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

Lies and the Presidency - Page 10  

post #361 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
What I'm saying is that given the Saddam's history with WMD, violation of UN resolutions, lack of destruction evidence, etc...any reasonable person would CONCLUDE that he still has them...or now, IRAQ has them.

Has what exactly? The question isn't 'does Iraq have decomposed spores that pose no danger yet were unaccounted for.' The question is exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'? This is the reason we went to war, says Bush. If he doesn't have weapons that are a threat, then the war was not justified. Saddam's liack of cooperation doesn't justify war, since the issue that drove us to war when we did was the 'urgent threat.' So says Bush.

The only valid way for you to be convinced that Saddam was a threat to the US is to know exactly what made him a threat. If you can't say what makes him a threat, then the claim is completely unfounded and without any backing.

You can't just throw out accusations without specific facts to back it up.
post #362 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
He got a few details wrong. I'd change "found in breach OF 1441" to "found in breach WITH 1441".

No. that's still incorrect. Iraq was found in breach of 687, the response was the adoption of 1441. That's the end of the story for that material breach. Everything further falls under 1441.

Oh, and he got every detail wrong.
post #363 of 561
Thread Starter 
So how exactly was Iraq and imminent danger to the US? If anyone is an imminent danger to the US, it's North Korea. They can hit me with a nuke where I'm sitting here in LA. I don't see how weapons, if they still do exist, that are so deeply hidden can directly affect the United States.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #364 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
if they still do exist, that are so deeply hidden

or degraded to the point of being useless
post #365 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Oh, and he got every detail wrong.

Every semantic detail, that is........you are well aware of the gist of this press release.....did the UN get their details wrong?

Quote:
08/11/2002
Press Release
SC/7564
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN MATERIAL BREACH OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of Serious Consequences for Continued Violations

Holding Iraq in material breach of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).



If they said Iraq was dirty---they had good reason to believe this. More semantics over what was degraded, and what wasn't is something for an O.J.-style defense. Generally speaking, the US was in good company, when it said it Iraq must disarm. There is no denying that. The only way to deny that Iraq had CBN is to deny the SC's ability to discern the reality of the situation.

What was the threat? Ask the UN why Iraq needed to disarm.

Have a good weekend---must go Hallibut fishing---I'll think about you guys.
post #366 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Has what exactly? The question isn't 'does Iraq have decomposed spores that pose no danger yet were unaccounted for.' The question is exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'? This is the reason we went to war, says Bush. If he doesn't have weapons that are a threat, then the war was not justified. Saddam's liack of cooperation doesn't justify war, since the issue that drove us to war when we did was the 'urgent threat.' So says Bush.

The only valid way for you to be convinced that Saddam was a threat to the US is to know exactly what made him a threat. If you can't say what makes him a threat, then the claim is completely unfounded and without any backing.

You can't just throw out accusations without specific facts to back it up.

Wow. Just...wow. You are really starting to amaze me. I guess I have to play along.

No, decomposed spores that pose no threat would not, IMO, be considered a imminent threat. ANY potent chemical or biological wepaons would be. What I am saying is that I believe Iraq had at least some of these weapons and most likely, the capacity to produce more. I think that for reasons I have now stated at least a million times. You won't listen to that last sentence, though, and you'll accuse me of making unsupported statements.

I contend that if Iraq has any potent weapons, they WERE a threat, and very REAL threat to the US and US interests around the world because there is the possibilty (or was) that Saddam, with his anti-US stance would give them to a terror group. In a post 9/11 world, I think that risk is unacceptable! This constitutes an immediate threat in every way.

BR:

Quote:
So how exactly was Iraq and imminent danger to the US? If anyone is an imminent danger to the US, it's North Korea. They can hit me with a nuke where I'm sitting here in LA. I don't see how weapons, if they still do exist, that are so deeply hidden can directly affect the United States.

I think I just answered that.

I agree with North Korea being major threat. However, that is not in any way the same situation. The question becomes what to do about NK. I don't know. Getting into a war with them would be potential blood-bath. We'd win, but I can only imagine the casualties. Then, there is the possibility they could go nuclear. In any case, the multilateral approach (which the leftward side of the Iraq debate argued is so imperative) is the best on this one, because it prevents NK from power-brokering with the US, which I think we can probably agree is their real goal.

BR, don't fall into the trap of thinking that because we are focused on Iraq we can't focus on NK. I'm not sure what people are saying when they criticize and compare the NK strategy to the Iraq war. It's almost as if they are ADVOCATING we attack them too!

giant:

Quote:
No. that's still incorrect. Iraq was found in breach of 687, the response was the adoption of 1441. That's the end of the story for that material breach. Everything further falls under 1441.

Oh, and he got every detail wrong.

Whatever details he got wrong, he got the overall point right. I saw he had the details wrong as well, but understood the overall point. Of course, you couldn't or wouldn't, because you are STILL obsessed with semantics. The point is the UN did find Iraq in breach and offered it one last chance to disarm. There is no question that Iraq did not do so. End of story. Serious consequences must and did follow. I suppose we are going to get into the definition of THAT, now? As one might imagine, I also disagree with this statement you made:

Quote:
Saddam's liack of cooperation doesn't justify war, since the issue that drove us to war when we did was the 'urgent threat.' So says Bush.

That's not really correct. And, why didn't Saddam's lack of cooperation justify war? Really, give me another alternative. We tried sanctions. We tried inspections. We tried limited military strikes. We tried it all. Give me another option. War is a last resort, and if Saddam was required to disarm, which he was, we were "at" that last resort.

As far as what Bush said about going to war, the most clear reason was the threat I mentioned earlier in this post. But, there WERE other reasons. You can revise history all you want, but the President DID mention the humanitarian situation, the slaughter and torture of the Iraqi people and the stability of the region. There were a multitude of reasons. WMD was the main one. Perhaps, as I've said, Bush should have focused more on the other things to cover himself poltically. Funny, though...I seem to remember a lot of anti-war stanced people arguing that the Bush administration kept "changing" their argument for war. Hmmmm. Then, the same people turn around and say that the only thing focused on at ALL was the WMD.

Now, this thread is about lying. I contend Bush didn't. Here is another interesting link on the topic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jun12.html

Quote:
The CIA's failure to pass on the details of what it knew helped keep the uranium-purchase story alive until shortly before the war in Iraq began, when the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector told the Security Council that the documents were forgeries.

Quote:
Rice, in defending Bush's decision to claim that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Africa in his State of the Union speech on Jan. 28, said she was unaware that there were doubts about the information. "Maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency," Rice said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, "but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery."

I said earlier I think the intel could be flawed or misleading to the President.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #367 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
What I am saying is that I believe Iraq had at least some of these weapons and most likely, the capacity to produce more. I think that for reasons I have now stated at least a million times.

Well, we now know for a fact that it did not have the cabability to produce more, at least not at any level even coming close to approaching what would be considered useful in regional conflicts, much less a threat to the US. Note that NOTHING has been found at any of the sites in the US's list, not even anything indicating a weapons program of any kind whatsoever. This not only means that anything that possibly did exist was on a tiny, tiny scale, but that ALL OF THE BUSH ADMIN INTEL WAS WRONG.

As for the fact that you 'believe Iraq had at least some of these weapons,' why is it so difficult for you to say what weapons you 'believe Iraq had.' If you can't name the weapons, then you have based your belief on hearsay and not on fact.

Quote:
Then, the same people turn around and say that the only thing focused on at ALL was the WMD

Stop with this revisionist bullshit.

The reason we started the war when we did was because Iraq was portrayed as an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat.'

Read his lips:
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle3711.htm

No matter how hard you try, you can't change the past.

Quote:
I said earlier I think the intel could be flawed or misleading to the President.

Sorry, but maybe you missed all of the now hundereds of intel analysts from the US and Britain that have been all over the media explaining in detail how the Bush and Blair admins pressured them to skew intel for political reasons. It was these administrations that skewed the info, not the Intel agencies. THis is crystal clear at this point and has been thoroughly detailed.

In conclusion, I ask for the 20th+ time: exactly what weapons did Saddam have that posed an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people'?
post #368 of 561
Quote:
Well, we now know for a fact that it did not have the cabability to produce more, at least not at any level even coming close to approaching what would be considered useful in regional conflicts, much less a threat to the US. Note that NOTHING has been found at any of the sites in the US's list, not even anything indicating a weapons program of any kind whatsoever. This not only means that anything that possibly did exist was on a tiny, tiny scale, but that ALL OF THE BUSH ADMIN INTEL WAS WRONG.

As for the fact that you 'believe Iraq had at least some of these weapons,' why is it so difficult for you to say what weapons you 'believe Iraq had.' If you can't name the weapons, then you have based your belief on heresay and not on fact.

1) The case is not closed on the "capacity" debate. You'd like to think so, but it isn't. I agree it becomes less likely with time.

2) "Bush Admin. Intel". That's deceptive. It's intel that was PRESENTED to them. It's not "Bush Admin. Intel".





Quote:
Stop with this revisionist bullshit.

The reason we started the war when we did was because Iraq was portrayed as an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat.'

Read his lips:
http://www.informationclearinghouse...article3711.htm

No matter how hard you try, you can't change the past.

Really now, giant. You can't possibly be linking to "information clearing house" with a header: "Reviewing the lies". Please.

Bush DID reference other things. From the State of the Union itself:

Quote:
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

As I said, he was even criticized for it. The Admin. was seen by people like you as "saying anything to go to war" Now, you're telling me they actually DID stick to an argument? Which is it? It doesn't matter anyway, because with that one example your entire argument that there were "no other reasons" is totally disproved. This was the highest profile Presidential speech of the year, given only two months before the war began. You lose.




Quote:
Sorry, but maybe you missed all of the now hundereds of intel analysts from the US and Britain that have been all over the media explaining in detail how the Bush and Blair admins pressured them to skew intel for political reasons. It was these administrations that skewed the info, not the Intel agencies. THis is crystal clear at this point and has been thoroughly detailed.

Hundreds? What? Yes, then, giant: I MUST HAVE missed the "hundreds" of "intel analysts" (whatever the fvck that means) "all over the media" explaing "in detail" how they were pressured. Whatever. You are so full of shit on this one.

giant, this "question" of your is really getting tired. I have already said that there is no way a layperson can say exactly what they had and what they didn't. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a broad area, and includes chemical and biological weapons. Anthrax, Sarin, Mustard Gas, and Botulinium toxin are all things he had before, correct? This is by no means an inclusive or exclusive list.

Do you think these things aren't a threat? I'm not trying to avoid your question. I just don't understand how proving I personally don't know the exact type and configuration of the WMD proves Iraq doesn't have any. I have never claimed to know this. Do you know it? I just don't understand it's relevence to this discussion.

Iraq either has WMD or not. We've already found banned delivery systems (please, please giant...don't make me go look up the link...it was before the war). Any amount of any potent bio or chem weapons would qualify as "WMD", would it not? As far as how much would be a threat, I'm not the expert there. We'd have to rely on weapons experts for that.

In other words, regardless of the type of WMD it is, it constitutes an imminent threat.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #369 of 561
"Bush Admin. Intel". That's deceptive. It's intel that was PRESENTED to them. It's not "Bush Admin. Intel".







You know at the end of these threads I always know who's name I'll see.
He never gives up even if the facts are right there in front of him.
Oh well...................But he is still in check.


What delivery systems are you talking about? Missles from the 60's that could go 600 miles tops?

Ps. They also seem to have quite a bit of trouble hitting their targets even at close range. This notion of yours is really half baked.
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 #370 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
"Bush Admin. Intel". That's deceptive. It's intel that was PRESENTED to them. It's not "Bush Admin. Intel".







You know at the end of these threads I always know who's name I'll see.
He never gives up even if the facts are right there in front of him.
Oh well...................But he is still in check.


What delivery systems are you talking about? Missles from the 60's that could go 600 miles tops?

Ps. They also seem to have quite a bit of trouble hitting their targets even at close range. This notion of yours is really half baked.

Jimmac, it is deceptive because it IS presented to the administration by others. IF there is evidence that they intentionally distorted such evidence or put pressure on intel agencies, then I have as much as a problem as you do with that. There is no, I repeat jimmac, NO EVIDENCE of that at this time.

There were missiles that were discovered that the UN ordered destroyed. I don't seem to recall the name...AL-Samoud (sp?) II, I believe. There range went WELL beyond the 93 miles (it's something like that...go look it up) allowed. They were being produced right up until the war!

What notion is half-baked? The missiles? WMD is Iraq? That's "half baked?" God.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #371 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jimmac, it is deceptive because it IS presented to the administration by others. IF there is evidence that they intentionally distorted such evidence or put pressure on intel agencies, then I have as much as a problem as you do with that. There is no, I repeat jimmac, NO EVIDENCE of that at this time.

There were missiles that were discovered that the UN ordered destroyed. I don't seem to recall the name...AL-Samoud (sp?) II, I believe. There range went WELL beyond the 93 miles (it's something like that...go look it up) allowed. They were being produced right up until the war!

What notion is half-baked? The missiles? WMD is Iraq? That's "half baked?" God.

93 miles is even better. Even if that's what was allowed they couldn't reach the US or much else. This means no threat. The idea was WOMD and immediate threat to us. So the reason Bush listed for the war didn't exist. Nuff 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 #372 of 561
SDW, you're seriously misinformed on the missile thing. In fact, this was one example where pressure was put on the UN by the US and where FUD was preached to the American public to gather support for the war because of small, meaningless details.

(Parts of the following are from a previous post of mine.)

Al-Samouds are banned only if they surpass the allowed range of 150km (93 miles).

"According to council diplomats, Blix reported last month that there had been 40 tests on the al-Samoud 2, and it went beyond the maximum permitted range 13 times, once to 114 miles."

Keep in mind that the UN tests did not include the required payload that would have kept any of the al-Samouds from reaching a range of 150km.

FYI the UN guidelines of 150km was set with a significant "cushion" to prevent Iraqi missiles from reaching Israel. Israel is about 250 miles away from Iraq, at its nearest point. Even the populated areas of Jordan are out of the range of any of the al-Samouds.

So why the hell is this missile thing such a big deal? Iraq didn't think these particular missiles were not allowed, and they had been reported to the UN.

It's a big deal because the Bushies wanted to make a big deal out of it. And gullible people fell for it, not realizing the difference between an Al Samoud I, Al Samoud II or a SCUD. Not realizing that the distance violation of these particular missiles was questionable and that it was splitting hairs anyway , because the range of the missiles found was still well within the "cushion" of safety. All those gullible people screamed "Oh, my God, they have banned missiles! They are a threat. See. They are liars. They are hiding weapons!" Uh. No. they weren't.
post #373 of 561
jimmac:

Quote:
93 miles is even better. Even if that's what was allowed they couldn't reach the US or much else. This means no threat. The idea was WOMD and immediate threat to us. So the reason Bush listed for the war didn't exist. Nuff said!

Seriously, I can't believe you. Once again:

The threat was Saddam giving WMD to a terrorist organization, NOT lauching an ICBM at the US. The missles were banned under the UN regulations and were therefore a violation.

tonton:



Quote:
It's a big deal because the Bushies wanted to make a big deal out of it. And gullible people fell for it, not realizing the difference between an Al Samoud I, Al Samoud II or a SCUD. Not realizing that the distance violation of these particular missiles was questionable and that it was splitting hairs anyway , because the range of the missiles found was still well within the "cushion" of safety. All those gullible people screamed "Oh, my God, they have banned missiles! They are a threat. See. They are liars. They are hiding weapons!" Uh. No. they weren't.

I already told you I didn't remember the exact name. I dispute your claim that we "pressured" the UN. If the missles weren't a big deal, then why were they ordered destroyed?

Oh, and look everybody...tonton is another kool-aid drinker! HE'S now convinced himself, as had pfflam, as has giant... that there are and were no WMD in Iraq!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #374 of 561
"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 #375 of 561
delivery system?


WEE DON'T NEED ANY STINKING DELIVERY SYSTEM.

....but seriously.


Since it's so easy to smuggle white powders of many kinds into the country, how about the US Postal System?

Oh wait, somebody already tried that.

Nevermind.


I did get a ~100 pound hallibut yesterday---he is now safely in my freezer, no longer a threat to the bottom fish habitat of Kachemak Bay.
post #376 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:



Seriously, I can't believe you. Once again:

The threat was Saddam giving WMD to a terrorist organization, NOT lauching an ICBM at the US. The missles were banned under the UN regulations and were therefore a violation.

tonton:





I already told you I didn't remember the exact name. I dispute your claim that we "pressured" the UN. If the missles weren't a big deal, then why were they ordered destroyed?

Oh, and look everybody...tonton is another kool-aid drinker! HE'S now convinced himself, as had pfflam, as has giant... that there are and were no WMD in Iraq!


Yes, but the fact that it's very difficult to get those missles to us is pretty much the point. The war didn't start because they were in violation of anything. The war started because Saddam had WOMD and was a direct threat to us. This proves that wasn't true! Get this through that thick skull of yours. It doesn't matter if they were in violation. That's not why the war started and that's what we're talking about. Before anyone else starts. Terrorists sneeking stuff into the country that they bought from Saddam isn't enough ( plus nothing's been found ). Plus there's no proof this has ever happened ether. We were talking direct threat. Remember?


Still in check.
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 #377 of 561
The other thing is were the WOMD even there? Well it's unlikely that Saddam could have spirited them away so compleatly once he knew war was brewing. What would have been the point? He coudn't have gotten rid of them so compleatly that we would be finding what have. Once again what would have been the point?

This will lead you to only one of two conclusions. Ether Bush lied or is very incompetent.


Ether way this should lead to only one thing :


Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees outta there!
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 #378 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes, but the fact that it's very difficult to get those missles to us is pretty much the point. The war didn't start because they were in violation of anything. The war started because Saddam had WOMD and was a direct threat to us. This proves that wasn't true! Get this through that thick skull of yours. It doesn't matter if they were in violation. That's not why the war started and that's what we're talking about. Before anyone else starts. Terrorists sneeking stuff into the country that they bought from Saddam isn't enough ( plus nothing's been found ). Plus there's no proof this has ever happened ether. We were talking direct threat. Remember?


Still in check.


jimmac, you just refuse to listen.

Are you ACTUALLY denying the possiblility that Iraq could have given WMD to a terrorist group who would then, in turn, use them against the United States?

Quote:
The war didn't start because they were in violation of anything. The war started because Saddam had WOMD and was a direct threat to us.

Actually, it started for both reasons. As for Iraq being a threat, it amazes me that some members here STILL think the world is a pre-9/11 one. Before 9/11, I don't know if I would have supported this kind of action. But afterwards? No question. Iraq was hostile to the US in the extreme. Iraq had a history of not only chemical and biological weapons posession, but USE. Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, at least previously. There were no inspectors present for five years. When they WERE there, they were "played with" by the regime. Prior to 9/11, these were all items of concern. After 9/11, they became reasons to ensure Iraq didn't give WMD to any group which might threaten us...even if it meant war.


Quote:
The other thing is were the WOMD even there? Well it's unlikely that Saddam could have spirited them away so compleatly once he knew war was brewing. What would have been the point? He coudn't have gotten rid of them so compleatly that we would be finding what have. Once again what would have been the point?

This will lead you to only one of two conclusions. Ether Bush lied or is very incompetent.


Ether way this should lead to only one thing :


Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees outta there!

Is it possible there were no weapons? Yes. Is it likely there were no weapons? No. Not at all. Not when we've seen nearly zero evidence of their destruction. You question whether or not Saddam could have hidden the weapons over a five year period in a country the size of California. That's over 150,000 square miles, jimmac. Are you serious? Iraq is right next to Syria, remember? Seriosuly jimmac...5 years!! Come on!

"Either Bush lied or is very incompetent".


This is a ridiculous statement. Let's look at those possibilities for a second. George Bush and his advisors would have to be some of the stupidest people on this planet to intentionally lie about WMD. If they had significant doubts, they would have had to be shit-for-brains stupid to focus on WMD as much as they did. I know you think Bush is stupid and incompetent, but Cheney? Rumsfeld? Powell? Rice? Karl Rove? Andy Card? All these people came to the conclusion that it didn't matter if we found WMD even though they would focus on it heavily? Really. It's just unbelievable to think they knew there were no WMD (which again...has not been proven in ANY way) but then told the world there was. Are you telling me no one in that group and in the defense department thought this through? No one thought "Gee, if we say there are weapons (which we know aren't there) and then people find out there are no weapons...maybe we'll be screwed"?

And now....you are telling me that if people in the CIA, NSA and military intel agencies delibrately distorted evidence that was presented to the President....that it was Bush's fault? Many of these people aren't even Bush apointees...they are holdovers from the Clinton administration. It's not as if George Bush has a big joystick on his desk that controls a super-secret Dr. Evil-like intellligence satellite. It's not as if Condi Rice has a pair of night visions goggles in her bag that she uses after work. People have to give them the intel. They are so far removed from it, it isn't even funny.

See, it's all a question of which is more likely....Bush delibrately lied (which he HAD to know would come out) or he got bad intelligence. This is all assuming Iraq had completely discontinued it's weapons programs despite any evidence of that happening.

You, of course, believe the former. No surprise there. Funny, where were the people like you when Clinton bombed without so much as going to the UN even once? Show me the WMD that was supposed to be there in 1998, jimmac! That's hypocrisy is the extreme on your part and EVERYONE else's part who argues against Bush's reasons for war. Clinton used nearly the same WORDS when he bombed. No calls for impeachment there, though. Oh, wait....

Now, let's go even a step further. Let's say we find out there are no WMD in Iraq after, say, 18 months. Let's say the administration can't produce the evidence they used to make their decision. Then guess what? NOTHING WILL HAPPEN, because Congress is controlled by Republicans.

Might as well go buy a Bush sticker because short of fathering an illegimate child, he WILL be reelected easily. End of story. Game Over. You Lose.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #379 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac, you just refuse to listen.

Are you ACTUALLY denying the possiblility that Iraq could have given WMD to a terrorist group who would then, in turn, use them against the United States?



Actually, it started for both reasons. As for Iraq being a threat, it amazes me that some members here STILL think the world is a pre-9/11 one. Before 9/11, I don't know if I would have supported this kind of action. But afterwards? No question. Iraq was hostile to the US in the extreme. Iraq had a history of not only chemical and biological weapons posession, but USE. Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, at least previously. There were no inspectors present for five years. When they WERE there, they were "played with" by the regime. Prior to 9/11, these were all items of concern. After 9/11, they became reasons to ensure Iraq didn't give WMD to any group which might threaten us...even if it meant war.




Is it possible there were no weapons? Yes. Is it likely there were no weapons? No. Not at all. Not when we've seen nearly zero evidence of their destruction. You question whether or not Saddam could have hidden the weapons over a five year period in a country the size of California. That's over 150,000 square miles, jimmac. Are you serious? Iraq is right next to Syria, remember? Seriosuly jimmac...5 years!! Come on!

"Either Bush lied or is very incompetent".


This is a ridiculous statement. Let's look at those possibilities for a second. George Bush and his advisors would have to be some of the stupidest people on this planet to intentionally lie about WMD. If they had significant doubts, they would have had to be shit-for-brains stupid to focus on WMD as much as they did. I know you think Bush is stupid and incompetent, but Cheney? Rumsfeld? Powell? Rice? Karl Rove? Andy Card? All these people came to the conclusion that it didn't matter if we found WMD even though they would focus on it heavily? Really. It's just unbelievable to think they knew there were no WMD (which again...has not been proven in ANY way) but then told the world there was. Are you telling me no one in that group and in the defense department thought this through? No one thought "Gee, if we say there are weapons (which we know aren't there) and then people find out there are no weapons...maybe we'll be screwed"?

And now....you are telling me that if people in the CIA, NSA and military intel agencies delibrately distorted evidence that was presented to the President....that it was Bush's fault? Many of these people aren't even Bush apointees...they are holdovers from the Clinton administration. It's not as if George Bush has a big joystick on his desk that controls a super-secret Dr. Evil-like intellligence satellite. It's not as if Condi Rice has a pair of night visions goggles in her bag that she uses after work. People have to give them the intel. They are so far removed from it, it isn't even funny.

See, it's all a question of which is more likely....Bush delibrately lied (which he HAD to know would come out) or he got bad intelligence. This is all assuming Iraq had completely discontinued it's weapons programs despite any evidence of that happening.

You, of course, believe the former. No surprise there. Funny, where were the people like you when Clinton bombed without so much as going to the UN even once? Show me the WMD that was supposed to be there in 1998, jimmac! That's hypocrisy is the extreme on your part and EVERYONE else's part who argues against Bush's reasons for war. Clinton used nearly the same WORDS when he bombed. No calls for impeachment there, though. Oh, wait....

Now, let's go even a step further. Let's say we find out there are no WMD in Iraq after, say, 18 months. Let's say the administration can't produce the evidence they used to make their decision. Then guess what? NOTHING WILL HAPPEN, because Congress is controlled by Republicans.

Might as well go buy a Bush sticker because short of fathering an illegimate child, he WILL be reelected easily. End of story. Game Over. You Lose.



Bad intellegence......wait...... oh god! I can't stop!



Listen it's very simple ( not complex like your trying to make it ).

Did we find anything? No. Is it likely that Saddam could have spirited it all away just before the war? No. Is there any proof that he sold WOMD to terrorists. No. Even if he did would that constitute the kind of threat Bush was talking about? No. Does 1998 or any other year have anything to do with him having WOMD just before the war? No.
The only question here that doesn't get a no is what would it have profited Saddam to hide all this stuff so completely that we wouldn't have found a trace?

Only two possibilities for Bush : He lied or he and his staff is incompetent. Ether way he's not fit to be president.


Still in check ( really mate ).


Out the door in 2004!


PS. Dummer things have been done by presidents. Nixon lied about Watergate ( breaking and entering to effect a presidential election. And he said in his book he'd do it again! ) and he was a lot more on top of things than Bush ever will be. Even if by some quirk of fate he does get reelected this will haunt him and hamper his effectiveness ( another reason he should go ) for the rest of his days.
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 #380 of 561
Quote:
Bad intellegence......wait...... oh god! I can't stop!



Yes, hillarious! Imagine the non-exact science of espionage and a massive federal bureacrocy presenting incorrect or distorted information to the people that make the decisions! Ridiculous!



Quote:
Did we find anything? No.

This in itself proves nothing as I said. "DID we...." The past tense, jimmac? The case isn't closed. I seem to remember people screaming to give the inspectors more time, and now: "That's it! They're done! We win! They'll never find anything!"

Quote:
Is it likely that Saddam could have spirited it all away just before the war? No.

I Disagree!!! Once again, he had FIVE YEARS. We are talking about weapons that don't necessarily take up a lot of space. 150,000 square miles jimmac! Five years, jimmac! Iraq borders on the terror-supporting Syria! Nah, no possbility! Not even likely!


Quote:
Is there any proof that he sold WOMD to terrorists. No.

Say it with me. "Post 9/11, Post 9/11, Post 9/11"! Our strategy for national security has changed, as it had to. It's not about waiting for him to sell weapons, it's about...wait for it...PREVENTING him from doing so. Anyone who denies this very real possibility has my sincere thanks in advance for NOT running for any elected national office.

Quote:
Even if he did would that constitute the kind of threat Bush was talking about? No.

Yes. It would. Really...it would.

Quote:
Does 1998 or any other year have anything to do with him having WOMD just before the war? No.

Yes, it does. It has A LOT to do with WMD before the war. The reason is we know he had WMD then. Since then, we have seen no evidence of his weapons' destruction. Since then, the inspectors have been removed and he (a hostile militant maniac who has used WMD before) has had FIVE years to continue his program unsupervised. Since we know he had a program then, there is no reason to think he just magically discontinued it. It also has a lot to do with your asking for proof now. Clinton bombed in 1998 with the same (and weaker) verbal arguments and NO hard facts presented to the public. Bush went to the UN. Powell presented in-depth. Bush secured a Congressional resolution. Bush showed much of the intel to Congress members. Clinton did none of this in 1998 and I don't hear a word about that! 1998 has EVERYTHING to do with today. Everything.


Quote:
The only question here that doesn't get a no is what would it have profited Saddam to hide all this stuff so completely that we wouldn't have found a trace?

It might have. Saddam wasn't insane per se, but I think we can agree he didn't have all the cards needed for a deck. There is speculation that this may be why he didn't use chemical weapons during the war....to avoid looking like the "bad guy". Say what you like, Saddam was a master of playing the PR game on the world stage. It's also pretty obvious that if he said he didn't have any WMD, then we found them, he'd look like a liar. Saddam was concerned with his place in history as it pertains to the Arab world. He wanted to be known as standing up to the Americans. We saw this in 1991. Why would he hide them? are you serious? Why WOULDN'T he? Wouldn't you?


Quote:
Only two possibilities for Bush : He lied or he and his staff is incompetent. Ether way he's not fit to be president.


I know you'd love to think that. There is no evidence he lied. None. I have seen some discrepancies in his rhetoric before the war, all of which could have a thousand explanations. There are too many questions that are still in play for you to come to that conclusion. As far as incompetence is concerned, I don't see how you support that either. The intelligence could be wrong or distorted or both. We could still (and I think we will) find WMD. There are just too many unknowns. Even without WMD, there's no evidence Bush was incompetent. I can't see how you're ready to come to a conclusion. Oh, wait. Yes I can...you are jimmac, "Master of Illogic and Wishful Thinking."


Quote:
S. Dummer things have been done by presidents. Nixon lied about Watergate ( breaking and entering to effect a presidential election. And he said in his book he'd do it again! ) and he was a lot more on top of things than Bush ever will be. Even if by some quirk of fate he does get reelected this will haunt him and hamper his effectiveness ( another reason he should go ) for the rest of his days.

1) Bush is not Nixon
2) Which is it? Is Bush smart enough to lie or not? Or, are you arguing he's stupid enough to lie?
3) Quirk of fate? Keep dreaming. I really feel sorry for you sometimes.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #381 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, hillarious! Imagine the non-exact science of espionage and a massive federal bureacrocy presenting incorrect or distorted information to the people that make the decisions! Ridiculous!





This in itself proves nothing as I said. "DID we...." The past tense, jimmac? The case isn't closed. I seem to remember people screaming to give the inspectors more time, and now: "That's it! They're done! We win! They'll never find anything!"



I Disagree!!! Once again, he had FIVE YEARS. We are talking about weapons that don't necessarily take up a lot of space. 150,000 square miles jimmac! Five years, jimmac! Iraq borders on the terror-supporting Syria! Nah, no possbility! Not even likely!




Say it with me. "Post 9/11, Post 9/11, Post 9/11"! Our strategy for national security has changed, as it had to. It's not about waiting for him to sell weapons, it's about...wait for it...PREVENTING him from doing so. Anyone who denies this very real possibility has my sincere thanks in advance for NOT running for any elected national office.



Yes. It would. Really...it would.



Yes, it does. It has A LOT to do with WMD before the war. The reason is we know he had WMD then. Since then, we have seen no evidence of his weapons' destruction. Since then, the inspectors have been removed and he (a hostile militant maniac who has used WMD before) has had FIVE years to continue his program unsupervised. Since we know he had a program then, there is no reason to think he just magically discontinued it. It also has a lot to do with your asking for proof now. Clinton bombed in 1998 with the same (and weaker) verbal arguments and NO hard facts presented to the public. Bush went to the UN. Powell presented in-depth. Bush secured a Congressional resolution. Bush showed much of the intel to Congress members. Clinton did none of this in 1998 and I don't hear a word about that! 1998 has EVERYTHING to do with today. Everything.




It might have. Saddam wasn't insane per se, but I think we can agree he didn't have all the cards needed for a deck. There is speculation that this may be why he didn't use chemical weapons during the war....to avoid looking like the "bad guy". Say what you like, Saddam was a master of playing the PR game on the world stage. It's also pretty obvious that if he said he didn't have any WMD, then we found them, he'd look like a liar. Saddam was concerned with his place in history as it pertains to the Arab world. He wanted to be known as standing up to the Americans. We saw this in 1991. Why would he hide them? are you serious? Why WOULDN'T he? Wouldn't you?




I know you'd love to think that. There is no evidence he lied. None. I have seen some discrepancies in his rhetoric before the war, all of which could have a thousand explanations. There are too many questions that are still in play for you to come to that conclusion. As far as incompetence is concerned, I don't see how you support that either. The intelligence could be wrong or distorted or both. We could still (and I think we will) find WMD. There are just too many unknowns. Even without WMD, there's no evidence Bush was incompetent. I can't see how you're ready to come to a conclusion. Oh, wait. Yes I can...you are jimmac, "Master of Illogic and Wishful Thinking."




1) Bush is not Nixon
2) Which is it? Is Bush smart enough to lie or not? Or, are you arguing he's stupid enough to lie?
3) Quirk of fate? Keep dreaming. I really feel sorry for you sometimes.



No Bush is not Nixon. I may have not liked the man or his policies but I have to admit he was a very intelligent and dynamic individual. Everything Bush isn't.

We could go on like this forever as I see you live in another reality from everyone else. Only one word for your comeback.....weak.



Still in check.
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 #382 of 561
Quote:
No Bush is not Nixon. I may have not liked the man or his policies but I have to admit he was a very intelligent and dynamic individual. Everything Bush isn't.

We could go on like this forever as I see you live in another reality from everyone else. Only one word for your comeback.....weak.



Still in check.


jimmac, now you're playing the exclusivity game. "Everyone disagrees with you, SDW" is essentially what you are saying. It's a common tactic, and it's also false. Meanwhile, the only pathetic piece of evidence you can muster is that we haven't found the WMD yet. Childish. See the previous "M&M" example.

As for Bush, your dislike of him is obvious. Bush, despite coming off as not that intelligent, proves his political cunning and skill every day. Bush is not a linguist...that much is for certain. But Bush isn't stupid. In fact, I think he is MUCH smarter than anyone gives him credit for. His poiltical opponents have underestimated him time and time again. People like you continue to do so, which is inexplicable. I also disagree re: Bush being dynamic. He has the balls to do what he thinks needs to be done. He is blunt. He drives his cabinet. He hammers them with questions. In short, he's not the disengaged Nintendo-playing guy he's been made out to be. You should really go read the book "Bush at War" by Bob Woodward. It would change your mind about some things. Woodward is no Bush cheerleader...I hope you'd agree.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #383 of 561
There is more trouble brewing. Big Trouble. It appears that Saddam Hussein never existed.

Sources inside the administration claim the highly visible leader did, in fact, exist---although no trace of Saddam Hussein has been found.

Teams specifically sent to the war-torn nation to find the alleged Iraqi leader, have searched for several months, but have come away empty handed, adding credence to the administration's critics' claims that Saddam Hussein was, in fact, a construct of the CIA. The CIA and Halliburton have both denied repeated claims that they were instructed to fabricate the leader under direct orders from Dick Cheney and the shadow government.

Developing......
post #384 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
There is more trouble brewing. Big Trouble. It appears that Saddam Hussein never existed.

Sources inside the administration claim the highly visible leader did, in fact, exist---although no trace of Saddam Hussein has been found.

Teams specifically sent to the war-torn nation to find the alleged Iraqi leader, have searched for several months, but have come away empty handed, adding credence to the administration's critics' claims that Saddam Hussein was, in fact, a construct of the CIA. The CIA and Halliburton have both denied repeated claims that they were instructed to fabricate the leader under direct orders from Dick Cheney and the shadow government.

Developing......

Indeed he once existed but he's since been destroyed. I suppose your argument would be "But there's no evidence he's been destroyed!" SDW2001 will argue, "The body hasn't been found YET! Repeat, YET!"

post #385 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's not really correct. And, why didn't Saddam's lack of cooperation justify war?

SDW just writes so much garbage that I only have time to respond to the important parts.

As for this, war is only to be used in self defense.

The Iraq war was unprecedented in that we attacked an occupied a nation that did not attack us first, and was not on the verge of attacking us. The 'preemptive' was really sold more as 'preventative,' though the former word conveys the immediacy needed to gain support.

The fact that the US was not under attack IN ITSELF makes the war unjustified according to American values and history, UN charter and world public opinion. This is why the Bush admin created the specter of the 'imminent threat.' Americans simply do not support unprovoked attacks. This is one of the foundations of US foreign policy.

But even if you believe that preventative war is justified, his uncooperation doesn't justify a war of this scale and the following reconstruction by the unless it poses an 'immediate threat' to the US. You aren't going to find anyone anywhere (not the Bush admin, sot even the most hardened neo-cons) that will disagree with this. If Saddam does not pose a threat, war will not be justified.

To put it simply, the determining part of the equation is the threat not the lack of cooperation. If he was not cooperating over a possible stockpile of Twinkies, war would be considered rediculous.
post #386 of 561
Ena, the problem with your whole philosophy is that you are trying to equate things that are vastly different. A chemical weapons program requires HUGE facilities. Period. That's why we know now that there was no large program. You can play dumb until the end of time and you aren't going to change this cold, hard fact.

As for the weapons themselves, the US has found NO TRACE whatsoever. How can such a massive weapons program and millions of pound of chemcials disappear with NO TRACE WHATSOEVER, yet it's impossible to miss the physical evidence of little 200-300 pound Saddam (hairbrushes, toilets, magazines, cars...all the PHYSICAL evidence of his presence)?
post #387 of 561
According to what I have heard Iraq hired David Copperfield the day before the invation (and I heard Bush hired him to work for him the day before he announced that WoMD will be found)
"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 #388 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
According to what I have heard Iraq hired David Copperfield the day before the invation (and I heard Bush hired him to work for him the day before he announced that WoMD will be found)

I didn't know that Saddam Hussein was an homosexual ?
post #389 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
.....yet it's impossible to miss the physical evidence of little 200-300 pound Saddam (hairbrushes, toilets, magazines, cars...all the PHYSICAL evidence of his presence)?


....all that was planted by Halliburton and the shadow government. I just can't believe he ever existed. This whole thing smells to high heaven!! How can the administration keep insisting that he existed without verifiable proof?

Honestly, they even fooled the UN into thinking he existed. This whole thing goes right to the top. Kofi's probably dirty as well---I heard he shook hands with Dick Cheney once. There all in this together, its all about oil. I mean when you have people ramming jet planes into the pentagon and world trade center, people sending anthrax through the mail---it only makes sense to go out and secure more oil fields. How could anyone expect the Administration to do more than attack Afghanistan (with the backing of Halliburton, of course---to get the oil in Berzerkistan) just for show?

Its all about oil, no connections with CBN, no connections with al Queda, no foreign fighters from other countries, no connection with violence in Israel, no payments to suicide bombers, and certainly no suicide vests.
post #390 of 561
Here's an interesting tidbit on when the admin knew the Niger docs were bogus: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/13/opinion/13KRIS.html
post #391 of 561
ena, I'll take that as an admission that you have nothing to back up anything you say.
post #392 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
....all that was planted by Halliburton and the shadow government. I just can't believe he ever existed. This whole thing smells to high heaven!! How can the administration keep insisting that he existed without verifiable proof?

Honestly, they even fooled the UN into thinking he existed. This whole thing goes right to the top. Kofi's probably dirty as well---I heard he shook hands with Dick Cheney once. There all in this together, its all about oil. I mean when you have people ramming jet planes into the pentagon and world trade center, people sending anthrax through the mail---it only makes sense to go out and secure more oil fields. How could anyone expect the Administration to do more than attack Afghanistan (with the backing of Halliburton, of course---to get the oil in Berzerkistan) just for show?

Its all about oil, no connections with CBN, no connections with al Queda, no foreign fighters from other countries, no connection with violence in Israel, no payments to suicide bombers, and certainly no suicide vests.

In other words: You declare yourself defeated?
"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 #393 of 561
Exactly, nothing else makes sense. Why---I was driving to work today, and when I passed the "huge facilities" that the anthrax mailer used to generate his powder, I looked at those "huge facilities" and thought, y'know giant is right, the UN said Iraq was clean of weapons and since it's not possible to fool the whole world, when GWB made up those phony lies about Iraq having CBN, well, aw shucks, it just aint right.


The only explanation, since Iraq was clean of all CBN, is that GWB, for short-term gain, had Halliburton manufacture evidence that fooled the UN into adopting some hard-line measures against Iraq. Then he pissed off Europe by invading a lucrative trading partner. Since he's so stupid, he didn't even stop to think that someone might want evidence of CBN after the invasion is over---and since there is no fighting going on in Iraq, no one is dying, there are no pockets of resistance left, and the soldiers are running around in Ray-Bans and T-shirts willy-nilly, there are no places left to find traces of CBN. Also, Iraq is surrounded by an impenetrable barrier that no one and nothing crossed before, during, or after the war.

If it doesn't fit---you must acquit.
post #394 of 561
So check this out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hptop_tb

Bush's former counter-terrorism chief (remember he resigned right before the war) is now working to get bush out of office. He says the Bush admin has made life more dangerous for americans, not less.

Also, check out what his wife had to say about the Bush admin:

Quote:
"It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view. It's very scary. There's kind of a ghost agenda."
post #395 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Why---I was driving to work today, and when I passed the "huge facilities" that the anthrax mailer used to generate his powder

Last I checked, Fort Detrick was pretty ****ing big.

As for chemical weapons, yes, you need large chemical plants to produce them in bulk. Sorry, but that's just the reality of the situation.
post #396 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
So check this out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hptop_tb

Bush's former counter-terrorism chief (remember he resigned right before the war) is now working to get bush out of office. He says the Bush admin has made life more dangerous for americans, not less.

Also, check out what his wife had to say about the Bush admin:


Speaking from a little personal experience, politics is a dirty business, if you had a window on that world you would lose all faith in the system. The petty bullshit, the gangs, powermonger committee chairs, advisroy committee nominations, staffers with thier noses up "da man's" ass. It's crap--don't look too closely. It's a wonder the whole thing doesn't implode.

The worst thing of all is that what you read in the papers is what happened but not why. The journalists in most cases don't get it.
post #397 of 561
Except that the whole article is about why. Maybe you should read before responding, genius.
post #398 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Last I checked, Fort Detrick was pretty ****ing big.

As for chemical weapons, yes, you need large chemical plants to produce them in bulk. Sorry, but that's just the reality of the situation.

.....you have solved the anthrax mailer case too? You're amazing!

(and yes I know about the genetic signature of the anthrax)
post #399 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Except that the whole article is about why. Maybe you should read before responding, genius.

Trust me when I tell you that you are young and idealistic. You are assuming too much about the press.
post #400 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
.....you have solved the anthrax mailer case too? You're amazing!

(and yes I know about the genetic signature of the anthrax)

If you really aren't a teenager, I feel bad for your kids.
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