FIRST:
GUEST,TIA - 22 Dec 05 - 09:33 AM

"Teribus:

What exactly was the purpose of the WHIG? Come on now, do just a teeny bit of research, and tell us. Maybe you could find some statments by the actual members concerning their purpose."

Why TIA can't you tell us? I've got a feeling that you are going to so might as well do it now. You might find some reasoning behind it's conception in the pre-emption of the findings of the 911 committee with regard to oversight of intelligence material from different sources.

SECOND:
Ron Davies - extremely well spaced post of 22 Dec 05 - 09:52 AM

The first six inches says absolutely nothing.

Now for the nth + 1 time Ron comes up with this:
"One among many examples from the Bush propaganda campaign:

From the 2003 State of the Union address:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained".

What did he say in the 2002 State of the Union Address Ron? Or does that just get thrown out as time expired? Sorry, no it does not, it is still relevant - Remember first objective the terrorist groups themselves, Second the regimes likely to provide those groups with technical or material support. Ron do try and keep up and please try to be at least aware of the bigger picture than your antipathy towards your elected head of state.

As for this from Ron:
"if Cheney had not changed his mind between 16 Sept 2001 and 8 Sept 2002 about the link between Saddam and 11 Sept 2001, the proper answer to Russert's question as whether he had changed his mind on that issue was "No, sir".

Now you see Ron, Arne and Co., only use the sound bites the media (i.e. the media they approve of) provide them with, not the transcripts of the complete interview. I'm not going to paste them again they are readily available by scrolling down this thread. What was the question he was asked Ron? and what had occured in between answers given in previous interviews?

Also from Ron:

"Cheney is an expert propagandist."

That your opinion Ron? Can you substantiate it? I believe, having read through the man's CV his expertise lies in a completely different area of human endeavour. But what the hell Ron you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, irrespective of how wrong it is, just please don't try to present it as being fact - IT'S NOT, it's just Ron's opinion.

Next from Ron:
"It's only your ego that prevents you from acknowledging the propaganda campaign carried out by the Bush regime to link Saddam and 11 Sept 2001--a campaign which was-----all together now-----from mid-2002 to March 2003.

So, yet again your citation of the statement "within days" of 9-11 is, like everything else you have contributed to the discussion, totally worthless.

You are truly pathetic."

Having been repeatedly asked to provide an example of this propaganda campaign (that never was), Ron and his anti-Bush cohorts cannot come up with a single instance that is not some sound bite, suitably edited by the media (as approved by Ron & Co.). No mate, you are the one that is proving himself to be totally pathetic. Oh I think he "inferred this", Oh I think he "inferred that" does not quite match up to, well this was the question asked, this is what the man actually answered, hence this was the answer to that question.

It would appear that Ron has gone over to BOBERT FACTS a reprise of which is given below, just substitute RON for BOBERT:
Definition of a BOBERT FACT - something that has been pulled out of thin air, a statement made with absolutely no substantiation.

Note on BOBERT FACTS - in any ensuing reply Bobert will not provide evidence to substantiate his case, instead he will rant on about T-something this, T-something that, Quack-this, Quack-that. The one thing you will not get is rational arguement, because the man is incapable of it.

Your post Ron does not address a single issue, carry on with your personal attacks. After all Bobert told us all exactly what those signify. As someone else reading this thread commented you, Arne and Bobert tend to attack the person, I tend to challenge the content of what a person says.

THIRD:
GUEST,Rekset - 22 Dec 05 - 11:32 AM

Good post, which I see remains unanswered, whatever you do please don't hold your breath waiting, your questions are far too direct to get a response from most posting to this forum.

But in response to your first point:
"Does anyone here, left or right, honestly think Saddam Hussein wouldn't have used NBC on us?"

This verse of that song of Peggy Seeger's that Arne wishes he'd played more seems to be rather apt:

"Every day another vulture takes flight
There's another danger born every morning
In the darkness of your blindness the beast will learn to bite
How can you fight if you can't recognise a warning?"

Fortunately for the citizens of the USA and for the rest of the world, post-911 the US President and his Administration have not been blind, they have assessed and evaluated the threat, and not being blind, they have acted and heeded the warnings.

FOURTH:
GUEST,AR282 - PM
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:55 PM

>>FACT - The President of the United States of America does NOT need the sanction of ANYBODY to act in, what he and his administration believe to be, the best interests of the United States of America - End of story.<<

FACT - This applies to anybody and everybody on planet earth. What is your point or do you actually have one? "

The point that members of the anti-war, anti-Bush brigade were making was that the consent and approval of the United Nations was required. I am so very pleased that you so firmly agree with me that that is not the case (i.e. "This applies to anybody and everybody on planet earth." - absolutely, even GWB and the US in the case of Iraq).

FIFTH:
Bobert - 22 Dec 05 - 06:32 PM

Nice attack, T-Attack!!!

I rest my case:
Note on BOBERT FACTS - in any ensuing reply Bobert will not provide evidence to substantiate his case, instead he will rant on about T-something this, T-something that, Quack-this, Quack-that. The one thing you will not get is rational arguement, because the man is incapable of it.

Bobert Fact Application

Now in this you must remember that it was Bobert who clearly stated that the Bush Administration had orchestrated audience response, had hired audiences, analysised their responses to various questions posed in various accents - Bobert's contention.

Now does he substantiate any of that? No he does not!!! What we get from Bobert is this:

"Okay, it's time again to take Bobert Quiz...

You ready?

Good...

Here's the question: Did the Bush administration hire any PR firms to help them sell the invasion of Iraq?

Yes __________

No____________"

Bobert, you idle prat, you want me to do your work for you??? By the bye the answer is NO, if you dispute that then please give the name and address of the PR Company involved. If you can't then please desist from making higly fanciful, unsubstantiated and untrue statements about things you know absolutely nothing about.

SIXTH:
GUEST,AR282 - 22 Dec 05 - 07:04 PM

Answer to first question a complete cop out, answered as Guest AR282, responsible for sod all, now try to answer that question as someone responsible for the safety and security of a nation.

Answer to the second question is based on the false assumption that the US provided the Iraqi Government with WMD - They did not - AR282, if you have ANY proof that they did please come forward with it. AR282, it is very easy and definitely the right thing to forget something that never happened. It is just plain stupid to use a fictional occurance as the basis of any arguement.

Answer to the third question based on the misconception that the US provided Saddam Hussein with WMD - totally false.

Answer to the fourth question denies what did happen throughout the time that UNSCOM were present in Iraq and also denies the bits of pre-war intelligence that was correct. Denies the logic that if faced with having to make a decision, that decision can only be made on the information you have at the time. Again I am extremely pleased that most on this forum are not responsible for the safety and security of a nation.

Answer to the fifth question, I would tend to agree with, but with some reservations. My reason for saying that stems from the time it took to get UNMOVIC into the country plus the objections Saddam had to U2 surveillance. He certainly had time to move them. Is it possible that he moved them - well all things are possible. Is it probable that he moved them - if he thought that he could stall the US attack then yes - If he believed that the US would attack then no. I do believe that items associated with a nuclear development programme, supplied by Dr. A.Q. Khan, were removed from Iraq via Syria before UNMOVIC arrived, but only Dr. Khan can tell us that.

Answer to the sixth question is remarkably immature and irresponsible, considering the utterances of the President of Iran. As is the statement referring to the A-Bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both dropped in time of war on an aggressor who attacked the US without warning. Now that is a bit different from a country that is a signatory of the Nuclear NPT, covertly developing a nuclear capaiblity that will allow it to obtain nuclear weapons, who have recently acquired delivery systems with a range of 2500 kilometers and whose Head of State has stated that a Sovereign State that has been recognised by the UN for almost 57 years should be "Wiped off the map".

AR282, you state..."Were these questions supposed to unleash some amazing, undeniable truth on us about something?"

Well certainly not from you, as stated above IMHO, your responses are immature and irresponsible.

Apologies for the length of this post but there were a few points I felt required answers. Merry Christmas to ALL.