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

[Brett Paatsch]

Robert Lindauer wrote:

> 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.

No that wasn't my point.  My point was that to persuade me you have
to do the work of substantiating your specific claims. I am not going to
scramble around in something you've called thetip.  There is a further point
that I didn't mention because I shouldn't have to. In speaking to you I
was evaluating you. Your style, your effectiveness, your potential as an
ally.

The questions that I ask I can usually answer for myself. But I have enough
personal political experience to know that that is not the point. The
information has to be able to get to the people that will decide on it in a
form that will faciliate the desired decision.

> 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.

No.  It is irrelevant to me now.  It's yours and I don't trust it.

>>>> 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.

I am posting from my own country. I am evaluating you from my home
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?

Mine.

>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?

When I am talking to you I am spending my time in doing so. When I am
judging whether it is worth while to continue to do so its is with my
standards.

>>
>> 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?

I am not looking for a job.  I was interested to see if you and I might
work together towards a common goal. I am no longer interested in
working with you. I think you would be a hindrance.  If you come
across someone with an open mind you will not be able to talk to
them without insulting them.

>>
>> 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...

I no longer care whether you Robert Lindauer personally listen to me or
not. You have absolutely nothing I need and I cannot cooperate with you
without wasting my time.

>>
>>>  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

I'm done with you.

Brett Paatsch