h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

Any minute now someone will come out and say there aren't any weapons of mass destruction and my day will be complete.

Discuss.

Doesn't Bush look like a naughty schoolboy who just got found out in that picture.

Other than that it's really just confirmation of what we all already knew, isn't it?

Noggin

They'll deny it all, of course.

And I just heard that... I think it was 61% of Americans now disapprove of Bush's handling of the Iraq situation, whilst only 11% of Iraqis feel comfortable having coalition forces in their country.

My plan to rid the White House of this man is falling into place at last

I would be interested in seeing the video of Bush giving "evidence". The image from the article clearly shows him making a "lying face". When someone is lying, their eyebrows rise, to display their eyes as wide as possible. The idea being, "look, I have big soft eyes. Trust me".

They often display the "lie smile". What I call the "lie smile" is a tight-lipped smile which incongruous with their supposed state of mind. It is best exemplified by Susan Smith during her often tearful interviews before she was charged with murdering her two little boys. During her tearful "pleadings" to "whoever" had her little boys (voice cues are evidence of lying, too) she had that little smile. I said then I thought it indicated she was hiding something.

That same smile is often seen when someone tells the boss how unwell they are feeling and want to leave work early. They may rub their tummy and have a pained expression in their eyes. Meanwhile, there is that tiny smile. Eyebrows go up in the middle, in a feigned pitiful expression.....

Micro-expressions. Fascinating area of criminal interviewing technique. Here is a very good test to see if you can spot the fake smile. I got 13 out of 20. All the ones I got wrong, I was hesitating about. If I had been able to review the smile a second tie, I would have been certain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/smiles/index.shtml

Here is one of the sites I was looking for: http://members.aol.com/nonverbal3/deceive.htm

Hi all, i'll tell you something.

Those soldiers who died on both sides in ww1 and 2 died in vain.

We have allowed a nation to remove the freedom of another nation.
Despite everything, Sadam was the legitimate leader of Iraq, and he was therefore abducted ilegally.

What he did to the people of iraq was wrong, however what we did to Iraq was also wrong. The UN was set up to prevent this sort of conquest and it stood by while a nation's freedom was denied.

Fighting fire with fire doesn't put out the fire, it just uses up the oxygen more quickly to extinguish all fires.

The world is almost as unstable as it was in 1937, is the last world war (ww3) just around the corner?

God i hope not.

I don't remember that being the reason why the two world wars were fourght.

Perhaps you could explain the historical basis for this theory?

Heavens, another attack! Well, we'll see... Some people have theorised that that is exactly what is going to happen, but have different ideas about who/when/where and especially why!

What fun this test is... I did it and got only 9/20. Not very good, I am afraid.

"Heavens, another attack!"

do you mean another attack on America or another attack by America?


I think it's wonderful that the 9/11 commission has finally realized what the rest of the world has known for a number of years. I also think that it's wonderful that they've put it into a special report and made it known to the American people. The next step, of course, is for the American people to send their present President to Cuba for a period of incarceration, interrogation, and, all joking aside, a well-deserved trial before an international tribunal for a number of war crimes and crimes against humanity. I'll hold off on my party until then.

15 out of twenty on the test, Mudhooks. I wonder if it made a difference that I said I was a woman.

Dubya in Guantanamo... Wouldn't that be interesting?!
There are so many conspiracy theories out there, some I could never mention here... Fascinating, though...

Try taking it like a man, Anhaga Perhaps you will get a lower score....


Here is a load of bo!!ocks:
"Start with the international scene. George W. Bush, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder took their act from Normandy to Sea Island Georgia, where they were joined by other members of the G-8 and assorted interested parties. There, Chirac proved once again that a chasm exists between his words and his deeds. "France will never forget what it owes America," the French president told some 6,000 D-Day veterans and assorted guests in his talk last Sunday in the Norman coastal town of Arromanches. A few days later he opposed America's requests for deeper involvement of NATO in the pacification of Iraq, saying such a move would not be "opportune"; fought to water down Bush's program to foster the growth of democratic institutions in the Middle East, stating that he opposed such "missionary" work; and responded with a vigorous "non" to Bush's plea that Iraq's creditors join America in forgiving "the vast majority" of the debts incurred by Iraq during Saddam Hussein's regime. (Within the G-8 nations, Japan is owed $4.1 billion, Russia $3.5 billion, France $3 billion, Germany $2.4 billion and the U.S. $2.2 billion.) And just to make certain that none of the anti-American voters at home gets any idea that he has moved too close to the Americans, Chirac decided to pass up president Reagan's funeral to keep an unspecified "previous commitment" in Europe." http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/231muvnw.asp

Funny?!? Does "France will never forget what it owes America" mean that from this day forward, France has to have it's head up America's a$$?

I guess that is what "we" won the war for.....

Try taking it like a man, Anhaga Perhaps you will get a lower score....


More bo!!ocks:
"Moreover, there was no evidence that could have been obtained which would have convinced a prudent intelligence agency that Saddam did not possess them. This argument wasn't made in the run-up to the war because Colin Powell and Tony Blair convinced George W. Bush to agree to a round of United Nations inspections. But the U.N. inspectors couldn't prove that Saddam didn't have WMDs. Given his past behavior, we had no basis for concluding he didn't." http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20040607.shtml

By the same token, The US had no basis for concluding he did....

"Colin Powell and Tony Blair convinced George W. Bush". If GWB isn't thinking for himeslf, what the @&#% is he doing sitting in the Oval Office? Ohhhh... that's right... he WASN'T in the Oval Office. He was off sinking putts and falling off personal utility vehicles in Texas.

I suppose someone had to do his thinking for him. It must hard to golf with all those gears creaking and grinding in his skull.

Sorry, forgot to remove this>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try taking it like a man, Anhaga Perhaps you will get a lower score....

Very interesting! Why doies this not surprise me????:

"The declassified State Department records chart U.S. foreknowledge of Operation Condor, a network of Southern Cone secret police agencies that coordinated terrorist attacks against political opponents of their regimes around the world in the mid and late 1970s.

Operation Condor has received renewed international attention over the last several weeks. On May 28 a Chilean court stripped Gen. Augusto Pinochet of his immunity from prosecution for Condor-related crimes." http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB125/index.htm

Campaign Contributions of Post-war (Gulf War) Contractors
From 1990 through fiscal year 2002: http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/resources.aspx?act=contrib#6

I swear I only look at this one site to see just how completly twisted a propoganda message can be,so steel yourselves,but I urge everyone to look at http://www.foxnews.com/ - and see how they manage to twist yesterdays "no credible evidence" bombshell into something else entirely when they claim Bush never said there was a cnoncection between Ossama and Saddam.

No , they really do.

Its under the video segment on the right of the screen (under "opinion") and an article called "The Grapevine"

I am genuinely stunned. If you watched this report for factual content you'd walk away thinking the Semptember 11th commission supported Bushs case for war!