 sj |
||
|
||
BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 22 Dec 07 - 02:01 PM TIA, much of the world, some here on mudcat & a fair percentage (not near enough though) told this government that it was a fools mission to illegaly invade Iran & what would happen has come to pass. But none saw it as bad as it would eventually turn out to be. By the government's perdictions the war should've been over by now, paid for itself in oil revenues, the world would be a safer place & we would've found & confiscated the much feared WMD's, The mid east would become a democracy. We knew then that we hadn't a clue of the culture, there were no WMD's (though some still want to debate the point, in the end none were found), the counrty is in chapter 9/11, we are in more danger when we could've been talking, the decider & uniter has split the nation, ruined it's good name, he & this administration can't be trusted, we've lost much of our civil & human rights and the future looks too be dim Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,TIA Date: 22 Dec 07 - 10:12 AM I've said it before, and I'll say it again... It just *kills* 'em that what Bobert was saying back in 2002/2003 has actually come to pass, and what they were saying in the same period has been shown to be utter horsecrap. A *lot* of people here were saying the same stuff back then, but for some reason, it really pisses them off that Bobert in particular was right. Now they have to spin and parse and narrowly define and backpedal and flail wildy to try to prove that they have not been thoroughly out-thunk by the lowly WGSR. The closest they can come to a "win" now, is a 5000 word essay with eleventeen bullet points, and a few red herring questions, that don't get answered in exactly the way they demand, so they can shout "gotcha!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 22 Dec 07 - 09:06 AM LOL, Homey... As fir T's questions, they are endless and, for the most part, not related to anything of substance... You see, what T likes to do is distract his opponenets away from the meat and taters and get them defending tiny little meaningless points... That has been his strategy going back to the mad-dash-to-Iraq days... But I fully understand his strategy and that is why he tries to change the conversation... It's all he has... Yeah, T, will never answer the "What-was-the-big-ass-hurry?" question in his own words.... No, he hides behind minute parts of his dumbass UN resoultion... And when I point out several parts of Dr. Blixes report to the UN that woyuld lead any reasonable person to, at the very east, reconsider ordering up a war, T just glosses over them... T even has said that there's only "one sentence" in the report that is positive??? I guess T thinks he is the only operson on the planet that has, ahhhhhh, a copy of the report??? I don't know??? I know I've posted 3 complete ***paragraphs*** that should have had Bush thinking, "Hmmmmmmm??? Maybe Cheney and Wolfowitz are wrong here???"... I mean, if you are going to take a country to war you'd better have it right... Right, Homester??? Right??? Well, Bush had it all wrong... He should have doen what Clinton did when Wolfy and Pearle came into the Oval Office with such a boneheaded paln and that was throw the war mongers out... But Bush was all ears... Tell me more... Then Rove was called in and Karl took one look at the prospects of a shiney new war and the '04 election and probably peed his pants in delight fo knowing that he wouldn't have to work as hard... I mean, shiney new war presidents just don't loose elections and Rove, I am sure, was the happiest man in town... I'd even bet that Rove came up with the "Shock and Awe" slogan to go with it... If not, you can take it to the bank, that Rove just loved "Shock 'n Awe"... BTW, Homey, what ever happened to the "Shock 'n Awe"??? Well, well, well... Me thinks I will just put this discussion out of my head for awhile... It is disgustly real at this time of year for all the families, both American and Iraqi, who have either had a family memeber killed of blown half up... That's the part that you and T don't like to dwell on... No, you'd rather reduce it to some academic exercise or a weastern movie where all the cowboys and indians go off and have a beer at night... Peace, Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 22 Dec 07 - 08:27 AM We have seen repeated instances where Bobert has just shot off his mouth and said whatever he thought would sound cool, or tough, or whatever and then his handlers have to come behind him and clean up from lies, half-lies and fantasies... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Dec 07 - 07:01 AM He already did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 22 Dec 07 - 01:09 AM don't answer, bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 21 Dec 07 - 09:24 PM Bobert: I still don't see an answer to the T's question. Are you avoiding it for some reason? Seems to me an expert like you could answer any question without hesitation, even predict that 56,000 Americans will be lost. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 07 - 07:27 PM I'd almost forgotten that one, McG... Just what we need... Another holy war... Geeze, Louise... How much dumbass stuff can the boy come up with??? (Bobert, Bobert... Settle down... He doen't come up with this stuff... His handlers do...) Well, waterboard the bunch 'o 'um... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Dec 07 - 07:20 PM Don't forget how Bush called it a "Crusade against Terror". How many deaths resulted from his using that word at that time in that context? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 07 - 06:08 PM Yeah, TIA... So many of 'um it's hard keepin' 'um straight... "Bring it on" was one of his dumbest ones... That got another thousand or two American kids killed and maybe another 100,000 Iraqis... "Axis of Evil" was also real dumb... Made Bush look to the world like the cowboy jerk that he really is... But the "We don't torture" is probably the best example of being caught in the muiddle of Lies-burg with your pants down... Tell ya' what... Bush and Cheney could use a good waterboarding... We don't torture, my butt... The US prosecuted Japanese soldiers for doing it to US after WW II but now it's not torture??? Beam me up, Scotty... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,TIA Date: 21 Dec 07 - 05:52 PM Bobert -Don't forget: "When we are talking about wiretapping, we need a warrant..." "We don't do torture..." "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended..." "Wanted dead or alive", or is it "I don't really spend that much time worrying about him" We could go on and on. There are entire websites dedicated to documenting the endless lies. Just google "bush lies". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 07 - 06:24 PM I mean, lets do a little review here, T, and maybe you'll get a glimpse of why Bush and hie people not credible: *** "Not Child Left Behinf"... passed and signed into law but Bush would authorize spending the $27B to pay for it??? *** Katrina where Bush not only had to be flown over it to belive it actaully happened but continued his vaction while it happened??? *** The 2000 Election where he sent in paid goons to disrupt and harrass campaign workers??? *** Aluminum tubes??? *** Mushroom clouds??? *** Uranium percheses from Niger??? *** Saddam tried to kill my daddy??? *** AWOL??? *** Harken Energy where Bush took $700,000 just months before it folded??? *** Outing Valerie Plame??? You see, T, there is a definate pattern here of lies and deciet and so now when we see even more revisionism going on about his Oct. 17th and 23rd speeeches... I mean, at least consider this, T... If the intellegence people had even told him that there was some new evidence on Iran's nuclear program that was under new scrutiny then it was irresponsible for him to have made those two speeches... Not that I am saying that is the case because until history gets it straight I still beleive that Buah, as has been reported and not refuted by the Bush folks, knew the general contents of the intellegence report... But, for the sake of honest discussion, if Bush had been told that some new stuff was coming then he should have kept his big mouth shut... Diplomacy ain't about running yer friggin' mouth every time you feel like it... That's my call on why Bush is no longer a credible person... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 07 - 12:04 PM Ummmm, English comprehension ain't the problem... I comprhend just fine... And I read just fine... Okay, a tad slow because of lexdexia but once I have plowed thru the stuff I comprehand just fine... Yeah, spelling and typing suck but I get the material... I don't know what I'm gonna do with you, T??? You expect me to provide the burden of truth behind what I not only read, comprehand and then share with you but you think that you shouldn't be held to the same standard on what you read, comprhend and share... You know what they call that, don't ya"??? Well, don't hurt your head... It's called hypocrsiy... On every issue that you have listed in you above post there is ink that goes both ways... Yes, I will freely admit that I, like 60% plus Americans don't like Bush and/or his policies... One of the major problems I, along with many of these people, have with Bush is that he is not a credible person... We have seen repeated instances where he has just shot off his mouth and said whatever he thought would sound cool, or tough, or whatever and then his handlers have to come behind him and clean up from lies, half-lies and fantasies... The "16 words" is probably the straw that broke the camel's back... G. Tenant had told him before the Oct.11 Cincinaati speech that there was no evidence that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program and to not use the words (i.e. don't tell the lie, George) and so George didn't tell the lie... But then he gets up with yer bud, Blair, and next thing ya' know here's some college kids term paper that was written a long time ago that is the basis of the "16 words"... By the time the State of the Union address came around alot of things had happened other than the college kid's term paper... For starters, Dick Cheney had purdy much camped out at Langley (CIA headquarters) and was putting heavy pressure on the Langley folks... But even with Cheney's full-court=press there were still anylaists who disagreed with the college kid's term paper, thought it was bogus and in intellegence reprts made dieenting comments at the end of these reports... Now, war ain't like a video game or a western movie, T... It's the real deal where people get seriously hurt or killed... Given the graveness of war a responisible president would have made every effore to get things right... Bush didn't... He jumped all over the term paper, or whatever it was, and ordered up the invasion... That was not the responsible thing to do... Hey, if there weren't millions of people in the streets telling him that he was wrong to invade Iraq, I can kinda see where maybe Bush irresponsible decison could sonmewhat be justified by his supporters... But there were millions and people in the street... And there were crdible people like Scott Ritter saying "Hey, Bush. You got it wrong." Like I said, war ain't a movie and Bush treated it as if it was... That, INO, is not only dishonest but dillusional... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 20 Dec 07 - 09:56 AM You most certainly have not answered my question. Your claim was that Bush lied about the Iranian nuclear weapons programme being active in the content of a speech he made on 17th October. Your basis was a newspaper report inferring that he (Bush) had been told that the Iranian programme had been halted in 2003 some time in August this year. On the same day that newspaper article came out Bush was asked about this at a news conference and he said that what he had been told in August was that there was new intelligence on Iran currently under evaaluation but he not told what that intelligence was. President Bush even identified the person who informed him of this in August. Now Bobert, you read the newspaper article and believed it because you wanted to. Have you read the NIE Report itself? I would tend to think that you haven't, you hate the truth to get in the way of a good lie. Well go and read the NIE Report, particularly the last line picked out in "BOLD" at the foot of page four: "This estimate incorporates intelligence reporting available as of 31st October, 2007." The report wasn't written in August, the intelligence had not been analysed or evaluated in August, therefore it is impossible for the President to have been appraised of the conclusions of a report in August when that report was not even written in draft form until mid-November. The President was briefed on the conclusions of the November NIE Report on 28th November 2007, the Report was made public on 4th December 2007. On the AWOL thing Bobert the military tend to be fairly particular time keepers, if your myth were true, he would have been noted absent without leave and charged accordingly, he wasn't charged, the matter was never even subject to complaint. He was given an early honourable discharge, as many in the same situation were, so it would appear Bobert that he was never AWOL. Being AWOL is a bit like being pregnant, you either are or you're not, anyone charged with being AWOL is guilty from the outset, because it is a plain bald fact, excuses why you were not where you should have been can only be entered in mitigation. No charge no AWOL. On the numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq caused by the invasion and subsequent insurgency Bobert, the ones who are doing the counting are actually counting deaths at one tenth the number of those who are only estimating the numbers who may have died by batch sampling. Now I know that you are not the best at English comprehension and I know that you hate to read source material, preferring instead to jump at sound bytes that feed your prejudices. But if you are going to insist on repeating things that are patently untrue please don't be too surprised if you're called to prove them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 07 - 08:05 AM No, T... I answered your question... I answered your question... I believe that surely the intellegnce folks did tell Bush before going public... I mean, that's the way things work in the real world... And I would guess that seein' as the intellegence community ended up taking the bullet on Iraq that they didn't want to be manipulated again into a position of being the fall gyuys for yet another stupid war... That's the way things happen in the real world, T... As for the AWOL... Bush conviently never been able to prove he completed his service and folks who were there say they they can't reaclll him doing so either... "Heads on a stick" was always a metaphor... You know that... A million dead... Yeah, upwards of a million people have died depending on who is doing the counting... I'm certainly not going to buy into letting the Bush folks be the official counters... They have everything to lose if the real numbers get proven... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 19 Dec 07 - 11:55 PM As Bobert, as usual seems reluctant to answer a perfectly simple question maybe someone else will: Can you explain how the President knew in August the conclusions of a report whose preliminary conclusions were only presented on 15th November to Vice President Cheney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials. And whose final conclusions were only reached on 27th November? Note - Applicable year to all dates/months mentioned above is 2007. Oh and Bobert, Bush going AWOL that's another of your myths. By all means open it up for discussion and I'll bat it down one more time. By the way what ever happened to those "Heads on Sticks on the White House lawn"? or the 3000 Patriot Missiles raining down on Baghdad? And the never to be forgotten 1,000,000 dead Iraqi's who ain't dead at all, Hopkins and the other crowd is it ORB? only thought that they may be dead as a result of batch sampling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 19 Dec 07 - 11:34 PM Now we can just stay they until we've lost 56,000 Americans and then say, ""hey, this ain't workin'..." or we can just say, "This ain't workin'" now and get with gettin the heck out odf the mess we have created but cannot fix... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Dec 07 - 11:12 PM "at least Gore didn't resort to such anti-democratic tactics" Hardly a TOTALLY true statement. Gore was asking for a recount ONLY of those places in FLA where he thought he couldd pick up votes- and FOUGHT AGAINST a recount in the panhandle. Seems that he objected to a total state recount, as well. I think that countrywide there were instances of voter fraud and illegal acts by BOTH parties. Are you sure you want to open up that ball of worms, and get a recount of all the "voting dead" in Chicago? Or are you saying that "anti-republican" tactics are ok? "No, techinally he didn't... " Not sure what this is in reference to- that Bush did NOT lie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 07 - 08:16 PM No, techinally he didn't... He hid behind the UN resolution but was quick to strike when he didn't like Saddam's answers... No evidence other than a lousy track record, bb... Seems thaqt Bush is a lot like the kid who dried "wolf"... Heck, maybe this time he is telling the truth but with his past of lies and misleading statements, he's run out of holes to punch on the credibility punch card... So, ahhhh, I don't believe him and I would guess that between 60% to 70% of Americans wouldn't believe him either... That's why his poll ratings are so low... He has lost whatever trust the American peoploe once had in him... Okay, I'll be the first that I never trusted him... Anyone who pays ggons to dirupt the democartic process ain't all that trustworthy in my book... Not that I was a big Gore fan but at least Gore didn't resort to such anti-democratic tactics... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Dec 07 - 07:32 PM "I not askin' anything more of T-zer than Bush asked of Saddam... " 1. So you think it is ok that Bush asked Saddam? YOU are doing it. So it must be OK for Bush, unless YOU have some special priviledge. 2. Bush actually did NOT ask Saddam to prove a negative- The UNR required Saddam to account for the material that was previously known to be in Saddam's possession. I presume you can now show evidence that Bush had the information before it was decided by the groups working on the NIE???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 07 - 06:26 PM Well, yeah, bb... I not askin' anything more of T-zer than Bush asked of Saddam... See, it ain't no fun 'cept in this case alot of folks ain't gonna get killed... But nevermind that... What Dick has pointed out (again) is that it's not only a dumb quote but, worse than that, the conrenstone of even a dumber foriegn policy position... Bush is blowing it... Heck, Iran, helped US in the aftermath of 9/11... That should have been seen as a diplomatic opportunity to thaw the bad relations between the two countries but Bush, rather than move toward a saner foreign policy went the other direction with his "Axis of Evil" dumbass speech... Every time that Bush has an opportunity to do the right tghing, he does the wrong thing... I'm not a psychologist but I'd say that Bush, at the very least, suffers from a combination of an inferiority complex and a personality disorder... His decisons are so counter-productive... I think he got bullyied and between those memories and his AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard he is now trying to prove that he is a "tough guy"... Problem is that it ain't him and his friends doing the fighting... But yer right, Dick, dumb quote from the little sicko... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: dick greenhaus Date: 19 Dec 07 - 05:32 PM Y'know--I started this thread with a quote: "I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Mr. Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it." The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) "provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community – continue to rally the community to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program," Bush said. The new NIE, made public Monday, said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 partly because of international pressure and scrutiny. Regardless of the truth or falsity of Bush's proclamations, I still think that, in context, it's a pretty dumb quote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 07 - 05:15 PM See my last post for the answer to your question, Barry... Hint: Tr*e B*lie*er |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Dec 07 - 05:09 PM "Can you offer any proof that, other than Bush's words and the story that the intellegence community told other writers at the Post, that proves that there isn't yet another cover-up, T???" Are YOU asking T. to prove a real negative. Bobert????? Can YOU prove that there IS a coverup??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 19 Dec 07 - 05:06 PM When you're living in a world of shit, it doesn't matter anymore who the shit belongs to only who own's the toilet bowl we're living in & when's the next flush coming. The only question I have is why do folks like T & BB keep passing out the toilet paper when Bush keep wiping his ass with the American citizen Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 07 - 04:37 PM Well, yeah, T... I'm sure that the intellegence community didn't want to blindside Bush... It would have been the correct thing to do to bring something of this magnitude to his attention long before going public... That is why intellegence briefing aren't made public in the first place... I don't believe Bush anymore... His credibility long ago went down the toilet... And don't go thinkingg that the intellegence people are much better so, yeah, they are perfectly willing to say whatever they are told to say... They did it during the mad-dash-to-Iraq and they are doing it now... They are afraid of Bush... No, not persoally but as an executive who with alot of help from Cheney has grabbed more power for the executuive branch rhan any president in the last 60 years... But then agin, I understand that you continue to believe the stories because, afterall, you are indeed a loyal "true believer" and that is exactly what "true believers" do... Can you offer any proof that, other than Bush's words and the story that the intellegence community told other writers at the Post, that proves that there isn't yet another cover-up, T??? (Cover-up, Bobert??? Not the Bush folks... How dare you???) Ahhh, let me count the ways... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 19 Dec 07 - 12:21 PM Bobert the full story on whether Bush lied or not: Point 1 - Date 4th December, 2007 Peter Baker and Robin Wright's Dec. 4, 2007 article in the Washington Post entitled "A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy, and I quote: "President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted it nuclear weapons program." Point 2 - Date 4th December, 2007 White House Press Conference Q&A on NIE Report Question: Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to follow on that. When you talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud; then there were no WMD in Iraq. When it came to Iran, you said in October, on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in '03 had already come to light to this administration. So can't you be accused of hyping this threat? And don't you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility? THE PRESIDENT: David, I don't want to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze. Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it's not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered: If they think it's real, then what does it mean? And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public. Point 3 - Date 8th December, 2007 quotes from the Washington Post Dec 8, 2007 article "A futile Quest on Iranian Arms" P A10: "By mid-November, the agencies were ready to deliver their conclusions to the White House. Intelligence officials gave a preliminary breifing Nov. 15 in the Situation room to Vice President Cheney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials. The process was climaxing just as Bush was convening a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, a meeting designed at least in part to rally the region against Iran. No one told the participants about the new information, but on the same day they were gathering in Annapolis on Nov. 27, the National Intelligence Board met to finalize the new NIE. McConnell and others breifed Bush and Cheney the next day. Even though intelligence officials planned to keep it from the public, Bush later that day passed it on to Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert and Cheney told Defense Minister Ehud Barak." Now Bobert, can you explain how the President knew in August the conclusions of a report whose preliminary conclusions were only presented on 15th November to Vice President Cheney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials. And whose final conclusions were only reached on 27th November? It's impossible Bobert, just could not be done, therefore, Peter Baker and Robin Wright's Dec. 4, 2007 article in the Washington Post is wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 07 - 08:49 AM First, T, lets deal with the "Bush lied" portion of your post... Given the touchy nature of the Bush administration where every thing reported in the news that makes them look bad is swiftly countered it is my belief that if this was not true then the Bush team would have been all over the Post for printing it... But the Bush team let it ride... And it wasn't like a story printed on A-17... It was a front page story... As for Blix's statements, I don't deny anything you've said... But I do find fault with not only your assessment that only one sentence in the report was psoitive and I also your assessment that there wasn't enough progrss "on the ground" to justify Bush's rush to invade... Alot of this argument has been been hashed out in that the portion of Iraq's non-cooperation was in their inability to prove that the didn't have what we know know they didn't have... We had this argumnet back then, T, and as it turns out I was on the correct side of that one, unless of course, you know something that no one else knows about stockpiles of WMD's that Iraq possessed... But back to Blix... Seein' as you are of the opinion that I am basing my position on just one sentence, perhaps you might go back thru the report because you are missing alot of it... I have posted at least 3 different paragrahs from it that in themselves would make any thinking person ponder on the wisdom or morality on invading Iraq at the time Busgh pulled the plug on the inspectors... Bottom line, there was enough positives, given the 10 years since the inspectors were last there, for the process to have continued and war be just what Congress intended, a last resort... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 19 Dec 07 - 02:00 AM "Yo, T... Do you have a copy of the report??? You apparently don't or you wouldn't continue to say that Blix did noty make the satement that the Iraqis were cooperating beyond "process"... Meaning, in the field..." OK then Bobert, we'll take you over it once again: Taken directly from the report presented to the UN Security Council on 27th January, 2003, by Dr. Hans Blix: "I turn now, Mr. President, to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access." (English Comprehension lesson for Bobert: Blix states that the co-operation required has two componebts, "substance and process". He goes on to say that "Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process", please note Bobert he says that had "decided in principle", which is a qualification Bobert, he does not state that they have decided to co-operate) "A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course." (2nd English Comprehension lesson for Bobert: Here Blix is stating that on the subject of "substance" the other vital component of the co-operation required from Iraq - they have not even decided in principle to provide co-operation in substance and that a decision to do so is indispensable to the disarmament task) "The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains. Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can." Note those last two sentences Bobert - they weren't there to play "hide-and-seek" - they weren't there to have to look for and find anything, the requirements of 1441 were that Iraq had to come clean on everything and deliver up proof of what they had, or what they had done with it. On the "Bush lied" thing - You cling to your conclusion jumped to because of a sloppy piece of journalism, then state as "proof" that it is correct by stating that the journalists involved have not retracted what they reported. A question Bobert - Have they been asked to? One thing is for certain if GWB had been told that Iran had halted its nuclear programme back in August and then stated in October it was still running, the press and MSM would be all over it like a rash - They are not - Care to explain that? The day after the NIE was published the President was asked point blank about it. He explained exactly what had happened and identified the person who briefed him on what and when. The press and MSM appear to have accepted that explanation - even the ones who wrote the article you have quoted and misinterpreted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Dec 07 - 10:40 PM "And, t, seeing as Baker and Wright haven't retracted their Washington Post report that Bush had been "told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program"..."at least a month or two" before the Oct.17th "WW III" speech I'm going to stick with my source..." Washington Post, December 8, 2007 P A10 "By mid-November, the agencies were ready to deliver thier conclusions to the White House. Intelligence officials gave a preliminary briefing Nov. 15 in the Situation Room to Vice President Chaney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials." From the World News article by Peter Baker and Dafna Linzer, Page A9 "Diving Deep, Unearthing a Surprise" I have the paper copy here at work in Sterling, VA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 18 Dec 07 - 05:11 PM And, t, seeing as Baker and Wright haven't retracted their Washington Post report that Bush had been "told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program"..."at least a month or two" before the Oct.17th "WW III" speech I'm going to stick with my source... I would think that if they didn't have someone on record who told them that then these reporters would ahve been Dan Rathered outtta a job... I sniff yet another scandal here where Bush's folks will invent stories to vover up this latest screw up... Seems that takes about half of your bill of particulars off the table... Maybe 2/3's... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Dec 07 - 05:00 PM "The problem with Bush and his folks is that they spin stuff so much that whatever come outta his mouth is being spun and revised almost as quick as it makes it to the nearest set of ears... Not exactly the most transparent administration... " In fact I agree with this- though I would add that those opposed to Bush are doing as much if not more spinning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Dec 07 - 04:59 PM Seems I've presented far more of what both Hans Blix and several articles from the Post said and all I get proclamations that I am lieing??? Oh that is right - Ubermench Bushbert is always right, even when he is telling a false statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 18 Dec 07 - 04:58 PM My apologies, bb... I finally get it... The way you take other folks stuff and put it in the middle of your posts is a tad hard to keep up with... You didn't quote me, you quoted someone else quoting me... Purdy tricky but I get it... Okay, that one is off the plate... My apologies on that point... But I'm stickin' with the Post story I quoted until the stories get reconciled... The problem with Bush and his folks is that they spin stuff so much that whatever come outta his mouth is being spun and revised almost as quick as it makes it to the nearest set of ears... Not exactly the most transparent administration... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Dec 07 - 04:53 PM "Will you please rstate the time and post where I said these exact words: "Dr. Hans Blix stated the Iraqis were fully cooperating with UNMOVIC", por favor... Oh, I see, now you are saying that I didn't say that... Hmmmmmm??? But then you say you gave me the time and post when I said it, or didn't say it... Can you make up your mind, bruce???" Obviously, you suffer from a lack of comprehension. I WAS QUOTING a post ( which I was replying to, and which I gave YOU the posting information on. You are incapable of stating what ** I ** have said, much less what others here have said, it seems. You seem to insist on making false statements. A. I was not the one saying you had said "Dr. Hans Blix stated the Iraqis were fully cooperating with UNMOVIC" as you accuse me of: I was replying to Frank's comment. B. I have not stated you were OR were not stating that - "Oh, I see, now you are saying that I didn't say that... " is another invalid ( not true to fact) statement. C. I gave the time of the POST I was replying to, with the quoted words - "But then you say you gave me the time and post when I said it, or didn't say it..." is another lie. It seems that you are more interested in making false statements about what others have said or think than in attempting to justify your own statements with any evidence. Perhaps because of the falsehood of those statements? ** I ** don't know WHY you keep telling lies- After all, YOU have stated that you are NOT a liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 18 Dec 07 - 04:43 PM Blah, blah, blah... More od the same crap... Yo, T... Do you have a copy of the report??? You apparently don't or you wouldn't continue to say that Blix did noty make the satement that the Iraqis were cooperating beyond "process"... Meaning, in the field... This, for the 3rd time is what Blix said: "...access has been provided to all sites..." Why is this so difficult for you to grasp??? Let's deal with this one difference and once we have dont that then it is my guess that half of the other list of arguments will evaporate... But we can take them one at a time... Unlike you and bb, I don't have the kind of time to engage in some how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-end-of-a-pin exercise but if you are willing to take 'um one at a time, let's have at it... Now, for starters, in 100 words or less, why is it that you don't belive that Blix said that the Iraqis were providing access to all sites??? Yeah let's start there... Now, as for you, bb... Will you please rstate the time and post where I said these exact words: "Dr. Hans Blix stated the Iraqis were fully cooperating with UNMOVIC", por favor... Oh, I see, now you are saying that I didn't say that... Hmmmmmm??? But then you say you gave me the time and post when I said it, or didn't say it... Can you make up your mind, bruce??? Seems I've quoted both Hans Blix and an article from the Post and all I get proclamations that I am lieing??? You two need to get real jobs... And lives to go with them... You both have way too much time on your hands... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Dec 07 - 02:41 PM " Neither of the usual two suspects have offered any evidence that:" Lie number one- I gave the time and posting THAT I WAS QUOTING FROM. "1.) bb didn't misquote me" Lie number two. The QUOTE from someone else shows that if the point was in error, it was NOT my lie, buit theirs. "2.) that, unlike what the Washington Post has reprorted, that Bush wasn't told that Iran had curtailed it's nuclear-weapons program in 2003... Just the usual smoke and mirrors defense..." As opposed to your outright lies about what was said. For the record... One cannot find one single Bobert quote that reads, "Dr. Hans Bix stated the Iraqis were coopertaing fully with UNMOVIC"... This is what bb said I said..." Except that I was quoting from a previous post by someone else, and I DID NOT STATE YOU had said that. You seem incapable of making a single reply without including at least one lie- so what does that make you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 18 Dec 07 - 02:38 PM Either Bush is a liar or he has really bad timing, depending on whose version of the story you wish to believe. Either way, he has a responsibility to convey the truth and to choose the timing of his words more carefully. Transparency and trust is crucial. Bush has done nothing but instill fear at home and abroad. He has done nothing but create conflict and animosity worldwide. He wanted to be a war president and he is. Trouble is, most people don't want war. I also believe that the difference between whether or not Iraq was co-operating with the process of inspections or whether or not they were co-operating in other ways, is a moot point. If they were co-operating with the process of the inspections, there was no reason to invade. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 18 Dec 07 - 01:53 PM Things that Bobert has got wrong so far on this thread: Bobert - 04 Dec 07 - 05:39 PM "Seems that Bush was told that Iran had curtailed its nuclear program in 2003 *before* he made the speech about Iran and World War III!!! The boy just can't stop telling lies..." Wrong Bobert he wasn't told that Iran had halted its nuclear programme in August 2007, he was only told that new intelligence was being evaluated. Bobert - 05 Dec 07 - 09:25 AM "Bush says that if Iran had a nuke that would be the beginning of WW III... Right???" Wrong again Bobert, go and read what he actually did say. Bobert as GUEST 05 Dec 07 - 06:05 PM "What I have said, which is also backed by yesterdays Washington Post story, is that Bush knew of this new intellegence report before he shot off his mouth about WW III and before he shot off his mouth saying that Iran is "pursuing"... These are the facts of the case... The man lied in saying that Iran "is pursuing" after being told they were not..." Wrong again Bobert on two counts: • what you stated there were not the facts of the case • George W Bush did not lie on 17th October or on 23rd October. He had no idea what the content of the NIE report was in October, he was briefed on that about one month later. Bobert - 05 Dec 07 - 08:24 PM "BB and his bud, t, You all would be better served by actually reading the newspapers..." Wrong again Bobert, exactly the opposite, you would be better served reading source material and taking with a pinch of salt everything that you read in newspapers. Bobert - 13 Dec 07 - 09:10 AM "I made the statement that Dr. Blix said in his report that Iraq was cooperating..." Yes you did Bobert but that statement that you said that you'd made was wrong. It was wrong because Dr.Hans Blix did not say that Iraq was co-operating, he said that they were co-operating with regard to process, there is a huge difference, taken in context with the content of the whole report BLix's remark is a massive qualification on the co-operation being experienced. Bobert - 13 Dec 07 - 07:51 PM "The reality was that the UN didn't want the US to invade and made every effort, including the resolution, to try to slow Bush down... But Bush wasn't to be slowed... Even after Blix said that the Iraqis were cooperating, which would have led to the inspectors not finding anything that was a threat to the US," Once again you incorrectly state that Blix said that the Iraqis were co-operating and infer that due to that co-operation the inspection effort would be successful. What Blix actually said in his report of the 27th January 2003 was exactly the opposite of what you infer above Bobert. Bobert - PM Date: 14 Dec 07 - 08:42 AM "No, bb, it is you who is ignoring facts... I have never once said that Blix's report was all roses... I freely admit that their were still lots of concerns... That is a million times more open minded than you who has never answered the question "What's the hurry" when Blix also stated in his report that the Iraqi's were ***cooperating*** in letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted..." Well then Bobert fact is that it took you rather a long time and a great deal of effort for you to make that statement – go check. The following simply beggars description: "See, my view emcompasses the total report where yours and t's focus only on those things that in you minf justified invading Iraq... This is the problem I have with you and it's the same problem I have with Bush... You seem to draw conclusions from only the facts that you want to focus on... That is why you both make serious errors in judgement... Cherry picking facts or even possible facts and building a foriegn policy around them is ***narrow*** minded and a sure formula for failure..." In this entire discussion you have done nothing but cherry-pick "facts" You have concentrated upon one bloody sentence and the last paragraph of a rather lengthy report which Bruce has put up for you to read in its entirety. Bobert - PM Date: 17 Dec 07 - 07:59 PM "Seems they also are suffering from bad cases of "Gotcha, Bobert"... Problem is that they invent stuff they wished I'd said and then they attack what they wished I'd said... BB, fir instant, says in his 17Dec07 12.01pm post that I "claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iarqis were cooperating fully with UNMOVIC"... Problem here is that I never made that statement the way that bb put it in his post... Lie #1 for bb..." Wrong again Bobert, but what has let you down is your inability to follow a discussion and extremely poor comprehension – Here is BB's post referred to above and I'll walk you through it: beardedbruce - PM Date: 17 Dec 07 - 12:09 PM On WMD 1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003. (Teribus) This is true and has been substantiated for some time." (Stringsinger) Not by anyone capable of reading the text of the Jan 27th report by Blix. "FULLY?????" (beardedbruce) Now then Bobert, your post of 13 Dec 07 - 07:51 PM infers that the Iraqi's were co-operating in such a manner as to guarantee the success of the inspection effort, hence what I stated with regard to what your view of the degree of co-operation was. Now Frank Hamilton (Stringsinger) stated that he clearly believed this to be true and that Iraqi co-operation was a substantiated fact. Beardedbruce then merely voiced his disagreement with what Frank said. In this instance beardedbruce is not lying, or "inventing stuff that you said", he wasn't even addressing you or any specific remark that you made, he was addressing Frank. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 18 Dec 07 - 09:36 AM As per usual... Neither of the usual two suspects have offered any evidence that: 1.) bb didn't misquote me 2.) that, unlike what the Washington Post has reprorted, that Bush wasn't told that Iran had curtailed it's nuclear-weapons program in 2003... Just the usual smoke and mirrors defense... For the record... One cannot find one single Bobert quote that reads, "Dr. Hans Bix stated the Iraqis were coopertaing fully with UNMOVIC"... This is what bb said I said... I have, however, said that Dr. Blix reported that the Iraqi's were cooperating in letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted... That is found in Dr. Blix's Jan. 27th report to the UN... I have actually quoted three different parts of the report but I have never made the statement that bb says I made... This is what I mean, folks... The T&b tag team repeatedly ***invents 'n twists*** what I say to fit their various arguments... Then I am accused of not telling the truth!!?!?!? Like what that all about??? Nevrmind, I'm not a psycho-anaylist... Plus, I gotta go to work... B~ Well, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 18 Dec 07 - 01:12 AM From Bobert: "I have been accused of fabricating (lieing) about what has been reported about whn Bush knew and if Bush knew before his Oct. 13th "WW III" speech or his Oct. 23 "Iran is pursuing" speech... So, from Peter Baker and Robin Wright's Dec. 4, 2007 article in the Washington Post entitled "A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy, and I quote: "President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted it nuclear weapons program." Now you see that is the trouble with believing everything that you read in newspapers. Well Bobert it is normally best to go directly to source material to get what has actually been said by whom and when. Lets go back and take a look at who started accusing people of lying, second post on this thread: Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert - PM Date: 04 Dec 07 - 05:39 PM Yeah, I mentioned something about this on the Maliki thread, Dick... Seems that Bush was told that Iran had curtailed its nuclear program in 2003 *before* he made the speech about Iran and World War III!!! The boy just can't stop telling lies... B Who can't stop telling lies Bobert? You took some inaccurate and shoddy example of journalism and immediately, because of your bias and prejudice, jumped to entirely the wrong conclusion. Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus - PM Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:09 PM He did not "lie" as you put it. When asked specifically about that he said that last August all he been told by his Intelligence Agencies was that there was new information under evaluation. He was not told that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme. Now that came from listening to the source. It can be independently verified as to who was told what and when, and that is what has been pointed out throughout this thread by BB and myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 07 - 11:29 PM Bobert, try to read the post- that was a quote from someone else. " RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stringsinger - PM Date: 16 Dec 07 - 04:13 PM .... On WMD 1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003. This is true and has been substantiated for some time." Problem here is that I never made that statement the way that bb put it in his post... Lie #1 for bb... NOT my lie, so back off. "These folks, especially bb, love to throw out the "lie" word, something that is quite distastefull in any civilized discussion where folks have differnt world views, so I won't continue doen the "L"-path..." Then YOU need to back off the unsupported statements that Bush is lieing whenever he says something YOU don't like- Or are you some kind of special case? And MY quote about when Bush was briefed CAME from the POST NEWS SECTION. SO maybe YOU had best be carefull what you attribute, in terms of intent and actual statements. "But arguing aginst your mythology is getting rather tiresome... Try to keep up with the facts, pleeeeeeze... Is that too much to ask???" I will agree with this- Will you try to keep up with the facts, and NOT state that your mythology has to be true since you want it to be? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 17 Dec 07 - 10:44 PM Aging hippie gets buzzed and blurts out totally incorrect statements, brags about his accuracy, then refuses to fess up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 17 Dec 07 - 07:59 PM Well, well, well... Seems that both bb and T have them a nice little circle jerk between themselves while I was out, ahhhhh, actaully working for a living... But nevermind that... Seems they also are suffering from bad cases of "Gotcha, Bobert"... Problem is that they invent stuff they wished I'd said and then they attack what they wished I'd said... BB, fir instant, says in his 17Dec07 12.01pm post that I "claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iarqis were cooperating fully with UNMOVIC"... Problem here is that I never made that statement the way that bb put it in his post... Lie #1 for bb... And then T'Bird jumps on bb's "FULLY" (sorry folks for the sceaming but I'm just typing it the way the SCREAMERs typed it) so now we have that game where one lie gets passed on and then the other half of the tag team, rather than verify that is exactly what I had said, assumes that his bud is telling the truth and so he just makes up his new argument based on defensing Lie #1... Hmmmmmmmm??? But nevermind that stuff... These folks, especially bb, love to throw out the "lie" word, something that is quite distastefull in any civilized discussion where folks have differnt world views, so I won't continue doen the "L"-path... But let's get to the meat and taters here... It about when Bush knew that Iran had discontinued it's nuclear weapons program.... I have been accused of fabricating (lieing) about what has been reported about whn Bush knew and if Bush knew before his Oct. 13th "WW III" speech or his Oct. 23 "Iran is pursuing" speech... So, from Peter Baker and Robin Wright's Dec. 4, 2007 article in the Washington Post entitled "A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy, and I quote: "President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted it nuclear weapons program." Now if you two, bb and T, want to get into calling folks liars (or telling lies) why not start with the Washington Post writers... Do wither of you have any evidence that these writers lied??? If so, then have at them... I'm sure you would be heros to every Bushite in the land... I mean, folks would put up statues of both of you for exposing that the Washington Post lied... Hey, don't with of you know that Bush has folks that read the Washington Post lloking for innacuracies in reporting??? Why didn't Bush people jump on this one??? Well, don't hurt your heads on this one... It's becasue in spite of the fact that neither of you knotheads wished it weren't rue, apparently it is true... Yeah, you can SCREAM whatever you want... You can misquote me and then argue with the misquotes but... ... you two are shamefull in not keeping up with the real story... I don't know if it's some right winged Bush-blog that has taken over your critical thinking but something sho nuff has... You know, I don't mind debating ideas... I really don't mind debating the facts on the ground... But arguing aginst your mythology is getting rather tiresome... Try to keep up with the facts, pleeeeeeze... Is that too much to ask??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 17 Dec 07 - 06:28 PM The endless iterations of terror by Cheney, Bush, Rice, could well be argued to qualify. They certainly infected a lot of people with fear, if not terror. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Dec 07 - 05:43 PM It must be embarrassing being President and nobody tells you what's going on... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 17 Dec 07 - 02:46 PM Then finally Frank the odds and sods in Part III "the US does have a WMD arsenal, which, since the end of the Second World War they have threatened nobody with." "You have never heard of the Cuban missile crisis? We nearly had WW III. – Frank Hamilton" I remember it very well Frank. And if memory serves correctly wasn't it Soviet Russia that was doing the threatening by parking IRBM's with nuclear warheads off the coast of the USA? "They (the USA) have not signed the nuclear proliferation treaty – Frank Hamilton" Well Frank counter to your wildest fancies, I can state with absolute certainty that United States of America signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on 1st July, 1968 and ratified the Treaty on 5th March, 1970. So by all means Frank dream on, or at least come up with a date when the US renounced the treaty – I take it that you can do that Frank? "Russia and China on the other have always lagged behind, Russia has 50% more operational nuclear weapons than the US and both Russia and China still maintain for use massive quantities of chemical and biological weaponry. Can you explain why you didn't bring all this to our attention, or is this only one more "let's bash the USA" attempt." "I don't know the source for this information but there is no reason to believe that it is true. – Frank Hamilton" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons "I am unaware of any occasion in recent times when the USA has terrorised its own population, perhaps you could enlighten us." "You might consider Blackwater and the National Guard's role in Katrina for one." No, you might consider that people had been terrorised Frank, I wouldn't. "The School of the Americas is far from being shut down. It has a new name now with the acronym WHIMSEC and is very active in supplying help to terrorists in Colombia, and other Central American countries as well as Afghanistan. – Frank Hamilton" Actually its WHINSEC, not WHIMSEC "The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), located at Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia, is the Defense Department's principal Spanish-language training facility for Latin American military and law-enforcement personnel (though some civilians attend as well). It is the successor to the School of the Americas (SOA), a facility established in 1946 and legally closed in 2001." Now Frank says that it is – "very active in supplying help to terrorists" – well here's the make-up of student role for 2004 (latest published figures): Military 633 (64%); Police / Law Enforcement 334 (34%); Civilian 18 (2%) No terrorists mentioned Frank, how come? Few more facts about WHINSEC for you Frank: Section 911 of the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5408) added a new section 2166 to Title 10, U.S. Code (the part of U.S. law that governs the military). The new section repealed the legal authorization for the old School of the Americas and made the following changes. • The Fort Benning facility was renamed the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation." • The renamed institute's official purpose is now "to provide professional education and training to eligible personnel of nations of the Western Hemisphere within the context of the democratic principles set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States ... while fostering mutual knowledge, transparency, confidence, and cooperation among the participating nations and promoting democratic values, respect for human rights, and knowledge and understanding of United States customs and traditions." • Codifying an existing SOA policy, the new law requires that each student receive at least eight hours of instruction in "human rights, the rule of law, due process, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military in a democratic society." • The new law allowed Western Hemisphere civilians and police personnel to attend, and requires that the Secretary of State be consulted in the selection of students. • Courses must focus on leadership development, counter-drug operations, peace support operations, disaster relief, or "any other matter the Secretary [of Defense] deems appropriate." • The new law codified the old SOA's decade-old practice of inviting a "Board of Visitors" to review and evaluate "curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods." A federal committee, the board must include the chairmen and ranking minority members of both houses' Armed Services Committees (or surrogates), the senior Army officer responsible for training (or a surrogate), one person chosen by the Secretary of State, the head of the U.S. Southern command (or a surrogate), and six people chosen by the Secretary of Defense ("including, to the extent practicable, persons from academia and the religious and human rights communities"). The board reviews the institute's curriculum to determine whether it complies with U.S. laws and doctrine, and whether it is consistent with U.S. policy goals toward Latin America and the Caribbean. Within sixty days of its annual meeting, the Board must submit a report to the Secretary of Defense describing its activities and its recommendations. • The law requires a detailed annual report on the institute's activities, which the Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of State, must submit to Congress by March 15 of each year. The sanctions placed on Iraq post signing of the Safwan cease-fire 3rd March 1991 and adoption of UNSC Resolution 687 3rd April, 1991 were the result of lack of Iraqi co-operation with regard to the cease-fire terms and non-compliance with obligations agreed to by Iraq. Frank, in the period you are referring to the many innocent civilians were horribly affected by the predations of their ruler Saddam Hussein who was not affected by the sanctions one jot. Now tell us Frank how many "Presidential Palaces" did he build during this period that could not be inspected by UNSCOM or the IAEA? What was all that fuss about the "Oil-For-Food" Programme? Tell us again just how effective those sanctions were Frank, illegal oil trading? 384 Rocket engines? The UN sanctions Frank were a joke, and that has been clearly proven. Teribus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 17 Dec 07 - 02:40 PM Her's Part II Frank: On WMD 1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003. "This is true and has been substantiated for some time. – Frank Hamilton" Really Frank? Substantiated by who? Look down the thread, both Bruce and myself have quoted the report written, and signed off, by Dr. Hans Blix that completely contradicts the statements made by yourself and Bobert. Perhaps you could likewise come up with a source that clearly states that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully in accordance with the requirements of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. "2. This claim has been disproved from at least two quarters purely by direct quotations from the same report which stated quite clearly that Iraq was not co-operating to the level required by UNSC Resolution 1441 or as claimed by Bobert, i.e. Bobert is knowingly misrepresenting the situation or he is deliberately lying." "No, the lies are coming from the "two quarters" that are not being mentioned. – Frank Hamilton" Huh? Are you trying to tell us that Hans Blix was lying in his own report? The same report that Bobert was quoting? Your comment makes no sense at all. "Iraq was indeed cooperating with 1441 and there was propaganda to insist that Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda which is also incorrect. – Frank Hamilton" Well that is only your opinion Frank and extremely ill-informed opinion at that. The reference to Al Qaeda is somewhat baffling as it bears no relation to anything being discussed. "3. On the "Prove a negative" aspect, BB has laid it out very well: - Iraq was asked to submit a full declaration of what they had. - UNSCOM/UNMOVIC have purchase orders, shipping records, import licences, manufacturing records, munitions records, disposal records. - The Iraqis claim to have disposed of, or unilaterally destroyed it all." "It was in Bush's interest to ignore this claim because he had intended to go to war with Iraq even prior to his election so that he could gain "political capital" according to his own statements. – Frank Hamilton" Utter hogwash Frank, "he had intended to go to war with Iraq even prior to his election" ludicrous. Neither George W. Bush, or any member of his Administration, were part of the evaluation made by UNSCOM in 1998 and UNMOVIC in 2003 "- UNMOVIC point out that the Iraq disposal records do not accord with the amounts manufactured, that there is a shortfall that needs to be explained, to which the Iraqis offer no explanation." "The US supplied Iraq with these nuclear materials at the time of the war with Iran. – Frank Hamilton" This of course is as factual as the US no longer being a signatory to the Nuclear NPT. Tell us what nuclear materials the US supplied Iraq with during the war with Iran, could you also tell us exactly what use they would have been to the Iraqi's at that time Frank? Any idea why they weren't used Frank? "The shortfall has been addressed by some who claim that they were sold on the black market." What was sold/disposed of on the "black-market" Frank? Those nuclear materials that the US didn't supply Iraq with? Now if as those "some" said they had been sold, the "some" could also detail what was sold, to whom and when, couldn't they Frank? Especially if Iraq was co-operating fully with UNMOVIC as both you and Bobert claim. But they didn't did they Frank? Which, oddly enough Frank, was exactly Dr. Blix's point in his report of the 27th January 2003. "It wouldn't have mattered one bit what explanation the Iraqis offered because Bush's plans were already in place to invade Iraq. – Frank Hamilton" Nothing whatsoever to do with Bush, Frank, at the point we are talking about it was a matter between the Iraqi Authorities and the United Nations UNMOVIC Inspectors, the USA didn't even enter the equation. " If unilaterally destroyed outwith the supervision of the UN there would be traces found at the disposal sites, none were found, surely the Iraqis would know where they had destroyed these items?" "They were destroyed under UN supervision. Pure and simple. – Frank Hamilton" What is evident "Pure and simple" Frank is that you have read nothing written by Dr. Hans Blix in all his time as head of UNMOVIC. It is obvious that you have not read the terms/requirements of 1441, otherwise there is absolutely no way that you would have come up with that ridiculous statement. If they had been destroyed under UN supervision I would at least have expected the good Dr., or one of his inspectors to mention it at some point or other - once again they didn't. "4. That France stated quite categorically that it would allow no "second resolution" that presented Saddam Hussein with an ultimatum to be tabled. This in effect eliminated the UN from the process of resolving what the USA and the UK saw as the clear threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the peace and security of the region." "Only Bush and Blair were under the misapprehension that there was a clear threat. – Frank Hamilton" Again your opinion Frank, not many Kuwaiti's, or others in the region would share it. "5. Faced with the prospect of Saddam, supported internationally by France, Russia and China, playing the same old game he had successfully employed between 1991 and 1998, the US acted, they gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to quit and avoid the coming war. Saddam refused the offer and suffered the consequences." "This is patently false information. Saddam was never unilaterally supported by France, Russia or China. – Frank Hamilton" Really Frank? Patently false information? Well tell us Frank, the Iraqi Republican Guard, what equipped their armoured formations? Russian T-72 tanks weren't they Frank? Between Russia/France/China you have the trading partners who for the some thirty years supplied Saddam Hussein with 93.4% of all his arms. Take a look at the list of currently active oil related contracts in Iraq Frank and tell us how many pre-date the March 2003 invasion and how many are held by Russian/French/Chinese Oil Companies. "As to playing any game, of course he (Saddam) was not to be trusted. – Frank Hamilton" "Of course Saddam was not to be trusted", yet he posed no threat? Bit of a contradiction there Frank. "Conclusion #2: It would appear that Bobert is 100% wrong about his claims relating to Iraqi compliance with UNSC Resolutions." "No, not enough legitimate evidence has been presented to support this claim. These speculative enumerations are based on hypothesis, not fact and reflect the opinion of the writer. – Frank Hamilton" Well in that case Frank the writer you are talking about is Dr. Hans Blix, which of course you would have realized if you had actually bothered to read his reports and terms of reference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 17 Dec 07 - 02:29 PM Frank regarding your last post, My response: "2. While the President was informed about the a new intelligence source in August 2007 he was not told what that information was because at that time it had not been fully analysed and evaluated." "How in the world would you know this? – Frank Hamilton" Please refer to the White House Press Conference of 4th December, 2007. Here is the relevant question and the answer given: Question: Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to follow on that. When you talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud; then there were no WMD in Iraq. When it came to Iran, you said in October, on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in '03 had already come to light to this administration. So can't you be accused of hyping this threat? And don't you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility? THE PRESIDENT: David, I don't want to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze. Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it's not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered: If they think it's real, then what does it mean? And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public. So Frank that would have meant that the President was not made aware of the content and considered evaluation of America's intelligence community until sometime during Week 48. Bobert's contention was that the President knew in Week 42 but that is based upon Bobert's unsubstantiated opinion only, he offers nothing to back it up. "3. From 1 & 2 above it is clear that when the President made his remarks on 23 October he was not aware that his intelligence services evaluation was leading them to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear weapons programme had been halted. So when he made his remarks on 23rd October he could not have been lying as Bobert claims." So counter to what you have said - what is stated above is accurate and is based on verifiable information. "4. The President was informed with regard to the analysis and evaluation of the new information roughly one week before the NIE was made public, i.e. long after 23rd October." "Bush probably knew about the information long before then – Frank Hamilton." Now that is a perfect example of pure unsubstantiated opinion Frank. Care to enlighten us on exactly how on earth you could possibly "know this to be the case". Just because the likes of yourself and Bobert want to believe it does not make it necessarily true. The President at the Press Conference on 4th December, 2007, was asked a question and identified the advisor who can verify the following: 1. When in Week 42 the President was informed that new intelligence had been received and was under evaluation. 2. Can confirm that detail relating to the subject matter of the new intelligence was not passed to the President. 3. When analysis and evaluation of the new intelligence was completed 4. When the NIE was completed and approved for publication 5. When in Week 48 the President was briefed on the content of the NIE. 5. Has the Iranian nuclear weapons programme been abandoned or renounced? No it has not; there has been no clear statement from Tehran on this. Nobody outside of Iran knows anything for certain about the status and aims of their nuclear programme. Recent reports suggest that it was restarted in 2004, so there is even uncertainty as to whether at the moment it has been halted or not. "Not much uncertainty. Only an agenda that would like to be accusatory to Iran and have an excuse to bomb them. – Frank Hamilton" So there is not much uncertainty Frank? Again solely your opinion, which I am supposed to take as fact? Well Frank, please forgive me if I pass on that. Those who voice concern over the uncertainty that I mentioned include the authors of the NIE themselves, the IAEA and the same Iranian dissident group that blew the whistle on Iran's secret uranium enrichment facilities. Now certainly with regard to the first two bodies mentioned there I would defer to their greater knowledge and experience on the subject than such as yourself and Bobert. 6. If the Iranian nuclear weapons programme has in fact been halted, does it still pose a threat? "Not really. There is more of a threat from North Korea or Pakistan. – Frank Hamilton" Correct me if I am wrong Frank but isn't North Korea in the process of disarming, having publicly renounced its nuclear weapons programme? If that is so what threat do they pose Frank? Pakistan? A threat? To whom Frank? Now maybe you can explain why a country who did sign up to the NPT in order to gain access to the information and assistance required to establish a nuclear programme and then flagrantly disregarded the conditions of that treaty to construct massive uranium enrichment facilities in secret can be discounted so readily as "not posing a threat"? Or is this only Frank Hamilton's baseless and unfounded opinion? "The US and Israel are not now signatories to the NPT and Iran is. – Frank Hamilton" Can you tell us when the US withdrew from the NPT Frank? According all sources I have looked up the US is still very much a fully signed up party to that Treaty. Israel on the other hand Frank has never been a signatory but Israel started her nuclear programme in 1958, ten years before Ireland first proposed the NPT in 1968. "Conclusion #1 It would appear that Bobert was 100% wrong with regard to the World War III jibe and the "Bobert fact" that the President lied." "There is no evidence here to support that claim. – Frank Hamilton" On the contrary Frank, I think that there is rather a great deal of evidence to support the above conclusion. Perhaps you and Bobert should start coming up with some form of evidence that can be substantiated as opposed to what can clearly be seen as your own baseless unfounded opinions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 07 - 12:56 PM "The US is not immune from dispensing terror when it serves the needs of those of the Bush Adminstration and their agenda." "Bush administration" "The assasination of Castro and of Chavez ..." "the role of the CIA as was the deposition of Allende in Chile." Hmmm... |
