"New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."
"Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS)."
"A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range ofÂ_ 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit."
refer to first quote. Not to mention a dirty bomb which was mentioned over and over by this admin.
This was the preliminary report, we do not have the full report yet. Not only that this is a summary of the full report. Most of it is still classified.
For what it is worth. It's time to take off the glasses.
Yes we know he had some of these things to make WOMD at one time. These aren't complete weapons. Where are they now? And how would this have posed a threat to us?
You still have not read it have you? Obviously you cannot accept anything other than "Bush Misled America".
Like I said, you put yourself in a very precarious place. Look around you are there.
All I can say is
PS. And yes I read it. Still not conclusive.
A quote :
" We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis. "
Apparently you are reading something here I'm not.
By the way Bush seemed to indicate that he had proof before the war. Hmmmm?
I think they were referring to the willingness of major news entities to lie about such important matters. in the sense that they may be aiding those who see it as a breakdown.
I am not sure. I was kinda confused about it also.
Front Page Magazine awarded 2003 Dishonest Reporting "Award" dishonorable mention to the Washington Post. They are widely known for their Left wing spin and questionable reporting techniques.
Front Page Magazine awarded 2003 Dishonest Reporting "Award" dishonorable mention to the Washington Post. They are widely known for their Left wing spin and questionable reporting techniques.
The NY Post are widely known for their right wing spin and questionable reporting techniques.
The NY Post are widely known for their right wing spin and questionable reporting techniques.
Say that is true, many news organizations carried the story rebutting the original Wash. Post write-up. And the WP has yet, to my knowledge, explained their failure, let alone support it. i will look, maybe I am wrong.
Not to mention the fact that they (NY Post) got their information from credible and known sources.
But I guess truth in reporting takes a back-seat to political views these days.
Say that is true, many news organizations carried the story rebutting the original Wash. Post write-up. And the WP has yet, to my knowledge, explained their failure, let alone support it. i will look, maybe I am wrong.
Not to mention the fact that they (NY Post) got their information from credible and known sources.
But I guess truth in reporting takes a back-seat to political views these days.
And some people only believe the truth only if it fits their perspective on the world.
It's the same thing that SDW does. If the news doesn't say what he wants it's " The criminal liberal media ".
One thing of note. The WP article was just that. The NYT " article " was an editorial. An editorial and opinion as it states at the top.
I'd hardly call it debunking.
Everything you've said points not to a middle of the road, unbiased view ( as you've tried to portray yourself ) but a very conservative one.
And some people only believe the truth only if it fits their perspective on the world.
It's the same thing that SDW does. If the news doesn't what they want it's " The criminal liberal media ".
Everything you've said points not to a middle of the road, unbiased view ( as ytou've tried to paint yourself ) but a very conservative one.
Come on NaplesX! No one's listening anymore.
I know I'm not.
Well, I mentioned nothing of " The criminal liberal media ". At least you acknowledge there is a liberal media, and vise versa.
As to my leanings, I personally am a moderately conservative person, I do not, however dismiss the values or ideas of others who are not like minded. I think there is room for conservatism and liberalism in personal life as well as politics. I am not a registered anything. For full disclosure purposes.
You see, I really could care less who is president. I want that president to do what is right and have a spine. If he/she makes a decision stick to it, or admit he/she was wrong. So far this pres. has made tough decisions and stuck to them. He definitely is not a flip flopper that follows only the polls. You gotta give him that.
What you are arguing is whether GWB and Co. knew for certain exactly where WMD's were and are now. The fact that no credible source thinks or will say SH did not have WMD, proves that he was a threat. Now we are just arguing about how to solve the problem, not that the problem even existed. You need to ask yourself why would he hide facts in the face of the the worlds scorn?
Do you know for a fact that he did not have WMD? Or that he may use them against the US or it's interests? Would you as president risk lives of your constituents in favor of SH and Co.? Would you do this knowing he had no qualms about using WMD on his own people and others in the region let alone US and it's citizens? Would you disregard the fact that a new global war has been declared, against the US in particular?
I can say this, according to your arguments at the present, we should all be glad you are not the president, or even have his ear.
It is easy to sit and criticize a sitting president, with the limited amount of information that we all have access to. You have oversimplified the issue. And, for what it is worth, we all need to be skeptical of the government, to keep our leaders in line. But to attack and excuse the political bias as "just being skeptical", just weakens the checks and balances system we have here in the best place to live in the world.
If you want to label me as a conservative whatever, go ahead. But what I am arguing and fighting is just blatant untruths and misleading innuendo and blind political bias. it just really personally bugs me to no end
And some people only believe the truth only if it fits their perspective on the world.
It's the same thing that SDW does. If the news doesn't what they want it's " The criminal liberal media ".
Everything you've said points not to a middle of the road, unbiased view ( as ytou've tried to paint yourself ) but a very conservative one.
Come on NaplesX! No one's listening anymore.
I know I'm not.
Well, I mentioned nothing of " The criminal liberal media ". At least you acknowledge there is a liberal media, and vise versa.
As to my leanings, I personally am a moderately conservative person, I do not, however dismiss the values or ideas of others who are not like minded. I think there is room for conservatism and liberalism in personal life as well as politics. I am not a registered anything. For full disclosure purposes.
You see, I really could care less who is president. I want that president to do what is right and have a spine. If he/she makes a decision stick to it, or admit he/she was wrong. So far this pres. has made tough decisions and stuck to them. He definitely is not a flip flopper that follows only the polls. You gotta give him that.
What you are arguing is whether GWB and Co. knew for certain exactly where WMD's were and are now. The fact that no credible source thinks or will say SH did not have WMD, proves that he was a threat. Now we are just arguing about how to solve the problem, not that the problem even existed. You need to ask yourself why would he hide facts in the face of the the worlds scorn?
Do you know for a fact that he did not have WMD? Or that he may use them against the US or it's interests? Would you as president risk lives of your constituents in favor of SH and Co.? Would you do this knowing he had no qualms about using WMD on his own people and others in the region let alone US and it's citizens? Would you disregard the fact that a new global war has been declared, against the US in particular?
I can say this, according to your arguments at the present, we should all be glad you are not the president, or even have his ear.
It is easy to sit and criticize a sitting president, with the limited amount of information that we all have access to. You have oversimplified the issue. And, for what it is worth, we all need to be skeptical of the government, to keep our leaders in line. But to attack and excuse the political bias as "just being skeptical", just weakens the checks and balances system we have here in the best place to live in the world.
If you want to label me as a conservative whatever, go ahead. But what I am arguing and fighting is just blatant untruths and misleading innuendo and blind political bias. it just really personally bugs me to no end
HEhehehehehehehehehhe!
I knew you couldn't resist!
Look you're just simply wrong about this. Many have already outlined why.
You have outlined your positions, but you have not explained them.
I have posed questions and you have ignored them and stated only "Case closed".
Is that how you gain allies to your cause?
You're not trying to argue with....JIMMAC, are you? There is your first mistake. See, jimmac will never be defeated, because he doesn't care about logic, reason, empirical data or even common sense. Jimmac loves to post things like this:
On the economy: "[things might get better for awhile, but then they'll just slide right back...I've seen this happen with republican administrations over and over throughout my life]"
Of course, jimmac is unable to provide any evidence to support his claims. He has consistently argued against anything that might help the President politically...even arguing that such things exist or are happening at all. He truly cannot see what unbelievably bad shape the Democratic party is in... and whether one is a Democrat or not that much must be admitted. He truly cannot see how bad Dean is for the party, and how Bush's advantages in the upcoming election are absolutely huge. In other words, he cannot separate his personal feelings from his predictions of outcomes and perceptions of politcal reality.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
This was quoted from the October 7, 2002 Cincinnati speech, all quotes here were from that speech.
Kay INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT (link: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html) talking about evidence that was found.
"New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."
"Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS)."
Picture: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair...7vials_300.jpg
Also from the Kay INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT:
"A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range ofÂ_ 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit."
refer to first quote. Not to mention a dirty bomb which was mentioned over and over by this admin.
This was the preliminary report, we do not have the full report yet. Not only that this is a summary of the full report. Most of it is still classified.
For what it is worth. It's time to take off the glasses.
Yes we know he had some of these things to make WOMD at one time. These aren't complete weapons. Where are they now? And how would this have posed a threat to us?
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes we know he had some of these things at one time. Where are they?
Are you blind? These are evidences found just recently!
Get a grip man!
Originally posted by NaplesX
Are you blind? These are evidences found just recently!
Get a grip man!
Look it's you who needs to get a grip. One report was from october. If this really was the smokoing gun it would have been BIG news.
Originally posted by jimmac
Look it's you who needs to get a grip. One report was from october. If this really was the smokoing gun it would have been BIG news.
You still have not read it have you? Obviously you cannot accept anything other than "Bush Misled America".
Like I said, you put yourself in a very precarious place. Look around you are there.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You still have not read it have you? Obviously you cannot accept anything other than "Bush Misled America".
Like I said, you put yourself in a very precarious place. Look around you are there.
All I can say is
PS. And yes I read it. Still not conclusive.
A quote :
" We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis. "
Apparently you are reading something here I'm not.
By the way Bush seemed to indicate that he had proof before the war. Hmmmm?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Originally posted by sammi jo
Read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Thank You.
Originally posted by jimmac
Thank You.
It took me about 10 minutes of research to find that this article has been debunked as based on lies.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/42738.htm
I read it and it is based on testimony of a guy named "Joe" and any number of unnamed sources. Talk about misleading.
America's foes may take comfort in what may seem to them signs of U.S. self-destruction.
But Americans themselves should be worried.
Very worried.
Americans should be worried that Americans are allowed to hold differing opinions? And I thought they hated us because of our freedoms.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
What the hell kind of a conclusion is this:
Americans should be worried that Americans are allowed to hold differing opinions? And I thought they hated us because of our freedoms.
I think they were referring to the willingness of major news entities to lie about such important matters.
I am not sure. I was kinda confused about it also.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I think they were referring to the willingness of major news entities to lie about such important matters. in the sense that they may be aiding those who see it as a breakdown.
I am not sure. I was kinda confused about it also.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Front Page Magazine awarded 2003 Dishonest Reporting "Award" dishonorable mention to the Washington Post. They are widely known for their Left wing spin and questionable reporting techniques.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Front Page Magazine awarded 2003 Dishonest Reporting "Award" dishonorable mention to the Washington Post. They are widely known for their Left wing spin and questionable reporting techniques.
The NY Post are widely known for their right wing spin and questionable reporting techniques.
Originally posted by applenut
The NY Post are widely known for their right wing spin and questionable reporting techniques.
Say that is true, many news organizations carried the story rebutting the original Wash. Post write-up. And the WP has yet, to my knowledge, explained their failure, let alone support it. i will look, maybe I am wrong.
Not to mention the fact that they (NY Post) got their information from credible and known sources.
But I guess truth in reporting takes a back-seat to political views these days.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Say that is true, many news organizations carried the story rebutting the original Wash. Post write-up. And the WP has yet, to my knowledge, explained their failure, let alone support it. i will look, maybe I am wrong.
Not to mention the fact that they (NY Post) got their information from credible and known sources.
But I guess truth in reporting takes a back-seat to political views these days.
And some people only believe the truth only if it fits their perspective on the world.
It's the same thing that SDW does. If the news doesn't say what he wants it's " The criminal liberal media ".
One thing of note. The WP article was just that. The NYT " article " was an editorial. An editorial and opinion as it states at the top.
I'd hardly call it debunking.
Everything you've said points not to a middle of the road, unbiased view ( as you've tried to portray yourself ) but a very conservative one.
Come on NaplesX! No one's listening anymore.
I know I'm not.
And some people only believe the truth only if it fits their perspective on the world.
It's the same thing that SDW does. If the news doesn't what they want it's " The criminal liberal media ".
Everything you've said points not to a middle of the road, unbiased view ( as ytou've tried to paint yourself ) but a very conservative one.
Come on NaplesX! No one's listening anymore.
I know I'm not.
Well, I mentioned nothing of " The criminal liberal media ". At least you acknowledge there is a liberal media, and vise versa.
As to my leanings, I personally am a moderately conservative person, I do not, however dismiss the values or ideas of others who are not like minded. I think there is room for conservatism and liberalism in personal life as well as politics. I am not a registered anything. For full disclosure purposes.
You see, I really could care less who is president. I want that president to do what is right and have a spine. If he/she makes a decision stick to it, or admit he/she was wrong. So far this pres. has made tough decisions and stuck to them. He definitely is not a flip flopper that follows only the polls. You gotta give him that.
What you are arguing is whether GWB and Co. knew for certain exactly where WMD's were and are now. The fact that no credible source thinks or will say SH did not have WMD, proves that he was a threat. Now we are just arguing about how to solve the problem, not that the problem even existed. You need to ask yourself why would he hide facts in the face of the the worlds scorn?
Do you know for a fact that he did not have WMD? Or that he may use them against the US or it's interests? Would you as president risk lives of your constituents in favor of SH and Co.? Would you do this knowing he had no qualms about using WMD on his own people and others in the region let alone US and it's citizens? Would you disregard the fact that a new global war has been declared, against the US in particular?
I can say this, according to your arguments at the present, we should all be glad you are not the president, or even have his ear.
It is easy to sit and criticize a sitting president, with the limited amount of information that we all have access to. You have oversimplified the issue. And, for what it is worth, we all need to be skeptical of the government, to keep our leaders in line. But to attack and excuse the political bias as "just being skeptical", just weakens the checks and balances system we have here in the best place to live in the world.
If you want to label me as a conservative whatever, go ahead. But what I am arguing and fighting is just blatant untruths and misleading innuendo and blind political bias. it just really personally bugs me to no end
Originally posted by NaplesX
This is what you typed:
And some people only believe the truth only if it fits their perspective on the world.
It's the same thing that SDW does. If the news doesn't what they want it's " The criminal liberal media ".
Everything you've said points not to a middle of the road, unbiased view ( as ytou've tried to paint yourself ) but a very conservative one.
Come on NaplesX! No one's listening anymore.
I know I'm not.
Well, I mentioned nothing of " The criminal liberal media ". At least you acknowledge there is a liberal media, and vise versa.
As to my leanings, I personally am a moderately conservative person, I do not, however dismiss the values or ideas of others who are not like minded. I think there is room for conservatism and liberalism in personal life as well as politics. I am not a registered anything. For full disclosure purposes.
You see, I really could care less who is president. I want that president to do what is right and have a spine. If he/she makes a decision stick to it, or admit he/she was wrong. So far this pres. has made tough decisions and stuck to them. He definitely is not a flip flopper that follows only the polls. You gotta give him that.
What you are arguing is whether GWB and Co. knew for certain exactly where WMD's were and are now. The fact that no credible source thinks or will say SH did not have WMD, proves that he was a threat. Now we are just arguing about how to solve the problem, not that the problem even existed. You need to ask yourself why would he hide facts in the face of the the worlds scorn?
Do you know for a fact that he did not have WMD? Or that he may use them against the US or it's interests? Would you as president risk lives of your constituents in favor of SH and Co.? Would you do this knowing he had no qualms about using WMD on his own people and others in the region let alone US and it's citizens? Would you disregard the fact that a new global war has been declared, against the US in particular?
I can say this, according to your arguments at the present, we should all be glad you are not the president, or even have his ear.
It is easy to sit and criticize a sitting president, with the limited amount of information that we all have access to. You have oversimplified the issue. And, for what it is worth, we all need to be skeptical of the government, to keep our leaders in line. But to attack and excuse the political bias as "just being skeptical", just weakens the checks and balances system we have here in the best place to live in the world.
If you want to label me as a conservative whatever, go ahead. But what I am arguing and fighting is just blatant untruths and misleading innuendo and blind political bias. it just really personally bugs me to no end
HEhehehehehehehehehhe!
I knew you couldn't resist!
Look you're just simply wrong about this. Many have already outlined why.
Case closed!
Originally posted by jimmac
HEhehehehehehehehehhe!
I knew you couldn't resist!
Look you're just simply wrong about this. Many have already outlined why.
Case closed!
You have outlined your positions, but you have not explained them.
I have posed questions and you have ignored them and stated only "Case closed".
Is that how you gain allies to your cause?
Originally posted by NaplesX
You have outlined your positions, but you have not explained them.
I have posed questions and you have ignored them and stated only "Case closed".
Is that how you gain allies to your cause?
You're not trying to argue with....JIMMAC, are you? There is your first mistake. See, jimmac will never be defeated, because he doesn't care about logic, reason, empirical data or even common sense. Jimmac loves to post things like this:
On the economy: "[things might get better for awhile, but then they'll just slide right back...I've seen this happen with republican administrations over and over throughout my life]"
Of course, jimmac is unable to provide any evidence to support his claims. He has consistently argued against anything that might help the President politically...even arguing that such things exist or are happening at all. He truly cannot see what unbelievably bad shape the Democratic party is in... and whether one is a Democrat or not that much must be admitted. He truly cannot see how bad Dean is for the party, and how Bush's advantages in the upcoming election are absolutely huge. In other words, he cannot separate his personal feelings from his predictions of outcomes and perceptions of politcal reality.