Lies and the Presidency

12224262728

Comments

  • Reply 461 of 560
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    So, if Iraq had disarmed, who fooled the UN Security Council in November into thinking they hadn't?





    Bush.
  • Reply 462 of 560
    enaena Posts: 667member
    jimmac, you crack me up!
  • Reply 463 of 560
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    giant:



    Quote:

    see, you obviously don't care about participating in an exchange of ideas and information.



    I would if someone would present some ideas or *gasp* some actual freaking information.



    Quote:

    those of us in the real world go on living while you continue believing that you can make the world flat just by arguing that it is.



    And you still can't argue my points, just how I argue them.



    --



    tonton:



    Quote:

    Groverat, you keep saying, "Iraq wasn't anywhere close to disarmed". This I don't understand. How do you know that? You know Bush lies. Now you are saying you believe anything his administration presents as evidence.



    Bush? What in blue **** does Bush have to do with Iraq's disarmament?



    You know we had this war with this guy named Hussein in 1991, right? A whole 12 years before Bush went to war. Right?



    The UN, my friend. Hans freaking Blix the head of UNMOVIC saying Iraq wasn't anywhere close to disarmed. The freaking cluster document outlining dozens of unresolved issues 2 WEEKS before war! click



    The world didn't start on Bush's inauguration day, my friend!



    Read from Blix's reports to the UN-SC; I'll happily provide them for you. Oh here's part of one from 3/7/03:



    Mr. President, Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq's declaration of the 7th of December did not bring new documentary evidence.



    But I guess Blix is secretly a war-mongering member of the Bush administration.



    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.



    Not a single goddam thing I present is from the Bush administration, not a single goddam thing.



    Quote:

    He had something in 1998, but whatever it was was destroyed.



    What did he have?



    Quote:

    What's more likely?



    A proud Saddam had actually destroyed all the weapons secretly to hide his lies.



    or



    Tons of weapons "mysteriously" disappeared or are yet to be found. Meanwhile 100% of the Bush intelligence regarding Iraq having WMD at the time of invasion would turn up completely fruitless.




    What the hell does it matter?



    Sorry, but "I'm prideful" doesn't mean a damned thing.



    Quote:

    Please explain how we disarmed him if we haven't found any weapons. Please explain how Saddam chose not to disarm when we haven't found any weapons. Oh. I know. "We'll find them!" The fact is, until we do find them, statements like the one here are lies.



    No need to find a damned thing WRT disarmament.



    It's obvious you don't really know what the hell was going on with the UN process. Why argue things you don't know about?
  • Reply 464 of 560
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    giant:







    I would if someone would present some ideas or *gasp* some actual freaking information.







    And you still can't argue my points, just how I argue them.



    --



    tonton:







    Bush? What in blue **** does Bush have to do with Iraq's disarmament?



    You know we had this war with this guy named Hussein in 1991, right? A whole 12 years before Bush went to war. Right?



    The UN, my friend. Hans freaking Blix the head of UNMOVIC saying Iraq wasn't anywhere close to disarmed. The freaking cluster document outlining dozens of unresolved issues 2 WEEKS before war! click



    The world didn't start on Bush's inauguration day, my friend!



    Read from Blix's reports to the UN-SC; I'll happily provide them for you. Oh here's part of one from 3/7/03:



    Mr. President, Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq's declaration of the 7th of December did not bring new documentary evidence.



    But I guess Blix is secretly a war-mongering member of the Bush administration.



    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.



    Not a single goddam thing I present is from the Bush administration, not a single goddam thing.







    What did he have?







    What the hell does it matter?



    Sorry, but "I'm prideful" doesn't mean a damned thing.







    No need to find a damned thing WRT disarmament.



    It's obvious you don't really know what the hell was going on with the UN process. Why argue things you don't know about?






    You can't even figure out lying is wrong. This war was based on a lie. End of story.
  • Reply 465 of 560
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    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
  • Reply 466 of 560
    enaena Posts: 667member
    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. \
  • Reply 467 of 560
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    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
  • Reply 468 of 560
    enaena Posts: 667member
    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.
  • Reply 469 of 560
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    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.
  • Reply 470 of 560
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    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
  • Reply 471 of 560
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    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?
  • Reply 472 of 560
    enaena Posts: 667member
    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.
  • Reply 473 of 560
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    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.
  • Reply 474 of 560
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    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.
  • Reply 475 of 560
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    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
  • Reply 476 of 560
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    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.
  • Reply 477 of 560
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    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.



  • Reply 478 of 560
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    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?
  • Reply 479 of 560
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    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.
  • Reply 480 of 560
    enaena Posts: 667member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.