July 18, 2003
STEYN EXCLAMATION POINT RECORD
The freakazoid Left continues trying to pin the entire cause of war on a claim that Saddam sought uranium from Niger -- even though, as Mark Steyn points out, us Right Wing Death Beasts™ never even heard about the place often enough to pronounce its name correctly:
I wrote a gazillion pieces urging war with Iraq, and never found the time to let the word Niger pass my lips. And, if it had passed, my lips would have said ‘Ny-juh’ and not ‘Nee-zhaire’. But here’s what the President had to say, when he ‘LIED OVER NIGER URANIUM CLAIMS!!!!!!!!!!!’ back in the State of the Union address in January: ‘The British government has learnt that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’
That’s it: 16 words. Where’s the lie? Though the CIA director George Tenet now says his boys shouldn’t have approved that sentence, Tony Blair is standing by it. The unusual attribution to Her Majesty’s Government might have been because Bush was only mired in all this multilateral justification-shopping as a favour to Blair and his wobbly Cabinet. Or it might have been because of the source: under the rules governing intelligence-sharing, the British were unable to pass the direct evidence on to the Americans because they got it from the French, and the French wouldn’t let them give it to Washington. Niger’s uranium operations are under the supervision of the French Atomic Energy Commission.
But, whether or not that’s true, I repeat: where’s the lie?
Way to lose the peace as well as the war, Leftoids.
It's now time for the International ANSWER crowd to do what it does best: change the subject!
Hooray, someone finally identifies the brass tacks of the matter. ANYONE, Kerry , Dean, Wolf Blitzer even Sharpton who reads the actual 16 words and then uses the term "Lie" is seeking political not moral leverage.
Posted by: Robert Swaim at July 18, 2003 at 07:48 AMThe left, having had a bad war and lost, are fighting it all over again with thin strands of straw. To this, further sign of early onset of senility at ABC is its determination in running the line daily.
The good news, in all of this is, the communistos are obliging Right Wing Death Eaters with a few more tasty morsals to chew and spit out after having, like good carnivores RWDEs are , chewed bloody flesh and crunched bone.I'm starting to salivate, I'll rush off now to cook a steak for breakfast, rare - always eat mine rare - red flesh, dripping with blood.And a good red to wash it all down.Yum, yum.
Blimme, meant, Right Wing Death Beasts.
It seems safe to say,it is part of RWDBs' code of honour to have, by day's end every day, reduced a large number of communisto dribblers into gibbering cot cases.
What will freak them out is when, once available, not only on the internent, but office all over Autralia, nay, let us dare, all over the world, govenrment and business, communisto spitoons will realise how lonely they are as RWDBs proudly wear tie pins , lapel pins, use coffee mugs and place mats bearing the emblem.
I think I'll bring out the steel capped shoes today, the urge to grind flesh and bone flows high and swift today.
"I wrote a gazillion pieces urging war with Iraq, and never found the time to let the word Niger pass my lips. And, if it had passed, my lips would have said ‘Ny-juh’ and not ‘Nee-zhaire’"People who say ‘Nee-zhaire’ are the same folks who used to instruct us in the pronunciation of NeeghhhaaarrAAAguaah and ThaanthaalbaaaaDORD. Posted by: Ernie G at July 18, 2003 at 09:47 AM
Easy. The lie is that the British government had learnt such a thing. They hadn't, as it wasn't true - which is what the word 'learnt' implies.
Furthermore, the SOTU address implied that it was in fact a fact. Sure, W didn't actually say so - but that's because he used an evasive construction so he didn't have to.
However you cut it, it's not looking good.
Posted by: Bon Scott at July 18, 2003 at 10:22 AMno weapons of mass destruction have been found. could everyone please remember that? the uranium from africa would be far less significant if WMD had been found.
and say what you like about removing tyranny etc - the explicit justification for war was the iraq had, and would either use or sell, WMD.
find some weapons, and then we can talk more...
Posted by: jb at July 18, 2003 at 10:53 AMBon:
SOTU address with Niger "lie" in it: January.
Congressional vote approving war if Saddam does not cooperate: October.
Get your facts straight, dummy.
Posted by: Sasha CD at July 18, 2003 at 11:11 AM
um, sorry, has there been a victory here?
i hadn't noticed a victory from up here. seems that people are dying daily on both sides of a mssively one-sided conflict followed by occupation.
seems there is extreme discomfort over misrepresentations of reasons for sending kids into a country they no absolutely nothing about to kill folks, then bizarrely to oversee peaceful reconstruction.
seems there's also a continuing campaign to reduce opinions on the invasion to "left" and "right". yessir, it's all black & white, there are only two points of view available...man, the process of analysis down there on earth is progressing...ahem...well.
gotta get back to the war on poverty now y'all. or was that the war on drugs?
Posted by: chico o'farrill at July 18, 2003 at 11:24 AMSo why is Bush saying that the reason for war was "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in"? Could someone remind me?
Posted by: Mark at July 18, 2003 at 11:51 AMChoirmaster Tim, why do some people not know we are at war?
Are they just stupid or do they support fasism and racism?
I didn't mention the congressional vote. It's irrelevant to my argument.
You must be arguing about something else, with somebody else. Dunno who - but then, neither do you.
Cheers.
Posted by: Bon Scott at July 18, 2003 at 12:55 PMOK, I'll say this once for the dummy anti-Bush types here: Shut up until you grow an intellect you islamofacist supporters. Bill Clinton was total fuck up compared to the BRILLIANT George Bush. Already, he has achieved more in 2 years than his predecessor could ever do. But of course left wing anti-Americans can't see that, because all they care about is talk. Lefties always try so hard to SAY the right thing, but they never actually DO anything much but increase government expenditure for no good purpose.
The whole reason for the war against terrorism is to break those nasty left wing states that support terrorist organisations. The geo-political issues here are so much more important than banging on and on about WMD. Hussein's regime was destabilising the Middle East and contributing to a climate in which islamofacist terror was increasingly seen as a normal response to imagined sleights of the west. There will never be peace in the world until Middle East is pacified. Since Iraq was invaded, the rest of the region has already started moving towards a new more peaceful order. This comes from the fact that all the rogue States in the region now know that they can be crushed quite easily by the West. Sometimes you need to shopw that you mean business before a bully will understand that he has to change his way. It's grown up stuff that poor old wishy washy permanent adolescents on the left will never understand. The War on terror is slowly being won.
Can you imagine what would have happened if Gore had won in 2000? One word comes to mind: Surrender.As with all lefties, the only thing that US liberals are tough about is politics. When it comes to dealing with those outside their territory they are wims and appeasers to a man.
Posted by: Toryhere at July 18, 2003 at 01:32 PMYou seem very well informed, Toryhere. Care to answer my question?
Posted by: Mark at July 18, 2003 at 01:38 PMMark you're running the line skimmed out of the same ditchwater skimmed by ABC on, the reason for the war was the claim Saddam was out to buy nuke material from Niger. Talk about niggers in the woodpile. Or, to be sure, Toryhere did bloody well answer your question Mark - no, the war didn't have anything to do with Niger and chancey inspekkor Wudgets.
Posted by: d at July 18, 2003 at 02:10 PMCongratulations on another charming, thoughtful and grammatical piece, d. Now quit squealing and answer the question.
Posted by: Mark at July 18, 2003 at 02:26 PMWhy does Bon Scott claim the British report was not true? The British government continues to assert that they have learned Saddam was trying to get uranium from Niger and other places in Africa. In other words, they still support Bush's statement in his State of the Union address. Of course Bush thought it was true. He still does. It would have still been true even if he had mentioned Niger, though in fact he was more cautious and just said 'Africa.' Try to get your facts straight before you spread these wild accusations.
Posted by: doyne dawson at July 18, 2003 at 02:42 PMSqueal , Mark, Squeal.
When I hear squeal it is wild boar and I let my G.S.P. take it down - bloody good dog my G.S.P..
I carry my express rifle only to shoot fucking budgerigars at 2,ooo yards.
Doyne: Interestingly, however, the US now says the British report was not true. We're seeing the official lines diverge here.
I'd like to see a pro-war argument about this issue done on the facts - one that doesn't consist of a diversionary tactic ("that's not the real issue", "it was only 16 words", etc etc etc).
So far I haven't found any - does such a thing exist?
Posted by: Bon Scott at July 18, 2003 at 03:20 PMDoyne
Don't worry about Mark and Bon Scott. Their kind will never understand. As I said above, the WMD thing is just a cul de sac they have to explore because their worldview has once again been shown to be hopelessly wrong. It seems that they would rather a dictator was in place killing hundreds of people every day and making the whole Middle East region unstable, than admit that the US and its Allies were right, both politically and morally, in taking action to lance the boil of islamo-leftyism.
Posted by: Toryhere at July 18, 2003 at 03:27 PMI suppose if I'm such a raving leftie I really shouldn't be poking fun at the retarded. D'oh! I mean the Developmentally Disadvantaged. (First letters of those two words are a clue.)
Posted by: Mark at July 18, 2003 at 03:57 PMThat's right Toryhere, because now that we've taken action against Saddam there are no more evil dictators left in the world. All gone, as if by magic!
Posted by: Bon Scott at July 18, 2003 at 03:57 PMYou shifted the scub Mark but their aint no game worth huntin' in it.
Your'e clue is pretty piss w. But you didn't study classics is bleedingly obvious.
No, red-headed Menelaus on your wine-dark stool, those rosy-fingered dawns were sadly never mine to share. Whereas the Hellenistic influence on your own grammar is shiningly apparent. Now, who's going to answer my question?
Posted by: Mark at July 18, 2003 at 04:08 PMAs a public service, would one of the Bush lied brigade please bring me up to speed by succinctly explaining:
1. Why bin Laden and his band of not-so-merry Islamofascist men targeted the United States?
2. Why the United States removed the Taliban?
3. Why the United States invaded Iraq?
This is a genuine request as I'm curious how you guys see the situation.
Explanations for Zsa Zsa
1a) Because of the dreadful Coca-colonisation of the world, the USA really truly deserved it. Big Macs are weapons of mass cultural destruction.
1b) It wasn't Bin Laden, it was the International Zionist Conspiracy
1c) It was Bin Laden, but it's all the Jews fault anyway.
1d) It was all part of a plot so Bush could steal the election in 2004.
2a) In order for Big Oil to build a gas pipeline from Kazakhstan to India. Through Pakistan.
2b) Because the Bush Administration is pursuing an anti-Muslim agenda at the behest of the Jewish Bankers and International Zionist Conspiracy.
2c) It's all the Jews fault anyway.
2d) It was all part of a plot so Bush could steal the election in 2004.
3a) In order for Big Oil to build an pipeline from Iraq to Israel. Through Jordan.
3b) Because the Bush Administration is pursuing an anti-Muslim agenda at the behest of the Jewish Bankers and International Zionist Conspiracy.
3c) It's all the Jews fault anyway.
3d) It was all part of a plot so Bush could steal the election in 2004.
At least that's what the "Bush Lied" brigade seems to be saying. Sometimes all 4 alternatives at once.
Mark, you are sinking deeper: out of the recesses which time creates resides a famous put down by one of the greatest Greek satirists.In other words, Mark, you try the patience, one can endure stupidity these days for far shorter time than in my youth .My greatest mistake in youth was not setting my fuse on very short delay... try something ripe and make my day ...oh bother, I'm rtoaring with laughter boy.Fetch me my cigar or don't you know the definition of fag.
Posted by: d at July 18, 2003 at 04:52 PMI think Bush lied.
Was "I did not have sex with that woman." a lie? How about if Clinton had his staff rewrite it until it was true?
ZhaZha:
1) Because we are the biggest game out there.
2) Because the Taliban supported bin Laden
3) Because we couldn't find bin Laden.
Posted by: Monica at July 18, 2003 at 05:01 PMMark:
I truly don't know why Bush says what he says, so I'll make up some answers:
a) Bush is saying that so people won't ask about the uraniumania.
2) Bush has faith that our inspectors are better than the UN inspectors
III) He was misled: Blair/Tenet/God told him so
e) He had darn good intelligence, darn good.
By the way, shouldn't we have had our own intelligence, rather than relying on what the brits told us they learned?
And let that be a lesson to you Mark.
There are some really lovely sheilas out there who can spot crappers at 10,000 yards.
When I read Andrea's posts and on the above, Monica's, the old testoerone fires up like a nuclear atoms in a nuclear reactor.
They are pin ups.
So,Mark,go bite your pillow.
Posted by: d at July 18, 2003 at 05:29 PMAch, d, you witty dog, I surrender. You're argmatation is unstopbablr. You're nowledg of the classics is unsrpassabl.
Mark's day off ...
1) Hooks up
2) "Argues" with idiot.
3) Gets called a poof by an idiot.
4) I'm not un idjut! I hav sychik ablities! I kno chicks is pinups from there emails!
Conclusion -- Mark is an idiot.
Posted by: Mark at July 18, 2003 at 05:48 PMI think that Aussies girls are the hottest in the world!
Posted by: C'Ok at July 18, 2003 at 05:51 PMZsa Zsa is the only one on here who makes any sense. :)
Posted by: C'OK at July 18, 2003 at 05:53 PMThe gassing of the Kurds. Feeding people into plastic shredders. A mass grave of children.
As far as I'm concerned, those override this WMD crapola. Stop whining, Bon and Monica, et al., and answer my question: Do you support leaving a madman in power who puts people into plastic shredders?
Oh, I do believe Bin Laden is cave jam somewhere in Afghanistan. Difficult to scrape up.
Posted by: ushie at July 18, 2003 at 10:05 PMI was confused when the country Niger was first mentioned on ABC radio.
The announcer pronounced it both Nye-dger, and
Nee-zhair.
So I got out my "English Pronouncing Dictionary", 14th edition,
According to it, the river is Nye-dger,
and the country Nee-zhair.
C'OK:
/The gassing of the Kurds. Feeding people into plastic shredders. A mass grave of children./
Are those answers to ZhaZha's questions?
Wasn't Churchill pro Kurd-gassing?
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-vppin133170674mar13,0,7115860.column or free bits in: http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P406_0_1_0_C
And isn't Rumsfeld for it too, at least when he was selling gas to Iraq? Who did he expect Saddam to use the gas on?
...and as far as I'm concerned, the WMD crapola was what Bush was selling the war on. As an et al., I'm concerned about leaving our faith-based madman in power to send our soldiers into RPG-shredders, while Brown and Root make commissions on the cleanup.