BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 04:19 PM

Why did the President of the United States of America, with the aid of his entire Administration embark on a "Propaganda Campaign" to convince the people of the United States of America that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government had something to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001 after having clearly stated on numerous occasions that they had nothing whatsoever to do with those attacks.

"Objection -- nay, make that 'objections' -- your honour. Counsel is testifying, and 'asked and answered'".

Da judge: "Sustained".

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 08:35 AM

Can't speak for Ron, but the answer is easy:

MID-TERM ELECTIONS!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 08:33 AM

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 11:46 PM

Ron Davies - 15 Dec 05 - 08:11 PM

"I don't think any sane person still asserts that WMD's were found in Iraq. Of course, that may or may not include Teribus."

Irrelevant Ron the object of the exercise after all was to establish beyond doubt that Iraq DID NOT possess any WMD, not to prove that they did - please read the UNSCOM Report of January 1999.

"I'd still, however, like Teribus to explain just what Cheney meant by his 8 Sept 2002 statement that since his clear statement-- on 16 Sept 2001-- that there was no evidence tying Saddam to 9-11, as of 8 Sept 2002 "new evidence has come to light"."

Previously explained Ron, take the trouble and go back and read it. New evidence had come to light, it was under evaluation and was unconfirmed, and the Vice-President clearly stated that, it was the subject of debate which was why the Vice-President of the United States of America was NOT going to comment on it, it was why the Vice-President of the United States of America was careful in the way he answered that question.

Now come along Ron, you seem to be fairly rational - Just answer my question - you have singularly avoided it so far - and believe me it is not going to go away, so you might as well go for it now.

Why did the President of the United States of America, with the aid of his entire Administration embark on a "Propaganda Campaign" to convince the people of the United States of America that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government had something to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001 after having clearly stated on numerous occasions that they had nothing whatsoever to do with those attacks.

That's the question Ron now please just bloody well answer it!!!

Now come on Ron that is the line of complete and utter twaddle you are hawking so come on explain your point of view without addressing me or my views - after all you believe this to be true, I have no part in it - So please just present your case.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 11:30 PM

Yes, "Bad Intel", not "US sets up police station in Middle East to ensure USA has access to oil supplies / stabalise oil prices"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 08:11 PM

I don't think any sane person still asserts that WMD's were found in Iraq. Of course, that may or may not include Teribus.

I'd still, however, like Teribus to explain just what Cheney meant by his 8 Sept 2002 statement that since his clear statement-- on 16 Sept 2001-- that there was no evidence tying Saddam to 9-11, as of 8 Sept 2002 "new evidence has come to light".

If all Cheney meant to do in 2002 was reiterate that, just as in 2001, there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11, why mention "new evidence" that had "come to light" at all?

Also, I hope Teribus has paid a visit to his local library to learn about propaganda and also signed up for an elementary "civics" class, as it's called in the US. I refer to his brilliant observation that the general (US) populace has "no say in the matter" of whether the US goes to war or not.

In fact, the "general populace" had to be convinced, lest they toss out their elected representatives at the first opportunity for voting to give authority to Mr. Bush to go to war without a fig-leaf of justification.

What you do in Bush's situation--( in a democratic country)--is mislead the electorate to they will OK their legislators' decision to support you. I suspect you may have heard this before.

That is exactly what Bush did. He admits now the intelligence on which he made the push to sell the invasion of Iraq was faulty --(try reading at least a few recent headlines, Teribus, if you read nothing else).

The only question remaining is whether he misled the US public intentionally or from incompetence.

By the way, for the record, I'm utterly convinced, despite Teribus' serious financial problems and the fact that he has been seen with known arsonists, that he is not guilty of arson in the burning of his house.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy's Mother
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 05:17 PM

I want you stupid people to know that my son has been hospitalized because of you! That's right! He has been consumed by this endless and pointless wrangle that you are all raving on about daily...to the point where he was not eating, sleeping, washing, or really doing anything productive. He finally collapsed at the computer, gibbering madly. I was informed by his neighbours in the rooming house, and called for an ambulance. I hold all of you responsible. I hold the fool who started this thread responsible. I hold the CIA responsible. I hold George Bush responsible for lying and I hold Cheney responsible. Most of all I hold Teribus responsible. You, sir, are either a lunatic, a complete fool, or a paid government propaganda agent. My only son may have had his mind permanently unhinged by the inability of you people to shut up! I hope you all fall prey to some loathsome disease.

And may I add: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq! Now shut up and go away!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 04:13 PM

And in other news, Dubya announced a new person to oversee the Iraq situation and hopefully make some changes to whip that sorry mess into a little less of a fiasco and a hell-hole. The name: Condi Rice.

She takes over this task from the person that headed up the "Iraq Stabilization Group" appointed in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. Person by the name of ...... *ta-da* ...... Condi Rice. You know, common sense: When you're in a hole, stop digging....

As I said, Teribus, both you and the person whose hind teat you're sucking on seem to be enamoured with the alway-successful "SOS repeated ad nauseam" tactic.

And the cost of Iraq? A quarter of a trillion dollars ... and over two thousand U.S. soldiers dead (most of them since Condi stepped up to the plate).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 01:31 PM

To the idiot who started this thread--the stupid idiot:

Bush admits to bad intelligence on Iraq WMDs

AM - Thursday, 15 December , 2005 08:24:00
Reporter: Michael Rowland
TONY EASTLEY: US President George W. Bush, has accepted responsibility for using what turned out to be faulty intelligence to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Even Bush disagrees with you, ya stunned fool.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 01:20 PM

Tim Russert: Well, Bobert, do you have any undenialble evidence that Teribus fools around with young boys???

Bobert: No.

............1 year later.............

Tim Russert: Given the allegations by many folks that Teribus has had and continues to have relationships witrh young boys is there no any additional evidence that might indicate that Teribus has relationships with young boys?

Bobert: Well, Tim, let me be very careful in answering your question about the alledged relationship between Teribus and young boys. While there is a strong possibility that Teribus indeed is having realtionships with young boys we have no additional evidence at this point in time...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

See, T, words can do some very tricky things... Given the number of folks that got the distinct impression that Iraq was tied to 9/11 and the terrorists, I think if can safely beargued that this many folks didn't just dream this link up...

The examples I gave earlier and the ones above parallel the kind of PR campaign that the Bush folks used to sell the war in Iraq... If you strip the quotes down, yeah, it can be argued that Bush, and the boys and girl, didn't use the word "evidence" in staking out the claim. They din't need to. They had a slick PR team craft the wording... Just as I have crafted the wording about the "relationship between you and young boys"...

Now, iof I have a team of folks oput in the field with cameras and mics in front of them all saying things much like I have used as examples then it won't be long before yer neighbors start looking at you funny and scurrying thei kids away from you when they see you walking their way...

This is exactly what Bush did...

If you wish to contune to stake a claim that this didn't occurm it is you who will need to drive your claim stake into the head of the pin...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:30 PM

BTW, today's assignment: Tell us the REAL purpose of WHIG (since it was clearly not to "sell the war"). You will get extra credit if you can explain how the timing of its formation and its early activities were entirely unrelated to the US mid-term elections. Five hundred words or more pleas.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:08 PM

There's a very good reason that many of us have given you, and you have casually (and quite naively) dismissed out of hand, so we'll call it a draw.

And yes, Americans are easily led. That is why 70% of Fox News viewers believe that Saddam was behind 9/11... Despite Dick Cheney's vigorous and valiant attempts to disabuse them of this ridiculous notion, right Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 11:56 AM

So neither of you can come up with a plausible reason why the big-bad-Bush Administration had to sell the war, and mount a propaganda campaign to do it.

By the bye Ron, I have already given my take on Dick Cheney's responses in an earlier post.

Waffle on all you like - within days of 911, members of the Bush Administration clearly stated that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had NOTHING to do with it - Oh Dear I've mentioned 911, Saddam Hussein and Iraq in one sentence!!!! That means that I must actually believe that they organised the whole thing - NOT!!! Are all you Americans that easily led, I somehow do not think so.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 12:07 AM

OK Teribus--

You were going to tell us what "new information has come to light" (Cheney 8 Sept 2002) means to you.

Do you think you can take time out from your busy schedule of stocking the lake with red herring to answer the question?


Now, don't forget to be creative. After all, you stand to win another award--this one a plaque of a blind Mudcatter--in recognition of your wilful blindness. It'll look great next to your other awards--for sophistry and for creative interpretations of foreign policy--that last one, you recall, you won for your idea that Bush's invasion of Iraq was just taking direction from Clinton--truly an imaginative stroke.

So, do you think Cheney was just being his garrulous and charming self--and instead of talking about DC's chances for a baseball team, decided on the spur of the moment to talk instead about Atta's supposed meeting in Prague? Just the luck of the draw, right? Cheney had just read US News and World Report and felt like discussing geopolitical issues. If he'd read Better Homes and Gardens he might have given us his recipe for Cajun chicken instead, right?

Sure is fascinating that your chosen quote from 8 Sept 2002 is "Well, I want to be careful about how I say this. I'm not here to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that."

But somehow you left out what he said directly after that.

Which undercut--badly--the supposedly clear statement you love to quote.

You really need--in the worst way--to visit your local library to read some history and psychology--to find out how propaganda works.

You obviously have no clue.

What about your oh-so-earnest concern with context? Somehow you don't seem to care about context here.

Like TIA, I have a modest imitation of Cheney's style. Perhaps you can begin to learn about propaganda by reading it.



Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Teribus somehow was responsible for his own house burning down. I can't say that.

On the other hand, new information has come to light. And there has been reporting that suggests Teribus had extremely serious financial difficulties. We've seen Teribus talking to known arsonists. And we have reporting that places him in a hardware store, a place where inflammable liquid has been sold, a few days before the house burned.


Are you beginning to see?

It's easy.


Again, so sorry about your shattered ego.

Next time, test the strength of the branch before you crawl out on it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 04:51 PM

Teribus says: *** ummmm... -- nothing new, nothing different, nothing responsive, and nothing evincing even the slightest whiff of sapience ***

OK.

When's the "tin whistle" calendar coming out (says Arne with a SEG; he plays a hammered dulcimer plenty big enough to cover any embarrassing bulges of any kind...)

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 03:37 PM

"selling"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 03:36 PM

You won't listen to Arne's answer anyhow, so why don't we ask Andrew Card who he was referring to when he talked about sellng the war?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 03:21 PM

Arne Langsetmo Reveals All:

Arne - 14 Dec 05 - 02:02 PM

Teribus:

"You're quite right that it was Russert that framed the question. But it was Cheney that answered that question."

So you want the world and it's dog to believe that it is all a great big conspiracy - I never would have guessed, how amazing - well no, not really, just the same old Arne Langsetmo crap, rather poorly presented.

While you were tying yourself in knots explaining away the 16th September 2001 quote, you selectively ignored the one given on 8th September 2002. Still no doubt a Conspiracy Theorist of your calibre will come up with something or other - all of it equally preposterous.

So we now have Arne intimating that:

1. MSNBC and their Programme "Meet the Press" is under the direct control of the Bush Administration and that all "interviews" with members of the Bush Administration are "fixed" to further the cause of "The Propaganda Campaign That Never Was".

2. Still no explanation as to why the propaganda campaign has to be run - like who do they have to convince? You rather weakly churn out, the usual anti-war, anti-Bush, left-wing crap - "To sell the freakin' war" - Who to? As I stated earlier - The general populace, why they have no say in the matter - Congress, no need it was their committee that identified, assessed and evaluated Iraq as a threat - The UN in general, they like the population of the US have no say in the matter, and will do what their own Governments tell them to do - The UN Security Council Members, no point they will vote as directed by their Governments. So exactly who were they selling "the freakin' war" to Arne?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 02:02 PM

Teribus:

Now for what Arne says, in his post of 13 Dec 05 - 09:15 PM, to hold water Russert's questions, down to the exact wording of the those questions, would have to have been supplied by Dick Cheney. I don't see MSNBC and "Meet the Press" operating that way, does anybody else.

No. But I can't be held responsible for your difficulties in logic.
You're quite right that it was Russert that framed the question. But it was Cheney that answered that question. You may argue that Cheney intended to answer a different question, but the facts, as they are, are that the question he asnwered was the one asked.

I'd be glad to agree that Cheney didn't answer a different question: "... was [there] any linkage between Saddam Hussein/Iraq to the 911 attacks?" And the answer to this, never being asked, was not "an unequivocal no" (which, BTW, means that you're a lying sack'o'shite'). You're back to square one, Teribus (which, to be honest, you've been at for weeks now): You haven't provided a single quote where the maladministration has denied the existence of any links between Saddam and al Qaeda (or even between Saddam and 9/11).

... what we were reliabley informed by Ron Davies was that no statement was made by GWB, Dick Cheney, or any member of the Bush Administration in the period mid summer 2002 to March 2003, to the effect that there was no link between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 911 - I have clearly shown that two such statements were broadcast during that period - That is Fact, learn to live with it.

Nope. Zero. Zilch. Nada. When you find such a quote, feel free to proffer it. But keep in mind my previous point: Even if they had done such (which they haven't), it still doesn't refute the charge that they did indeed attempt to link Saddam and al Qaeda (and even the 9/11 attacks). As I pointed out (and as you also ignored), there's no requirement (unfortunately) that the maladministration act honestly, consistently, or logically; they are quite capable of talking out of both sides of their mouths, and even the quotes that you have posted from Cheney, talking about the alleged meeting between Atta and the senior Iraqi official, did precisely that (not to mention the repeated conflating of 9/11 and Iraq, and terrorism and Iraq). And as we now are finding out, the maladministration's claims of Saddam running a training camp for terrorists was another pile'o'crap, and known to be so by the intelligence community, which was ignored by the maladministration as studiously as you're ignoring obvious facts here yourself.

Neither yourself or Ron have explained why in the period selected by Ron that the US Administration would have to mount a propaganda campaign.

Yes, we have. To "sell" the friggin' war. See, e.g., Andrew Card's unintentionally revelaing comment about bringing out new "products" in August.

The remains of your tripe is the SOS rewarmed -- what is it up to now? -- a fifth time? Not to mention an example of precisely the type of "quote mining" you accuse others of doing, when you so carefully leave off what Cheney said right after that denial of intent to make "specific" accusations.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 11:51 AM

Now for what Arne says, in his post of 13 Dec 05 - 09:15 PM, to hold water Russert's questions, down to the exact wording of the those questions, would have to have been supplied by Dick Cheney. I don't see MSNBC and "Meet the Press" operating that way, does anybody else.

Arne you are wriggling, dancing on the head of a pin, what we were reliabley informed by Ron Davies was that no statement was made by GWB, Dick Cheney, or any member of the Bush Administration in the period mid summer 2002 to March 2003, to the effect that there was no link between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 911 - I have clearly shown that two such statements were broadcast during that period - That is Fact, learn to live with it.

GWB and his administration had no editorial control over the programme.

Neither yourself or Ron have explained why in the period selected by Ron that the US Administration would have to mount a propaganda campaign.

1. Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
Cheney: "No."

2. Russert: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
   
Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that.

As I said it's pretty clear to me, apparently not to Arne and some others, but if need be we'll go over the helicopter'n'no-fly zone routine with Arne one more time, eventually it will sink in.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 09:15 PM

Teribus:

Ron, TIA way back on the 16th September 2001 the man was asked if there was any linkage between Saddam Hussein/Iraq to the 911 attacks. His answer to that question at that time was an unequivocal no.

Horsepuckey. From your post:

Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
Cheney: "No."

He was asked if there was any "evidence". And he said "no". That is to say, no evidence of such a linkage (and at that, evidence of the more specific linkage to the 9/11 attacks, not the more general linkage of Saddam to al Qaeda in general). I pointed this all out to you before. I pointed out the word "evidence". I pointed out the denial of evidence of the more specific allegation. I pointed out that Cheney didn't volunteer this, and that his one-word "no" was hardly a resounding statement that there was no link, despite your continuing attempts to portray this comment as such. Of course, you ignored this, and continued with your standard blathering....

Almost one year later the man is reminded of that question and is asked if his opinion has changed, to which he replies, "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that."

Yeah, and what did he say right after that???

Covered above in my post. Which you also ignored.

The context of the statements clearly indicates that in the course of that interview Dick Cheney on two occasions stated quite categorically that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had absolutely nothing whatsover to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001.

Nonsense. Nothing "categorical[]" about it. Nothing about "nothing whatsoever to do with...." In fact, instead he went on to talk about the head 9/11 hijacker, Atta, (supposedly) meeting with a high Iraqi intelligence agent in the months before the attack. Also covered in previous posts. Which you also ignored.

Your boat has sunk, Teribus. And rusted. And is barnacle-encrusted.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 06:54 PM

"Now I can't confirm that Teribus has been seen in the company of young boys..."

"When one thinks of Teribus one might also think of unthinkable things that some grown men do with young boys..."

"Well, young boys and Teribus go somewaht hand in hand"

Now, where have I accused T of anything here? I haven't, but if I get everyone in Mudville to make satements similar to the ones that I pulled out of the air then after a while T is "guilty" in most folks minds...

This is what the Bush folks have done... They insinuate, they infere and then when they are caught at their game, they deny it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 06:39 PM

TIA - 13 Dec 05 - 02:51 PM

"I will answer with a simple NO. Oh he certainly said it. But note that it is a sentence that contains both the word "Iraq" and the phrase "9/11". And THAT is the whole point. You are the one who has (quite correctly) railed about the context of statements. what does the context of this statement tell you?"

Ron Davies - 13 Dec 05 - 03:10 PM

"please, Teribus, check the parallel between TIA's statement and Cheney's 8 Sept 2002 language--at issue here."

Ron, TIA way back on the 16th September 2001 the man was asked if there was any linkage between Saddam Hussein/Iraq to the 911 attacks. His answer to that question at that time was an unequivocal no. Almost one year later the man is reminded of that question and is asked if his opinion has changed, to which he replies, "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that."

The context of the statements clearly indicates that in the course of that interview Dick Cheney on two occasions stated quite categorically that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had absolutely nothing whatsover to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001.

Now TIA I believe that if you were asked if there was a link between A and B in relation to situation, or circumstance, C, then you would have a bloody hard time providing a meaningful answer without referring to A, B & C if not in the same sentence, certainly within the same paragraph.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 03:11 PM

Teribus:

Arne, Ron,

Do you deny that the Vice-President of the United States of America said the following on the 8th September 2002:

"I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that."

It requires a simple yes, or no,answer.

Are you hard of reading, Teribus? You certainly seem to be, seeing as I included that particular quote here:

From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo - PM
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 02:37 PM

So the answer to your ignorant and irrelevant question is "no".

I responded to this quote there in that previous post, and have pointed out that while Cheney says (ala "Brutus is an honourable man") he's not there to make a "specific allegation", he sure as h*** doesn't want to specifically deny any connection (nor does he do such, as was explained to you when I posted more of what Cheney said.

Yet you continue to ignore the fact that a single instance where the maladministration tries to tie the two together is sufficient proof that they did in fact do so (no matter how many quotes to the contrary), and you ignore the fact that not a single maladministration pronouncement (including the ones you've proffered) actually denies that there was any Saddam-al Qaeda or Saddam-9/11 connection.

So now you (and the lurkers such as Mirsy) can see why I accuse you of proffering the same ol' tripe over and over, and why I accuse you of failing to respond to what I have said.

Now about those calendars.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 03:10 PM

Calling somebody "dense" might also offend. And we always try to keep our discussions free of all emotional language and hurtful speech.

But, please, Teribus, check the parallel between TIA's statement and Cheney's 8 Sept 2002 language--at issue here.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 02:58 PM

No indeed. That might offend.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 02:57 PM

You're right, TIA, we'd never want to say that.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 02:51 PM

I will answer with a simple NO. Oh he certainly said it. But note that it is a sentence that contains both the word "Iraq" and the phrase "9/11". And THAT is the whole point. You are the one who has (quite correctly) railed about the context of statements. what does the context of this statement tell you?


Now, I am not here today make the specific allegation that Teribus is being exceptionally literal to the point of imbecility. I cannot say that I have conclusive evidence that he is completely unable to understand the meaning of a statement.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 02:30 PM

Teribus-

You are just amazingly dense--you set new standards with every post.

What do you suppose "new information has come to light" means? (Which Cheney then details in a catalogue you yourself quoted?)

If he meant to say there was no connection between Saddam and 11 September 2001, why say anything but precisely that?--the catalogue was entirely unnecessary.

Unless of course he did mean to muddy the water--and in fact raise-- many--possible connections between Saddam and 11 September.

Which, as I've said ad nauseam is part of the propaganda campaign.

Read the paragraph starting with the "new information has come to light" sentence--carefully, for once in your Mudcat existence.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 11:16 AM

Arne, Ron,

Do you deny that the Vice-President of the United States of America said the following on the 8th September 2002:

"I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that."

It requires a simple yes, or no,answer.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 10:28 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
        
Last Updated: Wednesday, 7 July, 2004, 04:39 GMT 05:39 UK

US reveals Iraq nuclear operation
US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham
Abraham called the operation a "major achievement"
The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.

"This operation was a major achievement," said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.

He said it would keep "potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists".

Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.

The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department's secret laboratories.

It was flown out of the country aboard a military plane in a joint operation with the Department of Defense, and is being stored temporarily at a Department of Energy facility.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog - the International Atomic Energy Agency - and Iraqi officials were informed ahead of the operation, which happened ahead of the 28 June handover of sovereignty.

'Dirty bomb'?

The explosion of a so-called "dirty bomb" in a city by a terrorist group is a major concern of Western intelligence agencies.

Rather than causing a nuclear explosion, a "dirty bomb" would see radioactive material combined with a conventional explosive - probably causing widespread panic and requiring a large clean-up operation.

US troops look down on the facility at al Tuwaitha
Iraq's biggest nuclear complex was the Tuwaitha site south of Baghdad

Uranium would not be suitable for fashioning such a device, though appropriate material may have been among the other unidentified "sources".

Mr Abraham added that the operation had also prevented the material falling into the hands "of countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons".

The 1,000 "sources" evacuated in the Iraqi operation included a "huge range" of radioactive items used for medical purposes and industrial purposes, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration told AP news agency.

Bryan Wilkes said much of the material was "in powdered form, which is easily dispersed".

The IAEA has been among organisations which have warned that many countries have lost track of radioactive material.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 09:01 PM

Well, Teribus -- strangely surprised that the fourth (or so) repetition of the same tired quotes and illogic hasn't managed to convince and convert the sceptics here -- thinks that yet another rewarming of the SOS here will do the trick. To which, much to the dismay of Mirsy here, I can only say that what I have previously said in response to Teribus's twaddle still remains unaddressed and undisputed. Teribus simply sees it as his duty to continue micturating against the prevailing air flow....

Until such time as that situation changes, can we discuss the calendars?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 08:28 PM

Well, Mirsy, you got yer man in T-Bore... I heard that he loves the sound of his own voice so much that he sets his alarm for 2:00 am, gets up, walks into the bathroom, looks himself in the mirror and talks to himself fir a half an hour before returning to bed... Hey, not that I have first hand knowledge but that's word on the street...

But that's the problem every time I ask him about if Saddam was the problem why Bush didn't just have Saddam killed... He reponds but make me fall asleep before I get to the answer...

Seems to be the T-MO... Bore the competition into submission....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 07:47 PM

To the contrary, nothing short of 500 words would do that question full justice! At the very least. The strong, silent type is not what we need here, Bobert. We need someone who is not afraid to keep talking LONG after everyone else has left the room.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 07:44 PM

So NOW we are expected to believe the consumate pathological LIAR, Dick Cheney, T?

Great source, pal...

...NOT!!!

You are graspin' a straws, T-Grasper.... Nuthin' but straws...

Ahhhh, BTW, how many WMD's were found in Iraq today other than the ones owned and controlled by the occupiers???

And just fir the record, why again is it that Saddam wasn't offed??? (In 50 words or less, please...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 07:34 PM

Aha! I knew it wasn't over yet. I am all ears (so to speak). I sit with pad in hand, making notes and keeping score. I am well stocked up on dried food and water and am prepared to hang in there for the next 6 months, if necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 07:20 PM

The period of "The Bush Propaganda Campaign That Never Was"

According to Ron this was the period mid 2002 to March 2003

From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press (Date falls within Ron's stipulated period). What is quoted below was "Said"/"Aired"/Broadcast/"Could be heard" within the US on 8th September 2002:
   
RUSSERT: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:"
   
RUSSERT on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
   
CHENEY: "No." (- Now Ron it is fairly clear that the Vice President does not believe that Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi's were linked to the 911 attacks and the viewers, listeners heard him say that on 8th September 2002)
   
RUSSERT: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
   
CHENEY: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that.

(- Now Ron it is fairly clear that the Vice President does not believe that Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi's were linked to the 911 attacks and the viewers, listeners heard him say that "live" on 8th September 2002)

On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did APPARENTLY travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have REPORTING that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business."

(-OK Ron where is he planting the seeds in everyones mind?:
- Pretty obvious they'd look at possible Al-Qaeda/Iraq connections, US intelligence had been looking at those for almost a decade at this stage.
- Refers to the possibility that Atta "APPARENTLY" travelled to Prague (Note the use of "apparently")
- Refers to reports that "places him" in Prague with (at the same time as? actually in the company of? could mean either) a senior Iraqi intelligence official
- Refers to the fact that all of this was the subject of debate (i.e. differing opinion, as yet unresolved)
   
RUSSERT: "What does THE CIA SAY about that? Is it credible?"

(- Ron are you perfectly clear what is being asked here? Put another way RUSSERT is asking Cheney "Do the CIA believe that these reports are credible")
   
CHENEY: "It's credible. But, you know, I THINK a way to put it would be IT'S UNCONFIRMED AT THIS POINT."

(- Here Ron the Vice-President answers the specific question he has been asked, but immediately qualifies it by clearly stating that the reports as yet remain unconfirmed.)

Now what was it that you claimed they were trying to do:

Ron Davies...."Face it--there was no such clear statement of no link between Saddam and 11 September 2001 made during the period of the Bush propaganda campaign (mid 2002 to March 2003)--for the obvious reason that the Bush team was in fact trying, successfully in the end, to associate Saddam and 11 Sept in the eyes of the US public."

Well Ron if you had viewed that programme on the 8th September 2002, provided that you were not stone deaf, you would have heard the Vice President of the United States of America state very clearly on two occasions (one recorded, one live) that there was no link between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001 - TRUE?? The transcripts there, that was what was aired.

Therefore you are incorrect regarding there being, " no such clear statement of no link between Saddam and 11 September 2001 made during the period of the Bush propaganda campaign (mid 2002 to March 2003)" As clearly shown above the transcript shows there were.

And if the rest, clearly explained and heavily qualified is supposed to illustrate the Bush team trying, successfully in the end, to associate Saddam and 11 Sept in the eyes of the US public, then they were going about it in a very strange way.

"On the other hand" to quote Vice President Cheney, MSNBC and Olbermann for some reason saw fit to edit all of the above to:

CHENEY: "Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions, and on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center."

Why is the clear statement that Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 911 not worthy of mention? Who left it out and why?

With regard to the passage they do quote, where are the Vice-Presidents qualifications? Why were they left out?

It would appear that the MSNBC team were trying, successfully in the end, to associate Saddam and 11 Sept in the eyes of the US public. Not the President, Vice-President, or any member of his Administration, because as stated previously they did not have editorial control of that programme, MSNBC and Olbermann did.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 05:57 PM

NO WMDs FOUND YET

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 05:47 PM

How cdould you, Arne?

"Teribus and honesty" in the same sentence???

Have you lost yer mind???

They shouldn't even share the same paragraph...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 05:40 PM

Oh Lawd have Mirsy, what will you do???

Guess you'll be reduced to adopting cute pandas (and an even cuter polar bear (who, despite his cuddliness, would dearly like to bite your head off) over on the WWF site..... ;-)

Happy holid.... -- ouch, Ouch, OUCH! OK, OK, Mr. O'Reilly, I'll say it!: Merry Christmas!

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Mirsy
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 04:02 PM

Does this mean the end is in sight?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 02:19 PM

In sad news on the Iraq invasion and occup.... -- umm, sorry, "war" -- it was reported that the vaunted Teribus has gone missing in action....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 10:21 PM

Obviously, what I meant to say is that Cheney's "on the one hand... on the other hand" quotes were in fact part of the propaganda campaign at issue here.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 09:56 PM

Teribus--

You are truly pathetic--still playing at not recognizing Cheney's "on the one hand---on the other hand" quotes as not being part of the propaganda campaign.

As several posters have pointed out, "any sapient being" would be able to tell the difference between such statements and a CLEAR statement finding NO LINK between Saddam and 11 Sept.

I'm sorry this does not seem to include you.

Face it--there was no such clear statement of no link between Saddam and 11 September 2001 made during the period of the Bush propaganda campaign (mid 2002 to March 2003)--for the obvious reason that the Bush team was in fact trying, successfully in the end, to associate Saddam and 11 Sept in the eyes of the US public.

You gotta protect your ego though. I understand.

(Why do I think that if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be pointing out to us how any semi-comatose American should have been able to recognize the propaganda campaign?)

And as for your picayune criticism of the Taliban as the focus in 2001--as you yourself pointed out, they were bin Laden's hosts at the time.

My point, which you are again playing you are too stupid to get (which I don't believe is the case)--is that Afghanistan, not Iraq, was the focus in 2001

I think all sides recognize that bin Laden was the real target then--of course now he's often called Osama bin Forgotten--wonder why that is.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 08:18 PM

Based on the discussion above, I just visited the photos page. There seems to be a picture of CarolC nude in front of a Waffle House!

Okay, I WAS squinting from across the room an using (a bit) of imagination.

These "internets" are a baaaad place.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 05:34 PM

CarolC:

In one of the calendars, one of the "old folkies" (female) who, at the time, was an ancient 24 years of age, was wearing only pan pipes, if I recall correctly.

Now you're making me feel like a real dinosaur.... :-(

OK, maybe the calendar's worth a peek ... but my sweetie would skin me alive if I put it up in my office.   ;-)

Bobert (and Peace):

No matter which way you turn the durned thing, you still won't be able to see no WoMDs. Nor is Teribus's honesty anywhere to be found.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 04:46 PM

PS

NO WMDs were found.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 03:19 PM

Turn the page sideways and you can get a glimpse.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 03:17 PM

Yeah, CarolC, I didn't see the calendars but I think I saw a piccure of you somewhat in the buff, 'cept there was a big ass accordian think blockin' my view so I run off a copy on the printer and then folded it just right to see if I could get that danged accordian think outta the way but it din't work...

'Er naybe I dreamed all of this up???

One or the other...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 02:51 PM

We came pretty close to the "tin whistle" thing, Arne. In one of the calendars, one of the "old folkies" (female) who, at the time, was an ancient 24 years of age, was wearing only pan pipes, if I recall correctly. I think Bobert really has never seen those calendars.