Bush Did Not Lie or what the press didn't tell you

[Gutenberg]

Now THAT's funny.

[OWC Jamie]

Jeebus that news is old.
At the time the concern was Canada buying it to process it. It was more a case of processor envy, iirc.


<known and provenremnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
>>


It's always so convenient to forget the shroud of disinformation and baraggart lies Saddam was famous for. Especially when it is convenient to do so.

[Lux Interior]

He learned from the pros.

[Mac1337]

Lux Interior wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
If it is not such a big deal, would you recommend returning it to Iraq then?

How such a simple question can render grown men persons speechless.

Oh, sorry! I didn't realize you were serious! We were just laughing at your joke. Sorry!

Anyway, Iraq is now a democratic utopia overrun by unicorns & ponies that shit rainbows, so, yeah, send it back.
Thanks, got it! Should have asked sooner.

[Greg the dogsitter]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=Gutenberg]
Well, I do not think this is funny at all. Who said it was funny? Link please.

How such a simple question can render grown men speechless.
It was a silly question, so I'm not sure why you don't realize it.

The topic was whether the yellowcake that was found was the cause for the United States invading Iraq. The answer to that was "no," as we have discussed. Additionally, the question was whether the mainstream media were hiding something. The answer to that was also "no," as we discussed.

You then asked a question, whether you (whoever was reading, I suppose) would return the stuff to Iraq.

You were going for a zinger, right? We say, "of course not," and you then say, "A-ha! So we were right to take the stuff out! And we were right to invade! And whatever it was that the OP was saying!"

Your silly question was also leading: "If it is not such a big deal..." Who said it wasn't a big deal? Perhaps the only way you can defend your position (whatever the heck that is) is by misrepresenting the opposition.

Your question indicates an apparent inability to follow the conversation. No, this wasn't the stuff that was an excuse for war. No, we probably wouldn't return it. Therefore...what's your point?

Your silly question has already been answered, by Gutenberg. At this point, I do not see you addressing the answer, challenging the answer, or doing anything besides pretending it wasn't posted.

I cannot address you, the person. I don't know you, the person. I can only address the words that you post under your forum handle. To me, these words indicate that you are not interested in a conversation, debate, or polite argument. But you seem to like hypothetical zingers that begin with "Would you...?" Then again, you don't respond to those, either. To me, this looks like trolling. I can't say whether that's what you, the person, are interested in. However, verbal hand grenades without follow-up...that looks like trolling.

[incognegro]

Bush rarely out-and-out lied.

He talked around the truth, most of the time. He was very careful not to state falsehood, and also very careful to imply what he wanted people to believe.

Well... Rove and his speechification-writers. When Bush went off-script, we all know what happened.

[Mac1337]

Greg the dogsitter wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
[quote=Gutenberg]
Well, I do not think this is funny at all. Who said it was funny? Link please.

How such a simple question can render grown men speechless.
It was a silly question, so I'm not sure why you don't realize it.

The topic was whether the yellowcake that was found was the cause for the United States invading Iraq. The answer to that was "no," as we have discussed. Additionally, the question was whether the mainstream media were hiding something. The answer to that was also "no," as we discussed.

You then asked a question, whether you (whoever was reading, I suppose) would return the stuff to Iraq.

You were going for a zinger, right? We say, "of course not," and you then say, "A-ha! So we were right to take the stuff out! And we were right to invade! And whatever it was that the OP was saying!"

Your silly question was also leading: "If it is not such a big deal..." Who said it wasn't a big deal? Perhaps the only way you can defend your position (whatever the heck that is) is by misrepresenting the opposition.

Your question indicates an apparent inability to follow the conversation. No, this wasn't the stuff that was an excuse for war. No, we probably wouldn't return it. Therefore...what's your point?

Your silly question has already been answered, by Gutenberg. At this point, I do not see you addressing the answer, challenging the answer, or doing anything besides pretending it wasn't posted.

I cannot address you, the person. I don't know you, the person. I can only address the words that you post under your forum handle. To me, these words indicate that you are not interested in a conversation, debate, or polite argument. But you seem to like hypothetical zingers that begin with "Would you...?" Then again, you don't respond to those, either. To me, this looks like trolling. I can't say whether that's what you, the person, are interested in. However, verbal hand grenades without follow-up...that looks like trolling.
Repeated use of "silly" does not make your argument any stronger. You know exactly what I meant. You pooh pooh any finds in Iraq but when I ask shall we return the stuff you say it is "silly", i.e you got me. Same thing with Saddam. Couldn't bring yourself to agree that it was a good thing that he was removed but when asked shall we let him return to power then, you would say, you guessed it, it is a "silly" question.

[Greg the dogsitter]

Dakota wrote: Repeated use of "silly" does not make your argument any stronger. You know exactly what I meant. You pooh pooh any finds in Iraq but when I ask shall we return the stuff you say it is "silly", i.e you got me. Same thing with Saddam. Couldn't bring yourself to agree that it was a good thing that he was removed but when asked shall we let him return to power then, you would say, you guessed it, it is a "silly" question.

You're not reading the responses that people post to what you write. Otherwise, you'd know why this finding was dismissed.

[Black Landlord]

Greg the dogsitter wrote:
[quote=Dakota]Repeated use of "silly" does not make your argument any stronger. You know exactly what I meant. You pooh pooh any finds in Iraq but when I ask shall we return the stuff you say it is "silly", i.e you got me. Same thing with Saddam. Couldn't bring yourself to agree that it was a good thing that he was removed but when asked shall we let him return to power then, you would say, you guessed it, it is a "silly" question.

You're not reading the responses that people post to what you write. Otherwise, you'd know why this finding was dismissed.
Let's be charitable and assume Dakota actually knows he's wrong and is just being intentionally dishonest.