Of course they're complaining -- it's probably tiring out their seeing-eye dogs.
Thank goodness for truthout.org! Without them, we'd never know what the facts were!
From what I've seen and read, I haven't caught the President in a lie, and I can't remember CNN or any of the other reputable media outlets leading with a "Bush is lying" story. Since they seem to take every other opportunity to disparage the President, I find it unlikely that they'd miss such a great chance to really nail him on something so clear-cut and obvious.
What's even more funny is that only a little while ago SJO was complaining (in the same breath with "the inspections are working", of course) about why doesn't US intelligence share the "valuable" info that they have with Blix and friends. Now that they have, it's all about "wild goose chases". Evidently, the inspectors have become the "hero without a clue" because all of the clues they do get always end up being "no good". <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I'd sure hate to be in their shoes. Basically they have to deal with all these different parties, each with their own agenda, and report to another group which has still more agendas of their own. It never ends.
Officials in the Bush Admin. tell fabrications, distortions, exaggerations and outright lies. So does Bush Sr. as does America's little pet puppet poodle Tony Blair.
A 5 minute search dives us a glance of the tip of the iceberg.
If Bush and gang have such a cast iron case to attack Iraq, then why do they have to resort to serial lies to the American people and the world to "justify" it?
If any of you armchair generals in A.O. slobbering at the bit for a fireworks display on television can make me feel more comfortable about spending $1 trillion dollars in the next 7 fiscal years (GAO estimate), trash the already plummeting economy and your parents' 401k's and make ourselves even more hated in the Arab world than we are now, then lets hear your reasons for going to war, rather than doing this in a civilized way. What is *your* justification for admitting failure, forgetting the most basic of kindergarten lessons, and starting a fight.
Saddam Hussein, being a Right Wing dictator, is no friend of mine.
There's lies, there's damned lies, and there's BULLSHIT. Time to eliminate mad cowboy disease. War is SOOOOO last millennium.
"armchair generals" seems to be the new buzzword with the anti-war crowd. Once you hear that term uttered, you know they have been reading from the hotpicks of the day "agenda". Seriously, having an opinion on the war doesn't make you an "armchair general". Second-guessing and criticizing the strategies and initiatives of real generals, OTOH, does make you one (or at the very least, an armchair something). Ironically, that would seem to implicate certain vocal elements of the antiwar crowd all too accurately. Evidently, some of these persons feel so confident of their armchair-manship that they frequently make wild assertions that the US will be doing indiscriminant carpet bombings to intentionally eradicate the Iraqi people directly as a measure of war. Then they go on to expound their superior leadership skills in noting how N. Korea deserves an a$$ kicking far more venomously than Iraq. The list goes on, but those 2 are such goodies.
Give me some facts that warrant the last resort of warfare as opposed to inpsections. I have yet to hear something from Bush and co. which hasn't yet been soundly debunked. What are *your* justifications....or are you just swallowing Bush Admin propaganda without a cursory examination?
If they have to fabricate and lie so extensively in attempting to convince the electorate that war is right thing...then it follows that their case is either damned weak or nonexistent.
[quote]<strong>Give me some facts that warrant the last resort of warfare as opposed to inpsections.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Inspections have not worked and there is no indication that they will. Iraq has and will take every opportunity to delay and stall and deceive inspectors.
-
I didn't watch Powell's deal and I don't really know what he even talked about. So you can go ahead and rule that "oh he's just spoon-fed by the administration" garbage out immediately.
Inspections have not worked and there is no indication that they will. Iraq has and will take every opportunity to delay and stall and deceive inspectors.<hr></blockquote>
Here's the opinion of the quality of intelligence received from the US Government by the inspectors in Iraq. If the CIA etc know where these apparent WMD are, (if they exist)...they sure aren't telling the inspectors. Why not?
Colin Powell's list of Iraqi violations as delivered to the USSC seems to be bogus (don't forget that reporters visited the "Chemicals factory" and found a bakery).
The Inspectors think Powell's stuff was a bit hokey.
The Inspectors think they can disarm Saddam.
Iran doesn't want a war. Turkey doesn't want a war. Kuwait doesn't want a war. Two of those got invaded (you remember, back when Iraq HAD AN ARMY). Who else borders Iraq? Oh yeh, Saudi. Uh, they don't a war either. America and the UK know what's best for 'em -- he's a threat to regional security.
Invading Iraq will increase Islamic terrorism (I believe Groverat disagrees, but much as I admire him he's clearly on drugs).
EDIT: Removed something about Iraqi democracy (lack thereof in post-Saddam world) which I can't fully back up right now.
The UN reckon we're looking up to a few million starving people and a few million people without homes or refugee'd. We gun LIBRATE yuh even 'f we KILLYA.
Osama bin Laden is rubbing his hands at the thought of the fall of what he calls "an infidel" -- Saddam -- as that's one less secular state, one more state in turmoil where he can forment a bit of Islamic fundamentalist angst.
The French have HUGE contracts with the Iraqi oil industry. Iraqi oil is priced in euros which have increased in value relative to the dollar by 30% since the arrangement was made, boosting the oil-for-food revenues hugely. Rumsfeld says these contracts are not beneficial to the Iraqi people. In other, totally unrelated, news, UK and US oil companies have no significant contracts in Iraq.
French anti-war sentiment is all about oil. Unlike US pro-war sentiment, which is NOTHING about oil.
There is, there really was a supertanker called the "Condoleeza Rice." It's been renamed "SS Altair Voyager" now for some reason.
Inspections have not worked and there is no indication that they will. Iraq has and will take every opportunity to delay and stall and deceive inspectors. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Inspections have worked in the past and will continue to do so as Blix has stated. So, since you're wrong to say that "inspections have not worked and there is no indication that they will", why is war the only way to disarm Iraq?
<strong>Osama bin Laden is rubbing his hands at the thought of the fall of what he calls "an infidel" -- Saddam -- as that's one less secular state, one more state in turmoil where he can forment a bit of Islamic fundamentalist angst.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Islam is the state religion in Iraq.
A secular state does not have a state religion.
Hence Iraq is not a secular state.
Iraq may not be a fundamnetalist state in comparison to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, although it is one in comparison to any western country and even to some neighbouring ones such as Jordan, but that's besides the point.
Osama bin Ladin would be happy to see any escalation of violence between the USA and any mainly Muslim country as it would fuel his ?Jihad against Jews and Crusaders? propaganda among Muslims as well as non-Muslims.
But that's also besides the point.
The point being that such modern political myths as ?Iraq is a secular state?, ?Mossadegh was democratically elected?, ?Israel is a racist state?, or ?the USA helped the Taliban against the Soviets?, are imprevious to facts or reality.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
[quote]<strong>Here's the opinion of the quality of intelligence received from the US Government by the inspectors in Iraq. If the CIA etc know where these apparent WMD are, (if they exist)...they sure aren't telling the inspectors. Why not?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are so predictable it hurts.
I get none of my opinions on this matter from things that the administration says. The fact that you fall back to bashing the administration instead of MY words shows me you have little to offer.
-
bunge:
[quote]<strong>I won't go so far as to say this is a lie, because you probably believe it. But it's certainly not true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How else will Iraq be disarmed?
[quote]<strong>Inspections have worked in the past and will continue to do so as Blix has stated. So, since you're wrong to say that "inspections have not worked and there is no indication that they will", why is war the only way to disarm Iraq?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If they worked in the past, why are we here now? If this process could be successful why are we at the impasse we are at now?
From what I've seen and read, I haven't caught the President in a lie, and I can't remember CNN or any of the other reputable media outlets leading with a "Bush is lying" story.<hr></blockquote>
Funny. What do you call fabricating non-existent IAEA reports?
[quote]Since they seem to take every other opportunity to disparage the President. <hr></blockquote>
I guess everyone sees what they want to. Too bad you haven't realized that yet.
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
Islam is the state religion in Iraq.
A secular state does not have a state religion.
Hence Iraq is not a secular state.<hr></blockquote>
I get none of my opinions on this matter from things that the administration says.<hr></blockquote>
Where you get your opinions from btw? Please tell the world what indisputable facts that you have unearthed, apart from what the administration is touting (much of which is based on fabrications), that tell you that war is the best way of solving this issue. Shouldn't you be in Iraq helping out the inspectors?
[quote] The fact that you fall back to bashing the administration instead of MY words shows me you have little to offer.<hr></blockquote>
Of course I am bashing the administration, as is most of the rest of the world. If they have to lie to Congress, the American people and the world on a serial basis to lead us by the nose into war, then they deserve all the bashing anyone can muster.
Tell me some of your justifications for starting this war, and gave me the opportunity to bash you as well. So far you haven't said anything of significance, apart from reiterating the Bush admin mantra "Iraq must be disarmed".
It's so amazing to me who many people on this board eat up propaganda. The Bush Admin has already decided to go to war, even though they say otherwise. And some of you people think you are not ever being decieved by the Bush Admin!
[quote]"You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," the diplomat said U.S. officials told him. "That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not."<hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>Inspectors now complaining that US intelligence sending them on "wild goose chases".
<a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/022303A.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/022303A.htm</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
Of course they're complaining -- it's probably tiring out their seeing-eye dogs.
Thank goodness for truthout.org! Without them, we'd never know what the facts were!
From what I've seen and read, I haven't caught the President in a lie, and I can't remember CNN or any of the other reputable media outlets leading with a "Bush is lying" story. Since they seem to take every other opportunity to disparage the President, I find it unlikely that they'd miss such a great chance to really nail him on something so clear-cut and obvious.
<strong><a href="http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=242726&lang=e&dir=news"; target="_blank">Iraq isn't a threat to anyone.</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
All countries are threats to their neighbors. What's your point?
<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html"; target="_blank">http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.htm</a>;
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1028-09.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1028-09.htm</a>;
<a href="http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cohen1.html"; target="_blank">http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cohen1.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8759-2002Sep26¬Found=true"; target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8759-2002Sep26¬Found=true</a>;
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html?ex=1045026775&ei=1&en=8b68bcf4d430d35a " target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html?ex=1045026775&ei=1&en=8b68bcf4d430d35a </a>
<a href="http://newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02"; target="_blank">http://newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02</a>;
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/17/international/middleeast/17ASSE.html?pagewanted=2&th"; target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/17/international/middleeast/17ASSE.html?pagewanted=2&th</a>;
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41330-2003Feb21?language=printer"; target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41330-2003Feb21?language=printer</a>;
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A134-2003Feb12.html"; target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A134-2003Feb12.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,889135,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,889135,00.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/international/middleeast/06ANSA.html?ex=1045550702&ei=1&en=74ae0f77bed509f4 " target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/international/middleeast/06ANSA.html?ex=1045550702&ei=1&en=74ae0f77bed509f4 </a>
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/867733.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.com/news/867733.asp</a>;
<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520548.html"; target="_blank">http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520548.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/home/z/stories/20030206/dossier.html"; target="_blank">http://www.channel4.com/news/home/z/stories/20030206/dossier.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/weekinreview/09MELM.html?ex=1045801153&ei=1&en=9eb5a98849377a63 " target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/weekinreview/09MELM.html?ex=1045801153&ei=1&en=9eb5a98849377a63 </a>
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=442NLNJNEXPJGCRBAELCF EY?type=worldNews&storyID=2188616" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=442NLNJNEXPJGCRBAELCF EY?type=worldNews&storyID=2188616</a>
<a href="http://www.antiwar.com/rep/utley9.html"; target="_blank">http://www.antiwar.com/rep/utley9.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/06/60minutes/main532107.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/06/60minutes/main532107.shtml</a>;
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20021222_711.html"; target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20021222_711.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14518"; target="_blank">http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14518</a>;
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/21/international/21PRAG.html?ex=1036252587&ei=1&en=b6dac247936f2879 " target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/21/international/21PRAG.html?ex=1036252587&ei=1&en=b6dac247936f2879 </a>
<a href="http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20021023/index.php"; target="_blank">http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20021023/index.php</a>;
<a href="http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Jensen_Speech.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Jensen_Speech.htm</a>;
A 5 minute search dives us a glance of the tip of the iceberg.
If Bush and gang have such a cast iron case to attack Iraq, then why do they have to resort to serial lies to the American people and the world to "justify" it?
If any of you armchair generals in A.O. slobbering at the bit for a fireworks display on television can make me feel more comfortable about spending $1 trillion dollars in the next 7 fiscal years (GAO estimate), trash the already plummeting economy and your parents' 401k's and make ourselves even more hated in the Arab world than we are now, then lets hear your reasons for going to war, rather than doing this in a civilized way. What is *your* justification for admitting failure, forgetting the most basic of kindergarten lessons, and starting a fight.
Saddam Hussein, being a Right Wing dictator, is no friend of mine.
There's lies, there's damned lies, and there's BULLSHIT. Time to eliminate mad cowboy disease. War is SOOOOO last millennium.
It's the only way to disarm Iraq.
Next question.
Next question.<hr></blockquote>
Give me some facts that warrant the last resort of warfare as opposed to inpsections. I have yet to hear something from Bush and co. which hasn't yet been soundly debunked. What are *your* justifications....or are you just swallowing Bush Admin propaganda without a cursory examination?
If they have to fabricate and lie so extensively in attempting to convince the electorate that war is right thing...then it follows that their case is either damned weak or nonexistent.
Inspections have not worked and there is no indication that they will. Iraq has and will take every opportunity to delay and stall and deceive inspectors.
-
I didn't watch Powell's deal and I don't really know what he even talked about. So you can go ahead and rule that "oh he's just spoon-fed by the administration" garbage out immediately.
<a href="http://www.newsday.com/business/printedition/ny-e3142018feb23,0,2678986.story"; target="_blank">http://www.newsday.com/business/printedition/ny-e3142018feb23,0,2678986.story</a>;
Inspections have not worked and there is no indication that they will. Iraq has and will take every opportunity to delay and stall and deceive inspectors.<hr></blockquote>
Here's the opinion of the quality of intelligence received from the US Government by the inspectors in Iraq. If the CIA etc know where these apparent WMD are, (if they exist)...they sure aren't telling the inspectors. Why not?
<a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12665854&method=full&siteid=5014 3" target="_blank">http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12665854&method=full&siteid=5014 3</a>
Colin Powell's list of Iraqi violations as delivered to the USSC seems to be bogus (don't forget that reporters visited the "Chemicals factory" and found a bakery).
The Inspectors think Powell's stuff was a bit hokey.
The Inspectors think they can disarm Saddam.
Iran doesn't want a war. Turkey doesn't want a war. Kuwait doesn't want a war. Two of those got invaded (you remember, back when Iraq HAD AN ARMY). Who else borders Iraq? Oh yeh, Saudi. Uh, they don't a war either. America and the UK know what's best for 'em -- he's a threat to regional security.
Invading Iraq will increase Islamic terrorism (I believe Groverat disagrees, but much as I admire him he's clearly on drugs).
EDIT: Removed something about Iraqi democracy (lack thereof in post-Saddam world) which I can't fully back up right now.
The UN reckon we're looking up to a few million starving people and a few million people without homes or refugee'd. We gun LIBRATE yuh even 'f we KILLYA.
Osama bin Laden is rubbing his hands at the thought of the fall of what he calls "an infidel" -- Saddam -- as that's one less secular state, one more state in turmoil where he can forment a bit of Islamic fundamentalist angst.
The French have HUGE contracts with the Iraqi oil industry. Iraqi oil is priced in euros which have increased in value relative to the dollar by 30% since the arrangement was made, boosting the oil-for-food revenues hugely. Rumsfeld says these contracts are not beneficial to the Iraqi people. In other, totally unrelated, news, UK and US oil companies have no significant contracts in Iraq.
French anti-war sentiment is all about oil. Unlike US pro-war sentiment, which is NOTHING about oil.
There is, there really was a supertanker called the "Condoleeza Rice." It's been renamed "SS Altair Voyager" now for some reason.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
<strong>
It's the only way to disarm Iraq. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I won't go so far as to say this is a lie, because you probably believe it. But it's certainly not true.
<strong>
Inspections have not worked and there is no indication that they will. Iraq has and will take every opportunity to delay and stall and deceive inspectors. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Inspections have worked in the past and will continue to do so as Blix has stated. So, since you're wrong to say that "inspections have not worked and there is no indication that they will", why is war the only way to disarm Iraq?
<strong>Osama bin Laden is rubbing his hands at the thought of the fall of what he calls "an infidel" -- Saddam -- as that's one less secular state, one more state in turmoil where he can forment a bit of Islamic fundamentalist angst.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Islam is the state religion in Iraq.
A secular state does not have a state religion.
Hence Iraq is not a secular state.
Iraq may not be a fundamnetalist state in comparison to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, although it is one in comparison to any western country and even to some neighbouring ones such as Jordan, but that's besides the point.
Osama bin Ladin would be happy to see any escalation of violence between the USA and any mainly Muslim country as it would fuel his ?Jihad against Jews and Crusaders? propaganda among Muslims as well as non-Muslims.
But that's also besides the point.
The point being that such modern political myths as ?Iraq is a secular state?, ?Mossadegh was democratically elected?, ?Israel is a racist state?, or ?the USA helped the Taliban against the Soviets?, are imprevious to facts or reality.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
[quote]<strong>Here's the opinion of the quality of intelligence received from the US Government by the inspectors in Iraq. If the CIA etc know where these apparent WMD are, (if they exist)...they sure aren't telling the inspectors. Why not?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are so predictable it hurts.
I get none of my opinions on this matter from things that the administration says. The fact that you fall back to bashing the administration instead of MY words shows me you have little to offer.
-
bunge:
[quote]<strong>I won't go so far as to say this is a lie, because you probably believe it. But it's certainly not true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How else will Iraq be disarmed?
[quote]<strong>Inspections have worked in the past and will continue to do so as Blix has stated. So, since you're wrong to say that "inspections have not worked and there is no indication that they will", why is war the only way to disarm Iraq?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If they worked in the past, why are we here now? If this process could be successful why are we at the impasse we are at now?
Did we not give the process enough time?
From what I've seen and read, I haven't caught the President in a lie, and I can't remember CNN or any of the other reputable media outlets leading with a "Bush is lying" story.<hr></blockquote>
Funny. What do you call fabricating non-existent IAEA reports?
[quote]Since they seem to take every other opportunity to disparage the President. <hr></blockquote>
I guess everyone sees what they want to. Too bad you haven't realized that yet.
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
Islam is the state religion in Iraq.
A secular state does not have a state religion.
Hence Iraq is not a secular state.<hr></blockquote>
Not this bullshit again
<strong>
If they worked in the past, why are we here now? If this process could be successful why are we at the impasse we are at now?
Did we not give the process enough time?</strong><hr></blockquote>
What impasse?
I get none of my opinions on this matter from things that the administration says.<hr></blockquote>
Where you get your opinions from btw? Please tell the world what indisputable facts that you have unearthed, apart from what the administration is touting (much of which is based on fabrications), that tell you that war is the best way of solving this issue. Shouldn't you be in Iraq helping out the inspectors?
[quote] The fact that you fall back to bashing the administration instead of MY words shows me you have little to offer.<hr></blockquote>
Of course I am bashing the administration, as is most of the rest of the world. If they have to lie to Congress, the American people and the world on a serial basis to lead us by the nose into war, then they deserve all the bashing anyone can muster.
Tell me some of your justifications for starting this war, and gave me the opportunity to bash you as well. So far you haven't said anything of significance, apart from reiterating the Bush admin mantra "Iraq must be disarmed".
[quote]"You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," the diplomat said U.S. officials told him. "That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not."<hr></blockquote>
from <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62438-2003Feb24.html"; target="_blank">the Washington Post</a>
Even threatening the security coucil.
Not that it's a secret that the Bush admin's support base is the result of bribing:
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/2003-02-25-unwilling.htm"; target="_blank">USA Today chart</a>
All of this is very interesting, considering the inspections are showing progress:
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2285263"; target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2285263</a>;
<a href="http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAQIOBOHCD.html"; target="_blank">http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAQIOBOHCD.html</a>;