Fox and the Weekly World News, what a pair. Fox was even claiming 2 weeks back that Iraq had a remote controlled drone that could reach the USA and apread chemical weapons. Bush is relying on this type of crap to sell his war...and so many unquestioning people honestly believe it in America.
Back to administration lies: Here's part of the tally so far...part of the tip of the iceberg of:
*The aluminum tubes affair....the allegation roundly debunked by the AIEA
*Mobile chemical/bio weapons labs allegations...squashed by the inspection teams
*WMD "evidence" crowed over by Powell and Blair...debunked when an activist discovered it was a 15 year old student dissertation masquerading as "current intelligence"
*"Radio intercepts" described as "amateur hour" by those conversant with the local Arabic dialects.
*Linking Saddam with Al Qaeda....debunked by the CIA and MI6
*Photoshopped aerial pictures of alleged chemical weapons facilities.
*Allegations of gassing the Kurds....debunked...by the US' own military archives
*Allegations of an nuclear nuclear capacity; Bush was saying Iraq "months from having the bomb"...completely debunked by the IAEA
*The "best intelligence" supplied to the inspectors...slammed by the inspection teams as "garbage upon garbage upon garbage".
*no evidence of either biological or chemical weapons/manufacture, despite a 4 months of the inspection teams going "anywhere, everywhere" at any time, with no notice.
*Bush's key witness in justifying war, Saddam Hussein's deceased brother in law Kamel Hussein also stated categorically in an UNMOVIC document that Iraq's bio/chem weapons were dumped and destroyed in 1991 shortly after the Gulf War,
before the early inspections regime arrived. (Inspectors are now investigating this)
This whole WMD routine is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory. If the case is so strong, where is the evidence? People cease to believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, due to lack of evidence.
Iraq's supposed WMDs are moving into this category.
Resorting to lies, fabrications, fraud, forgery, blackmail doesn't help credibility. Whatever happened to rationality? Healthy skepticism? Anyone ever heard of Occam's Razor...the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck..etc" thing? If people are told that "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" a million times on Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and talk radio every single day for months on end, then they will believe it, evidence or not.
I detest Saddam Hussein and his vicious methods, after all, I am a liberal .but to launch a war thats going to break the bank, throw millions
more Americans out of work, destroy 401ks, encourage terrorism, flout Constitutional and International law, put our troops' lives in danger, and kill 500,000 Iraqi innocents, all for some crazy-assed empire building experiment (named Pax
Americana), hatched by ideologues like Perle, Rove and Wolfowitz, based on a heap of lies and bunk, aided and abetted by a compliant media is ... Un-American, even treasonous.
Enough already.
Support our troops and BRING THEM HOME TO THEIR LOVED ONES
If there has to be a war, there has to be a damned good reason. Where is the evidence? No more lies. No planting evidence.
Bush is pushing a faith-based, rather than a science and evidence-based justification to start a war with Iraq.
If anyone in here [i]KNOWS[/] of evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction....please share what you have heard that convinces you that Bush and Co are correct.
Here comes SJO with the view from the Pro-Saddam left. SJO if you spent half your time working against a brutal anti-Semitic dictator as you do against the US there may be a real chance of progress in the world. Instead you are so wrapped up in your anti-americanism you give a pass to a dictator that uses rape, torture, murder (you name it) to keep his hold on power. You could use some clarity in your life.
<strong> the Pro-Saddam left. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You allways seem to invalidate anything that comes off of your keyboard with your closed minded catch-phrases . . . I would hope that your thinking has more heft than it lets on.
I know it is tedious SJO, and I also know that you tried to be as diplomatic as possible considering how some quarters in here immediately dismiss anything they percieve as coming from a Liberal, or as being Anti-US, but it would be nice if you could dig up some links to those allegations besides just the one for the faked FBI document.
If you could, then your case of the admin having the truly Anti American position would be pretty strong
Otherwise it sounds like the conspiracy theory that you say may be a conspiracy reality
I especially like the 100+ pages regarding questions Iraq has not answered. But keep bashing politicians, that's a much more productive way to foster honest debate.
[quote]Here comes SJO with the view from the Pro-Saddam left. SJO if you spent half your time working against a brutal anti-Semitic dictator as you do against the US there may be a real chance of progress in the world. Instead you are so wrapped up in your anti-americanism you give a pass to a dictator that uses rape, torture, murder (you name it) to keep his hold on power. You could use some clarity in your life.<hr></blockquote>
Pro-Saddam left! Here we go again....*yawn mode*
Scott, wasn't it Reagan and Bush Sr. who supported Saddam Hussein from 1980 to 1990, by exporting chemical and biological weapons as well as turning a blind eye to the horrific stuff going on there? Left wingers, huh?
Scott, it is far better for America to be open to criticism, from within and without, rather than sticking our collective head's in the sand and pretending that all the actions of our elected (cough) representatives are in America's best interests. It seems that *you* are more comfortable with closed government, and a "shut-your-mouth-and put-up-with-it philospophy...remember Ari *Weasel* Fleischer saying..."Americans had better watch out what they are saying"...and Bush's "you are either with us or against us".
Dissent is as American as apple pie. This country came about because of protest and dissent, eventually liberating us from a tyrant named George.
Scott, *you* sound like the one who is Anti- America.
I'm also curious, giant, how your mental process brings you to say that I take everything the administration says as gospel after I say that proving politicians to be liars isn't hard.
Please outline your mental process for me, I'd love to see it.
When SJO and others make excuses for and even deny the horrible record that Saddam has accumulated over the years it servers to reform his image. Thus "Pro-Saddam". It's similar to the holocaust denial.
No one else is shocked at how mute the "anti-war" left is wrt Saddam and his record. Those that trumpet the UN's ability to block "serious consequences" don't seem to be bothered that Iraq has complies with none of the resolutions.
Most are anti-US and don't care about Iraq at all. In the end it supports Saddam in a passive way. But when you add the mix of denial of Saddam's record it tips the scales to actively working to keep him in power. Thus, again, "Pro-Saddam"
I hope no one was diluted enough to think that 1441 was going to work? We all "know" that Saddam would never give up the ghost. The only issue was if the US/UK was going to do it for real this time.
It would seem that the "yes" vote from France on 1441 would tell us that France thought this would go the same way the others would. Saddam would slip away again and nothing would happen. Now that the US/UK are ready for "serious consequences", out of no where France pretends to be the peace maker. With France's help Saddam may slip away again.
If we are to believe that France is the master of diplomacy you have to consider they'd knew that this would be the result. It almost seems as if they haven't thought this thing through. Or rather they feel that keeping Saddam in power aint all that bad anyway. They confuse me.
If we are to believe that France is the master of diplomacy you have to consider they'd knew that this would be the result. It almost seems as if they haven't thought this thing through. Or rather they feel that keeping Saddam in power aint all that bad anyway. They confuse me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just think that there are some leaders more experience in war and fighting than Bush. They're less willing to use it as a political tool. Obviously since France supported the first attack on Iraq, they're not against using force in Iraq. Their 'high water mark' is just higher than that of Bush.
As much as I don't like him, I don't mean that as a knock on Bush.
Here's an interesting article: Cheney, Wolfowitz et. al. were planning an attack on Iraq as early as 1997, and a definite move in this direction would require a "catastophic Pearl Harbor-like event".
If no "catastrophic event" unfolded, then the plan to unseat Saddam would "come slowly".
I just think that there are some leaders more experience in war and fighting than Bush. They're less willing to use it as a political tool. Obviously since France supported the first attack on Iraq, they're not against using force in Iraq. Their 'high water mark' is just higher than that of Bush.
As much as I don't like him, I don't mean that as a knock on Bush.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As far as I can tell France does not have a high water mark. Right now they refuse to even consider any compromise at all. Their only position is "no war". It's clear that Iraq has not complied with the UN resolutions and France's response is to do nothing. BTW I consider more inspectors "nothing".
As far as I can tell France does not have a high water mark. Right now they refuse to even consider any compromise at all. Their only position is "no war". It's clear that Iraq has not complied with the UN resolutions and France's response is to do nothing. BTW I consider more inspectors "nothing". </strong><hr></blockquote>
"No war right now" doesn't mean "no war ever" or "no compromise".
As for the more inspectors means nothing, that's pretty much not true. They're doing just fine and progressing. They will come to the right conclusion, whether it's war or no war.
I truly don't believe that France would ever go for a war without something very different happening. Status quo is what they will settle for or better yet for them lifting sanctions so France can cash in.
The inspectors are looking for a needle in a haystack with wheels. They are failing and they know it. They just don't want to admit it.
Comments
Here's the latest in the litany of lies and fabrications presented by the Bush Administration in its push towards war.
<a href="http://msnbc.com/news/884624.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1"; target="_blank">http://msnbc.com/news/884624.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1</a>;
There was even a feature on CNN (!!!!!) on this affair this morning...*still shaking head in disbelief*.
And check some real BS, courtesy of FOX, naturally:
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81047,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81047,00.html</a>;
Fox and the Weekly World News, what a pair. Fox was even claiming 2 weeks back that Iraq had a remote controlled drone that could reach the USA and apread chemical weapons. Bush is relying on this type of crap to sell his war...and so many unquestioning people honestly believe it in America.
Back to administration lies: Here's part of the tally so far...part of the tip of the iceberg of:
*The aluminum tubes affair....the allegation roundly debunked by the AIEA
*Mobile chemical/bio weapons labs allegations...squashed by the inspection teams
*WMD "evidence" crowed over by Powell and Blair...debunked when an activist discovered it was a 15 year old student dissertation masquerading as "current intelligence"
*"Radio intercepts" described as "amateur hour" by those conversant with the local Arabic dialects.
*Linking Saddam with Al Qaeda....debunked by the CIA and MI6
*Photoshopped aerial pictures of alleged chemical weapons facilities.
*Allegations of gassing the Kurds....debunked...by the US' own military archives
*Allegations of an nuclear nuclear capacity; Bush was saying Iraq "months from having the bomb"...completely debunked by the IAEA
*The "best intelligence" supplied to the inspectors...slammed by the inspection teams as "garbage upon garbage upon garbage".
*no evidence of either biological or chemical weapons/manufacture, despite a 4 months of the inspection teams going "anywhere, everywhere" at any time, with no notice.
*Bush's key witness in justifying war, Saddam Hussein's deceased brother in law Kamel Hussein also stated categorically in an UNMOVIC document that Iraq's bio/chem weapons were dumped and destroyed in 1991 shortly after the Gulf War,
before the early inspections regime arrived. (Inspectors are now investigating this)
This whole WMD routine is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory. If the case is so strong, where is the evidence? People cease to believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, due to lack of evidence.
Iraq's supposed WMDs are moving into this category.
Resorting to lies, fabrications, fraud, forgery, blackmail doesn't help credibility. Whatever happened to rationality? Healthy skepticism? Anyone ever heard of Occam's Razor...the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck..etc" thing? If people are told that "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" a million times on Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and talk radio every single day for months on end, then they will believe it, evidence or not.
I detest Saddam Hussein and his vicious methods, after all, I am a liberal
more Americans out of work, destroy 401ks, encourage terrorism, flout Constitutional and International law, put our troops' lives in danger, and kill 500,000 Iraqi innocents, all for some crazy-assed empire building experiment (named Pax
Americana), hatched by ideologues like Perle, Rove and Wolfowitz, based on a heap of lies and bunk, aided and abetted by a compliant media is ... Un-American, even treasonous.
Enough already.
Support our troops and BRING THEM HOME TO THEIR LOVED ONES
If there has to be a war, there has to be a damned good reason. Where is the evidence? No more lies. No planting evidence.
Bush is pushing a faith-based, rather than a science and evidence-based justification to start a war with Iraq.
If anyone in here [i]KNOWS[/] of evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction....please share what you have heard that convinces you that Bush and Co are correct.
<strong> the Pro-Saddam left. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You allways seem to invalidate anything that comes off of your keyboard with your closed minded catch-phrases . . . I would hope that your thinking has more heft than it lets on.
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
If you could, then your case of the admin having the truly Anti American position would be pretty strong
Otherwise it sounds like the conspiracy theory that you say may be a conspiracy reality
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
Do you have questions about a specific point?
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
I'm curious why you spend so much energy doing it.
<strong>Finding holes in the arguments of politicians is not a challenge.
I'm curious why you spend so much energy doing it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because people like you eat it up witout questioning it.
Have you read the 173 page <a href="http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/6mar.pdf"; target="_blank">"Cluster"</a> report? Very enlightening.
I especially like the 100+ pages regarding questions Iraq has not answered. But keep bashing politicians, that's a much more productive way to foster honest debate.
Pro-Saddam left! Here we go again....*yawn mode*
Scott, wasn't it Reagan and Bush Sr. who supported Saddam Hussein from 1980 to 1990, by exporting chemical and biological weapons as well as turning a blind eye to the horrific stuff going on there? Left wingers, huh?
Scott, it is far better for America to be open to criticism, from within and without, rather than sticking our collective head's in the sand and pretending that all the actions of our elected (cough) representatives are in America's best interests. It seems that *you* are more comfortable with closed government, and a "shut-your-mouth-and put-up-with-it philospophy...remember Ari *Weasel* Fleischer saying..."Americans had better watch out what they are saying"...and Bush's "you are either with us or against us".
Dissent is as American as apple pie. This country came about because of protest and dissent, eventually liberating us from a tyrant named George.
Scott, *you* sound like the one who is Anti- America.
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
" You could use some clarity in your life. "
This coming from you is hysterical.
You're in your dream world again aren't you?
Tell me, how many fingers am I holding up? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Please outline your mental process for me, I'd love to see it.
No one else is shocked at how mute the "anti-war" left is wrt Saddam and his record. Those that trumpet the UN's ability to block "serious consequences" don't seem to be bothered that Iraq has complies with none of the resolutions.
Most are anti-US and don't care about Iraq at all. In the end it supports Saddam in a passive way. But when you add the mix of denial of Saddam's record it tips the scales to actively working to keep him in power. Thus, again, "Pro-Saddam"
<strong>
You think a credible threat of force can be maintained for an entire year? Ok. Nice talking to you. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. A 'credible threat' of only a few weeks isn't a 'credible threat', it's an attack. You're blind to think otherwise.
It would seem that the "yes" vote from France on 1441 would tell us that France thought this would go the same way the others would. Saddam would slip away again and nothing would happen. Now that the US/UK are ready for "serious consequences", out of no where France pretends to be the peace maker. With France's help Saddam may slip away again.
If we are to believe that France is the master of diplomacy you have to consider they'd knew that this would be the result. It almost seems as if they haven't thought this thing through. Or rather they feel that keeping Saddam in power aint all that bad anyway. They confuse me.
<strong>
If we are to believe that France is the master of diplomacy you have to consider they'd knew that this would be the result. It almost seems as if they haven't thought this thing through. Or rather they feel that keeping Saddam in power aint all that bad anyway. They confuse me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just think that there are some leaders more experience in war and fighting than Bush. They're less willing to use it as a political tool. Obviously since France supported the first attack on Iraq, they're not against using force in Iraq. Their 'high water mark' is just higher than that of Bush.
As much as I don't like him, I don't mean that as a knock on Bush.
If no "catastrophic event" unfolded, then the plan to unseat Saddam would "come slowly".
<a href="http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html"; target="_blank">http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html</a>;
<strong>
I just think that there are some leaders more experience in war and fighting than Bush. They're less willing to use it as a political tool. Obviously since France supported the first attack on Iraq, they're not against using force in Iraq. Their 'high water mark' is just higher than that of Bush.
As much as I don't like him, I don't mean that as a knock on Bush.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As far as I can tell France does not have a high water mark. Right now they refuse to even consider any compromise at all. Their only position is "no war". It's clear that Iraq has not complied with the UN resolutions and France's response is to do nothing. BTW I consider more inspectors "nothing".
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>
As far as I can tell France does not have a high water mark. Right now they refuse to even consider any compromise at all. Their only position is "no war". It's clear that Iraq has not complied with the UN resolutions and France's response is to do nothing. BTW I consider more inspectors "nothing". </strong><hr></blockquote>
"No war right now" doesn't mean "no war ever" or "no compromise".
As for the more inspectors means nothing, that's pretty much not true. They're doing just fine and progressing. They will come to the right conclusion, whether it's war or no war.
The inspectors are looking for a needle in a haystack with wheels. They are failing and they know it. They just don't want to admit it.