or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bush admin is still lying to start a war
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Bush admin is still lying to start a war - Page 11  

post #401 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam


Ulterior motives:

You forgot one of the biggest ones, if not the driving force (though not decisive force): Israel. Hell, the hawks (along with every one else in Israeli politics) have written papers about it for years now.
post #402 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2944298.stm

So inspections and threat of force DO work. What's that, rummy? We actually didn't need to start a war?

I'm curious about some conservative views about this. I argued this in dozens of threads and was routinely called a ****** or whatever, but it's proven to be true.

EDIT: I am in no way trying to state that I am NOT a ******, but that those disagreeing with my point back then might be as well.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #403 of 631
Thread Starter 
post #404 of 631
Thread Starter 
This has some interesting info on media coverage:

Quote:
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), the media watch group, studied the coverage of six major nightly newscasts: ABCs World News Tonight, CBSs Evening News, NBCs Nightly News, CNNs Wolf Blitzer Reports, Foxs Special Report with Brit Hume and PBSs NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. FAIR examined 1,617 on-camera sources appearing on Iraq-related stories during the height of the war, from March 20 to April 9. Who were these sources?



63 percent were current or former government employees.
52 percent were Bush administration officials.
64 percent were pro-war.
10 percent were anti-war, and the majority of these were man-on-the street soundbites.
3 percent of all U.S. sources were anti-war.
0 percent of all sources who were invited to have a sit-down on camera interview were identified as being against the war.
(The prize for the most lopsided coverage goes to CBS Evening News: 75 percent of its sources were officials, and the single anti-war voice it aired was a snip from Michael Moores Oscar speech.)

http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=203_0_3_0_C

Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I'm curious about some conservative views about this.

I'm curious if any of them were paid to come here

http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=510
post #405 of 631
Like I say, "television journalism" is an oxymoron.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #406 of 631
The intelligence community is fuming about the lies and misrepresentations.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...elligence_dc_2

I am no fan of Al Gore...but I do wonder how would the media (Fox, Clear Channel etc) be reacting right now if Al Gore was in the White House, and this deliberate "policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions" had happened under his watch?

Anyone recall Scott Ritter? He was the UN inspector who maintained "there are no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". He was vilified and scorned...for speaking the truth.

Jeez...re. WMD, even arch-scumbags like Tariq Aziz and Saddam Hussein are more truthful than the Bush gang.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #407 of 631
with reference to the "Fake Persuaders" article posted by Giant: Im sure that some folks occasion sites like this one.

Even if they never actualy come here I'm sure that some of the Conservatives here-abouts probably get "talking points" from Conservative organizations on how to persuade the wily and lost Liberals amongst us . . the kind of organization that makes up the strangely interconnected web of well-funded policy groups (nobody is crying 'conspiracy' . . . nope. . . .not here ) or are just aggressive 'grass roots' ditto-head BBQ clubs . . and if they aren't getting there talking orders from these groups then they work for them as volunteers . . . . what? a little paranoid? who? me?

anyway, about this lying thing that so many seemed to know about but nobody in any sort of power acknowledged till now . . . . on with the scoop!!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #408 of 631
Another good speech from Senator Byrd.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #409 of 631
There was plenty of time for the weapons to be destroyed. Again, a tip of the hat to France and Germany.


Why were the inspectors kicked out?

Why the obfuscation by Hussein when they were let back in? Why did it take the threat of invasion to get them back in? Why not put the demolitions of WMD on CNN, win the favor of the world, and get on the UN's human rights commission with Libya and Cuba?


HEEEELLLLLOOOOOOO?????


...but then....

Was it another Halliburton conspiracy? When DID Cheney cut the deal with the alien invasion force? Did he or did he not KNOW there was oil in IRAQ? It has to be a conspiracy---going to the highest levels of the shadow government!

IT'S THE ONLY EXPLANATION!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh dammit, he had opportunity and since we already know his motives HE'S GUILTY! BRING BACK THE GUILLOTINE.....OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
post #410 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
There was plenty of time for the weapons to be destroyed. Again, a tip of the hat to France and Germany.

I don't understand why they would be destroyed before the start of the war. Why wouldn't that be the time when he would use them? And why destroy them when it doesn't matter (when there was about to be a war) and not destroy them when it did matter (to prevent the war and the end of his regime)? It just doesn't make sense.

The only thing that makes sense to me, and it doesn't even make that much sense, is that they had no (or very few) WMD, but Sodom didn't want to fully cooperate because he felt it would make him look weak.
post #411 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena

Why not put the demolitions of WMD on CNN...?

Because the weapons were destroyed long ago?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #412 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Like I say, "television journalism" is an oxymoron.

That's fine, but it's regulated by law be truthful. Time and again you show you don't care about law which makes your opinions laughable.

Are you now going to admit that when I was arguing that a credible thread was enough to get Iraq to destroy and/or give up its weapons, you were wrong to say war was the only way?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #413 of 631
Does this mean that Powell, a member of the 'Bush Administration', did lie?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #414 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
......Sodom didn't want to fully cooperate because he felt it would make him look weak.


That actually makes sense....but there is more going on here than meets the eye, I think alot of this will be unreadable at least in the short term.

It does kinda-sorta reduce this to one man's ego, too.......that's tough to do when you're dealing with the politics of an entire regime.

There are too many loose threads.......too many unanswered questions all around.


BUT


Quote:
In fact, one thing that I have noticed...is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever. I think you'll find the facts also work if you assume everyone is endlessly stupid.
Brian E. Moore


And lastly

Quote:
"Do not mistake for conspiracy and intrigue what can best be explained by stupidity and incompetence."
post #415 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
[B]There was plenty of time for the weapons to be destroyed. Again, a tip of the hat to France and Germany.


France and Germany has nothing to do with the lack of discovering of WOMD in Iraq.
If you have problems with the lack of discovering of WOMD iraq blamethe secret agencies of your countrie. Find another scapegoat.
post #416 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
That actually makes sense....but there is more going on here than meets the eye, I think alot of this will be unreadable at least in the short term.
quote:
In fact, one thing that I have noticed...is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever. I think you'll find the facts also work if you assume everyone is endlessly stupid.
Brian E. Moore

I think that the thing is with conspiracies to hide the truth it usually comes out that it is a lie because not everyone is 'endlessly stupid'

perhaps that is what we are finding out now . . . or rather, what many people allready knew:
namely: that there was a very big falsification of data (LIE) in order to achieve aims not expressed directly and perhaps not expressible directly to the public, both American that of the rest of the world's.

. . . not saying that i wouldn't agree with those ulteriors . . . just stating that they were withheld for various reasons not stated or revealed . . .lied via omission and lied via 'cover story'
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #417 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
There was plenty of time for the weapons to be destroyed. Again, a tip of the hat to France and Germany.

Helllooooooo???? The intent from the start was to "rid Iraq of WoMD". Saddam was requested to disarm. If there are no WoMD now (which it looks like) then it looks as if Saddam had them destroyed. According to his assassinated brother-in-law, thats exactly what he did, in 1991. Iraq complied, but we still went to war.

Quote:
Why were the inspectors kicked out?

Hellooooooo???? They were NOT kicked out, either 4 years ago or just before the recent war started. They were withdrawn, firstly for Clinton to get his piece of the bombing action, then in March 2003 so the current war could get under way.

Quote:
Why the obfuscation by Hussein when they were let back in? Why did it take the threat of invasion to get them back in? Why not put the demolitions of WMD on CNN, win the favor of the world, and get on the UN's human rights commission with Libya and Cuba?

Hellllooooo??? Probably for a similar reason the the US (together with a tiny handful of banana republics and dictatorships) refuses to recognize the International Criminal Court. Violation of sovereignty, blah blah.....


Quote:
HEEEELLLLLOOOOOOO?????


...but then....

Was it another Halliburton conspiracy? When DID Cheney cut the deal with the alien invasion force? Did he or did he not KNOW there was oil in IRAQ? It has to be a conspiracy---going to the highest levels of the shadow government!

IT'S THE ONLY EXPLANATION!!!!!!!!!!!!

If it looks like a duck...you know the rest. Occam's Razor etc. Tell me, who would refuse a $600+ million contract?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #418 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Helllooooooo???? The intent from the start was to "rid Iraq of WoMD".

Not if you wanted to start a war. Then the removal of WoMDs would be counterproductive.
post #419 of 631
bunge:

Quote:
Are you now going to admit that when I was arguing that a credible thread was enough to get Iraq to destroy and/or give up its weapons, you were wrong to say war was the only way?

How does this prove your point?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #420 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

How does this prove your point?

If the WMD don't exist now, and as Rumsfeld suggests, they were destroyed before the war, that proves that we didn't need a war to destroy the WMD.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #421 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
......thats exactly what he did, in 1991. Iraq complied, but we still went to war.



They were NOT kicked out.....


Tell me, who would refuse a $600+ million contract?

The point is not about semantics of "kicking out"....I thought it was understood what happened----there may be a lack of understanding here. There was endless bombing by the coalition forces in the 90's, and endless obfuscation by the regime. Yes, Hussein did effectively kick out the inspectors.

Quote:

Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad's continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq's prohibited weapons of mass destruction.

-- Newsday, 12/17/98

The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors' work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons they found. That's disingenuous.

--Newsday editorial, 8/14/02


As for $600 million---perhaps you can name another company that is capable of doing that kind of work (and on that scale) and then tell me it's political connections?

And all this shouldn't diminish the point that:

It aint over till it's over.
post #422 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena

Yes, Hussein did effectively kick out the inspectors.

You quoted an editorial that states they were kicked out. That's not a valid source. It's an editorial. I'd like to see what the 'truth' was, not what the media has renamed it.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #423 of 631
bunge:

Quote:
If the WMD don't exist now, and as Rumsfeld suggests, they were destroyed before the war, that proves that we didn't need a war to destroy the WMD.

You do realize you changed your statement, don't you?

I was arguing that a credible thread was enough to get Iraq to destroy and/or give up its weapons

You're just as "wrong" as me on that.

Of course, I never said that Iraq absolutely *had* WMD so there's little point to your petulant "SEE! I WAS RIGHT!" garbage anyway.

You won a battle that was never fought, congrats!
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #424 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You quoted an editorial that states they were kicked out. That's not a valid source. It's an editorial. I'd like to see what the 'truth' was, not what the media has renamed it.

effectively----the UN called the inspectors back---Hussien apparently got what he wanted.
post #425 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
bunge:



You do realize you changed your statement, don't you?

I was arguing that a credible thread was enough to get Iraq to destroy and/or give up its weapons

You're just as "wrong" as me on that.

Of course, I never said that Iraq absolutely *had* WMD so there's little point to your petulant "SEE! I WAS RIGHT!" garbage anyway.

You won a battle that was never fought, congrats!


I don't know.....Blair says he "has the proof"----the link I posted goes to the WP story.
post #426 of 631
He's a politician. He lies.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #427 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

You won a battle that was never fought, congrats!

No, you used to say that we couldn't hold a credible threat long enough for Iraq to destroy the weapons.

IF those weapons were destroyed before the war began, then you were wrong and in fact the war was not necessary.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #428 of 631
bunge:

Quote:
No, you used to say that we couldn't hold a credible threat long enough for Iraq to destroy the weapons.

IF those weapons were destroyed before the war began, then you were wrong and in fact the war was not necessary.

You go from "you said a credible threat was necessary" to "the war was not necessary". Do you not see the leap in logic you're making there?

And were they destroyed "before the war"? Perhaps in the same sense that the Romam Empire fell "before the war", but is there any connection between the two?

Go back and read our debate, you're confusing yourself.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #429 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
bunge:



You go from "you said a credible threat was necessary" to "the war was not necessary". Do you not see the leap in logic you're making there?

I don't see a leap in his logic.
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
post #430 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
[B]The point is not about semantics of "kicking out"....I thought it was understood what happened----there may be a lack of understanding here. There was endless bombing by the coalition forces in the 90's, and endless obfuscation by the regime. Yes, Hussein did effectively kick out the inspectors.

According to Kamal Hussein (in that infamous UNMOVIC document), all Iraq's banned weapons were destroyed in 1991, before the UN inspections officially started. Kamal Hussein's testimony was the centerpiece of the "damning evidence" that Bush etc used to "justify" the war. Of course, that inconvenient part about the weapons having being destroyed was omitted....that wouldn't look too convincing now, would it. And Fox etc would be struggling for a story.

So...there was this instance of Iraq not possessing the materials they were accused of having. It is thus so easy for the US to level the charge of "non-compliance" by Iraq. Tell me: how do you give up weapons that you dont have???? It makes it even easier to gain public support when contrary evidence is deliberately left out, while simultaneously the media is controlled by parties who share the ideology of those who stand to gain from this war.

Quote:
As for $600 million---perhaps you can name another company that is capable of doing that kind of work (and on that scale) and then tell me it's political connections?

This kind of work should never have to be done...namely spending humungous $$ to rebuild facilities which have been bombed to kingdom come, in order to provide big $$ for one of the only companies who have the means to do this kind of work. It's a closed loop of corruption.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #431 of 631
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #432 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
They LIED and they LIED and they LIED http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...455767,00.html and they LIED and they lied again

heh. You might also like this nice little annotated chronology of quotations leading up to the whipping.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #433 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

...but is there any connection between the two?

Go back and read our debate, you're confusing yourself.

Of course there's a 'connection', and that is a credible threat. It's a credible threat if we act on that threat or not.

I'm not confusing myself. You believed we couldn't hold a credible threat long enough (or that six more months of 'threat-ing' was too long.) Rumsfeld now says that the weapons were gone before we went to war.

That means the threat, prior to the war, was enough to force compliance. That means the war was unnecessary.

Where is the leap in logic? If I worded it poorly before, sorry. This is clear though.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #434 of 631
Just take it cool. Groverat just do these things when his arguments are failing.
post #435 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Tell me: how do you give up weapons that you dont have????

You allow the inspectors what they ask for and the whole thing is over in a few months or weeks.
post #436 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
You allow the inspectors what they ask for and the whole thing is over in a few months or weeks.

Um...
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #437 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Um...


----oh come on!! What's the alternative if there were no WMD after '91?

The only other option is that SH actively pissed off the UN to the point where he had no-fly zones up his butt and getting bombed, literally, almost on a daily basis--to the point that the press stopped making it "news".

Seriously--what else could it be? Were the 90s good for SH? I actually wouldn't put it past him but I just can't see it.

Somebody?

ANYBODY?
post #438 of 631
With Chiraq backing Saddam the whole way why would Saddam think he'd have to comply with UN ... weapons or not?
post #439 of 631
Allow me to throw this on the fire. I was worried less about Iraq being stupid enough to use any WMDs than about Iraq making and selling WMDs to the highest bidder. If they can't find the weapons, and they can't find the means of maiking the weapons (though the trucks seem to be fairly credible if circumstantial evidence), could they at least find the paper work or find intelligence anywhere else to suggest they uloaded any of this stuff.

The Bush admin screwed up by barking about the wrong reasons to oust Hussein. Blair picked up on the real reason, but no one listened or believed him. Problem is of course is that there are many like Hussein that deserve to be ousted, so I guess they had to find a more pressing reason for this guy in particular.
post #440 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
You allow the inspectors what they ask for and the whole thing is over in a few months or weeks.

Ha! The inspectors went every which where...nowhere was off limits, even the presidential palaces. All the "best" (!) intelligence was denounced by the inspectors as "garbage upon garbage upon garbage"...constantly on wild goose chases.

So, the inspectors asked for "more time". Bush rolled his eyes and said "no". Now guess what: the US military, under the gun and desperate to find these fictitious WMD are now askign for...yes..."more time".

Bush and Blair (just like Saddam et al) are damned liars who spent $Billions of $ and £ in a protracted campaign of international terrorism, masquerading as "war"...the world will be dancing in the streets when they get kicked out of office and hopefully end up behind bars for a very long time.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bush admin is still lying to start a war