Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Because Bush never lied under oath.
    • And perjury is worse than sending innocent kids to be killed for personal profit how exactly? I'm curious, really. We don't at all care about sex lies, but we could well reinstate the giullotine for a head of state that'd treat his people thusly.

      --

      -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

      • Re:Simple. (Score:2, Interesting)

        Because perjury is illegal, sending soldiers off to War is part and parcel with being POTUS.
        • Re:Simple. (Score:3, Insightful)

          Legality has little to do with scandal. If I steal an apple from a shop it's illegal but it'll hardly turn out to be a major scandal. I'm interested in the disproportion of scandals, not on why no one has the legal power to finally put the Bush administration in gaol.

          --

          -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

  • 1. No one in the Bush administration ever said this. It never happened. I know of no such claim by the UK, either.

    2. There still is evidence of Iraq working with al Qaeda. Call it unproven if you will, but to say it is a lie is to discredit evidence that has not been discredited.

    3. Technically, this was never said in the State of the Union. Think on. It was never said in the SotU that Iraq was seeking, only that British intelligence believed that it was. And again, see #2 about lie vs. unproven.

    4.
    • BTW, my comments like "get a grip" are directed at the people making the assertions, not necessarily the journal writer linking to them. Unless he is making the assertions too. :-)
    • Pudge, there's a bug in slash, here. The comment's too long to view on the journal entry page, and even when you click "Read the rest of this comment," it is truncated. It ends with " 19. This is a gross distortion of the facts. All along the U.S. said they would probably use Iraqi oil money to help fund rebuilding of Iraq, and that the mo." However, if you click "reply to this," then you get to see the end of the message.

      I noticed the post appeared to be truncated yesterday, and then ran across the sa

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
      • It's my fault, my bug. I'll fix it ASAP.
        • Cool; thanks. The more I wrote about it, the less I was sure it was a bug, actually. ;)

          In case noone ever tells you, I love slashcode and wish every site on the internet worked that way. Keep up the good work.

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
  • I did not have sex with that African uranium!!

    This is true, because it hasn't been proven to have been known to be untrue!!

  • What a horrible piece of pseudo-journalism. This person obviously never bothered to check any of their sources but just spouted the usual pinhead garbage.