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

Lies and the Presidency - Page 13  

post #481 of 561
tonton

I am not sure who is more "sure"

Is Bush "more" "sure" that Saddam (had) WMD

** or **

Are you "more" "sure" that Saddam (did not have) WMD

Good Question.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #482 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
tonton

I am not sure who is more "sure"

Is Bush "more" "sure" that Saddam (had) WMD

** or **

Are you "more" "sure" that Saddam (did not have) WMD

Good Question.

Fellowship

Good point, but the evidence speaks for itself. When the US finds these stockpiles of weapons (under international observation and general admission of the find's authenticity) then I'll eat crow. Until then the answer is that yes, I am more sure. At least I don't have to lie about it.
post #483 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
The UNSC has admitted that they were under intense pressure from the US government to use specific language and to emphasize specific details in their reports. Does that answer your question?


No, not when they sent inspectors. \
post #484 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Good point, but the evidence speaks for itself. When the US finds these stockpiles of weapons (under international observation and general admission of the find's authenticity) then I'll eat crow. Until then the answer is that yes, I am more sure. At least I don't have to lie about it.

I just want to take this time to say I admire your intellectual honesty with this statement above. I join you with the desire for truth to be known one way or another. If it does turn out to be Bush lied about this war I will not vote for him next election. If however he was just rather over confident for unknown reasons and the WMD do turn up then I believe it is rather a bit too premature to call Bush a lier at this point in time.

The jury is out so to speak but the findings or lack of findings will shape the next US election.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #485 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
No, not when they sent inspectors. \

Suspecting something (without proof) and sending inspectors is a far cry from suspecting something (without proof) and launching a war.
post #486 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Suspecting something (without proof) and sending inspectors is a far cry from suspecting something (without proof) and launching a war.


Certainly, but they believed that there was something that needed to be verifiably destroyed.
post #487 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Certainly, but they believed that there was something that needed to be verifiably destroyed.

And they considered the possibility that they were wrong in this assumption, so they refused to support military action.
post #488 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Good point, but the evidence speaks for itself. When the US finds these stockpiles of weapons (under international observation and general admission of the find's authenticity) then I'll eat crow. Until then the answer is that yes, I am more sure. At least I don't have to lie about it.

Thats no the problem in my eyes. Specifics was given like trucks, Nigerian uranium, trains, stationary labs. ALL of them have turned out to be false. That so many things was wrong "intelligens" can´t (IMHO) be a coincidence and thus I believe Bush lied.

The crucial point for me then is NOT if WoMD is found in Iraq but if an investigation shows that the "proofs" was fabricated.
"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 #489 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Thats no the problem in my eyes. Specifics was given like trucks, Nigerian uranium, trains, stationary labs. ALL of them have turned out to be false. That so many things was wrong "intelligens" can´t (IMHO) be a coincidence and thus I believe Bush lied.

The crucial point for me then is NOT if WoMD is found in Iraq but if an investigation shows that the "proofs" was fabricated.

You're absolutely right. And of course, the examples you've given here have indeed been proved to have been fabricated. The question now is, who fabricated these lies and at whose request, and, did the Bush administration know that any of these were fake before presenting them as fact. Judging by the famous anecdote of Powell angrily throwing papers into the air during a meeting, I expect they did.
post #490 of 561
More info:

Link over the issue

Quote:
One binder, the official said, contained a history of the intelligence, later proved false, on Iraq?s alleged attempt to buy uranium oxide from Niger in the late 1990s. Bush included a reference to the allegation in his State of the Union address Jan. 28, after the CIA had raised questions about it.

More of this can't be good for Bush.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #491 of 561
tonton:

Quote:
Saddam had two choices:

1 - Release documents proving the destruction of the weapons and prove himself as a liar. That's assuming there had been documentation of the weapons being destroyed in the first place (isn't it possble he called a general and said "do it" and it was done, with no paperwork whatsoever?), or that any such documentation hadn't already been Oliver Northed.

Or

2 - Simply state they had been destroyed without documentation.

For someone so eager for alternatives there were only two choices? Poor Saddam!

Your ignorance is really showing here. First of all, it WOULD BE documented. Blix and his predecessor Butler have both described Iraq's record-keeping as almost "Persian" in its thoroughness. If you read ANYTHING related to the subject you would know this. Secondly, "I have pride" is not a defense to anything.

And your second option is unacceptable. That is not a legal option for him.

Quote:
He did number two. That doesn't mean they weren't destroyed. That doesn't mean Iraq was a threat. That just means he couldn't prove they were destroyed. And that is exactly what the UN stated as being "unresolved issues". But it didn't have anything to do with what the Bush admin had stated, which was that Iraq was an immediate threat and had stockpiles of weapons. The lies that you agree they pushed.

Yeah, the Bush admin lied/bent the truth. Yeah. Yes. A ****ing cookie for you. Amazing work, Clouseau. Bush used the UN stuff mixed in with the lies. It wasn't all lies. When Powell tells the SC that Iraq hasn't accounted for hundreds of tons of deadly chemicals HE IS 100% CORRECT.

You say things like "That doesn't mean they weren't destroyed. That doesn't mean Iraq was a threat." as if the burden of proof isn't on Saddam. Poor Saddam, we were so mean to him!

Quote:
So if the weapons were destroyed, only Saddam couldn't prove it, then I repeat, how was it, as you state, that "Iraq wasn't anywhere close to disarmed?" In all likelihood Iraq was disarmed but Saddam simply couldn't prove it or chose not to. That in itself is not enough for Bush to justify an invasion. So he fabricated the rest.

How the hell could we know that the weapons were destroyed if Saddam couldn't prove it? Should Bush be a ****ing mind-reader now?

If Iraq couldn't prove it or chose not to then they were not disarmed, even if every single goddam weapon was destroyed by Dog Himself IRAQ WOULD STILL NOT BE DISARMED.

What is the #1 fear for man, tonton? The unknown. You tell me how it is impossible for hundreds of tons of unaccounted-for chemical weapons to be threatening.

Tell me who said this:
Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example. 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 if we don't take action. I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken.

Quote:
Not because Saddam wasn't disarmed.

Saddam wasn't disarmed.

Quote:
We didn't attack Iraq because of 1998.

Why did we attack in 1998?

Quote:
(the UN didn't say Saddam wasn't disarmed, just that he couldn't prove he was)

That is a baldfaced lie. An ignorant lie of almost insane proportion. Have you read a single ****ing document or resolution related to this? Read 1441. Read 1284. PLEASE. I'll send you the .pdf files if you can't find them online. Read the first goddam page of 1441 and see if you can say that idiotic bullshit again.

The UN said multiple times, the last official document being 1441 and Blix (the head of UNMOVIC) saying it TWO GODDAM WEEKS before war in his last official pre-war (oral & written) report! According to every freaking piece of UN documentation and regulation Iraq was not disarmed. To say the UN didn't say it is an astounding lie of even more astounding ignorance.

Jesus goddam Christ why do you even try to pull this shit over on me? You're a bigger liar than Bush.

And you never answered my question you amazing liar, what did Saddam have in 1998 that Clinton's unilateral 33,000 troop operation destroyed?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #492 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And they considered the possibility that they were wrong in this assumption, so they refused to support military action.


They were sure enough to hold sanctions, air stikes and no-fly zones over SH head.

Point----serve.
post #493 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


We now know that Blix was dead-set against war and he still couldn't make it seem like disarmament was anything but stalled at best.

Actually, blix was putting pressure on the Iraqis.

A prime example of this is Hussein Kamel. When he defected in 1995, it shed dramatic new light on Iraqi programs. It was a major turning point and we gained a window into the Iraqi tricks and the workings of the programs.

But the most dramatic parts of his statements were supressed in order to put more pressure on the Iraqis. What were these statements?


- "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed"

- "I made the decision to disclose everything so that Iraq could return to normal."

- Ekeus asked Kamel: "did you restart VX production after the Iran-Iraq war?"

Kamel replied: "we changed the factory into pesticide production. Part of the establishment started to produce medicine [...] We gave insturctions [sic] not to produce chemical weapons."

- Kamel specifically discussed the significance of anthrax, which he portrayed as the "main focus" of the biological programme (pp.7-8 ). Smidovich asked Kamel: "were weapons and agents destroyed?"

Kamel replied: "nothing remained".


However, these statements were "hushed up by the U.N. inspectors" in order to "bluff Saddam into disclosing still more", according to Newsweek.

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html

So what you keep citing are attempts to put pressure on saddam.

Furthermore, you can cite nothing that demonstrates Iraq is a threat. We went to war because Saddam's Iraq was painted as a threat, which it clearly was not.
post #494 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Saddam wasn't disarmed.

You are continually using this term in a legal sense. You say Iraq was not disarmed, but what you mean is that Iraq didn't attain the status of disarmed.

But whether Iraq is disarmed in a real world sense, you simply don't know.

But this war was not about Iraq being 'disarmed' in a legal sense. This war was to eliminate a threat.
post #495 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
You know, I have been waiting for someone, anyone, to point out what the Bush admin claims about Iraq's chemical weapons really are. It seems no one that supports the bush admin has ever really looked at the claim.

Really the only substantial claim made by the Bush admin regards a stockpile of 100-500 tons of chemical weapons. Doesn't anyone wonder where this number comes from?

Really it all comes from one 'Air Force Document' that had a different accounting of number of bombs dropped in the war with Iran.

One document!

But let's just assume that it is correct, the Bush admin still talks about VX, Sarin, etc. There are chemicals that would have been in these warheads. HOWEVER, Iraq never produced any stable agents except for mustard gas. Mustard gas would only have been a percentage of these weapons, assuming that they actually exist.

So no matter what, anyone familiar with the actual sources of the claims sees that even the most solid of Bush admins accusations is in fact entirely decietful. The fact of the matter is that the nerve agents couldn't last 15 years, so Bush citing them as a threat is a downright lie!

PS: groverat, even that document you keep citing (but haven't really read) says this.

I guess some of you missed this
post #496 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
tonton:



For someone so eager for alternatives there were only two choices? Poor Saddam!

Your ignorance is really showing here. First of all, it WOULD BE documented. Blix and his predecessor Butler have both described Iraq's record-keeping as almost "Persian" in its thoroughness. If you read ANYTHING related to the subject you would know this. Secondly, "I have pride" is not a defense to anything.

And your second option is unacceptable. That is not a legal option for him.



Yeah, the Bush admin lied/bent the truth. Yeah. Yes. A ****ing cookie for you. Amazing work, Clouseau. Bush used the UN stuff mixed in with the lies. It wasn't all lies. When Powell tells the SC that Iraq hasn't accounted for hundreds of tons of deadly chemicals HE IS 100% CORRECT.

You say things like "That doesn't mean they weren't destroyed. That doesn't mean Iraq was a threat." as if the burden of proof isn't on Saddam. Poor Saddam, we were so mean to him!



How the hell could we know that the weapons were destroyed if Saddam couldn't prove it? Should Bush be a ****ing mind-reader now?

If Iraq couldn't prove it or chose not to then they were not disarmed, even if every single goddam weapon was destroyed by Dog Himself IRAQ WOULD STILL NOT BE DISARMED.

What is the #1 fear for man, tonton? The unknown. You tell me how it is impossible for hundreds of tons of unaccounted-for chemical weapons to be threatening.

Tell me who said this:
Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example. 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 if we don't take action. I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken.



Saddam wasn't disarmed.



Why did we attack in 1998?



That is a baldfaced lie. An ignorant lie of almost insane proportion. Have you read a single ****ing document or resolution related to this? Read 1441. Read 1284. PLEASE. I'll send you the .pdf files if you can't find them online. Read the first goddam page of 1441 and see if you can say that idiotic bullshit again.

The UN said multiple times, the last official document being 1441 and Blix (the head of UNMOVIC) saying it TWO GODDAM WEEKS before war in his last official pre-war (oral & written) report! According to every freaking piece of UN documentation and regulation Iraq was not disarmed. To say the UN didn't say it is an astounding lie of even more astounding ignorance.

Jesus goddam Christ why do you even try to pull this shit over on me? You're a bigger liar than Bush.

And you never answered my question you amazing liar, what did Saddam have in 1998 that Clinton's unilateral 33,000 troop operation destroyed?



Dance, dance, dance. Geez haven't you been paying attention? One more time..........the ( publicly stated ) reason this war was started wasn't that Saddam hadn't disarmed. It was because Bush & CO. had proof that Saddam had WOMD ( this implies beyond the lack of documentation of disarmament ) and was a threat. He may have listed other things but this is the only reason he had that was enough to start this war. Now that we're there and can see for ourselves it really looks like that wasn't the truth. A falsehood. This makes Bush an unrelieable leader.

If Bush had listed disarmament as the reason for war it wouldn't have got off the drawing board. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. He knew this so he lied.


-------------------------------------------------------------
" And you never answered my question you amazing liar, what did Saddam have in 1998 that Clinton's unilateral 33,000 troop operation destroyed? "
-------------------------------------------------------------

Hypocrite. I thought lying was ok? Not that I think he is lying of course.
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 #497 of 561
Just got a couple more articles

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...979787,00.html

this one shows that the war plan was decided on back in summer 2002. Quite a few AO and FC posters argued that the decision had not yet been made during the build-up.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ner-usat_x.htm

and here we have a former CIA director saying that the Bush admin skewed info.

key quote:

Quote:
"There is no question in my mind (policymakers) distorted the situation, either because they had bad intelligence or because they misinterpreted it."

Cook also has a good quote in here:

Quote:
"It is inconceivable that both could have been kept concealed for the two months we have been in occupation of Iraq," Cook told a parliamentary inquiry into Iraq intelligence matters.
post #498 of 561
Has anyone else noticed that every time an active military officer is interviewed, they say basicaly the exact opposite of what Rumsfeld or Bush is saying?
post #499 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Has anyone else noticed that every time an active military officer is interviewed, they say basicaly the exact opposite of what Rumsfeld or Bush is saying?


Another log on the fire.
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 #500 of 561
Okay---okay!!!

IF you admit that the UN is dirty, that the whole bombing missions, the no-fly zones, and the sanctions were all part of a disingenuous plot by all the members of the security council, then I'll admit that Bush stretched the truth on the intel.
post #501 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Okay---okay!!!

IF you admit that the UN is dirty, that the whole bombing missions, the no-fly zones, and the sanctions were all part of a disingenuous plot by all the members of the security council, then I'll admit that Bush stretched the truth on the intel.

So truth is something we bargin with now, eh?

No-fly zones has nothing to do with UN. Its a US-GB thing.
"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 #502 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
No-fly zones has nothing to do with UN. Its a US-GB thing.

Be careful not to confuse Askolodotna too much. details like this are difficult for it to understand
post #503 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
No-fly zones has nothing to do with UN. Its a US-GB thing.


Then I'll take the sanctions. You pick.
post #504 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Then I'll take the sanctions. You pick.

Yes lets take them. US blocked any humanitarian lifting of them (like water purifying systems that of of course also could be used for water supplies to reactors as well as needed clean water for the population)
"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 #505 of 561
giant:

Quote:
Actually, blix was putting pressure on the Iraqis.

Kudos on trying to discredit Blix using 1995 anecdotes, but I'm afraid it's not that easy.

Since Kamel could not prove any destruction (thanks to his untimely murder in 1996) so it makes little difference.

So Kamel comes out and says "everything has been destroyed" and provides no evidence. Goes back to Iraq and is killed by Hussein.

I agree that he can't be used to say Iraq has weapons; likewise he is no worthy evidence that Iraq didn't have weapons. He is essentially useless.

Quote:
Furthermore, you can cite nothing that demonstrates Iraq is a threat. We went to war because Saddam's Iraq was painted as a threat, which it clearly was not.

Without a clean bill of disarmament health from the UN you cannot say there is no way he was a threat. The US's inability to find anything means little. It is the unknown that could very justifiably be portrayed as a threat.

Did Bush say that? No.
Is Bush a liar? Yes, of course.

Quote:
You are continually using this term in a legal sense. You say Iraq was not disarmed, but what you mean is that Iraq didn't attain the status of disarmed.

Yeah, trying to elevate the discourse a bit. Sorry.

When people want to start talking about the UN-SC then my course of discussion is the only proper one.

Quote:
But whether Iraq is disarmed in a real world sense, you simply don't know.

No one does, and that's the entire point.
The burden of proof is on Hussein. Was, rather.

Quote:
But this war was not about Iraq being 'disarmed' in a legal sense. This war was to eliminate a threat.

Ok, but the thread has different veins. Try not to swirl everything together.

When blatant lies are told I will happily correct them.

Iraq was not disarmed in the legal or "real-world" sense. I'm not the one who brought disarmament up.

I'm saying that you don't have to have solid knowledge to feel a threat. That's the easiest time to feel threatened.

Quote:
Quite a few AO and FC posters argued that the decision had not yet been made during the build-up.

You got me, I'm not clairvoyant!
Had Hussein answered all Blix's questions, who knows what may have happened.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #506 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
He is essentially useless.

look up before you miss the point flying over your head.

Quote:
Without a clean bill of disarmament health from the UN you cannot say there is no way he was a threat.

yes. the things that are unaccounted for in the inspection process are not a threat to the US.
Quote:
The US's inability to find anything means little. It is the unknown that could very justifiably be portrayed as a threat.

Wrong. It looks like rummy got to you. In the real world there are physical limitations. For instance, bulk mustard gas can't be produced in your neighbor's basement.

Furthermore, we have very good knowledge of Iraq weapons programs, contrary to what the Bush admin would have you believe.
Quote:
Did Bush say that? No.

Did bush say what?


Quote:
Yeah, trying to elevate the discourse a bit. Sorry.

When people want to start talking about the UN-SC then my course of discussion is the only proper one.

That's fine, but it doesn't demonstrate a threat or justify war.

Quote:
No one does, and that's the entire point.
The burden of proof is on Hussein. Was, rather.

To 'disarm,' yes. To be a threat, no. That's up to the Bush admin to prove.

Quote:
Iraq was not disarmed in the ... "real-world" sense.

But you don't know that. even you just admitted it, and I quote: No one does, and that's the entire point. So which is it?

Quote:
I'm saying that you don't have to have solid knowledge to feel a threat. That's the easiest time to feel threatened.

We are discussing states, not individuals.

Of course, since all available evidence points to Iraq being far from a threat, your statement doesn't cut in in this discussion.

As I've said before, if you can demonstrate that Iraq was a clear threat, then do so. If you can't, then resorting to bigfoot and UFOs (things that MIGHT be true) only cheapens your position.
Quote:
You got me, I'm not clairvoyant!

Or apparently very intelligent. It was clear to anyone paying attention to the skewed info and flat out lies that the Bush admin was going to invade regardless of anything else.
post #507 of 561
Blix:

Quote:
"What surprises me, what amazes me, is that it seems the military people were expecting to stumble on large quantities of gas, chemical weapons and biological weapons," Blix said in an interview with the New York Times.

"I don't see how they could have come to such an attitude if they had, at any time, studied" existing reports by UN inspectors, he said.

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au...5E1702,00.html

Apparently this is news to some of you. Like I have said, if you actually look at the UN reports, you will see that the claims by the Bush admin are not true.
post #508 of 561
Oh no!!!! John Kerry is in on the conspriacy too!!!

Will it never end!!!


Use Of Force Against Saddam Justified To Prevent WMD Production:

'[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation."(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Military Force Should Be Used Against Suspected WMD

"In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

U.S. May Have To Go It Alone To Stop Saddam:

"Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

U.S. Must Do What It Has To Do, With Or Without Other Nations:

"[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
post #509 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Oh no!!!! John Kerry is in on the conspriacy too!!!

What conspiracy?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #510 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
What conspiracy?


Apparently some here believe that the US has put the whammy on the UN to keep Iraq as the red-headed stepchild in the basement----apparently for some yet undisclosed Halliburton oil grab.

I'm being facetious, but that is the gist.
post #511 of 561
giant:

Quote:
look up before you miss the point flying over your head.

And that would be? Different sources say different things?

Quote:
yes. the things that are unaccounted for in the inspection process are not a threat to the US.

Really? There's no way hundreds of tons of chemical/biological weapons are a threat to the US?

Very interesting. I don't want you in charge of national security.

Would you call NK a threat? Just curious.

Quote:
Wrong. It looks like rummy got to you. In the real world there are physical limitations. For instance, bulk mustard gas can't be produced in your neighbor's basement.

And it is an impossibility that Iraq maintained these? Their systems are a tad more advanced than my neighbor.

Quote:
Furthermore, we have very good knowledge of Iraq weapons programs, contrary to what the Bush admin would have you believe.

And you'll notice I don't quote a damned thing from the Bush administration, thank you.

Who is this "we"? Because if it's UNMOVIC I'm reading from their reports.

Quote:
Did bush say what?

Bush didn't say "Iraq hasn't disarmed. And since we don't know what they have truly destroyed and they will not divulge I consider them a threat." He said they actually had things.

Quote:
That's fine, but it doesn't demonstrate a threat or justify war.

Very little would because you hate Bush. It's purely subjective.

Quote:
To 'disarm,' yes. To be a threat, no. That's up to the Bush admin to prove.

On what level would the Bush administration have to prove it?

Legally? Certainly not.
Morally? Subjective.

Quote:
But you don't know that. even you just admitted it, and I quote: No one does, and that's the entire point. So which is it?

Since no one knows whether or not they are disarmed they are not disarmed.

You can't be a little pregnant, so either you are or you're not. If we don't know whether or not they are disarmed they are not disarmed.

It's logic, keep up.

Quote:
As I've said before, if you can demonstrate that Iraq was a clear threat, then do so. If you can't, then resorting to bigfoot and UFOs (things that MIGHT be true) only cheapens your position.

I guess if a decade+ of official UN documents amounts to UFOs and bigfoots to you...

Quote:
Or apparently very intelligent. It was clear to anyone paying attention to the skewed info and flat out lies that the Bush admin was going to invade regardless of anything else.

Hard to predict, the future is.
It was Hussein's war to stop, IMO.

--

ena:

They will act like the WMD is new. It is very amusing.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #512 of 561
"...after the CIA had raised questions about it."

There you have it. IMO if there are investigations into the lying, it will be an open and shut case. Let's get Kenneth Starr in on this one. Surely he'll want to prove himself to be non-partisan.
post #513 of 561
It's the UN security council!! They're in on it too!!!


Round up the usual suspects!!

post #514 of 561
Groverat, I hope you don't mind if I reply to your post to Giant. Your arguments are just so full of holes that it's ridiculous, and too much to stand by and allow you to spread ignorance.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Really? There's no way hundreds of tons of chemical/biological weapons are a threat to the US?

Do the math. I looked at the "cluster document" and there are not "hundreds of tons" unaccounted for. Don't exaggerate. And it doesn't matter. If there were 1000 tons unaccounted for that didn't actually exist, they are not a threat. They are a suspected threat. Until you can prove that they exist, you cannot prove that they are a threat.
Quote:
Very interesting. I don't want you in charge of national security.

And I don't want you in charge of international relations.
Quote:
Would you call NK a threat? Just curious.

There have been no inspections in NK so we have no indication of what they do and do not have except Kim's word. Kim has overtly stated that he will nuke the USA if there is a war. That's a proven threat. Groverat, you'd be advised not to argue a point that supports your opponent. Comparing Iraq and NK only makes Saddam look even less of a comparative threat, and therefore Bush even more hypocritical.
Quote:
And it is an impossibility that Iraq maintained these? Their systems are a tad more advanced than my neighbor.

It's a possibility, but you can't go to war on a possibility.
Quote:
And you'll notice I don't quote a damned thing from the Bush administration, thank you.

Because you know the Bush admin has no credibility whatsoever.
Quote:
Who is this "we"? Because if it's UNMOVIC I'm reading from their reports.

I don't even think you've read the UNMOVIC reports. I've gone through the first 90 pages of the cluster document and I was surprised by what I saw. Did you know that the last time Iraq was proven to have produced WMD was 1991? That the last time stored weapons were destroyed was 1997? I might have missed something, but that's what it looked like according to that document. And that says to me that war was incredibly irresponsible. I'm going to read the document fully and see if I was wrong on those points. Feel free to correct me. But tell me. Did you read it?
Quote:
Bush didn't say "Iraq hasn't disarmed. And since we don't know what they have truly destroyed and they will not divulge I consider them a threat." He said they actually had things.

I don't get your point. Bush lied. We all know it. In fact, he should in fact have said that since he didn't "know what they have truly destroyed and they will not divulge [he] consider[s] them a threat." That would have been honest.
Quote:
Very little would because you hate Bush. It's purely subjective.

This is a cop-out. I don't think Giant hates Bush any more than I do. We hate his actions. We hate his dishonesty. We hate his ignorance. When he does something that's not harmful or dishonest or ignorant, we won't hesitate to give him credit.
Quote:
On what level would the Bush administration have to prove it?
Legally? Certainly not.

You have heard of the concept of Due Process, no? I know legally it isn't binding to non-Americans and foreign bodies, but in the spirit of all things American it should be. Bush ignored due process in his attack on Iraq, even though the UN pressed for it. Not to mention that we broke the rules of the UN charter, according to the UN (and they have the sole right to judge whether we did or not). And we are bound to that signed charter by the constitution. So our action did indeed break the law.
Quote:
Morally? Subjective.

Yes, isn't it. Murder is morally subjective, too.
Quote:
Since no one knows whether or not they are disarmed they are not disarmed.

Huh? If they have no weapons than they are disarmed. Period. If you don't know if I am married then I am not married? Logic?I thought you were smart, but this is just plain dumb.
Quote:
You can't be a little pregnant, so either you are or you're not. If we don't know whether or not they are disarmed they are not disarmed.

??? What!? Are you trying to make yourself look dumb? :eek: I'm astounded. Were you drunk when you wrote that?
Quote:
It's logic, keep up.


Quote:
I guess if a decade+ of official UN documents amounts to UFOs and bigfoots to you...

I ask again. Did you actually look at the cluster document? Where did the UN documents say Saddam had WMD? Nowhere, that's where.
Quote:
Hard to predict, the future is.

Hard to take seriously, Groverat is.
Quote:
It was Hussein's war to stop, IMO.

That's not the way it works. It was Bush's war to justify.
post #515 of 561
tonton:

Quote:
Do the math. I looked at the "cluster document" and there are not "hundreds of tons" unaccounted for. Don't exaggerate.

Take a look at page 67 & 68. I was being conservative. You obviously didn't look very hard.
- 219 tons of Tabun produced. 70 tons allegedly destroyed (30 unilateral & unverified, 40 in front of inspectors).
- They destroyed MORE POCI than they declared they had.
- 191 tons of NaCN and 140 tons of DMA-HCI "that could still be viable today"

So that's hundreds of tons just from two pages in the 173 page document.

Sorry tonton, your ignorant lies continue to stink.

Quote:
And it doesn't matter. If there were 1000 tons unaccounted for that didn't actually exist, they are not a threat. They are a suspected threat. Until you can prove that they exist, you cannot prove that they are a threat.

The unknown can be and is usually the biggest threat. You have to see something to be scared of it?

A "suspected threat"?
Until proven guilty in a court a law by a jury of its chemical peers?

Jesus.... quit while you're way behind.

Quote:
There have been no inspections in NK so we have no indication of what they do and do not have except Kim's word. Kim has overtly stated that he will nuke the USA if there is a war. That's a proven threat.

How can it be a threat if we don't know what they have? It's a "suspected threat" right?

Quote:
Groverat, you'd be advised not to argue a point that supports your opponent. Comparing Iraq and NK only makes Saddam look even less of a comparative threat, and therefore Bush even more hypocritical.
It's a possibility, but you can't go to war on a possibility.

Well since my goal isn't to defend Bush or make him look groovy I don't give a rat's ass.
The hypocrisy of those saying "NK is the REAL threat!" is laughable.

There is just as much evidence (if not more) that NK doesn't have any ability to hit us with a nuke as there is evidence he can. It's all in what you want to see I guess.

Quote:
Did you know that the last time Iraq was proven to have produced WMD was 1991?

Yes, I did. I read the Cluster document before the war even started.

Quote:
That the last time stored weapons were destroyed was 1997?

See above.

Quote:
I might have missed something, but that's what it looked like according to that document. And that says to me that war was incredibly irresponsible. I'm going to read the document fully and see if I was wrong on those points. Feel free to correct me. But tell me. Did you read it?

Yes. I don't see how the above two points dispute anything I say?
Did I say Iraq was still producing the weapons? Of course not.

Quote:
I don't get your point. Bush lied. We all know it. In fact, he should in fact have said that since he didn't "know what they have truly destroyed and they will not divulge [he] consider[s] them a threat." That would have been honest.

Harder to sell the war that way, so he lied instead and said Iraq had the stuff.

Quote:
This is a cop-out. I don't think Giant hates Bush any more than I do. We hate his actions. We hate his dishonesty. We hate his ignorance. When he does something that's not harmful or dishonest or ignorant, we won't hesitate to give him credit.

So what did Iraq have in 1998 that justified a unilateral 33,000 troop attack?

Let's see how much you really hate dishonesty. You must be filled with self-loathing.

Quote:
You have heard of the concept of Due Process, no? I know legally it isn't binding to non-Americans and foreign bodies, but in the spirit of all things American it should be.

No, it shouldn't be. How foolish.
And past that, if you want to look at it that way Iraq was convicted over a decade ago and has been violating its parole agreements (dozen resolutions) ever since.

Quote:
Bush ignored due process in his attack on Iraq, even though the UN pressed for it. Not to mention that we broke the rules of the UN charter, according to the UN (and they have the sole right to judge whether we did or not). And we are bound to that signed charter by the constitution. So our action did indeed break the law.

Quote the law we broke and then explain to me how that law trumps the supreme power of the US federal government in the Constitution which gives Congress and the Prez war-making powers. Please.

Quote:
If they have no weapons than they are disarmed. Period.

They are disarmed when the UN-SC says they are disarmed. Period.

Did you not remember these lovely humanitarian anti-war nations resisting the ending of sanctions because they said Iraq needed further inspections and disarmament?

Selective memory and lies abound.

Quote:
I ask again. Did you actually look at the cluster document? Where did the UN documents say Saddam had WMD? Nowhere, that's where.

I'm not sure it said that I never said it did.

Quote:
That's not the way it works. It was Bush's war to justify.

Sure it's the way it works. Obviously that's the way it works. Look at the world.

Hussein has outstanding WMD issues.
Bush says "I consider you a threat, Saddam, resolve them or I will shoot you with the big gun!" and calls for new resolutions and inspections.
Iraq's big declaration answers damn near ZERO questions.
The inspections process produces very few results in answering the question.
Bush says "Do it or I will shoot you with the big gun I discussed earlier."
Saddam does not.
Bush shoots him with the big gun.

What is the law here? Is there anything tangible WRT legal recourse against the US?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #516 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Take a look at page 67 & 68. I was being conservative. You obviously didn't look very hard.
- 219 tons of Tabun produced. 70 tons allegedly destroyed (30 unilateral & unverified, 40 in front of inspectors).
- They destroyed MORE POCI than they declared they had.
- 191 tons of NaCN and 140 tons of DMA-HCI "that could still be viable today"

So that's hundreds of tons just from two pages in the 173 page document.

Wrong again. First, NaCN and DMA-HCl (that's an "L") are not chemical weapons.

Second, as the document clearly states on one of the pages you cited, "tabun was produced using process technology and quality control methodologies that would result in the agent being degraded to a very low quality through the action of a resulting by-product." Since this unaccounted for amount is known by everyone to have degraded, why would Iraq hide it from inspectors? It wouldn't. Here you are able to see clearly how weapons could be unaccounted for even without Iraqi wrongdoing.

Third, you conveniently ignored everything else that invalidates your point. What you are talking about are precurssors to Tabun. Let the document explain:

Quote:
documentary evidence suggests that Tabun was produced using process technology and quality control methodologies that would result in the agent being degraded to a very low quality through the action of a resulting by-product.

One bottleneck for Tabun production is the availability of precursors. Iraq may have retained up to 191 tonnes of NaCN and up to 140 tonnes of DMA.HCl, but there is no evidence that any POCl3 remains unaccounted for....

Another bottleneck for Tabun production would be the limited availability of some key equipment needed for processing and storage of corrosive intermediates.

Iraqs assertion that it decided in 1986 to stop production of Tabun and concentrate on the production of Sarin is plausible and appears to be supported by UNSCOMs findings.

from page 68 of the document you so frequently erroneously cite: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/docu...March%2003.pdf

Iraq was never able to make Tabun that was viable enough to make is desireable today. While Iraq has some unaccounted for precurssors, this is not the case with all precurssors needed for Tabun, so Iraq can't make it.

All evidence points to a program to develop Tabun being stopped, which would be the best course of action in Iraq's point of view.

This is far from evidence of a threat, and is not treated as such in the document. It is the tying up of loose ends on an obviously discontinued program.

You are lucky the G5 info is out so people don't see you make such a fool of yourself.
post #517 of 561
Apparently the two jokers in the deck were Iraqi scientists!

post #518 of 561
Never said the Tabun was viable. Never said it was a threat.

Beat up those strawmen, giant, beat them to hell.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #519 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Never said the Tabun was viable.
Never said it was a threat.

So the only thing you are stating is that Iraq was never designated 'disarmed' by the UN. Of course, the war stopped the inspection process, thus making the UN unable to complete the process of designating Iraq 'disarmed.' So the war was the largest hinderance to resolving this matter in the way dictated by the UN.

You also did say, "war is the only way to disarm Iraq."

According to your new-found defintion which makes 'disarm' a simple UN designation, war was certainly NOT the only way to 'disarm' Iraq.

But maybe you meant 'war' in some other sense, too.
post #520 of 561
giant:

Quote:
So the only thing you are stating is that Iraq was never designated 'disarmed' by the UN.

A point I have to repeat since you guys don't seem to understand. Iraq wasn't disarmed. The ambiguity in that can be a threat.

Do I consider it a threat? Not really, I don't consider NK a real threat. Then again I am not responsible for anyone's security. If I were POTUS I might feel differently.

---
While Iraq=not disarmed;
run (sanctions & occassional bombing)

if Iraq=disarmed;
kill (sanctions & occassional bombing)

Written in Logic++
---

Quote:
Of course, the war stopped the inspection process, thus making the UN unable to complete the process. So the war was the largest hinderance to resolving this matter in the way dictated by the UN.

Actually it ended it all rather succinctly.
No more sanctions, no more books, no more Hans Blix dirty looks.

It ended inspections, sanctions, voided all complaints against Saddam (re:disarmament). All in one fell swoop. Go Army!

Quote:
You also did say, "war is the only way to disarm Iraq."

War did disarm Iraq.

Quote:
According to your new-found defintion which makes 'disarm' a simple UN designation, war was certainly NOT the only way to disarm Iraq.

How was it going to happen otherwise?
Was Hussein going to answer every single question?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
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