Lies and the Presidency - Page 6  

If millions (hell, probably tens or hundreds of millions worldwide) of us knew it was not true, the Bush admin would be expected to as well. There is no excuse.

Hey if you still keep drawing the same stupid ( I've got a blind spot ) conclusions I'll still repeat the truth !

Ok, so where are they? Hmmm?

And listen up guys! If Bush had just said Saddam must comply without the issue of proof this war wouldn't have got over the first hurdle. They said they had proof but for security reasons they couldn't devulge everything. Well they haven't devulged much of anything. As a matter of fact if they were so sure that Saddam had these they should have found them without much difficulty. Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense now does it? You can make long, drawn out, convoluted, comebacks on this but it really all boils down to proof! You know, the simplist reason.


WOMD WHERE ARE THEY?

I wish one of these guys would just demonstrate using actual technical information what exactly Iraq has that constitutes a threat to the US, especially considering the war was conducted for the expressed purpose of preempting a threat.

of course, the only thing we do have proof of is that at least 90% of the pre-gulf war capacity was destroyed.

They can't provide evidence pointed the other way because none exists.

What is funny is how these people would jump on a chemical agent find, not realizing either that any chem agent would be degraded to the point of uselessness, or any of the other particulars regarding agents like mustard gas.

In other words, even though every piece of evidence shows that there is no way Iraq is a threat, and since there are no new production facilities of any significance if at all, there is no way that evidence will arise that trumpts everything and demonstrates a threat as described by the Bush admin. The time has already passed. There is no nuclear program. There are no new weapons that are poised to attack the US. No matter what small materials or facilities are found from this day on, they don't matter because anything significant would have been found weeks ago.

Well, anything significant actually would have been found before the war, either by the UN or by any allied intel service, but who's counting?

Yup! What he said

The 'labs' were most likely hydrogen generators (as even the CIA report conceeded they could be), sold by britain to Iraq:


http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...973012,00.html

http://yellowtimes.org/article.php?s...thread&order=0

U.S. forces run out of places to look for weapons

Note that NO TRACE has been found. Not even something pointing to any program.

When are you guys going to realize that NO LARGE-SCALE WEAPONS PROGRAM EXISTED?

gaint, I'm going to fly down to california and bury a Suitcase full of fresh Salmon somewhere in the state.


I want you to find it. (you can keep the suitcase)

That's great! Just hilarious. grover, SDW does the term " Damage Control " mean anything to you?

If it's that small and you don't have anyway to deliver it how's that a threat?

Damage Control.

If Giant have sattelite images of the case and it is fastened in cement he wouldn´t have such a hard time doing it

Honestly I don't mean to make light of this so much ( if only it wasn't for the dogged stupidity here ). Lives were lost and there's the very real possibility that a president has lied to us about something important again. That is a really sad state of affairs.

ena's not even 15. He's posting more now because he's on summer break. But is that really a surprise?

Well he is delivering the salmon to California. Thats considered interstate terrorism.

Ena to Cuba.

What's the Iraqi death toll at? 14,000? 15,000? I remember reading somewhere recently that it was in the region of 5,000+ civillians and 9,000+ soldiers.

I'd say that finding evidence to support the argument made for this war is pretty important.

Add to that all of the deaths that will happen as a result (sometimes this can be much larger than the # during the war) plus all of the people that lost only a limb or their eyesight, which is likely much higher than the number killed.

Also add the number of American servicemen and women (177). Let's also hope we don't have another gulf war sickness.

Well you know if it goes bad! My mom once was cleaning out her cabinets in the garage storage area. Well you know how little old ladies are. They never throw anything away. I found some tins of canned salmon. They were blown up like balloons! I said " Mom you really should get rid of most of this stuff ". She said " are you sure ? "

I said " Well look at the label on this jar of " Nestea ". They haven't used that label since the Carter administration! "

Ahh, my mom! I really do miss her.

Sorry for the little trip down memory lane but I thought you'd get a laugh.

Also didn't Senator Byrd say before the war that the average age in Iraq was 15!

... and this satellite image (one of many we could have shown you) clearly shows a concealed salmon facility. There, arrowed, next to the very clear image of a suitcase. Incontrevertible proof.

Ring any bells ena?

Time for another one of my useless laugh faces!

Now that actually opens up another avenue on this thing.

Would you say that the sat. photos were faked as well?

As the kids nowadays say : LAME!

You wouldn't have to fake them since the pictures were so small you couldn't tell anything without the special government analysis.

you mean kids like ena? I doubt his high school (or middle school) teaches him anything about these subjects.

Just don't tell my children about this giant, they'll be furious.

They probably just think you are one of their school-mates:

What did the images show you Ena (sans the text read by Powell)? A weapons factory or a building first with a truck next to it and then without?

If the latter then my parents house is a weapons factory.

*turns around, raises kilt, and moons giant*

take that!

oh, lighten up---this an internet forum, not a Harvard fellowship---although we have had some Fellowship forums.

hmmmmmmm......

You are basically saying that Powell showed pictures (and at the UN, no less) that were not CBN related, and claimed them as proof---yes?

New theory: Ena is one of us trying to make the other side look bad. Just like we once "had" CHEETAH!!

I think that is bad argumental tactics.

CHEETAH?

don't be weird Anders---did Powell show phoney-baloney pictures at the UN?

CBN? Related to some whaco cristian tv channel?

giant:


How is it a technical question? It's all about what you believe could happen, that's it.

Take the Cluster document and assume it's mostly accurate (it's UNMOVIC, not Wolfowitz). If you're the leader of a nation and this guy who may or may not have these things hates your nation (and your last name especially) you may feel there's a threat there; directly or through international terror.

A threat doesn't have to have a logical 1-2-3 demonstrable trail.

Clinton used the weapons hand-off to terroist logic as a threat explanation before Bush, was it so stupid then, after 8 years of harsh inspections? Do we not remember his 01/09/99 State of the Union Address where he praised a young Captain for attacking Saddam's "war machine"?

Who said this?
"Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores...This is a serious thing with me, this is a very serious thing. You imagine the capacity of these tiny amounts of biological agents to cause great harm; it's something we need to get after."

A) Colin Powell
B) George W Bush
C) Bill Clinton

(And before you freaks jump into me for mentioning the forbidden sacred cow Bill Clinton, read the first post of the thread again.)


Evidence of anything illegal is what I was referring to. Quite clear in context.

--

Anders:


If those nations didn't know whether or not those reports were really shady then I would be absolutely shocked.

Why this idea that everyone is so naive about it and that anyone actually bought the administration's line when we had million-strong protests going on!?

--

for giant and jimmac, who seemingly find a new victory over me every time they see something about Bush lying:

When have I said that Iraq definitely has weapons?
When have I said that Bush never lied?

Thanks.

--

kneelbeforezod:

If you want to bring in the human cost of war be prepared to receive an ass-whipping.

Okay lets try this as an example:




Is the picture faked in that example Ena?

they certainly don't need help in this area.

.....must remember to read ALL of the other guy's post.

I have been shocked over my own government ever since it was elected

But what kind of defence is that? "Well you know we wanted to start this war so of course we lied a little bit to you. Gosh you really didn´t think we would lie to our allied? [/surprised face]"

If your administration actually thought the were bending the truth/lied and the allied would be able to look through that then why lie in the first place?

Crap, Anders, I just read the quote in your post---thought it was quoting me. So you basically understand the question. So, is this what you are saying Powell did?

In front of the UN?

No. The information they were providing was incorrect, fabricated and skewed, and they were criticised by their own intel services. Both the British and US admins pressured intel services to skew or fabricate information. Period.

Yes it does. All evidence pointed to Iraq being benign. If our government is so dramatically incompetent that they ignore all available evidence, then they should not be in power.

Which brings us to the center of your argument, that the Bush admin is incredibly incompetent. I will agree with you that Bush himself is, but the Admin that consists of many people is not.

If the Bush admin really is that dramatically incompetent, Bush needs to be taken out of power immediately and a massive review of our government needs to be conducted.

As for Clinton, I think he was a crook. Better than Bush, but a crook. So stop with this SDW bullshit where you try to retreat to criticisms of someone that is irrelevant in the actions of the Bush admin.

They did know, but for some reason decided to go along. Spain, for instance, was one of our core allies. While the Spanish Prime Minister stood there with Bush and Blair before the attack, a full 90%+ of his citizens opposed the war under any circumstances. I'm not spanish, but I feel horrible for what my government coerced their's into.


Why? Are you going to bring up the human toll due to our neglect in Congo?