BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:03 PM

Yeah, blessed are the peacemakers....

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:58 PM

"Peacenic"? You say that like it's bad. (grin) Didn't Jesus say, "Blessed are the Peacemakers"? (He wasn't talking about the Boeing B-36 Peacemaker bomber either!)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:52 PM

You still don't get it, quack...

The mad-dash to war was well wriiten by Bush's War Machine... Yeah, they used sample audiences who were eired for responses... They went over the script's woor for word... Accent by accent in hopes of acpitalizing on the spikes in folks responses... This wasn't baout facts or lioes but condition responses and stuff the ad-nman know all about....

In bringing up 9/11 with just about every new sales pitrch the ad-men knew tghat eventually the connection would happen in the mionds of those who listened and it did... Right after the invasion about 70% of Americans thought that Saddam had Al Qeada connections...

Hmmmmmm???

Did thes 70% of Americans drean this up???

Well, no they didn't... They had been part of a propaganda control experiement and it's no wonder that at the end of it they had this disctinct impression that Saddam and bin Laden were in coohoots,,,,

This id wghat out tax dollars were spent to produce and they produced it...

Don'tr make any part of it fact but, heym facts are for the losers.... Right???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:12 PM

Arne:

I notice you shut up and went away pretty quickly after my last two posts in reply to you concerning Cheney's repeated claims about an Atta/Iraqi agent meeting. Care to respond now to those now, or are you going to emulate Teribus here and pretend I never said anything in reply and didn't blow your little attempt at obfuscation concerning the Dubya maladministration's little propaganda campaign right out of the water?

I still see no quotes by anyone in the Bush administration stating Saddam and 9/11 were connected. Cheney did not say "Atta" met He said, as per your posting "WE HAVE REPORTING" He said atta "did apparently travel to Prague" are you saying Atta did not travel to Prague?

Peacenik: What does your president say?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:37 PM

Why not add some music to the thread?

Reading Teribus, and my thoughts above, brings back to mind a song I played, perhaps not enough, when I had my radio show back in Connecticut, this song from Peggy Seeger.

I don't expect Teribus to understand it, much less appreciate it, but I recommend it to any other Catters here.

Happy holidays!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 02:59 AM

Ron,

Likewise, for the nth time, you asked for one example, you got one dated 8 Sept 2002 (Which falls within the period stipulated at random by yourself)

When asked if he still held the view that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 911 Dick Cheney replied:

"Well, I want to be very 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".

Please point out where in the transcript of what followed does he change his mind about what is said above and what he said one year before. There is nothing - that is why what he said after did not matter - nowhere does he indicate that the links with Al-Qaeda or the reported visits of Atta to Prague prompt him to alter his view - he actually gives a reason why such reports would not alter his opinion because all such reports were unconfirmed.

So he was "inferring" things was he. How? by making statements mentioning Saddam/Iraq/Al-Qaeda and 911 in the same sentence or paragraph? Well I think if you investigate the speeches, reports, broadcasts and interview transcripts of the period from 911 to March 2003 you will finds thousands of others who were equally guilty. What you will not find so numerous are statements that match the US Administrations clear statements that Iraq had no part in the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001, the first of those being delivered within days of that event occuring.

I am making my judgement on what the man said - you are making yours on what you think he was "inferring", or worse still by what you have been told he was inferring by someone else, your acceptance of that opinion being the result of your own political prejudice. In all probability you view is a combination of both.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:17 PM

Teribus--

On the off-chance I have to spell this out to you yet again, for the n th time we are talking about the period between mid 2002 and March 2003. That is the period of the propaganda campaign--and therefore the period of your assignment to find a statement by the Bush "team" disassociating Saddam and 11 Sept 2001.

Your results so far have been pitiful.

Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:08 PM

Teribus--

So-- you're still drawing from the same well of certified 100% pure drivel, I note.


"It doesn't matter"?--- what Dick Cheney said on 8 Sept 2002 after "Well, I want to be very 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". Doesn't matter?

MInd explaining why it doesn't matter what he said afterward?

Allow me to humbly suggest that "it doesn't matter" is hogwash. We wouldn't have expected anything different from you.

It matters a lot--in fact what he said afterward undercut--badly--your supposed "clear statement". As you well know.

Upshot: you still, almost a month later, have no statement made by the Bush regime disassociating Saddam and 11 Sept 2001.

And there's a good reason--such a statement doesn't exist.

In fact what Cheney said on 8 Sept 2002, if you read the whole statement, supports rather than disproves the propaganda campaign allegation.

Were it not for your ego, you would admit this--I'm convinced you're nowhere near as stupid as you profess to be.



We, however, have cited many statements by the Bush "team" to illustrate the propaganda campaign.

And, as I somehow suspect you know, propaganda does not need a direct statement to be effective--as illustrated by our scenarios painting you as a possible idiot and two other even worse options . We never did accuse you of any of that--in fact we made sure to deny that we believed in any of it-- since it's all a complete fabrication--but somehow I suspect that is not very comforting.

That's how propaganda can work--and it's just possible that you know that--and you know that Cheney also knows it.



But congratulations on managing to keep your temper for several weeks now. I'm sure it's a struggle.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 07:41 PM

Freda:

Try this one.   ;-)

BTW, there's lots more fine stuff from Tom Tomorrow there (chech the "archive" link). Go give it a peruse, all you folks, over the holidays. Plenty to give you a hearty chuckle!

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:55 PM

comic insights

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:36 PM

Geoduck,

You are the dumbest f##k to grace this place in years. Even yer President says no WMDs were found. Both yer eyes on the same side of yer nose?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:34 PM

Well, all I really want to know is why such a high percentage of Americans thought that Saddam had ties to Al-Qeada right around the time of the invasion??? Did they all dream it up???

I don't think it really matters the exact wording of speeches the Bush PR War Machine wrote for their guys (and gal) but what was inferred... I mean, like all we heard were references to 9/11 in the selling of the war... The referneces in themselves and the oversellng of knowingly questionable intellegence, irregarless of the wording, is what should be the heart of this debate...

And from what I witnessed, read and heard during those days I find it credulous that anyone would stand here and deny that the angers and fears left by 9/11 weren't used in creating a mindset within the masses that defeating Saddam would be a step in the war on terrorism...

Now, if that ain't linkin' the two then nuthin' is... T and his little gang can continue to deny this but they know in their heart of hearts that they are furtherin' an argument that does doesn't do juustice to the way things actually were... Why they think thay can do this is beyond me other than they just don't want to give up the ship... Fine, the ship has been under water for some time now...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 02:31 PM

Arne,

It really is quite simple on the 8th September 2002, Vice-President Dick Cheney was asked if he still believed that Saddam/Iraq had nothing to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001. On the 8th September 2002, he stated that he could not say that there was any link.

As I have said and will keep on saying it you can keep on trying to muddy the waters as much as you like, you cannot alter what the Vice-President said.

You omit to highlight:
- "reporting that suggests" - I know Arne would take that as rock solid fact as he believes everything that is reported as long as it emanates from one of his approved media outlets. But to me Arne that indicates that that the V-P certainly hadn't bought it, thereby reinforcing his earlier comment on it not being possible to say that any link existed between Iraq and 911.

- "The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there" - What debate do you think he is talking about Arne? Clearly he is not trying to push the line that there was a meeting and that there was a link between iraq and 911. In fact he is pouring cold water on the idea all through the interview.

You also omit to mention that the Vice-President clearly stated that all those reports were UNCONFIRMED.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:32 PM

And Teribus repeats for the zillionth time the same old tired (and useless) quotes ... carefully snipping (note this, Geoduck) the rest of what Cheney said. And what else did Cheney say right after that???

From your own post, Teribus:

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."

And Teribus has the chutzpah to accuse us of snipping and selective quoting.....

Teribus hangs on deperately to a slender thread (and admits that he really doesn't give a damn about context, which he and Geoduck assert is important elsewhere): Now all that was broadcast on 8th September 2002. It doesn't matter what Dick Cheney says after that sentence - he has answered Russert's question.

And this remaining stuff is also in direct response to Russert's question; no intervening comment by Russert, no change of subject. But since it doesn't fit the snowjob that Teribus is trying to foist off, he ignores it. Head in the sand ... or more accurately, deliberate dishonesty on Teribus's part, seeing as Teribus knows full well what Cheney said but refuses to acknowledge it. But what of the selectively curtainled answer that Teribus is wont to cite: "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 I don't mean to make a specific allegation that Teribus is an axe-murdering pederast, I can't say that, but.....

As we've pointed out too many times, Cheney doesn't deny a d*** thing here; he just refuses to make any "specific allegation". Teribus is hard of understanding, though. Or dishonest. Probably the latter, but I don't want to make a specific allegation.

Last time I'm pointing this out. Let's talk calendars....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 01:00 PM

Geoduck:

[To Teribus]: You can argue with these idiots for the rest of your life and they will still read things to suit their mindset. If someone mentions two words in the same sentence they can ignore everything else and say "that is what he meant".

I notice you shut up and went away pretty quickly after my last two posts in reply to you concerning Cheney's repeated claims about an Atta/Iraqi agent meeting. Care to respond now to those now, or are you going to emulate Teribus here and pretend I never said anything in reply and didn't blow your little attempt at obfuscation concerning the Dubya maladministration's little propaganda campaign right out of the water?

You can pretend that you're 'winning' the 'discussion' here all you want, but deep in your heart you know that you're being as dishonest as the day is long. What I'd like to know, Geoduck, is why??? Why do you think it important to engage in dishonest defence of the maladministration here (when even Dubya seems to be admitting some "mistakes" nowadays [but nothing that he's responsible for])? Why not argue (as Dubya seems to be doing) that even with the bad 'intelligence' (which Cheney and his WHIG cooked up and then pushed as hard as they could), that the Iraq war (and the $1/4 trillion price tag and the 2150+ soldiers dead) was nonetheless a good thing? Why not just a simple 'the ends justify the means' argument? It seems to be Dubya's tack currently, surely that can't be wrong?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 06:42 AM

Ron Davies - 19 Dec 05 - 10:43 PM

"In that case, it should be no problem for you to come up with a quote by the Bush "team"-- during the mid-2002 to March 2003 period--which clearly states that Saddam had nothing to do with 11 Sept 2001."

Provided by myself ages ago down this thread:

"From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:
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."
   
Russert then asked on the 2002 show: "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 all that was broadcast on 8th September 2002. It doesn't matter what Dick Cheney says after that sentence - he has answered Russert's question. You can twist and deny all you want but in that transcript of that programme two times the Vice-President clearly states that Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

Like Bobert and his supposedly ignored question regarding the "off-ing" of Saddam Hussein ("After all Dan Rather got to within four feet of him") - Bobert's question has been answered on numerous occasions, but Bobert just does not like the answer, so he ignores it, pretends he hasn't been answered - that doesn't alter the fact that he has - Ron you got the example you wanted ages ago, why deny it.

Now Ron give us one quote where any member of the Bush Administration clearly states that Saddam/Iraq had anything to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 911 within the period you stipulated and also tell us why this was done after them having clearly and consistantly denied that any such connection existed.

"Ron - About a month after being asked for such a statement, you have yet to come up with even one. It doesn't help your case."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 12:18 AM

Tbus:

You can argue with these idiots for the rest of your life and they will still read things to suit their mindset. If someone mentions two words in the same sentence they can ignore everything else and say "that is what he meant".

That is the great ability of liberals to support their retarded notions about the real world. That is why the Dems are loosing seats in the government. They are out of touch with reality. They even think they are in the majority.

Just let them keep thinking they are superior beings. They will soon be extinct like the Dodo bird.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 11:45 PM

Ouch....

You gonna take that, T... Hey, bad 'nuff being wrong but now this!?!?!?!?!....

I tolt you not to defend this position but you went ahead and now there's not one person left in Mudville who believes anything you say, 'cept the usual cast of blindmen...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:43 PM

Teribus--

So our allegations of a propaganda campaign by the Bush regime are just conspiracy theory?

In that case, it should be no problem for you to come up with a quote by the Bush "team"-- during the mid-2002 to March 2003 period--which clearly states that Saddam had nothing to do with 11 Sept 2001.

Sorry--anything that mentions "new evidence has come to light"--then catalogues that "evidence" of possible connections between Saddam and 11 Sept 2001--is not eligible as a clear statement.

I wonder why. Do you think you can figure out why that is not a clear statement of disassociation? Have you visited your local library yet?

About a month after being asked for such a statement, you have yet to come up with even one. It doesn't help your case.

As far as your litany of political events in 2002 in the US, one small problem.

It's meaningless.

Do you know what happens after the midterm elections?

Since you need some instruction, I'll help you.

What happens is getting ready for the 2004 elections.

It never stops.

So politicians realize they'd best have their constituents' OK if the plan is to, say, start a war.

That's why the propaganda campaign, which was in fact brilliantly successful--Herr Goebbels would have been proud---was necessary for Bush.

As I've said before, it certainly is ironic that you got caught in this. All you had to do was pick a better issue.

Just how tender is your ego?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:17 PM

And they still haven't found any WMDs. That's what whoozit started this thread about.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:13 PM

Exactly right, both Arne and LH....

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:47 PM

Oh, I understand that, Arne. Just can't help philosophizing from time to time about the human condition, that's all...

I am as opposed to their idiotic War Against Terrorism (WAT?????) as you are. It's a self-negating premise. War IS terrorism, and this one was planned quite awhile before 911. 911 was more than convenient for its planners...almost like...a gift from...God? Hmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:26 PM

LittleHawk:

I don't mind looking at the other side. What I have problems with is discussing hallucinations that I'm fortunately not privy to, and lies and misquotes. If the "other side" could take a moment to find some honesty deep within themselves, and actually discuss what happened, I'd be up for it.

Sorry to be such a pedant, but I do think that we shouldn't let people keep "spinning" the same ol' horsepotatotes (I noted that the RW Mighty Wurlitzer [in the form of the Sean Hannity radio show this instance] was busy peddling the "This is all Clinton's doing, it was his fault really -- even though we did the right thing and there is no fault -- because Dubya, resolute and strong, just followed that weak-livered draft-dodging cheese-eating coward's lead..."). As long as the RW noise machine is peddling this c***, I'll keep pointing it out for the malarkey it is, and bury their friggin' noses in the sanguinary mess they've made of Iraq and the two thousand more U.S. citizens' corpses that they celebrate as the harbinger of the dawning of a New Age Of Enlightenment, Peace, And Prosperity..... People like Teribus are my eternal and mortal enemies. They are no joke. They are to be resisted and opposed with every waking breath, by anyone who has a shred of humanity.

Hope that makes my feelings here clear.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 07:59 PM

"Can it be that trying to see the other guy's side simply takes too much of our time and energy?"

LOL! Definitely. Look at any political (or other) debate for numerous glaring examples of that principle in action.

People would always rather be "right" than be evenhanded or happy or forgiving or at peace with one another. And because of that...the arms business remains highly profitable.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 06:30 PM

All the aforementioned aside, they STILL haven't found any WMDs.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 06:14 PM

Guest:

I have noticed that Ron, Bobert, and Arne seem to always attack the PERSON they are argueing with, while Teribus seems to attack the "facts" that the other person brings up.

Ummm, can I help you out a bit here, "Guest"? You seem to have misspelled "ignore". As in: "Teribus ignores points brought up by others that totally demolish his little BizarroWorld idea that Dubya and his maladministration was just going with the flow in starting a war with Iraq, and never, ever tried to link Saddam to al Qaeda....." (BTW, I'm being charitable and assuming that "argueing" was just a typo....)

Arne:

"so single-minded" describes you perfectly. Are you being paid by Al-Quaeda?

Hmmmmmmm. Name-calling. Argumentum ad hominem. Seems I just read someone here complaining about that type of behaviour.... Who was that now; who was it that thought that casting aspersions on a person's habits, friends, and motivations, and ignoring the substance of the matter being discussed was such a terrible faux pas? Someone help me out here, name's on the tip of the tongue, but my mind's been a bit of swiss cheese lately: who was that masked man????

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 05:39 PM

Guest:

from Dec 19 col. in Washington Post

"Can it be that trying to see the other guy's side simply takes too much of our time and energy? Sometimes I suspect that the desire to savage rather than convince an opponent stems from the nagging suspicion that just maybe we are on the wrong side of the logic. I mean, if you are convinced that your position is the correct one, why wouldn't you want to examine it and explain it in a way that might win a convert or two?"

Ummm, we did that. Teribus ignored what we said, and continues the same ol' song and dance about how a reluctant Dubya had to be dragged into a war with Iraq because the public was all clamouring for it and the Democrats were howling for Saddam's head on a pike (really! Teribus is really trying to sell us these horsepotatoes...).   So now it's time to savage Teribus thoroughly, and call him all sorts of mean names. But, dear Guest, don't worry about widdle Teribus's feelings ... he doesn't listen to us, and even if he did, he lives in a parallel universe where the PNAC is the Peaceful Nuns Advancing Christianity, where Dubya is some wise but thoughtfully reflective reluctant to use big bombs in a campaign benightedly called "Tranquility and Inspiration", where 2150 dead U.S. soldiers and a heckuvalot more dead Iraqis -- as well as the assorted Bulgarians, Poles, Brits, and so on -- is a good thing, and where black is white and down is up ... so that we're actually singing the highest praises for Teribus here in a Dubyaish kind of way....

Hope you understand.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 08:51 AM

Yo, GUEST... You obviuosly haven't read this entire thread... Maybe you'd like to reread it and scome back and tell us who it was who firast called people who didn't agree with him, "FU*Ks"???

(Clue: It wasn't Ron, Arne or me...)

(2nd clue: His name begins with the letter "T" ans ends with the letter "s"...)

Don't hurt yer head to much on this little exercise...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 06:56 AM

Arne:

"so single-minded" describes you perfectly. Are you being paid by Al-Quaeda?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 05:00 AM

from Dec 19 col. in Washington Post


"Can it be that trying to see the other guy's side simply takes too much of our time and energy? Sometimes I suspect that the desire to savage rather than convince an opponent stems from the nagging suspicion that just maybe we are on the wrong side of the logic. I mean, if you are convinced that your position is the correct one, why wouldn't you want to examine it and explain it in a way that might win a convert or two?"





I have noticed that Ron, Bobert, and Arne seem to always attack the PERSON they are argueing with, while Teribus seems to attack the "facts" that the other person brings up.


I wonder who has the stronger feeling that they are "right"?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 01:32 AM

Ron and Arne,

Your alarmist, conspiracy theory, take and explanation of things is irrational, illogical and flys in the face of what has actually been said and done. You should therefore not be too surprised that I find your arguements totally unconvincing.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 01:03 AM

Terry Allen Hall:

it's been wondered before if he [Richard Miniter] gets paid to lie on Bu$$hAdminInc's behalf, and how much he gets paid to do so...

If he's not getting paid by the Dubya maladministration, he ought to sue. Seems that everyone else is getting paid under the table to write good things about the maladministration. Sounds like an "equal protection" violation to me (at least under the ground rules for "equal protection" claims set down by Rehnquist in Dubya v. Gore [lawyerly humour there, folks]....

As for Teribus, it's the SOS from him day after day. He's got be paid off by that maladministration as well; no one could be so obtuse (think Shawshank Redemption), so single-minded, and so patently dishonest -- and not be doing it professionally. I'd note that Teribus continues to ignore the points I made (and reiterated, and that now Ron Davies has also restated for some cases), and gives his far-off-Broadway one-man play spiel, pretending everyone else is his audience, over and over again.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 10:07 PM

Oh, it's down to sheep???

Seems the only one left followin' the Bush PR machine is you, T-Sheep...

(Sooner 'er later, it all comes down to sheep...)

And, BTW, T-Amnesia, when did Saddam gas the Kurds and when did Rumsfeld give him all the gifts from the U.S.???

Just curious....

Yer runnin' outta time here, T-BeenReassigned, but I'd sho nuff like before Bush has you off wrestliong wid other folks fro you to answer some of the quaestion Ron and I have asked without the usual "Tropic of Cancer" lenght answers which tend not to be answers at all but the same old crap with a new package...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 09:56 PM

If, as I suspect, Teribus, you are in the UK, it's about 3 AM there now.

Go to bed.

Maybe you'll make more sense tomorrow.

I assure you, this debate will keep--you don't need to stay up for it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 09:47 PM

Terry Allan Hall - 17 Dec 05 - 06:02 PM

"If Hussein had WMDs, he would've used them when we illegally invaded Iraq...obviously...do the Bu$$h apologists think he was just waiting for a more "festive" time?"

I note the word "If" at the beginning of that sentence. OK Terry did he use them in 1991? We definitely knew he had them then, didn't we? Why did he not use them then? It may have something to do with the triggered response. While all the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-American crowd are howling on about the US providing Saddam with WMD, they tend to forget that the UK and the US had renounced those weapons decades before. The USSR and it's Warsaw Pact allies did not. During the "Cold War" there was absolutely no secret made of the fact that if the USSR or any of it's Warsaw Pact allies used chemical or biological weapons the response from the west would be Tactical Nuclear. I believe that in 1991 Saddam was given the same message, that was why he did not use them.

Ron Davies - 17 Dec 05 - 09:07 PM

"Exactly how naive are you, Teribus?" A damn sight less than you Ron. Now go and play with the rest of the sheep.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 09:07 PM

This is a recording.

Exactly how naive are you, Teribus?

On 8 Sept 2002 Cheney thought nothing had changed since 16 Sept 2001 when he had found no link betweeen Saddam and 11 Sept 2001?

So--why not say precisely that--and drop the subject--instead of the many-times cited catalogue of obvious possible links?

I'll give you a real deal on that bridge I was offering earlier--sounds like you're just about to write a check.

And your local library really needs to see you--about learning about propaganda--lest you come across here as a fool with a fragile ego. I'm sure we wouldn't want that.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 06:10 PM

BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLICANS by Phil Alexander

Mine Eyes have seen the bungling of that stumbling moron Bush;
he has blathered all the drivel that the neo-cons can push;
he has lost sight of all reason 'cause his head is up his tush;
The Doofus marches on.

I have heard him butcher syntax like a kindergarten fool;
There is warranted suspicion that he never went to school;
Should we fault him for the policies - or is he just their tool?
The lies keep piling on.

Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
His wreckage will live on.

I have seen him cut the taxes of the billionaires' lone heir;
As he spends another zillion on an aircraft carrier;
Let the smokestacks keep polluting - do we really need clean air?
The surplus is now gone.

Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Your safety net is gone!

Now he's got a mighty hankerin' to bomb a prostrate state;
Though the whole world knows its crazy - and the U.N. says to wait;
When he doesn't have the evidence, "We must prevaricate."
Diplomacy is done!

Oh, a trumped-up war is excellent; we have no moral bounds;
Should the reasons be disputed, we'll just make up other grounds;
Enraging several billions - to his brainlessness redounds;
The Doofus marches on!

Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
The Doofus marches on!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Terry Allan Hall
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 06:02 PM

If Hussein had WMDs, he would've used them when we illegally invaded Iraq...obviously...do the Bu$$h apologists think he was just waiting for a more "festive" time?

OTOH,Richard Miniter's new book, "Disinformation", is most aptly named...it's been wondered before if he gets paid to lie on Bu$$hAdminInc's behalf, and how much he gets paid to do so...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 05:16 PM

There's no way that T-Loser will "win" this debate, LH... T-Wrong is so utterly wrong that it is sad to see the poor fellow reloading and reloading the same lame arguments...

I mean, let's face it. For anyone to argue that the Bush PR War Machine didn't majke every attempt to tir the invasion of Iraq with 9/11... It seems that all the speeches that were given by Bush, CFheney and others had Iraq in the same paragraph with 9/11...

So tell me, LH... How can T-Lose "win" this argument??? It's allready a lost cause... Everyone knows it but T and maybe a couple of his Fox entertainment buddies...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 04:19 PM

"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."

Joseph Goebels would have related to this form of false denial. The unspoken "but" at the end of the sentence would be clearly audible to about 80% of the audience, the other 20% being committed Nazis, who already believed in the message being implied.

Obviously Teribus is part of that 20%, and incapable of accepting that a huge number of Americans would have inferred a link between Iraq and 9/11, exactly as Cheney intended.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 11:35 AM

Are you getting paid by the word, Teribus? ;-)

What do you think will happen if you "win" this debate with several other people here? Will the World be somehow improved or saved from some dire fate?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 05:22 AM

OK Ron,

Jan. 29, 2002- In Pres. George W. Bush's State of the Union speech, he identifies Iraq , along with Iran and North Korea , as an "axis of evil." He vows that the United States "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

May 14, 2002- The UN Security Council revamps the 11-year-old sanctions against Iraq , introducing a new set of procedures for processing contracts for humanitarian supplies and equipment. At this time, the United States is preventing $5 billion of material from entering Iraq through "holds" by the sanctions committee.

Sept. 12, 2002- President Bush addresses the opening of the UN General Assembly, challenging the body to confront the "grave and gathering danger" of Iraq ­ — or become irrelevant.

Sept. 17, 2002- President Bush releases his administration's National Security Strategy, outlining a more militarized policy relying on first strikes. It says the United States will exploit its military and economic power to encourage "free and open societies." It emphasizes that the United States will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged, as it was during the Cold War.

Oct. 10, 2002- Congress adopts a joint resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq and gives the president authority to take pre-emptive, unilateral military action against Iraq , when and how he deems necessary.

Nov.7, 2002 - US Mid-Term elections

So almost one complete month before the elections, that worried GWB so much that prompt you to believe that he had to launch a "propaganda campaign" with regard to linking Iraq directly to 911, he had all the support and all the authority that he required.

The reference to "new evidence" that had come to light. This covers the differences between the known situation as of 16th September 2001 and 8th September 2002. From 28th October 2001 and well into the early summer of 2002 a series of reports of the alleged Atta/Al-Ani meeting appeared in the US media. Rumsfeld dismissed them in May 2002, the CIA and FBI were sceptical but still had the matter under investigation. What was Dick Cheney's take on it:
- He clearly indicates that it has not changed his mind, Iraq had nothing to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 911.
- Refers to Atta's apparent travel to Prague.
- Refers to reporting by others (i.e. non-US Agencies) that Atta was in Prague at the same time as Al-Ani. He later clearly states that these reports are unconfirmed.
- Draws attention to the fact that the matter is subject to debate.

By the bye, there is a six week gap that remains unaccounted for in the life of Atta, while supposedly in the US. The FBI doubt that Atta did go to Prague the April before the attacks. Their reason for coming to that conclusion rests on mobile phone records, cash/credit card transactions and car rental slips. The track record goes that subsequent to previous visits large sums of money were deposited in Atta's Florida account, $100,000 was credited to the account three days after the supposed meeting took place. The timing of the phone records, cash/credit card transactions would make it difficult (but not impossible) for Atta to have been in Prague at the alleged time. Records of calls made on a mobile phone only prove that the phone was used - it does not identify who used the phone. The same applies to cash/credit card transactions, particularly if they only cover cash dispenser withdrawals, the card has been used, it does not tell you who used it. Car rentals are equally anonymous, other people have rented cars on my behalf on hundreds of occasions, on a number of those occasions plans changed and the car was not used - but the record of the booking still stands.

Ron..."What did you say was the answer to the question about Bush and the faulty intelligence?    Which was it?--did he mislead the US public through incompetence or intentionally?"

President George W. Bush and members of his administration did not "sell", "push" or spin with regard to the information upon which he had to make his decision with regard to Iraq. Neither did Tony Blair, both leaders were given the joint assessments of their respective intelligence services based on the best information available at that time. It was on that information that decisions had to be made. Post 911 the option to contain Iraq was no longer tenable, sanctions could not be kept in place indefinitely and the evidence, available at the time indicated that those sanctions were being implemented more in the breach than in the observance. All indications were that Iraq under Saddam Hussein with sanctions removed and with all sixteen UN resolutions outstanding, would pose a threat. The President made the only decision he could, and it would not have mattered one jot who was sitting in the White House at the time, the decision would have been the same, because post-911, the person ultimately responsible for the safety and security of the United States of America, the person elected by the people of the United States of America to look after the best interests of the nation, just could not take that chance.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 02:42 AM

Be afraid, Ron, be very afraid.

However, rhetoric aside, no one has yet seen a WMD. Ergo cogito sum cum bono sunt ubi in retro alibius, or somethin' like that. (Don't waste yer time on Google. I just made that up.)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 11:07 PM

LH--

You're right--in fact there was a huge crash of thunder at the time. Maybe I should be concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 11:05 PM

Teribus--

What did you say was the answer to the question about Bush and the faulty intelligence?    Which was it?--did he mislead the US public through incompetence or intentionally?

Perhaps you enjoy it when the "leader" of your country misleads you into a war.

Some of us don't.



By the way, have you thanked the UN yet today for Bush's election? Don't forget to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 11:03 PM

Ron, are you aware that you just posted post # 666 on this thread?

Kree-Gah!

Wait till the rightwing pundits get wind of that.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 10:45 PM

Teribus--

Still waiting (with the patience of Job) for you to tell us why on 8 Sept 2002 Cheney felt compelled to say "new evidence has come to light--and then catalogue that "evidence".

According to your somewhat more than shaky theory, nothing had changed since 2001 on Bush's view of Saddam's culpability (look the word up)-- i.e. there was no link between Saddam and 11 Sept 2001.

IF ALL CHENEY MEANT TO DO IN 2002 WAS TO REITERATE THAT SADDAM WAS BLAMELESS IN THE 11 SEPT 2001 ATTACKS, WHY MENTION "NEW EVIDENCE' THAT HAD "COME TO LIGHT" AT ALL?

"...after having clearly stated on numerous occasions that (Saddam) had nothing to do with those (11 Sept ) attacks..."

Where have you gone wrong?

Let me count the ways.

"clearly"--the only candidate for a clear statement you have submitted is the quote from 16 Sept 2001. You may want to learn how to read a calendar--most rational people would say that is before mid-2002, the start of the propaganda campaign in question.

"numerous"--uh, please cite just one of these "numerous occasions" between mid 2002 and March 2003. Your 8 Sept 2002 citation is a smoking wreck--sorry--it won't fly. Perhaps that says something about your aviation skills as well as your grasp of logic.

If Cheney's 8 Sept 2002 statement is an clear example of your above allegation, I'm the president of the US.

Please try another of the "numerous occasions".

In fact, even on 16 Sept 2001, Cheney did not say Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks--just that there was (at that point, 5 days afterward) no evidence linking Saddam to them--thus cleverly leaving the door open to more "evidence", which, mirabile dictu, somehow materialized by 8 Sept 2002.

As to why the US population needed to be convinced by the propaganda campaign, your ignorance of US politics is perhaps understandable (though no other UK Mudcatters seem to have a problem.)

Let's try to explain it to you yet again. As TIA states, mid-term elections are a factor in the US (as were Bush's hopes for the 2004 election). Since every member of the House of Representatives has to run for re-election every 2 years, they tend to be quite responsive to their constituents' strong feelings--so they would not sign on to an Iraq invasion unless they felt their constituents thought it necessary. Even Senators usually object to going to war without the suppport of their constituents.

Hence the necessity for Bush's propaganda campaign to push the Iraq invasion.

Are you beginning to understand?


Actually, a "civics" course wouldn't be necessary for you--all you really needed to do was open an encyclopedia.

I'm sorry the effort proved too much for you.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 09:38 PM

What you will not factor into the equation, T, is that everything that Bush or his folks said from 9/11 until the invasion was wrapped in 9/11 and flag waving...

Yes, there was a ceratibn amount of international sympathey that Bush spent like a drunkin' sailor... There wasn't one danged legilative proposal that didn't get the 9/ll brand burned into it's side, not one appointment that wasn't tied to fighting the terroristist who had attacked US on 9/11...

You seem to have a myopic view of the way things were in the mad-dash to invase Iraq...

Like maybe you'd like to explain how upwards of 80% of Americans can to think that Iraq (or Saddam) had something to do with the 9/11 attacks???

No, it is not longer sufficient for you to take the "actual" words and put them uner the T-Microsope... This is way beyond microscope stuff T-Stubborn.... Do you understand anything about PR and advertising??? If not, then this explains a lot as to why you continue to try to make that pair ot two's into a straight flush...

This ain't got one danged thing to do with UN resolutions... It's all about salesmanship and howe Bush sold an invasion to the American people... Yeah, you can camp out behing UN resolutions until the cows come home but when the day is done, your arguments are so contrary to what just about nay thinking person in the worlds are, that you look very much the fool...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 09:14 PM

Ron Davies - 15 Dec 05 - 08:11 PM

"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."

Now the first opportunity would be the 2002 Mid-Term Elections in November 2002, in which the Republicans did very well. So take a look at the timeline:

January 2002 - State of the Union Address, President states clearly that there are two distinct objectives, the first being the terrorist organisations and rank and file themselves, the second being nations with governments, or regimes likely to sponsor, or give aid to those terrorist groups.

Late Spring/early Summer 2002 - The House Security Committee had already identified the countries/goverments/regimes that potentially posed a threat to the United States of America by means of possible support for terrorist organisations.

Summer 2002 - US go to the UN to force action on outstanding resolutions with regard to Iraq.

Late Summer 2002 - UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1441, "the last chance" resolution. Iraq invites UNSCOM inspection teams to return to Iraq.

November 2002 - Mid-Term Elections

From the above it already looks as though Iraq was already well positioned within the frame, there was no need to sell the electorate on that. I would imagine that the performance of the Republican Party in the 2002 mid-term elections had more to do with a vote of confidence in a President and an Administration who were demonstrating leadership and resolve, they had after all, by the time the electorate went to the polls, suceeded in:
- Removing the Taleban from power in Afghanistan;
- Driving Al-Qaeda from its training camps and put them very much on the defensive;
- Forcing the UN Security Council into taking action over Iraq (despite marked resistance from France, Russia, Germany and China);
- Getting weapons inspection teams invited back into Iraq.

It would appear that the "crowd" in office were doing their job and keeping the promises made earlier with regard to protecting the country from threat of attack.

That, Ron, was what Bush did during the period you think we should be so interested. Oh, by the way what the President admitted to the other day was with regard to faulty intelligence on which HE based HIS decision to invade Iraq - No mention at all about him having to push it to sell anything, that is your opinion of it.

The next opportunity would be the 2004 Elections, in which the Republicans again do rather well, not to mention the President himself, what was it again just over 62 million votes.

Your "Propaganda Campaign" is a myth, it is a fabrication hung on the coat hanger of the rational, logical and clearly described intended plan of action outlined in the 2002 SOU Address.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 05:35 PM

Just Google "WHIG", and you get all the info you need on the " '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... "