[extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied overIraq? Onwhatbasis?

[Brian Lee]

I think it's really difficult to try to convince someone if you make 
statements without linking to a source. A high level domain name doesn't 
count (especially if it is your own site). That's like making crazy 
statements and then backing it up by saying visit wikipedia.org or 
nytimes.com or something else useless.

Since this thread has lowered down to calling each other dumb-asses and 
babies, perhaps it's utility is too low to deal with.

BAL

>From: Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied 
>overIraq?	Onwhatbasis?
>Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:55:45 -1000
>
>Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Check:
>>>
>>>http://www.thetip.org/
>>
>>
>>I checked that there is a site there. I see that you own the domain name.
>>
>>But where on the site is your evidence that Bush said we know there are
>>wmd's in Iraq.
>
>
>Sorry, I don't wipe asses for babies that aren't my own.  I suggest a 
>baby-sitting service or a nurse depending on how old you are.
>
>>
>>The reason I ask again, is because that is what I wanted to know.  I don't
>>want to go fishing around on your site for what might be there to back up
>>your assertion or not.  The point is that you need to be able to back up
>>your assertion to be able to be persuasive.
>
>
>Your point appears to be that I need to do your homework for you. But of 
>course, anything I might say you'd want to see the sources for it, so 
>there's thetip.org.  Do enjoy yourself while investigating the matter for 
>yourself with an open mind.
>
>>>>Do you know *when* he said it, in what context, can you provide a link o 
>>>>a transcript or a mp3 file etc?
>>>
>>>
>>>As a matter of fact...
>>
>>
>>As a matter of fact what ?
>
>
>Do, check thetip.org.
>
>>
>>>>What I am hoping you will see is that in a country of millions of 
>>>>opinions there are very few that are taking the trouble to put their
>>>>opinions together in such a way that they might really have a chance
>>>>to persuade impartial people willing to make up their minds on the 
>>>>facts.
>>>
>>>
>>>The notion "impartial people" is absurd, but, again, do try 
>>>http://www.thetip.org/
>>
>>
>>The notion "impartial people" is no more absurd than that you or I or
>>any person might hope to get a jury judge our guilt or innocence
>>impartially if you or I or any person is ever charged with a criminal
>>offence.
>
>
>Yes, the notion of impartial person is absurd - ask any experienced lawyer.
>
>>
>>>>I think there is very likely to be good grounds for impeaching President 
>>>>George W Bush. But it is not going to happen even if there
>>>>are good grounds if those that would want it to happen do not get their
>>>>shit together enough to make a persuasive case when a persuasive case
>>>>is a case that would be able to convince an impartial but interested 
>>>>person.
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, it takes a majority vote in the Senate to get it to happen so 
>>>it's absurd to even consider it given that the whole senate has sold its 
>>>soul to that devil.
>>
>>
>>I'm not granting that given. Your off topic.
>
>
>You're not aware of how the impeachment process works?
>
>>
>>>All us ordinary citizens can really do is complain loudly, I'm afraid, 
>>>given that I'm unwilling to shoot anyone over it or blow anything up 
>>>myself.  (Hippy parents, haven't decided whether it's a character flaw or 
>>>not.)
>>
>>
>>I am not a citizen of the United States.
>
>
>Then this is none of your freekin' business.  Go away foreigner, go fix 
>your own country.
>
>>
>>Complaining loudly isn't bad. Complaining loudly and doing something
>>like having an internet site to communicate with already lifts you out
>>of the ranks of ordinary disinterested citizen. To have a web site with
>>political content make you an activist of sorts.
>
>
>You'd no doubt enjoy my saturday-afternoon peace parties :)
>
>>
>>But then some nutters are probably activists too. I don't know whether
>>you are a nutter or not yet.
>
>By who's standards?  I know lots of people who think I'm a nutter and lots 
>of people who don't.  I find that when I say I prefer JR Lucas to Roger 
>Penrose people think I'm crazy, well, I just like Lucas better, what can I 
>say?
>
>>
>>Sometimes people acting together can be more effective than if they act
>>alone. There can be synergies between skill sets. Sometimes though
>>they can be worse.
>
>Well, if you're looking for a job, I could use the help.  Perhaps someone 
>to organize the site better for people who are extremely lazy and don't 
>like having to actually use the search engine to find what they want?  Know 
>php?
>
>>
>>You don't say what "he" was reading or where he was reading it so the
>>first question that comes to my mind isn't the one you want to pose, the
>>first question that comes to my mind is what *are* you actually talking
>>about.
>
>
>See www.thetip.org.
>
>>
>>>>The question I am asking is: when to *your* knowledge did George W
>>>>Bush personally say to the American people that there *are* weapons
>>>>of mass destuction in Iraq, and can you prove it?
>>>
>>>
>>>Colin Powell said this to the UN, it's well documented.
>>
>>
>>I watched Colin Powell speak to the UN on television live. I don't doubt
>>that the full text and in all likelihood a video of the event is available
>>somewhere. If you can point to it and it bears out your point then you'd
>>have shown that your archive is useful.
>
>
>Please take 5 seconds out of your day to inform yourself about these things 
>that you think you have something sufficiently important to say to make it 
>worth listening to you debate it publicly.  See www.thetip.org for 
>starters.  Also, GW said it several times on the radio.  Also nicely 
>documented online at, you know where...
>
>>
>>>  George Bush said in his state of the Union address that Iraq had sought 
>>>Uranium in Niger quoting intelligence known by the British and Americans 
>>>to be false (again, see www.thetip.org, a nice complete record with 
>>>citations from the major news publications tracing back, oh, I dunno, 
>>>just to the right time....).
>>
>>
>>I don't want to read your whole scrapbook. I shouldn't have to.
>
>
>Well, if you want to INFORM YOURSELF about a matter as important as this so 
>that you'd have something useful to say about it, I suggest starting at 
>thetip.org and then moving on to moveon.org and then just check the 
>standard archives to make sure the references are valid.
>
>>
>>Nor am I trying to make work for you or give you a hard time.
>
>
>Then look it up yourself.  I OBVIOUSLY already did.
>
>>Only
>>some facts are likely to be relevant to making a case for impeachment
>>and the vast majority of stuff offered by people who just hate Bush is
>>likely to be gratuitous counterproductive noise.
>>
>>However those facts that are relevant need to be able to be presented
>>to people to see for themselves.
>
>
>Yes, please see www.thetip.org.  I agree this is a great goal.
>
>>
>>Its good to have a site that pools useful info, but its not enough if they
>>have to go searching through it and the site looks like an I-hate-Bush
>>site.
>
>
>If you're offering design help, send me your resume.
>
>>
>>>>If you can then that would lead on to a second point:  What evidence is
>>>>there that that statement was known to be untrue by him when he said it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Both the CIA and British Intelligence from whom he would have to have 
>>>gotten the intelligence knew it to be false and have, again, said so 
>>>publicly.  For a nice record of the matter, please see www.thetip.org :)
>>
>>
>>Where specifically on the site?  I don't want to have to read the whole
>>thing.
>
>
>There's a nice search engine.  And google has a nice feature where you can 
>search within a site, it's really cool, it's kind of the modern way of 
>researching news items quickly.  I suggest starting there if you can't get 
>the search engine on my site to work for you.
>
>>
>>>>Prove the second (probably on the balance of probabilities would be
>>>>enough) and you've grounds for impeachment.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, you can't prove that he's a not a complete imbecile, but then the 
>>>point is either he knew or he should of known.  I'm sure you've heard the 
>>>statement before:
>>>
>>>"The Buck Stops Here"
>>
>>
>>Yes. Harry Truman.
>
>
>So you don't see how this applies today?
>
>>
>>>It's meant to mean somewhere in the white house.
>>>
>>>>Its already clear that George W Bush took a presdiential oath under
>>>>the US Constitution to uphold the constitution.
>>>
>>>
>>>He took one to show up for duty in the air national guard too, it's not 
>>>suprising that he can't keep this one either.
>>
>>
>>This isn't relevant to whether he lied over Iraq.
>
>
>It's relevant to whether or not he keeps his oaths, counselor.
>
>>>
>>>Um, except that the congress is controlled by republican drones and the 
>>>media is controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch?
>>
>>
>>I don't know you well enough for you to make stupid sounding
>>statements like that and for me to give you the benefit of any
>>doubt.
>
>Well, is the congress controlled by republicans?
>
>Is the media controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch?
>
>>
>>>>>Second, we KNOW that David Kelly was an active Iraq weapons
>>>>>inspector working for the UN and he said he KNEW they didn't have the 
>>>>>weapons of  the relevant kind, he "died mysteriously" for
>>>>>his say-so.  But we do know that he said so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"died mysteriously" is irrelevant.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not to anyone with a brain cell left you freekin' idiot.
>>
>>
>>1) You are not attributing the quote *to* anybody.
>
>
>What quote?   What are you ranting about now?  I'm telling you that David 
>Kelly died -mysteriously- and that an MI5 lawyer admitted that he was 
>killed on the radio.  This information is publicly available in many places 
>including from the AP.  If you want to have something relevant to say about 
>it, look it up.    Thankfully, you can start at thetip.org if you just 
>don't have any idea about how to go about researching this matter.  Next, 
>try the guardian online, it has the best David Kelly news archive available 
>online.  You could also try writing to their editorial staff as well as to 
>MI5 to ask them about the progress of their investigation.   Although they 
>have yet to answer my letter on the matter.  Maybe you'll have better luck.
>
>>
>>2) Even if he did die mysteriously it is irrelevant you are just raising
>>a red herring issue.
>
>
>No, he was a whistle-blower who was actively involved on the ground in Iraq 
>in UN weapons inspections who pointed out that there weren't any such 
>things going on there.
>
>>
>>3) Calling me a freekin' idiot doesn't actually insult me, you don't
>>know me, it just makes me doubt you.  The first time I see a link
>>from you is to your own site and you call me a freekin idiot in the
>>same post.
>
>
>I -genuinely- don't care what you think about me.  I mean what kind of 
>person asks for links when the internet is FULL of links.  It's freekin' 
>link christmas out there.  Here a link, there a link, everywhere a link, 
>link.
>
>>>>If what Kelly says is relevant to what Bush believed then you have
>>>>to establish that connection with evidence.  The clearer, the more
>>>>concisely the case is put together then more likely it is to succeed,
>>>>the more likely it is to be persuasive.
>>>
>>>
>>>Please see "http://www.thetip.org" and of course the rather nice record 
>>>of the incident in the guardian, still available online.
>>
>>
>>Is that incident relevant to the question if whether Bush lied over Iraq?
>
>
>Yes.  Read the sources, educate yourself.
>
>>
>>>>>Third, we KNOW that the American CIA had briefed the president and had 
>>>>>said they'd found no such evidence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How do *you* know? If you know then you will be able to tell me when
>>>>they did it?
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course, please see http://www.thetip.org/.
>>
>>
>>No. Not I am not going to your bloody site again until you show me that
>>you can find stuff in it yourself.
>
>
>I have no need to PROVE that I can find things in the site that I MADE.  
>I've enjoyed debating wacko-s over time on the internet.  You're not a very 
>good wacko though.  My favorite wacko isn't available for public debate any 
>more.
>
>>
>>>I didn't spend several years collecting these stories in one place for no 
>>>good reason :)
>>
>>
>>Why did you do it I wonder? So that if you meet someone who might
>>agree with you you could piss them off and try to insult them?
>
>
>No, so that if someone with an open mind wanted to know what the details of 
>these and other matters were, they could find the record there online 
>quickly and easily.  Although recently I've decided that the ideological 
>problem is more severe than the information problem.  People KNOW that Bush 
>is a war-mongering liar or they know that if they managed to look into the 
>matter objectively they'd become convinced of it, they're just okay with 
>it.  That's the problem I'd like to address now.  It appears to be your 
>problem.  I once debated a "radio evangelist" about whether or not it was 
>useful to ridicule homosexuals into becoming Christians (I didn't think so, 
>he did.)  I am now testing the theory in an area with which I am familiar, 
>seeing if ridiculing the populace of dumbfuckistan helps them in their 
>quest for truth, justice and peace.
>
>>I'd have thought that you would have wanted to communicate. Get this.
>>I don't want to read every bit of trivia you thought might be relevent at
>>the time you collected it. Your collection is your collection. I am only
>>interested in it in so far as you vouch for its accuracy and relevance
>>in relation to specific questions.
>
>
>Well, you know, sometimes when you're researching a matter that's important 
>to you, you've got to actually DO a little research for yourself.  Normally 
>this is a skill they teach in American High Schools (although it's a little 
>sketchy in some places).  It's certainly something you -should- have 
>learned in college no matter which country you're from.
>
>>
>>If you establish some credibility and trust then that would be different
>>but you haven't. Not with me.
>
>
>Actually, you're not the target, here, you're just a foil.  I've enjoyed 
>our conversation :)
>
>>
>>>>>Fourth, we know that in fact Iraq didn't attempt to acquire any nuclear 
>>>>>material in Niger, Bush blatantly lied to the public in the matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Again, can you prove, to an impartial person, that Bush lied (not that 
>>>>he was
>>>>not just mistaken or deceived) on that matter using evidence?
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure, obviously you're not one, but in general any impartial person I 
>>>speak to is easily convinced of the matter.
>>
>>
>>Again with the insults. What do you think it gains you? All you are
>>doing is distracting me from the points you should be eager to make.
>
>
>Which I've made over and over for years, as have many other people more 
>"respectable" than me.  At this point, in general, I'm convinced that if 
>someone WANTED to know, they'd have been able to find out for themselves in 
>many, many ways.
>
>>
>>>Only the occasional imbecile or bloodthirsty codswallop can't manage to 
>>>see past their own bile.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>Both the British and Americans knew that the intelligence on the matter 
>>>>>was flatly false.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fifth we know that the the British understood Bush's war effort as a 
>>>>>trumped-up case from the Downing Street Memo and Downing Street Minutes 
>>>>>the sources of which are not in question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I reckon if I had a parrot he'd be able to say "Downing Street Memo" by
>>>>now. So what? What is it about the Downing Steet Memo that is important
>>>>in your view? What if anything do the Downing Street Minutes prove to am
>>>>impartial person?
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, if you'd read them, perhaps you'd find out.
>>
>>
>>I'm pretty sure I have already read them. The only reason I am not sure is 
>>that
>>nothing I read had the weight that the hype about them suggested. So 
>>perhaps
>>there is something, some memo I missed.
>
>
>No doubt.  But you never know until you know, do you.  It's sad living in 
>the dark like that, huh?
>
>>
>>>Again, you can find them on www.thetip.org.  I just LOVE that site!
>>
>>
>>I can tell.  I don't share you enthusiasm for it.
>
>
>Now THAT's suprising!  If you have design or topical input to make, you can 
>become a member and be on our email list, and if you have editorial you'd 
>like to share with the world and if it's well-researched, moderately 
>well-written and substantiated, I'll even put it on the site.
>
>>
>>>>>Sixth, we know that some of the President's and Vice President's very 
>>>>>close friends are mysteriously making quite a lot of money in this 
>>>>>effort, in particular Haliburton and Carlyle (through UDI) are doing 
>>>>>well..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"mysteriously". Bollocks.
>>>
>>>
>>>Quite right.  No mystery.
>>
>>
>>I meant that it is bollocks to try and use irony when you are asked for
>>facts.
>
>
>Are you unaware of how Haliburton is just RAKING IN THE DOUGH over there?  
>Or how UDI's orders are just UP-UP-UP?  Well, you should check out 
>thetip.org!
>
>>>>If you think that there is no-one that will make up their minds on the 
>>>>facts
>>>>then you have already lost.
>>>
>>>
>>>Losing is sometimes winning.  Have faith my young apprentice.
>>
>>
>>I am not your apprentice.
>
>
>I know.  You've turned to the dark side.  "From my point of view, you're 
>the evil one." etc.
>
>>
>>>>Nothing is more likely to further empower a scoundrel President (and I
>>>>am not saying that Bush is a scoundrel President that would turn on the
>>>>facts) then a populace and an opposition that hasn't got a clue about
>>>>how to bring him to account.
>>>
>>>
>>>Agreed.  The only thing to do would be to start a grass-roots large-scale 
>>>impeachment effort and show the republicans and democrats alike that 
>>>we're absolutely sick of this administration and it's lies and then make 
>>>sure that they don't get elected and in order to do so we'll have to 
>>>revamp the way people get and accept news because the major news services 
>>>in the United States are uninterested in this story.  We'd have to make 
>>>something internetty actually work.  If it's impossible at least we can 
>>>have said we'd tried and we didn't blow anything up.
>>>
>>>Start here:
>>>
>>>http://www.thetip.org/impeach.php
>>>
>>>It's not much but you'd be suprised :)
>>
>>
>>I started with the bloody question I asked you.
>
>
>And you didn't like my answers.  You wanted references.  Thankfully, I've 
>compiled a near encyclopedic source of references on specifically this 
>matter for the last few years which is available for your perusal online 
>-oh so convenient-.  Now that you've got your references you're refusing to 
>do the work of actually READING THEM.   This is typical of today's willful 
>ignorance of the attrocities committed daily by the US in Iraq and 
>Afghanistan.
>
>>Robbie Lindauer
>>
>>>www.thetip.org  (shameless plug #40, but he asked for it)
>>
>>
>>I asked you a specific question. Rather than answer it, you decided
>>to piss in my ear.  Ironically, you *may* have been able to answer it.
>>It would have saved us both a lot of time if you had just done so.
>
>I have answered this question so many times, I'm tired of talking to people 
>straight about it.  If you ACTUALLY want to find out, you can, it's neatly 
>prepared for you and you know where.  It's telling that you don't actually 
>want to do this work for yourself.  If, however, you decide you DO want to 
>do the work and DO actually want to have something interesting to 
>contribute to this debate, you can start, thankfully, at thetip.org which 
>in addition to concentrating on specifically these (and closely related) 
>issues over the last few years manages to have them nicely categorized for 
>easy research and reference.
>
>Robbie Lindauer
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat