BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 03:44 PM

I think we have been here before McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 03:39 PM

I'm a great believer in the words of the late Carwyn James "Get your retalition in first."

So was Bin Laden it appears.

As I understand the position, if Blix finds weapons of mas destruction, they get destroyed, or the invasion takes place; and if he doesn't find them, the monitoring continues to make sure they don't get reintroduced, and so forth.

But once again, if they really give a toss about getting authorisation from the Security Council for this war, why don't they table a resulutioin that actually says that? Read the actual text of the proposed resolution, and the one before it. No mention whatsoever of war in either case.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST, herc
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 03:33 PM

Their resolution did not say "authorize war" because it was giving non-proponents the opportunity to acqueisce in a vague but understood result, if they were so inclined. Nothing complicated or even particularly nefarious there.

Bobert:

There is an editorial writer who is pagiarizing you. So specifically, its spooky. I mean right down to the 3,000 missiles into the City of Baghdad on day one stuff.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/goldsborough/20030310-9999_mz1e10golds.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 03:00 PM

"can someone complete the phrase - we don't go to war the weapons inspectors complete their task and a) find weapons of mass destruction or b) do not find weapons of mass destruction so then we all decided to ............. "

........ ignore the problem, go home with a satisfied smirk of self indulgence, and five to ten years down the line throw up our hands in horror at the consequences. Blaming, of course, Bush and Tony Blair, for not taking action in 2003.

I'am a great believer in the words of the late Carwyn James "Get your retalition in first."

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 02:50 PM

can someone complete the phrase - we don't go to war the weapons inspectors complete their task and a) find weapons of mass destruction or b) do not find weapons of mass destruction so then we all decided to .............

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 01:34 PM

Let us be sure that, come next elections in our respective countries, the various lying sacks of shit will be unemployed lying sacks of shit.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 01:03 PM

If the US and the UK believe that there ought to be a war, why don't they put up a resolution that actually authorises war?

The one all the fuss is about now just ends up saying that the Security Council "decides to remain seized of the issue", which is like a court adjourning a case without reaching a verdict. And the last one just vaguely talked abour "serious consequences."


Not a peep about military action.

This is all just farting around until the invasion is ready to take place. Treading water.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST,Tony's buddy
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 12:38 PM

All i've got to say is leave my prime minister alone at least he hasnt resorted to refering to anybody as "a sack of shit" I consider anyone who would a start a thread using such infantile insulting language as definitely a schoolbook short of a 12 year old....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Lanfranc
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 12:34 PM

Blair worries me. He must be aware that if this goes wrong, he will be finished politically. The same, I suppose, could be said of Bush.

The possibilities for it to go wrong are legion, and there is a high probability that a bungled military campaign, whether or not followed by an insensitive or corrupt transfer of power within Iraq, will further destabilise an already unstable region.

I was talking with an acquaintance of mine, a senior RAF officer who is about to be transferred to the war zone (assuming he can get any further than Cyprus, which many of our planes hadn't at the time of our conversation!). He said that, apart from the equipment and logistics issues, the thing that bothers most of the senior military is that there is not a clear end game. OK, so Saddam gets ousted, then what? Is there an open-ended commitment to suppress the Kurds, any residual Ba'athists, the southern Shi'ite population into accepting an imposed solution which may not satisfy their needs or political aspirations?

As a lifelong subscriber to the cockup theory of history, I see plenty of trouble ahead if, as seems inevitable, the military option is actioned. Iraq is not a stable state (after all, Britain created it out of a few contiguous but not particularly compatible parts of the Ottoman Empire).

As for bribes to Blair - I gather it was announced today that only US contractors will be considered for the rebuilding phase.

He may be a liar, but I'll wager he's feeling vulnerable!

Alan

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 12:11 PM

Tony Blair has always been a liar. Look at "New Labour". It's more like "old conservative".

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 11:47 AM

Some of the first batch of UN inspectors have said that something like 95 percent of Saddam's WMDs were destroyed when the inspectors were there before. So the argument that Saddam has had 12 years of non-compliance is specious.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: DougR
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 10:47 AM

Rick: I disagree with your last point. I think Bush has always declared that a coalition of the willing will take Saddam out with or without U.N. backing. I think now that he means it. I am grateful that Tony Blair agrees.

Surely there must be a better way to describe a politician, regardless of how you feel about them, than the one used by John anyway.

How about it, John, is Saddam a sack of shit too?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 10:12 AM

"Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?"

Nah, he's a THREATENED, and BLACMAILED Lying sack of shit.

Oddly enough, our Canadian Prime Minister, who has a reputation as a complete disaster (who may even be losing his mind,) is using this to quite an interesting adventage. Can't figure out whether it's all so far above him he simply hasn't a clue, or he's actually being brilliant!

Whatever...he's still saying that the UN has to give the OK. (which Bush initially said)

Cheers

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 10:05 AM

"Blix reminded the council that he had earlier said it would take "not weeks, but months" to complete the full set of tasks, assuming full cooperation by Iraq."

One of the many news articles where you could have read this

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 09:58 AM

Bagpuss,

The weapons inspection teams were in Iraq for 7 of the 12 years, and in that time they were given a "right-royal-run-around".

Saddam and his Ba'athist buddies on the other hand HAVE HAD 12 years to comply with the terms of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions that they accepted and agreed to in order to stay in power. They haven't done anything about it - nor are they likely to.

Your answers to my questions:

"when Hans Blix has had the few months he states he needs in order to do his job,"

Its not measured in months (few or otherwise) according to Dr. Blix - its years - and that is what Saddam is counting on - he's had five glorious trouble free years to hide this stuff - inspectors are not going to find it.

So your:

".. and in those months we find concrete evidence active chemical/biological weapons programmes which Saddam refuses to destroy...."

That is about as likely to happen as "Shergar" being favourite in the next Grand National, with Lord Lucan mounted.

I think that the up-shot will be that Dr. Blix will eventually come back to the UN Security Council and admit that he cannot with any certainty issue a report declaring that Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime in power in Iraq have disarmed in accordance with UNSC Resolutions.

The Security Council of the United Nations will then debate the issue - Saddam will in all probability be given the benefit of the doubt - in order that the United Nations can save face. Then UN sanctions will be lifted - there would be no justifiable reason for maintaining them.

After a sort of honey-moon period - it will be back to business as usual with Iraq, France, Russia and China. About five to ten years down the track - there will be a war - and one that is extremely costly - I only hope then that we have the good sense to stay out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 09:27 AM

The weapons inspectors weren't in Iraq for most of those 12 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 09:23 AM

Hmmm ! The weapons inspectors have had 12 years - how much longer do they need ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 09:14 AM

Perhaps when Hans Blix has had the few months he states he needs in order to do his job, and in those months we find concrete evidence active chemical/biological weapons programmes which Saddam refuses to destroy....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 09:08 AM

"Maybe Teribus, they believe that the UN will only give the green light to war once it is actually justified, and there are no other alternatives?"

And when, Bagpuss do you think that that point would be reached?

Under what circumstances do you envisage that the UN would come to that decision?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST,Raedwulf
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 08:25 AM

Very well said, Linda! Except for one thing - "I don't believe we should go to war because it would involve the destruction of the lives of innocent people".

A million or so 'innocent people' are estimated to have died as the result of sanctions over the last 12 years. Not the fault of the sanctions, but of the way the existing regime applies them to it's own people.

I'm fed up with the bleating of the peacniks who offer nothing but moral outrage at the thought of going to war. Innocent people are dying in Iraq every day, & have been ever since Bush Sr botched the last Gulf War. If you leave sanctions in place, innocent people will still keep dying. If you take sanctions away, do you think they're going to stop dying? Or do you think Saddam will go back to happily massacring his countrymen?

The only way the 'innocents' are going to stop dying is if you take away the regime that's been killing them for the last 30+ years. Blair may well be a lying sack of shit (he is a politician, after all), Bush ditto in spades. I'm not looking forward to the idea of a war (it's not the war that worries me so much as America screwing up the aftermath big-time), but, sadly, I can't see a single other solution.

It may well be that the real reason for the war is not justice, not security, nor anything but the desire of Bush & his cronies to get their grubby hands on Iraq's oil. If so, we may be going to war for the wrong reasons, but at least we'll do the right thing.

In all the bleatings of the peace brigade, I've yet to hear a single solution that will stop all these 'deaths of the innocent' that seem suddenly to prey on everyone's minds. A pity it's taken 12 years & more for most of the protestors to wake up to all the deaths. A pity that 6 months after the fuss has died down (assuming we don't go to war) most of the self-same protestors will have forgotten about the thousands more deaths that will have occurred as result of not changing the regime, having moved on to their next crusade & bout of moral outrage...

Yours, cynically! :(

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 07:57 AM

Maybe Teribus, they believe that the UN will only give the green light to war once it is actually justified, and there are no other alternatives?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 07:46 AM

Thanks for the link Kevin, quite interesting:



Taking a look at the results garnered by this poll of 2,044 people you have:
- 57% against a war with Iraq;
- 58% of whom disapprove of the way Tony has handled it;
- 71% of whom disapprove of the way George W Bush has handled it;
- 65% do not trust the UK Government to tell them the truth about Saddam Hussein and terrorism on this issue;
- 65% are against the UK providing troops for a US-led war without UN backing;

AND THEN FINALLY

- 71% of those polled said that they were in favour of the UK providing troops for a US-led war against Iraq with UN backing.

The last one seems to be a whale of an about turn for a group of people, the majority of whom, are against the war, who believe that it has been seriously mishandled, and, who don't trust their Government to tell them the truth. But if the UN says its OK are fully prepared to not only go along with it but actively endorse it - amazing, utterly amazing.

What evidence, or arguements do they think that the UN is supplied with that is being with-held from them?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 06:29 AM

I don't think he is a lying piece of shit -that isn't the issue. I don't believe we should go to war because it would involve the destruction of the lives of innocent people, and purely for that reason. On paper, we should go to war -18 resolutions have been passed by the Un on Iraq and the organisation has prevaricated for too long that it has made itself redundant - passing another resolution will not help since the nations of the Security Council agreed to the last -if they weren't prepared to carry it out why bother agreeing in the first place? The natos threatening veto have as much self interest in this issue as have the US.

I do not think we should go to war on moral grounds - 2 million refugees so far, displaced and treated like dirt by Europe and the rest of the world and we want to add to it? People decry war on one hand and treat asylum seekers like animals on the other -what    hypocrites. The iraqui people are supressed and we are going to bomb them into freedom- I do not think so. Tackle the Israel/Palestine issue and the rest of the jigsaw will fall into place. Only the US has the means to do it and should do it now.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST,Sack of Shit
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 05:42 AM

John from Hull - I have never been so insulted - you will be hearing from my solicitors.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 05:23 AM

It looks as if they managed to ensure that there's no video of that confrontation had with the women on Monday - this report, with its interesting statistics, are all there is, so far as I can see - The Final Countdown: A Tonight Special - Iraq: Blair faces women voters.

The most powerful bits where where the mother of a man killed in the Two Towers told him how she didn't want other mothers in Iraq - which had had nothing whatsoever to do with that - to have the same thing happening to their sons. And then she said that, so far as she could see, what he and Bush were planning wasn't so different from what the killers of September 11th did. And there was a girl who'd lost her boy friend in the Bali bombing who said essentially the same thing.

People still rememember the time an "ordinary viewer" Diana Gould confronted Mrs Thatcher over the Belgrano - last night was even more powerful than that. Blair looked rattled all right.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: stevetheORC
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 05:15 AM

Personaly I dont think that Blair is a sack of shit, shit has many uses he has none. As for lying I believe that he believes what he says when he says it but maybee not before or after a form of self hypnotism :-) He wants a war so we is going to have a war and if we dont like it then tough. (Move over Maggi)

Orc

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 05:09 AM

To answer John from Hull's question. No I do not think so.

It would be intersting on the particular instance of the current Iraq Crisis to heard what lies he has told.

1. Iraq presents a threat to the peace and stability of the region?

2. Iraq has failed to honour its obligation to the international community to disarm?

3. That Iraq possesses WMD that are unaccounted for?

4. That Iraq is actively pursuing development programmes associated with proscribed weapons?

5. That Iraq has failed to honour its obligations to the international community with respect to human rights?

6. That HM Government is committed to finding a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis and will operate within the terms of the United Nations Charter?

No I don't think he has told any lies relating to any of the above.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 04:46 AM

I don't think Blair expected things to go this far, but once he took sides with G W Brush he isolated homself from a lot more people than he expected. The French have always been anti American, and insular, ditto anti British, so when we sided with the US it confirmed all his prejudices, and also gave him the chance to attack two enemies with a single sword. So if Tony is surprised he shouldn't be, I certainly wasn't. At least the sore arse he got from sitting on the fence for so long will be healing now.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 03:35 AM

Bobert,

In your first post in this thread you say:

"But seriously, your guy uses a 12 year old college *term paper* for his justification for attacking Iraq,..."

In another you say:

"Well, danged, McGrath! The boy was readin' off a 12 year old college kid's "term paper", fir cripes sake. If I was reading off a 12 year old college kid's term paper,"

Just for clarity - it was the paper that was 12 years old. The college "kid" was a Post-Graduate Student who was writing a thesis subject to critical acedemic review - I think the appelation of "kid" is hardly appropriate.

Regarding the work itself, the paper was about the internal security services in Iraq at the time of the ending of "Desert Storm" and the means and stratagems used to conceal weapons. Source material consisted of captured Iraqi documents, transcripts of interviews of members of the Iraqi security forces and reports from UNSCOM Inspectors.

The author of the paper, who 12 years after writing it must be in his mid-thirties, said this about his paper:

1. What is stated in the paper is accurate

2. What is stated in the paper remains relevant today

3. Those using the paper, in context, have over elaborated the number of internal security organisations currently operating inside Iraq.

4. His only point of dispute is that he as author was not credited in the report as presented by the British Government.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 02:07 AM

Well - Blair speaks in my name ! And I approve.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: DougR
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 01:20 AM

Wow, Hille, you're making a point, right? Care to elaborate a bit?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Nemesis
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 12:41 AM

"Of course the people don't want war....that is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."


Hermann Goering (Adolf Hitler's deputy) at the Nuremberg trials, 1946

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: DougR
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 12:34 AM

John: don't judge a book by it's cover.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 11:32 PM

From Spaw's post: The Truth occupies a position identical to that of dinosaur shit.

Therefore, it matters not whether Mr. Blair is a lying sack of shit or a truth-telling sack of shit. He's a sack of shit either way you cut it. The only difference is that if he lies he's a sack of bull shit, if he tells the truth he's a sack of dinosaur shit.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 10:42 PM

Ain't that the Truth!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 10:11 PM

I thought everyone knew that lies are better than the truth! Allan Sherman gave us a Scientific Comparison in The Rape of the A.P.E. Check it out......................

*************WHY LIES ARE BETTER THAN THE TRUTH************A Scientific Comparison

I. CREDIBILITY: All lies are designed to seem true. The expert liar carefully uses elements that seem probable and logical and therefore easy to believe. On the other hand, The Truth is often illogical, wildly improbable and hard to explain. Summary: Lies are more believable than the truth.

II. RELIABILITY: The Truth is spontaneous, accidental and unpredictable. Lies however can be planned in detail long in advance and are thus guaranteed to turn out just as predicted. Summary: Lies are more dependable than The Truth.

III. ECONOMY: To be The Truth, an account of a given event must be completely accurate. This requires painstaking resourcefulness, expensive research, time consuming attention to detail, complex logistics and thoroughness. In spite of all that, some people will believe it and others will not. A lie will produce the same results without all the fuss and bother. Summary: Lies are simpler than The Truth; Lies cost less than Truth in time, money, and effort.

IV. VALUE: The Truth can be found anywhere; it belongs to anyone who finds it, absolutely free. Lies are custom-made, often by experts, and the best ones are highly polished works of art. Summary: Lies are worth more money than Truth. Have you ever heard of anybody bribing a witness to tell The Truth?

V. RESPECTABILITY: A) Great fortunes have been made by selling Lies to the public. The people who sell these lies are often grateful to the gullible consumers, so they endow libraries and universities and cultural centers. B) Nobody ever made a fortune selling The Truth. First of all, as already stated, The Truth is free. The only people who will pay money for The Truth are people who are being blackmailed--and they are only buying The Truth so they can hide it before anybody else sees it. Summary: Lies lead to libraries and universities, while The Truth leads to blackmail.

VI. STABILITY: A) Take 1000 parts Truth, add 1 part Lie. Result: A Lie. B) Take 1000 parts Lie, add 1 part Truth. Result: Again, a Lie. C) Note that you can make a Lie out of The Truth, but you can't make The Truth out of a Lie. Summary: Lies are stronger and last longer than The Truth.

VII. IMAGINATION: In reporting The Truth, a person must research the precise facts and stick to them exactly as they occurred. The liar can report the same incident without doing any research, merely saying whatever comes to his mind and filling in "details" according to his fancy. Summary: Lies are more creative than The Truth.

VIII. RECOGNIZABILITY: People are accustomed to hearing lies all the time. Summary: If you tell The Truth, people will think you are lying and if you convince them you are telling The Truth, they will become suspicious. (Why is he suddenly telling The Truth? What's going on?)

IX. SUPPLY & DEMAND: In describing any given incident, only one version can be The Truth, whereas the number of Lies possible is unlimited. Obviously, Lies are in far greater supply than The Truth. Frankly, there is a great demand for Lies, if they are flattering, if they build up one's hopes, if they help one escape reality, or if they promise wealth, health, power, or potency. Nobody is very anxious to hear The Truth. The only people who demand The Truth are those who are investigating something (lawyers, etc.)--and they only want The Truth to prove somebody is lying. Summary: Lies are the acceptable medium of exchange in our society. They are in good supply and the demand for them remains strong. The Truth is in extremely short supply and even this tiny supply far exceeds the demand. Thus in our society, The Truth occupies a position identical to that of dinosaur shit.

CONCLUSION: Lies are superior to The Truth in numerous ways. Lies are ingenious; Lies make the world seem more pleasant; Lies are less embarrassing than Truth and less frightening. Furthermore, in fields such as diplomacy, statesmanship, merchandising, advertising, public realtions, and bookkeeping, The Truth is an out-and-out handicap. In friendship, Truth is harmful; in love, it is disastrous. The Truth is that The Truth has become old fashioned. Its full of odd shaped little nooks and crannies like so many old fashioned things; some people find them fascinating, but most people find them a pain in the neck. To find all the joys that go along with handling of and handing on The Truth is a labor of love, but most of us in today's society have no time for such things.

*********************************************************************

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 09:26 PM

Well, danged, McGrath! The boy was readin' off a 12 year old college kid's "term paper", fir cripes sake. If I was reading off a 12 year old college kid's term paper, I'd probably have the deer-in-the-headlights look on my puss, too.

Are you trying to say that Blair is *mentally challenged*?

Well, if you are, I'm with you on this one...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 08:35 PM

A very confusing site, the ITV one - that interview link I gave proabably wasn't actually for today - I noticed that it gave the million strong march of February as having happened on March 15th. I know news programmes like to keep up with the times, but that's ridiculous...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 08:06 PM

To tell a lie you've got to believe you are telling a lie. I don't think Tony Blair is capable of believing he is telling a lie. No matter what he finds it expedient to say, he believes it to be the truth. A great skill, and not that common, even among politicians.

My God, but didn't he look uncomfortable. The programme where he was confronted by the women isn't on the net for some reason at the moment (maybe it'll be on later) - but this page gives a link to another bunch of ordinary people he had a session with today.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 07:26 PM

i'd like to know how big's his bribe

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 07:26 PM

Ahhhh, does the Pope cr*p in the woods. Ahhhh, hmmmm? No, is the bear Catholic. Danged, I always mess those two up.

But seriously, your guy uses a 12 year old college *term paper* for his justification for attacking Iraq and our bum uses a badly *forged* document that it purchased with my tax dollars.

These two guys have broughgt a new, and much lower, meaning to the art of lieing. Both could use a "Lieing 001" (Remedial Lieing) course taught by Professor Clinton, his liein' butt seff!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 07:12 PM

Well, those aren't the words I'd use, but yes, I think he's lying allright. The only thing really unusual about that (for a politician) is how brazen and irresponsible the lies are in this particular case. And how dangerous.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 07:10 PM

Depends on what you mean by 'sack'.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 06:57 PM

Half a sack -- the other half is on this side of the pond.

Subject: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 06:52 PM

I saw him on that trerver mcdonald show tonight, trying to convince us that war is a good idea, i dont trust him at all, he looks a bit dodgy to me, waht do you think?