or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lies and the Presidency
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lies and the Presidency - Page 6  

post #201 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
I agree with this. Even the part about this being a political question. What is importent is: Did the Bush administration know what they said was not true, secondary was twisted enough to be considered very questionable despite presented as facts to the US congress, UN SC, GB, Polan, Australia, Denmark and whoever else reacted on the information by supporting the US lead war against Iraq.

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.
post #202 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
pfflam:



That would be clever if it weren't for two glaring problems.
- Santa Cruz, California hasn't been inspected, put under sanction and formally reprimanded and threatened with war (both by the UN and by the Unilateral States of Unilateralstan) over a dozen years because of WMD.
- Santa Cruz, California isn't ruled by a tyrant with a history of territorial aggression.

Good effort, though, you almost made sense.

The UN wasn't obligated to find a damned thing, Iraq was obligated to answer every single question, and they were supposed to do it in 1991. Read the resolutions.

We can say Bush lied, sure, but to act like it was the UN's or even the US's responsibility under law to find them then you're lying worse than Bush ever did, because at that point it isn't even ambiguous how wrong you are.

--

jimmac:

Thanks for continuing to have nothing to add.

Hey if you still keep drawing the same stupid ( I've got a blind spot ) conclusions I'll still repeat the truth !
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #203 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Exactly. Santa Cruz also didn't demonstrate their possession and willingness to use WMD by using the weapons on the people IN Santa Cruz.

jimmac:




So, the simplest explanation is that the President of the United States had some secret ulterior motive (based on financial and political profit) and thereby convinced the Prime Minister of Great Britain to go along with his evil plan even though the War was tremendously unpopular in his country? The simplest explanation is that George Bush went to war on a personal vendetta in order to divert attention from the economy when the next Presidential election was still 18 months away and economy was already beginning its recovery cycle?

Yes, quite reasonable and simple. Ockham is turning over in his grave right now.


Once again, there is no reasonable argument for Saddam NOT having WMD. There just isn't.

Goverat was right. Liberals, in particular, think it was the UN's and United States' responsibility. It's as if they believe that WE were the ones legally bound to find WMD. This is the same thing the French and Germans, not to mention Russians did. But, it wasn't the US and UN (and the UK) that were bound by special sanctions, resolutions and ultimatums! It was Saddam's regime!!! The burden of proof was on SADDAM HUSSEIN! Leading up to war, however, we had people here running around asking where the "smoking gun" was. Ummmm...OK.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was bound by 17 UN reslutions to FULLY disarm. Not one person here can tell me he did that. Not one! The UN knew Saddam didn't totally disarm. We knew it, Iraq knew it, even Chirac knew it! It wasn't even a question. Saddam Hussein was required to provide evidence of destruction of his WMD. He didn't. End of story. And don't go telling me "one can't prove a negative". In this case, there were a multitude of ways Saddam could have proved he had destroyed his WMD. If he hadn't, he could have easily have shown the inspectors were they were and allowed the to destroy them. Instead, we had, as the President appropriately put it in his State of the Union Address, a "Scavenger Hunt" for weapons. That was never the intention of the inspection process.



Ok, so where are they? Hmmm?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #204 of 561
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?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #205 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Ok, so where are they? Hmmm?

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.
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
proof!

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?
post #206 of 561
Yup! What he said
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #207 of 561
The 'labs' were most likely hydrogen generators (as even the CIA report conceeded they could be), sold by britain to Iraq:

Quote:
Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to produce hydrogen chemically for artillery weather balloons. Artillery balloons are essentially balloons that are sent up into the atmosphere and relay information on wind direction and speed, allowing more accurate artillery fire. Crucially, these systems need to be mobile. The Observer has discovered that not only did the Iraq military have such a system at one time, but that it was actually sold to them by the British. In 1987, Marconi, now known as AMS, sold the Iraqi army an Artillery Meteorological System or Amets for short.

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

http://yellowtimes.org/article.php?s...thread&order=0
post #208 of 561
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?
post #209 of 561
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)
post #210 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
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?


That's great! Just hilarious. grover, SDW does the term " Damage Control " mean anything to you?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #211 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
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)

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

Damage Control.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #212 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
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.

If Giant have sattelite images of the case and it is fastened in cement he wouldn´t have such a hard time doing it
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #213 of 561
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.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #214 of 561
ena's not even 15. He's posting more now because he's on summer break. But is that really a surprise?
post #215 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
If it's that small and you don't have anyway to deliver it how's that a threat?

Damage Control.

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

Ena to Cuba.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #216 of 561
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.
post #217 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
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.
post #218 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Well he is delivering the salmon to California. Thats considered interstate terrorism.

Ena to Cuba.


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.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #219 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
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.

Also didn't Senator Byrd say before the war that the average age in Iraq was 15!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #220 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
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)

... 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?
meh
meh
post #221 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
... 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!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #222 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
... 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?


Now that actually opens up another avenue on this thing.

Would you say that the sat. photos were faked as well?
post #223 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
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.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #224 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
As the kids nowadays say : LAME!

you mean kids like ena? I doubt his high school (or middle school) teaches him anything about these subjects.
post #225 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
you mean kids like ena?


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

post #226 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Just don't tell my children about this giant, they'll be furious.

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

Quote:
Originally posted by ena


*sticks tounge out at Anders*


nanner nanner!!

Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Double dumbass on you!!!!
post #227 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Would you say that the sat. photos were faked as well?

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.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #228 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
They probably just think you are one of their school-mates:

*turns around, raises kilt, and moons giant*

take that!
post #229 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
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.


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?
post #230 of 561
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.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #231 of 561
CHEETAH?

don't be weird Anders---did Powell show phoney-baloney pictures at the UN?
post #232 of 561
CBN? Related to some whaco cristian tv channel?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #233 of 561
giant:

Quote:
Wrong. It is a technical question, and you are doing a piss-poor job of avoiding answering it.

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.)

Quote:
If you are referring to the evidence that the Bush admin (including Bush himself) lied and skewed intelligence reports, it's already been demonstrated thoroughly.

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

--

Anders:

Quote:
Did the Bush administration know what they said was not true, secondary was twisted enough to be considered very questionable despite presented as facts to the US congress, UN SC, GB, Polan, Australia, Denmark and whoever else reacted on the information by supporting the US lead war against Iraq

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.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #234 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
CHEETAH?

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

Okay lets try this as an example:



Quote:
As you can clearly see from this picture the frencies are preparing a revenge against USA because we renamed french fries to freedom fries. They have build a large electro-state emitting doomsdays machine that will throw lightning over the entire US.

Is the picture faked in that example Ena?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #235 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
New theory: Ena is one of us trying to make the other side look bad.

they certainly don't need help in this area.
post #236 of 561
.....must remember to read ALL of the other guy's post.
post #237 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


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

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?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #238 of 561
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?


post #239 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


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.

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

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.
post #240 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

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!?

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.

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

Why? Are you going to bring up the human toll due to our neglect in Congo?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lies and the Presidency