tell me that if the President had worded it that way, you and Dharma and Sedan and the media would have let this slide. Suuuurrrrre.
Exactly.

Originally Posted by dharmabum
1. This reminds me of your claim that Ann Coulter might not have meant "gay" when she called Edwards a "Faggot".
2. I suggest you educate yourself by reading the investigative journalism of the BBC reporter, Greg Palast.

1. I never claimed to know definitively what she meant by it. To do so I would be claiming to read her mind, which would be a ridiculous claim.

I never said you did, Drama Queen. Your defense of her is ridiculous enough. Here's an idea, maybe she was pretending to be British for a moment and meant he was a cigerette. :rolleyes:


2. I will consider Greg Palast to be an "investigative journalist" when you do the same for Rush Limbaugh.

Then you are foolishly denying reality. It is a ridiculous denial too, because Palast actually is an investigative journalist, whereas Rush is just a fat , hateful, drug addicted blowhard. Rush is merely a commentator, not a reporter. There is a difference.


He has been brought up here before (usually by the political centrist Freethinker).

Thats hardly a suprise since he does such good work.

Currently on his website, three or four of his last five stories are negative stories about President Bush.

So what? Seriously. What do you think that proves?


I don't think anybody would describe him as merely an "investigative journalist".

Except his bosses at BBC News. :rolleyes:

But here's a point you can ignore if you like: If Greg's Palast's story turns out to be false, does that make you a liar? Consider this when assessing the British claims quoted in the State of the Union Address.

That is the most ridiculous collection of nonsense I have ever read.

1. Do you have ANYTHING to indicate that Palast's stories are not true? If not, why bring up baseless, unsubstantiated speculation as if it has any merit?

2. I am not the President, delivering a constitutionally required report to congress, sworn to be true under my oath of office. I am not knowingly reusing information that George Tenet already told me is untrue, the way Bush did. I am not trying to start a war, the way Bush was.

actually i thinka faggot was a small bundle of sticks

Here's an idea, maybe she was pretending to be British for a moment and meant he was a cigerette. :rolleyes:
They don't call a cigarette a "faggot" in Britain, dumbshit.

how do you know? have you asked every person in England what they call a cigarette?????? huh???

Hell, I don't know. Maybe you're right....

The word "cigarette" is probably code in Dharma's language to get properly "shagged" in one of the many British bathhouses he frequents.

1. Then you are foolishly denying reality. It is a ridiculous denial too, because Palast actually is an investigative journalist,
2. Do you have ANYTHING to indicate that Palast's stories are not true? If not, why bring up baseless, unsubstantiated speculation as if it has any merit?1. I'm not denying he's an "investigative journalist". Geesh.
I said no one would describe him as "merely an investigative journalist".
Be an adult here. Are you telling me has has no partisanship in either his presentation of his stories or the stories he chooses to investigate?
If you deny this you are being incredibly dishonest.

2. Are analogies too subtle for you. I never said Palast's stories weren't true. Geesh.

You called Bush a liar for quoting the British story which you say is untrue.
That would be like calling you a liar if any of Palast's stories that you have quoted turn out to be false.
Is that so hard to understand??????

For him, I'd say yes.

Brits smoke 'fags'