 sj |
||
|
||
BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 07 Dec 05 - 10:47 PM LOL, Teribus. You, just like your icon Dubya, seem to be of the curious opinion that by simply repeating speeches by Dubya over and over again, you'll get the magic results that you didn't achieve the first time around. Don't know where you got this foolish notion, but in fact, the opposite seems to pertain -- people actually start to get bored and irritated after the second or third repetition, and consider you even more a clueless and rather unoriginal berk for having repeated yourself.... So why does he need a "propaganda campaign" Ron??? Dunno. Why don't you ask him? Seems he's the one that thought it necessary.... He doesn't have to convince the people of the USA, he has to convince the Senate and the House of Representatives. He doesn't really need to work all that hard to do that because it was the joint house Security Committee and the US intelligence and security services that identified the countries comprising the "axis of evil" - so no "propaganda campaign" required to convince them - they told him that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq posed a threat. Pack'o'lies, there, Teribus. There was no propaganda campaign because there was absolutely no need for one - it would fulfil no purpose whatsoever - what you did have was a marked degree of spin from the media and a great deal of biased and inaccurate reporting. You conclude (at least in your "logic" here) that Dubya couldn't have engaged in a Rovian propaganda campaign (and therefore that such didn't exist), because such a campaign would have been quite stoopid given the facts as you assume them and set them forth above. However, that assumes facts not in evidence: Namely, that the Dubya maladministration is indeed rational and level-headed and never makes any bone-headed and illogical blunders. But that's clearly not the case. May I submit the following line into the record: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." That's the failure of your supposed logic here, Teribus. You deny an obvious fact by saying that no one could have been stoopid enough to have caused that fact to transpire. You misunderestimate Dubya, I fear. You'd be better served by showing directly that the fact was not indeed the case, rather than indirectly attacking its existence based on someone's supposed motivations and abilities. But you further make the mistake of misstating the surrounding facts. The claims you make for the need for a propaganda campaign are mistaken as well. Good ol' "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out" Dubya was hardly the reluctant warriour being swept up in a tide of anti-Saddam public opinion. Mr. Pump Your Fist In The Air And Yell "Feels Good" On Starting A War hardly bowed to a groundswell of Congressional pro-war sentiment in invading Iraq. The actual facts are that support for the misguided and sanguinary Iraq invasion had to be carefully nurtured by misinformation, distortions, fear-mongering, and outright lies, to swing the public and Congress behind it (but this campaign failed miserably in getting sentiment abroad to swing round to Dubya's side, thus the refusal of the U.N. to sanction the invasions and the massive worldwide protests and opposition to Dubya's belligerence (might have had something to do with their not being under a puppy-dog mainstream media as most of the folks in the U.S. were, and thus better able to see the Dubya propaganda for what it was). Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 07 Dec 05 - 02:31 PM So we're going to define governments that "sponsor terror" according to who buys weapons from those countries? Ok. I can live with that definition. Of course, I don't think there are very many countries that don't fit that criteria. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 05 - 01:31 PM Moro Islamic Liberation Front had purchased weapons from North Korea with funds provided by Middle East sources. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 07 Dec 05 - 01:12 PM Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. What "terror" has the regime in North Korea sponsored? And if it hasn't sponsored any, why was it mentioned in that particular paragraph all by itself, instead of another regime that really has sponsored "terror"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:27 AM Ron, Arne, et al The President having said this on the 29th January 2002: "Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world. Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities. While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere. We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia. My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf. But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will. Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security. We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch." Is perfectly entitled to mention any regime or country sponsoring terrorist causes and any terrorist organisation when referring to the United States of America's declared war on terror, he has defined the scope of it in the first paragraph quoted - So why does he need a "propaganda campaign" Ron??? He doesn't have to convince the people of the USA, he has to convince the Senate and the House of Representatives. He doesn't really need to work all that hard to do that because it was the joint house Security Committee and the US intelligence and security services that identified the countries comprising the "axis of evil" - so no "propaganda campaign" required to convince them - they told him that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq posed a threat. Ron seems rather fixed on the period mid 2002 to March 2003 - who did the President of the United States of America have to convince to the extent that a "propaganda campaign" had to be waged: - Not the population of the US, as they have no bearing on the issue - Not the Senate or House of Representatives as they are already on board. - UN Member States on the UNSC? Hardly they will go where directed by their own Governments - UN Member States in General? Same and besides its a UNSC matter the general membership have no bearing on the issue. There was no propaganda campaign because there was absolutely no need for one - it would fulfil no purpose whatsoever - what you did have was a marked degree of spin from the media and a great deal of biased and inaccurate reporting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:00 AM You, as well as yer other right winged GUEST, ain't nuthin but a bunch of cowards... Prolly all a bunch or 13 year old girls.... Bobert, I don't think you should be slandering 13 year old girls like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 07 Dec 05 - 10:42 AM Teribus--- Well,well, you've set a trap fro yourself and obligingly fallen right in it. Well done. Re: 8 Sept 2002 Teribus: 6 Dec 2005 2:38 AM (do you ever get any sleep?)--"You have been given a quote from the Vice President dated 8th September 2002" Fine--let's look at that quote--given to us by Teribus on 3 Dec 2005 7:18 AM Hi Ron Example 1--One Quote as requested--Dick Cheney. From the Sept 8 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 Sept 16, 2001-----(NB Sept 16, 2001--2001-do you get it?) "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?" Cheney: No." Now I know this will require careful reading on your part, Teribus--something you're not famous for--I don't want to strain your poor brain--but exactly what have you quoted from 2002 that Cheney said? I'll clue you--precisely nothing, nada, zilch. YOUR CHENEY QUOTE IS FROM 2001, NOT 2002. Therefore it does not fit the time period of the propaganda campaign--mid 2002 to March 2003. That is when Bush and co were beating the drums to attack Iraq. In fact, I have already pointed this out in my 3 Dec 2005 8:33 AM posting, which you choose to ignore. Russert and Cheney watched a CLIP from 2001. You quote nothing Cheney said from 2002. Is it getting through to you? You have therefore still not produced one quote from the mid-2002 to March 2003 period when the propaganda campaign was going on to link Saddam to al Queda and September 11, 2001. However, I did a bit of digging myself. I said a few days ago that it was likely Cheney's stance would have shifted from 2001 to 2002--and I was right. I found the transcript of the 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press. For some inexplicable reason you left out everything that was said AFTER WATCHING THE CLIP FROM 2001. In fact, this is what was said directly afterward--maybe somebody could set up a "blue clicky". You're more than welcome to ignore it again. I will just rub your face in it til you see it. Now, did Cheney reiterate a clear statement that there was no evidence linking Saddam and 11 Sept 2001? Here's the transcript: Mr. Russert: "Has anything happened to change your mind? (since 2001) Vice President 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. 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-Queda 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, 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..." That's what he said in 2002--not what you allege. He raised all sorts of possible connections between Iraq and Sept 11. You are dead wrong again, I'm sorry to say. Feel free to check the transcript of the 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press. Upshot is: you still have no quote from the period mid 2002 to March 2003 in which Bush or one of his minions clearly disassociates Saddam and 11 Sept 2001---and we have plenty that indicate they did try to associate the two---INCLUDING your 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press. Perhaps you also don't undertstand how propaganda works. You need to read some history. I can recommend a few starter books for you. Propaganda does not always need a blatant statement. Just "Before September 11, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained" is more than enough for a lot of Americans both jittery and angry enough to strike back--at anybody. Even after the US attack on the Taliban--which I supported-- the Toby Keith-brand desire for vengeance was not slaked. Nor was the the fear of another 11 Sept. Bush and co played on that fear like true Goebbels star pupils. Teribus--much as it pains me to say it, you've blown it yet again. The propaganda campaign linking Saddam with 11 Sept 2001 is a fact, not a theory. You have no counter-evidence. The more you deny it, the harder it will be on your ego to finally admit it. As I said earlier, you should have picked out a more sea-worthy vessel before lashing yourself to the mast. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 07 Dec 05 - 09:04 AM Geoduck, I think you are the one who is anti-American, if you approve of having this country and everything it stands for destroyed by the bunch of radical cowboys (and cowgirls) who are now running it. All you have to do is look at the numbers of people who believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 for your proof of the fact that the country was mislead. And don't invite me to leave the country. If you approve of what the people now in power here are doing to this country, you are the one who should leave (if you're even here). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 07 Dec 05 - 07:44 AM Teribus blabbers on: Alas, Arne, my little viking - you have got it exactly 180 degrees out: Oh, yes, Teribus, my little pin-head, I wuv U2! Happy now? [Arne:]"You are demanding that Dubya use precise and very specific words (your "Simon Says" ploy) to assert that Dubya claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. But that wasn't the issue, was it? It was whether Saddam and al Qaeda were in cahoots." I have absolutely no doubt that links did exist between Iraq and Al-Qaeda going back years prior to 911. What I said, and what Ron Davies took exception to and contradicted me on, was that very early after the attacks of 911 the Bush Administration came out with very clear statements that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks. Did they investigate whether he did or not, did they ask people to look into it - I am bloody certain that they did - resulting in the statements made regarding Iraq's non-involvement. Just a FYI, so we have some context here for Teribus's "straw man" stategery, here's what Ron Davies did say, back a year ago:
Here's Teribus's "straw man" (and what he demands as an explicitly stated position of the maladministration): A statement asserting positively that "...there was a link between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 911 in the run up to 20th March 2003." (the words of Teribus). Note the use of the conjunction "and" by Ron. And the use of the words "propaganda campaign". Now Teribus is a real stickler for accuracy, and about how words have meaning. But propaganda campaigns are in fact sometimes more successful in what they don't say than for what they do explicitly say. Detailed previously have been many examples of attempts by the maladministration to link Saddam and al Qaeda (that's hard to deny, but Teribus will probably do it). In fact, mentioned above have been details on this effort as a propaganda campaign (not to mention the famous Powerpoint presentation, as well as Andrew Card's unintentionally revealing comment about "introduc[ing] new products in August"). Teribus ignores this. And since al Qaeda and the Sept. 11th attacks are quite obviously linked, once you link al Qaeda to Saddam, you have in fact linked Saddam to Sept. 11th of necessity, even if you didn't say that explicitly! But Teribus does the ol' "Simon Says" game, and demands evidence that Dubya and his handlers tipped their hand by explicitly stating their strategy and desired results (this maladministration be honest and open in their strategery? LOL).... Here's the way Teribus puts it:
Not cricket. Just Teribus hefting that goal post back another 10 yards. Or playing Calvin-Ball. OTOH, Teribus has been asked for a quote that shows that Dubya and the maladministration tried to dissuade people from making such a link. So here's what he proffers:
A). It refers to whether Saddam was linked to the attacks, not to al Qaeda more generally. B). It asks for "evidence". Not whether there was an al Qaeda/Saddam link (a position that Cheney did in fact assert; in fact, Cheney publicly pushed the Mohammed Atta [where have I heard that name before .... hmmm, have to think about it...] supposed Prague meeting with Iraq agents, since discounted). So Cheney here is denying that there is evidence, but not denying the link. C). It had to be pulled out of Cheney; it wasn't volunteered. And hardly a detailed exposition of Cheney's views (except in Teribus's tortured mind). So Teribus's "clear statement" from the maladministration that discounted the Iraq/9-11 tie (or, more to the point, the al Qaeda/Iraq tie) is not any such thing. Instead we have the plethora of quotes that pushed the contrary view(s). So Teribus continues: I have absolutely no doubt that links did exist between Iraq and Al-Qaeda going back years prior to 911. Teribus, clue for you: No one cares what you believe. What I said, and what Ron Davies took exception to and contradicted me on, was that very early after the attacks of 911 the Bush Administration came out with very clear statements that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks. Hmmmmm. "Statements". Changed my mind, Teribus. How about more than one quote from the maladministration trying to set things straight. Did they investigate whether he did or not, did they ask people to look into it - I am bloody certain that they did - resulting in the statements made regarding Iraq's non-involvement. OK. Out wi' 'em.... Let's hear these quotes, Teribus. Now, since "words have meaning" and we're getting literal, we need at least two!!! But I'd point out that Cheney continued to push the Iraq/al Qaeda connection for quite a while, even after the war, including the supposed Prague meeting with its quite obvious insinuation. More later (sorry, Mirsy, you'll have to wait ... but you seem to enjoy that). Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 05 - 05:20 AM dianavan - 06 Dec 05 - 10:48 PM Oh Dianavan so you are only talking about intent, something that some people would like to see happen in the future, not something that has already happened. It appears that you can state such things and make inference/refer to supposed deals that have been pushed through, whereas when a certain other person describes a set of circumstances that may lead to something in the future he is lying and guilty of deliberate misrepresentation. How very convenient for those wishing to present that as an arguement. Don't you think its a little suspect that the man who gave false information about Iraq to the U.S. is now the man in power? He is likely to be in power after Dec. 15th too. How coincidental! And Dianavan: "Hassan Awad (Iraq trade unionist) doesn't seem to trust the U.S. either. "The US has decreed that only its companies can bid for oil contracts, sidelining the companies of other countries, whether from Europe or elsewhere. Only two months after their troops crossed the border, US companies —Kellogg Brown & Root and Halliburton — arrived to take control over our industry. These US companies are the real beneficiaries of the invasion." What was being referred to here was essential repair work in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. The CPA days, which have long gone, the US now has absolutely no control over who the current Interim Iraqi Government, or the incoming duly elected Government of Iraq, award contracts to. In the Thread "What is really happening in Iraq" we have been through who has been awarded work and so far it has not gone to one major US or UK Company, and on many Halliburton has not even been invited to tender. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:52 PM Yeah, Quackster.... How bout you steppin' out from under them feathers an' say that... Yeah, real comfy firing away from GUEST-dom... Like the snipers in Virgina and the DC area... Like real brave!!! You, as well as yer other right winged GUEST, ain't nuthin but a bunch of cowards... Prolly all a bunch or 13 year old girls.... Tell ya what, Quack, I'll take the bunch of you girly-boys GUESTS in the parking lot of the Liberty gas station at New Market on I-81 and put a serious butt whup on all you cowards... Hey, maybe you cowards could pull yer resorces and drive together to save money fir the medical treatment yer gonna need after this ol' hillbilly is done with ya... Yeah, not only can I kicj yer butt's on issues but sho nuff can at the Liberty station.... Bunch of GUEST losers, as far as I can see.... Yeah, why don't you all just gop to D.C. and camp out in front othe White House and have you all a big ol' circle jerk... Make you all feel all warm and fuzzy... Save you a butt whup... But if you want the butt whup, bring yer 13-year-old-girl selves right on to the Liberty station.... I'll meet you there... I-81 and New Market, you crybaby... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Geoduck Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:34 PM How original Bobert you are a quack. All you do is post horseshit and when someone posts the truth you whine that it is cut and paste. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:15 PM Yo duck, Quack, quack... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:57 PM Now there's a possibility??? Hmmmmmm? Seein' as T-NotHere might not have been here then that gives him an excuse fir misrepresenting what porpaganda we were blasted with???? Okay, that might explain it... Fir ther life of me I can't figgure out why else he don't get it... I even brought up the possibilites that maybe T-Forgetfull might have slipped doen the totum pole to T-Altzhiemers and now I feel bad about saying them things, even if it turns out that his latest shananagins are a result of mental slipage... Prolly what Carol said... He just wasn't "here" to experience it first hand.... In that case, lucky T-Weren'tHere and unlucky fir those of us who were... We vividlt remember Bush not being able to so much as sneeze without it comin' out Ha-9/11-Chu... God Bless you... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Geoduck Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:52 PM The closest the whining anti-american anti-war mongers can come to a quote by Bush saying that Saddam and 9/11 were connected is that he mentioned both very close together in a specch. Pathetic. Go emigrate to Mexico. Make Bobert the cut and paste Nazi proud. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: dianavan Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:48 PM teribus says, "As to the articles you regard as evidence of intent. How many contracts have been awarded Dianavan? How many major US and UK oil Companies are now controlling Iraq's economy because of deals that Chalabi and the US government have pushed through?" I am talking about the INTENT of major U.S. and U.K. oil companies but you want evidence that they are NOW controlling Iraq's economy. Don't you think its a little suspect that the man who gave false information about Iraq to the U.S. is now the man in power? He is likely to be in power after Dec. 15th too. How coincidental! Hassan Awad (Iraq trade unionist) doesn't seem to trust the U.S. either. "The US has decreed that only its companies can bid for oil contracts, sidelining the companies of other countries, whether from Europe or elsewhere. Only two months after their troops crossed the border, US companies —Kellogg Brown & Root and Halliburton — arrived to take control over our industry. These US companies are the real beneficiaries of the invasion." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:39 PM I didn't provide that quote about what people believed about Saddam prior to 9/11. Ron Davies provided that one in this post... Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies - PM Date: 03 Dec 05 - 09:05 AM If you look at the post in which I quoted Ron's post, you will see that I italicized the quote and put it in quotation marks. And then I responded to it with my response. In response to the full paragraph provided by Teribus, I would say that full paragraph is an excellent example of the kind of tactics the Bush administration used relentlessly to condition people to connect the two unrelated things... 9/11, and Saddam Hussein, in the minds of the US electorate. Multiply that quote by many hundreds, and you get a perfect understanding of why such a large percentage of people in the US believed that Saddam was either responsible for, or contributed to what happened on 9/11. Teribus styles himself as someone who lives in the UK. I think either he is lying about living in the UK, or he has no way of really knowing how the people in the US experienced this sort of propaganda from the US government during the lead-up to the invasion, because he wasn't here, and he wasn't being subjected to it himself. Perhaps Teribus would like to prove to us that the government of the Soviet Union, for instance, never tried to mislead the people of the Soviet Union about anything because we can't produce any documents from any Soviet premiers admitting that they were doing so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:23 PM Like I've pointed out to T-Digger.... When in a hole, quit diggin' but he don't listen... The starnge thing here is that we were all 'round in the mad-dash-to-war... T_Amnesia must have forgotten that as he tries and tries to rewrite the way it went down... Ahhhh, in the sellin' of the invasion of Iraq the world was bamblasted with referencwes to 9/11... I mean, like over the top bamblased, if bamblasted is even a word??? Bush and Cheney couldn't makie their case for war in Iraq without bringing up 9/11... Ahhhh, I don't have the State of the Union text before me that the '16 words" were uttered but it would be interesting to how amy times Bush used the exact term "9/11" of the exact term "terrorist/s" in that speech.... Go back the Cincinitta speeech of Oct (11th???) (10th???) before the invasion and count up the "9/11" or "terrorist" references that were made by Bush...; Only a very dillusional person would be so arrogant into thinking that he could convince a couple humdred folks on a website where the average age is 50 plus into thinking that they weren't alive in the mad-dash-to-war and therefore must not remember the way it went down... (But Bobert... Maybe it isn't arrogance... Maybe T-Altzhiemers actually has forgotten that we were around 3 years ago) Ahhhh, it has just occured to me that maybe T-Forgetfull might have gone thru some organic changes and if that is the case, I am deeply saddened... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 05 - 09:04 PM GUEST,Mirsy - 06 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM Oh Dear!!! Too Bad!!! Never Mind |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Mirsy Date: 06 Dec 05 - 08:53 PM Oh, dear. That last one was a signal disappointment. I am going to have to knock Teribus down a point or two in the standings now. I expected better than that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 05 - 08:46 PM Yes TIA quite in line with what was said way back in 2002. Now come on please give us a quote a quote whereby the Presidedent of the United States of America, or any member of his Administration indicated that Saddam Hussein/ Iraq had anything to do with the attacks of 11th September 2001. Give you a hint TIA you cannot do it. Now just sit down and contemplate that one single fact. You have tried your damndest at it just has not happened, I have not swallowed your line of complete and utter bullshit. Now come on if you actually believe what you say - PROVE IT. YOU CAN'T an I did say can't |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Mirsy Date: 06 Dec 05 - 08:39 PM Damn! That last Teribus post was right up to snuff. I read it out loud to my roommate. He says he'll thump me if I do that again. He's a complete Philistine when it comes to politics. "Who the hell are these people you're quoting anyway?" he snarled at me, as he prepared to leave (going to the pub, I think). "They're a bunch of brilliant private political analysts on an Internet forum called Mudcat," says I. "They're a bunch of know-it-all idiots," says he. "Puffed up with their own sense of grandeur. I'd thump 'em all if I had the chance. Specially that Teribus blathermouth. God! I don't know how you stand it. I'm gone." With that, he stalked out the door. He's a fool. He'll never understand the importance of sorting out just where evil lies in the world so that one can know exactly who to hate and who not to. More please. I am hungry for more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 06 Dec 05 - 07:03 PM Never been there...sounds like maybe you have patmc? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: patmc Date: 06 Dec 05 - 06:20 PM Can I ask y'all a question. Which of you folks on here have ever been to Iraq- either before 1991, during, pre-latest clusterfuck or um... "since the end of hostilities" Just curious. Pat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 06 Dec 05 - 02:03 PM "If we're successful in Iraq, then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," Dick Cheney on "Meet the Press", September 14, 2003. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 05 - 01:48 PM Well, well, well, T-Digger. Yer twistin' and squirmin' reminds me of the saying, "When yer in a hole, quit diggin', yet you continue to dig... Okay boys and girls, lets vote... How many of you felt that the Bush & Co. did not make repeated attempts to link Saddam and Al Qeada during the sellin' of the Iraq war... Come on, don't be bashfull... Just raise yer hand... Okay, T, we have tabulated yer vote and, BTW, rasing both hands still counts as only one vote... Like I said, quit digging pal... Every shovel full represents just one notch down on the credibility chart... I you were a stock there'd be investors jumpin' outta windows about now... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:38 AM GUEST 06 Dec 05 - 09:59 AM aka TIA TIA's example No.1 : GWB May 1, 2003, speech aboard the Lincoln (under the banner – remember?): "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001. With that attack, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got". Again TIA that would not have influenced anyone into thinking that there was a link between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 911 in the run up to 20th March 2003, would it?? Plus the possibly rather minor point that what the President is talking about here is completely in line with exactly how he defined the scope of the war against terror in his 2002 State of the Union Address. The same applies to the example given by CarolC (lifted from the President's 2003 State of the Union Address) only this time I will quote the full paragraph and will not just cherry-pick as CarolC did: "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. IMAGINE those 19 hijackers WITH OTHER WEAPONS AND OTHER PLANS -- THIS TIME armed by Saddam Hussein. It WOULD TAKE one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country TO BRING A DAY OF HORROR like none we have ever known. WE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT DAY NEVER COMES." Now TIA that looks pretty clear that he is talking of a possible future threat that needs to be addressed, he is not talking about the past, he is not talking about Saddam Hussein being behind, or having anything to do with the 911 attacks. It also follows completely in step with what he had said the year before. Now let's just remind ourselves of what George W. Bush DID SAY during the 2002 State of the Union Address, and just for Ron Davies's sake, Yes Ron, I DO MEAN the 2002 Address: EXTRACTED FROM THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS - 2002 "Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. FIRST, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, SECOND, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world. Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities. While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere. We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia. My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf. But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will. Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening AMERICA OR OUR FRIENDS AND ALLIES with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime ARMING with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran AGGRESSIVELY PURSUES THESE WEAPONS AND EXPORTS TERROR, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its HOSTILITY toward America and to SUPPORT TERROR. The Iraqi regime has PLOTTED TO DEVELOP anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, ARMING to threaten the peace of the world. BY SEEKING weapons of mass destruction, these regimes POSE A GRAVE AND GROWING DANGER. They COULD PROVIDE these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: AMERICA WILL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE OUR NATION'S SECURITY. We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch. Again, a future threat identified and evaluated as existing in to two forms - international terrorist groups AND possible support such groups might receive from certain rogue states and regimes. The language is certainly clear enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Mirsy Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:16 AM Whoo! Impressive stuff. I am now wavering between committing myself totally to Arne Langsetmo (with that devastating last post of his)...or to the titanic Teribus...who continues to astound with his command of massive verbiage, reaction, and counter-reaction. It took me several hours to fully digest and analyze the many points made by just those 2 gentlemen in their last few posts. Heavy stuff, man. I feel that only a few more weeks of this will be necessary for me to arrive at a firm conclusion as to who is right here...and who is irredeemably damned or else totally fecking stupid. Then I can get on with my life. Hopefully my savings will stretch to cover the interim. I dare not abandon the computer in fear of missing the next installment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: TIA Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:06 AM Oops, that was moi, sans biscuit. And with that, despite the fun, I declare myself done with running around in little circles. On to other threads! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 05 - 09:59 AM Teribus says: "Horsepucky, yourself TIA, the quotes you gave me related to links between Saddam/Iraq and Al-Qaeda, not Saddam/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001. The latter was what Ron Davies inferred and what I disputed." Already posted this one up thread. Didja miss it somehow? GWB May 1, 2003, speech aboard the Lincoln (under the banner – remember?): "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001. With that attack, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got". And CarolC posted this one: "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained" Musta missed that too. Ron Davies has this one nailed - I'm afraid that for you it just seems too late to back down from an untenable position. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 05 - 04:29 AM dianavan - 06 Dec 05 - 03:24 AM Are you telling us Dianavan that Chalabi and the US Government are pushing to have US and UK troops remain in Iraq under contract? Because when I made the statement that, "no evidence has been offered with regard to US intentions of remaining in Iraq" I was refuting Boberts comments about US military presence in Iraq, if you are going to quote me Dianavan quote in context: "Saddam has been removed. Time to leave, right???" As soon as the elected Iraqi Government tells us to leave. So US presence is for no other reasons.." 'cept oil and stategic military reasons..." Of course Bobert, that is why no major US or British Oil Company has been awarded any of the Field Development Contracts, and no evidence has been offered with regard to US intentions of remaining in Iraq for any longer than the Iraqi Government wants the MNF there, the presence of that force also being subject to a UN Mandate - it runs out end of 2006 and is to be reviewed in June 2006." Has that cleared it up for you??? Or does it have to be further explained?? As to the articles you regard as evidence of intent. How many contracts have been awarded Dianavan? How many major US and UK oil Companies are now controlling Iraq's economy because of deals that Chalabi and the US government have pushed through? NONE Correct Dianavan? And old Chalabi had better get a move on, after the 15th of this month he is no longer in office - Is he Dianavan? He could of course be re-elected, probably will but will he be deputy or oil minister that as yet remains to be seen. You Dianavan are an hysterical alarmist, whose powers of analyses and prediction are thankfully miles off target. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 05 - 04:09 AM Alas, Arne, my little viking - you have got it exactly 180 degrees out: "You are demanding that Dubya use precise and very specific words (your "Simon Says" ploy) to assert that Dubya claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. But that wasn't the issue, was it? It was whether Saddam and al Qaeda were in cahoots." I have absolutely no doubt that links did exist between Iraq and Al-Qaeda going back years prior to 911. What I said, and what Ron Davies took exception to and contradicted me on, was that very early after the attacks of 911 the Bush Administration came out with very clear statements that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks. Did they investigate whether he did or not, did they ask people to look into it - I am bloody certain that they did - resulting in the statements made regarding Iraq's non-involvement. Teribus...."Now so far, between a few of us, the actual words spoken by GWB and members of his administration, within context have been provided." I can clearly establish that the quotes and references I provide are from transcripts of speeches, press conferences and official records. Now where do yours come from Arne: Remember my comment..."you have totally grown accustomed to relying on what somebody else has reported and commented on." Arne's own words...."no, I rely oon what reputable media (and even disreputable media, such as "www.whitgehouse.gov") report on what the maladministration said." Therin lies the difference Arne - I read and listen to what the person says, you, on the other hand, read and listen to what somebody else has reported. Maybe like Ron, you could furnish us with what you regard as being reputable media (Al-Jazeera for example, although their coverage on the 180,000 deaths, at the hands of the Muslim Government troops and Muslim Janjaweed Militia in Darfur was a trifle sketchy - understandable oversight eh Arne?) OK Arne maybe we are getting somewhere after all - You now apparently accept that the idea of regime change in Iraq came not from George W Bush but from the previous administration under Bill Clinton. Teribus..."But after the US has been attacked, the President and his Administration are pilloried for exercising the power at their disposal to act in the best interests of the country, even after having gone to both houses of Congress, even after having gone to the United Nations." Arne....."News flash: Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!!!!" Arne, would you like to point out exactly where in that sentence of mine quoted above where I have said, inferred, alluded to Iraq attacking the US. And also tell us exactly how the following paragraph of that post of mine started - "Afghanistan...." correct? You see Arne that's your problem, supplied by ideas from others you do not read, you just react along your pre-programmed misconceptions. By the way Arne the head of state of any country is free to act in the defence of his/her country, or its national interest if they believe them to be threatened - it does not require approval from the United Nations - That is a fact of life, that is the reality, learn to live with it. Teribus..."Afghanistan had the general concensus of world opinion behind it, maybe not the anti-war, anti-Bush, peace-at-any-price brigade, but enough of the world all the same." Arne...."News flash for your: Afghanistan is not located in Iraq. Moving the goal posts a couple thousand Km, eh?" Another example, where have I stated that Afghanistan is in Iraq Arne? You seem to be the one not only setting but moving goal posts, due to your complete and utter inability to read something and understand it - Oh unless somebody tells you what to think first. Another little exchange that proves my point perfectly: Arne...."Plenty of quotes have been given by myself, TIA, Davies, and others by the maladministration making definitive links between Saddam and Iraq." Teribus..."Unfortunately that is what they have been quoting - themselves, or journalists reports of what that journalist thought was said...." Arne..."Oh, horsepuckey. We've quoted Dubya, Cheney, etc. Do you deny THAT THEY SAID WHAT REPORTERS SAID THEY SAID?" As stated previously, I tend to read what the person says, not what the reporter says he says - because in my experience Arne newspaper reporters and journalists lie, nine times out of ten their story is written before they even leave their desks to go and do the interview. Reference the required quote: Dick Cheney interview "Meet the Press" 8th September 2002. Already posted. Now you give us one direct quote (Note Arne direct quote - not what some reporter or journalist thinks was being said) where GWB or any member of his administration stated that there was a link between Saddam/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001. What you thought in the period 18th December 1998 to 20th March 2003, with regard to WMD, is immaterial Arne. Thankfully, it was never going to be your call to make, fortunately, for the country in which you live, you Arne Langsetmo, were not the person responsible for safeguarding the security and national interests of the United States of America. UNMOVIC is irrelevant Arne? - How so Do you deny that between 18th December 1998 and December 2002 the person and regime keeping UNSCOM and latterly UNMOVIC out of Iraq was Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Government of Iraq? Do you deny that the only reason UNMOVIC were eventually invited back into Iraq (Oh yes Arne they had to be INVITED BACK IN) was because the President of the United States of America parked a quarter of a million members of the armed forces of the US on his doorstep, with the clear message comply, co-operate or you will be removed irrespective. With regard to the words spoken by Dr. Hans Blix, Arne flounders around alot here, mainly because there's nobody telling him what to think, but he does come up with this absolute GEM: Arne....."Words have meaning." Yes they do Arne, my little american viking, EVEN THE ONES CONTAINED IN UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS, especially if you happen to be on the receiving end of them. Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 required the immediate, unconditional and active co-operation of the Iraqi Authorities from day one, not the stirrings of it 3-4 months down the track, no attempts on the Iraqi side to impose, or attach conditions. Yes Arne, words do have meanings, and people are best advised to heed them, but that is not selective, it applies goes right across the board. Cheers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: dianavan Date: 06 Dec 05 - 03:24 AM terribus - "no evidence has been offered with regard to US intentions of remaining in Iraq" I gave you evidence of intent when I linked you to articles stating that U.S. and British contracts are being pushed by the U.S. govt. and Chalabi. Control of the economy is just another way to dominate the people of Iraq. Everybody has given evidence except you. You are a blowhard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 05 - 02:38 AM Horsepucky, yourself TIA, the quotes you gave me related to links between Saddam/Iraq and Al-Qaeda, not Saddam/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001. The latter was what Ron Davies inferred and what I disputed. Bobert's post of 05 Dec 05 - 09:02 PM, shows the man at his deluded best. I see the 100,000 innocent dead have re-entered the equation (Bobert 100,000 innocent Iraqis HAVE NOT BEEN KILLED). I see that Bobert once again asks about "Offing" Saddam and asks why this simple question of his has "never" been answered - it has of course but Bobert just doesn't like that answer. "UN resolutions like they mean andanged thing" they mean so much to the likes of Ron Davies and Co that they even invent some at times just so they can show that the US is in violantion of them - the UN and the sanction to attack Iraq. CarolC quotes the sovereign integrity of the State of Iraq, well unfortunately for CarolC the US and it's coalition partners have done nothing to alter the sovereign integrity of Iraq, they have effected Regime Change, that is all. Now TO WIT: George Bush never actually linked the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001 with Saddam.... FACT... "In one speech after another in the mad-dash-to-war referance of 9/11 were sprinkled in... Waht was that all about, T??? Just seasoning???" No Bobert POSSIBLE FUTURE THREAT. "Saddam has been removed. Time to leave, right???" As soon as the elected Iraqi Government tells us to leave. So US presence is for no other reasons.." 'cept oil and stategic military reasons..." Of course Bobert, that is why no major US or British Oil Company has been awarded any of the Field Development Contracts, and no evidence has been offered with regard to US intentions of remaining in Iraq for any longer than the Iraqi Government wants the MNF there, the presence of that force also being subject to a UN Mandate - it runs out end of 2006 and is to be reviewed in June 2006. Oh this is very much about Clinton, and the double standards of the anti-Bush faction when it comes to viewing the situation. Oddly enough Bobert the percentage numbers of troops in Iraq spread between the 38 countries of the 2003 coalition and those of the 34 countries in 1991 coalition are about the same, in both cases the US provided the vast bulk of them. Ron Davies - 05 Dec 05 - 09:49 PM Regarding the quote and references to GWB and members of his administration clearly acknowledging that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001. You have been given a quote from the Vice-President dated 8th September 2002, which somehow is a date that you chose to read as 8th September 2003, for some strange reason. You and your fellow travellers have not come up with one single quote where GWB, or members of his administration have stated that Saddam/Iraq had anything to do with the 911 attacks - Not one. I can clearly see that you believe that they did "carry out a campaign to link Saddam and 11 Sept 2001 during the above period" - but that is all it is, it is your belief, and as with CarolC, just because it is your belief does not make it fact. All joint references to Iraq and Al-Qaeda, post 911, apart from those where the current administration clearly state that Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks, clearly refer to a possible future threat. CarolC - 05 Dec 05 - 10:36 PM "Teribus my good fellow, just as you asked, I gave you direct quotes from GWB himself with dates and links. Anyone can simply browse up the thread for proof of this." The only thing that is invisible CarolC are the "direct quotes", the "dates", the "links" - in fact everything you mention above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 06 Dec 05 - 12:13 AM Teribus continues his sycophancy: Alas, Arne, my little viking, Teribus has hefted no goal posts: CarolC's statement of 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM, remains purely her opinion. Sure, you did. You are demanding that Dubya use precise and very specific words (your "Simon Says" ploy) to assert that Dubya claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. But that wasn't the issue, was it? It was whether Saddam and al Qaeda were in cahoots. That's a "red herring" on your part (although, as shown above, there was an effort to link Saddam specifically to the 9/11 attacks, and there was the insinuation that he was in fact involved [see the Mylroie article]). Actually, going further back up-topic, the original issue was Saddam's WoMD (of which there really were none). Now so far, between a few of us, the actual words spoken by GWB and members of his administration, within context have been provided. You misspelled "carefully gleaned and cherry-picked". You accuse us of cherry-picking, but our point (that a link was made between Saddam and al Qaeda) stands even if you post tons of quotes where Dubya doesn't make that assertion (and you have yet to honour a request for a quote where Dubya affirmatively asserts that there was no such tie). But your claim that Dubya made no such claim is disproven by a single quote showing he did so. As has been provided (more than once). To counter that we have been offered red-herring after red-herring, rumour, cherry-picked sentences taken completely out of context and unsubstantiated opinion.... How about quotes directly from the ass's mouth? When you are asked to provide links or references, by way of substantiation, you pointedly ignore the subject and then accuse us of 'moving the goal posts'. That is not debate Arne that is wriggling, that is evasion, that is total lack of confidence in your sources of information. Nope. The "goal post moving" had to do with the claim of Saddam's involvement with 9/11, rather than the broader claim of a Saddam/al Qaeda link (but see above for more on even your more restricted claim). Arne, I would only believe too readily that you find it difficult to find any statement actually made by members of the current US Administration to support or substantiate points put forward by the likes of yourself - Your English comprehension skills at best are severely impaired, to such a degree, that you have totally grown accustomed to relying on what somebody else has reported and commented on. ROFL. I would believe that you can't construct an intelligible paragraph. Witness this last one. But if I can guess at your point: no, I rely oon what reputable media (and even disreputable media, such as "www.whitgehouse.gov") report on what the maladministration said. Now, Arne boy here would like us all to believe that the following never happened, or if it did it was irrelevant: The Clinton Administration did not write Regime Change in Iraq into US Foreign Policy - Fact is that he did, and I can prove it - Nobody in the US complained when he did it . "Straw man". I haven't said any such thing. The Clinton Administration unilaterally ordered attacks on Serbia, Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq. He did this without first obtaining the consent, or approval from the US Senate, The US House of Representatives, or from the United Nations - Nobody complained Ditto last comment. Teribus here thinks I shold be responsibel for other people's opinions. I've tendered my own on Clinton's actions. But this persiflage of Teribus's is the "tu quoque" fallacy, and hardly rfelevant to whether Dubya is a horse's arse. [snip SOS] But after the US has been attacked, the President and his Administration are pilloried for exercising the power at their disposal to act in the best interests of the country, even after having gone to both houses of Congress, even after having gone to the United Nations. News flash: Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!!!! As for the authorisation to invade, that wasn't given explicitly (if we're to use Teribus's "standards" for asserting a position). Various folks thought that force should be threatened but many also thought that was a last resort if Saddam didn't comply, and there was considerable feeling amongst these that Saddam was complying tolerably ... and that we were no where near a last resort state. In fact, the UN Security Council refused to give Dubya an OK for his invasion (and Dubya reneged on his promise to force at least a show of hands, something that Teribus has studiously ignored this entire thread). Afghanistan had the general concensus of world opinion behind it, maybe not the anti-war, anti-Bush, peace-at-any-price brigade, but enough of the world all the same. News flash for your: Afghanistan is not located in Iraq. Moving the goal posts a couple thousand Km, eh? Iraq came into the frame because of non-compliance with outstanding UNSC Resolutions, it was evaluated as a potential threat, it supported international terrorist groups and could possibly support a far more serious attack on the USA than those of 911 - SERIOUS FUTURE POSSIBLE THREAT - i.e. it requires to be dealt with sooner rather than later. So the "intgelligence" would have you believe. The intelligence was crap. I knew it at the time (and posted a link to prove it). Others did too. Dubya should have known (and quite possibly did). Mark you I would not expect Arne, to follow this, he is the guy who, as the pilot of an aircraft, does not regard himself being under attack until after he has been shot down - bit late then old son, but then fortunately you will hopefully never be in a position to have to make those sort of judgement calls. "Straw man" again. I don't believe in overflyign sovereign states with warplanes, attacking targets on the ground, and then going "Waugh, waugh, waugh, they're firing at me!" when the obvious occurs. As I pointed out, the U.S. was deliberately provocative (and this goes for Clinton too, FWIW, but it got worse under Dubya). As to the...."Plenty of quotes have been given by myself, TIA, Davies, and others by the maladministration making definitive links between Saddam and Iraq." Unfortunately that is what they have been quoting - themselves, or journalists reports of what that journalist thought was said.... Oh, horsepuckey. We've quoted Dubya, Cheney, etc. Do you deny that they said what reporters said they said? ... Not so fussed about the links between Saddam and Iraq Arne, it would indeed be strange if there were no links between Saddam and Iraq - after all at the time in question he was actually running the place in a pretty hands-on fashion.... You got me, you little nit-picker, you. Now see if you can divine what I meant. Or is that too hard for you? ... The links between Saddam/Iraq and Al-Qaeda were known of from intelligence reports pre-dating GWB's arrival in the White House. But the message that Ron Davies was trying to put across was that GWB and members of his administration were wandering around stating that Saddam/Iraq had a hand in the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001, when in actual fact the direct opposite was the case, I can again prove and give clear examples of that, Ron Davies and the rest of you cannot come up with a single quote to substantiate what you believe to be the case. They did. You ignored them. Now put up or shut up: Give us a quoet where Dubya et. al. say that there was no involvement of Saddam in 9/11. The claims of WoMD?? No big lie Arne & Co. Details relating to the unaccounted for stocks, munitions and precursor chemicals thought to exist in Iraq were brought to the attention of the Governments of the World by the United Nations - Not by George W. Bush - Not by Tony Blair. Did GWB and Tony Blair believe the UNSCOM Report - Of course they did, so did everybody else at the time - otherwise explain exactly how 1441 got passed. Don't take my word for it, the speeches made by all 15 Ambassadors sitting on the UNSC when 1441 was adopted are a matter of record - They are what they actually said at the time... Most rational people thought there was uncertainty. Only Dubya said (after the fact, in fact!): "...did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely." Arne, not what some anti-war, anti-Bush Blogger bashed out on the subject using 20 x 20 hindsight. I pointed it out beforehand. And I was far from alone. Again I can provide substantiation for what I am saying - Arne & Co will find it somewhat more difficult. Ask the docs to titrate the Haldol up a notch. Arne, at his cherry-picking best,..."Dubya couldn't stop lying afterwards, even, and invented this fantasy (or hallucination? -- scary...) about Saddam not letting the inspectors in (as I posted in an early article here)." When was UNMOVIC formed Arne? Irrelevant. We know that UNSCOM were withdrawn on the advice of the US Government (Clinton) in December 1998 just before "Desert Fox" was launched. After "Desert Fox" did Saddam invite the UNSCOM Inspectors back into Iraq Arne? - No he did not Arne. No. In part because the U.S. decided that it was a good idea to insert U.S. intelligence resources into the U.N. teams. Bad move, and I've criticised this previously. But nonetheless irrelevant. UNMOVIC was formed to replace UNSCOM on 17th December 1999, almost a year to the day that UNSCOM left Iraq. That was the UNSCOM that Saddam had run ragged, deceived, threatened and intimidated for the best part of seven years (Don't bother disputing that Arne, for the proof is overwhelmingly in favour of what I have just said). Now UNMOVIC, duly constituted by the United Nations were allowed back into Iraq when Arne? 1999 - No; 2000 - No; 2001 - No; 2002 - Yes, right towards the end of the year. Now you can tell us why, you can tell us how that was achieved, can't you Arne. Yep. UNSCR 1441. But glad to see that even you admit that Dubya's a lying sack'o'shite. You can also tell us exactly who had kept the UNMOVIC Inspectors out of Iraq in 1999, 2000, 2001 and the first three quarters of 2002 - Couldn't have been Saddam Hussein could it Arne? Irrelevant. Now then Arne let's take a look at the President's Statement, made at a Press Conference during question time on the 14th July, 2003, and let us all remember that AT THAT TIME inspections by the US Survey Group were still ongoing: "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely." Now Arne that was true, or are you going to tell us that there were no activities, or programmes, proscribed under the terms of applicable UN Security Council Resolutions taking place in Iraq. Please don't because they are easily verifiable. Ummmm, there's that famous waffle: "Weapons of mas destruction program-related activities". Not my words, Teribus. That's getting pretty darn pedantic ... and pathetic. About the only program close to a violation was the al Samoud missile, and even that was arguable ... but as I pointed out, Saddam decided forgo any argument and to trash the missiles rather than risk giving Dubya some excuse for his wanton gun-slinging.... "And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." As stated above he had kept the UNSCOM Team out for a year, UNMOVIC out for the best part of three years. But Dubya said he "wouldn't let them in". See: Once allowed back in they were not given the full co-operation they were required to have from day 1, despite what Bobert might say to the contrary, the words of Hans Blix, Report to the UN Security Council 7th March 2003:
OK. Let's see what Blix says: The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it. It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution CANNOT BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE "IMMEDIATE" CO-OPERATION." Whoopdedoo. But nonetheless "cooperation". Otherwise the "immediate" becomes superfluous. Words have meaning. "And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region." The reasonable request - "You and your regime have 48 hours to quit the country, or we, along with our allies, will remove you by force." That wasn't in UNSCR 1441. It was WoMD, not regime change. GHWB's Coalition with full UN backing consisted of 34 different countries back in 1990/1991. GWB's Coalition consisted of 38 different countries who shared the view of the US that Saddam Hussein was better off being removed from the scene. If you want to look a real co-operation, and actual contribution, honestly, you'd see what pretty much every rational person has been saying: Dubya did not take the time to build a true coalition as his father did ... and that has been a source of a significant part of our woes there (not to mention $300B and 2000 soldiers down the tubes). Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 05 - 10:51 PM Well, CarolC, it's gettin' close to T-Invisinble to do his disappearin' act, just like he did fater the mad-dash-to-war... Reassignments, you know... Hope he don't get reassigned to Tweedsblues... Send him to, ahhhhh. Mars... Yeah, I hear them Marcians will believe just about anything you tell 'um... Good place for T-MarsBound... Let him make his mark there... He's strikin' out here big time... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 05 Dec 05 - 10:36 PM Teribus my good fellow, just as you asked, I gave you direct quotes from GWB himself with dates and links. Anyone can simply browse up the thread for proof of this. Teribus thinks that if he pretends all that documentation isn't there, maybe we won't notice it. He probably also believes that if he closes his eyes, he will become invisible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Dec 05 - 09:49 PM Good to see everybody's been having fun. Teribus-- What did I tell you earlier about losing your temper as the quickest way to lose an argument? You haven't learned much. Still waiting for a quote from Bush-- between mid-2002 and the March 2003 invasion-- in which Bush clearly disassociates 11 Sept 2001 and Saddam. As I've said-- more than once, I believe-- it is clear to anyone who can think and read that Bush and co. did in fact carry out a campaign to link Saddam and 11 Sept 2001 during the above period.. Arne, Amos, and I, among others have provided many citations--and every one I have cited is within the specified period, as are a good number of theirs. You have still not come up with one quote by Bush between mid-2002 and March 2003 to support your assertion. Based on your postings, especially that of 3 Dec 2005 10:11 PM, it seems I may have possibly struck a nerve. But you might also remember that cursing doesn't usually win debates--except possibly in your circles. In fact it's a rather clear indication of the bankruptcy of your position. It certainly is true that "fuck all absolutely nothing" is an unanswerable argument--congratulations. It shows all the subtlety for which you are famous, shows your unrivalled command of English, and addresses all the controversial points with an amazingly deft hand. We wouldn't have expected less from you. I stand in awe. The crowning irony, as I said earlier, is that I'll wager you do in fact realize that Bush and his cronies did carry out the propaganda campaign in question in between mid-2002 and March 2003. But you made the error of alleging that he did not--and now it's too painful to back down. You might want to start thinking before you post. I'm so sorry your ego is so tender. Now, about that bridge I have for sale? I can give you a real deal on it. But, be that as it may, I want you to know it's always a pleasure to read your postings or do any business with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 05 - 09:35 PM That's right, T-Wordy... Just another 300 words... Heck, you can do 300 in yer sleep... Yeah, I', waitin' on those 300 words myself... Over the last 3 years we've had 'bout 3 million of yer words and thjay haven't added up to nmuch more than one one syllable word: crap... But may the law of averages are with you... Maybe this will be the day where you find 300 words when mixed up properly between verbs, nouns, promouns, adjectives, articles, prepositions and adverbs that will give GUEST, Mirsy, a good nights sleep... But given yer record, I doubt it... Heck, if the first 3 millin didn't do the trick then I reckon the next 300 won't either... BTW, you haven't ver addressed the question about the Hans Blix report to the UN... You seem to glide right over it like it was a radiation pit... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Mirsy Date: 05 Dec 05 - 09:14 PM Oh! That last post of Teribus (05 Dec 05 - 07:49 PM) came soooooo close! So close to meeting my stringent requirements. I am almost convinced now that George Bush is right, dead right, and quite possibly the saviour of humanity and civilization. But... I am still wavering slightly. Bobert seems so sure of himself. And CarolC is also very convincing. As for Ron Davies....wow... Perhaps Bobert, CarolC, and Ron are right after all and Teribus has no real credibility. Oh, the angst! I just can't decide. I feel, Teribus, that if you were just to make one more post that's just a teeny bit longer (like another 300 words) and more detailed than any you have done yet...that might do it. I would then be on your side and you would have WON FOR ALL TIME! Do it, man. Do it. I can't stand much more of this not knowing who the evil guys are in the world so I can know where I stand when the shit hits the fan. Do you realize how much time I am losing on account of this dilemma? My life is on hold. I haven't washed in a week. Do it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 05 - 09:02 PM Ahhhhh, do you do drugs, T??? I mean, what a lot of crap.... First of all, regime change and killin' upwards of 100,000 innocwent people are TWO different scenerios... Hey, you wanta regime change??? Why not off Saddam???? Why won't you ever answer this basic question???? No, you want to talk endlessly about UN resolutions like they mean andanged thing... Tell ya' what, a UN resolution and 89 cents will get you a 12 ounce cup of coffee at the loacl convience store... Now TO WIT: George Bush never actually linked Al Qeada with Saddam.... Bull feathers, apl... In one speech after another in the mad-dash-to-war referance of 9/11 were sprinkled in... Waht was that all about, T??? Just seasoning??? Now, T WIT (PartB): Saddam has been removed. Time to leave, right??? (Well no, BObert, we goptta do this and we gotta do that and we gotta have a McDonald's on every corner....) Hmmmmmmmm> Like when will this endless list of reason of why we are in Iraq ever end??? (It won't, BObert... The US, which represents over 80% of the occupation forces, is in this thing for the long haul... Ain't about no reasons 'cept oil and stategic military reasons...) This ain't 'bout Clinton, T-Distratcor, it's about yer man... And, BTW, maybe you'd like to provide the peanut gallery with the troop percentages of the "34 different countries" that make up this coalition??? (No, BObert, T-Dodger prolly won't want them numbers made too public...) Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Dec 05 - 09:01 PM "As to the...."Plenty of quotes have been given by myself, TIA, Davies, and others by the maladministration making definitive links between Saddam and Iraq." Unfortunately that is what they have been quoting - themselves, or journalists reports of what that journalist thought was said." Horsepucky. Teribus my good fellow, just as you asked, I gave you direct quotes from GWB himself with dates and links. Anyone can simply browse up the thread for proof of this. Just like your heros in the Bush misadministration, you are absolutely brazen in your fantastical claims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 05 Dec 05 - 07:49 PM Alas, Arne, my little viking, Teribus has hefted no goal posts: CarolC's statement of 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM, remains purely her opinion. Now so far, between a few of us, the actual words spoken by GWB and members of his administration, within context have been provided. To counter that we have been offered red-herring after red-herring, rumour, cherry-picked sentences taken completely out of context and unsubstantiated opinion. When you are asked to provide links or references, by way of substantiation, you pointedly ignore the subject and then accuse us of 'moving the goal posts'. That is not debate Arne that is wriggling, that is evasion, that is total lack of confidence in your sources of information. Arne, I would only believe too readily that you find it difficult to find any statement actually made by members of the current US Administration to support or substantiate points put forward by the likes of yourself - Your English comprehension skills at best are severely impaired, to such a degree, that you have totally grown accustomed to relying on what somebody else has reported and commented on. Now, Arne boy here would like us all to believe that the following never happened, or if it did it was irrelevant: The Clinton Administration did not write Regime Change in Iraq into US Foreign Policy - Fact is that he did, and I can prove it - Nobody in the US complained when he did it . The Clinton Administration unilaterally ordered attacks on Serbia, Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq. He did this without first obtaining the consent, or approval from the US Senate, The US House of Representatives, or from the United Nations - Nobody complained His justification for launching "Desert Fox" was Iraq's failure to comply with requirements and conditions laid down in UN Security Council Resolutions agrred to at Safwan by Saddam Hussein's Government - Nobody complained about that. Where were the cries of illegal war. But after the US has been attacked, the President and his Administration are pilloried for exercising the power at their disposal to act in the best interests of the country, even after having gone to both houses of Congress, even after having gone to the United Nations. Afghanistan had the general concensus of world opinion behind it, maybe not the anti-war, anti-Bush, peace-at-any-price brigade, but enough of the world all the same. Iraq came into the frame because of non-compliance with outstanding UNSC Resolutions, it was evaluated as a potential threat, it supported international terrorist groups and could possibly support a far more serious attack on the USA than those of 911 - SERIOUS FUTURE POSSIBLE THREAT - i.e. it requires to be dealt with sooner rather than later. Mark you I would not expect Arne, to follow this, he is the guy who, as the pilot of an aircraft, does not regard himself being under attack until after he has been shot down - bit late then old son, but then fortunately you will hopefully never be in a position to have to make those sort of judgement calls. As to the...."Plenty of quotes have been given by myself, TIA, Davies, and others by the maladministration making definitive links between Saddam and Iraq." Unfortunately that is what they have been quoting - themselves, or journalists reports of what that journalist thought was said. Not so fussed about the links between Saddam and Iraq Arne, it would indeed be strange if there were no links between Saddam and Iraq - after all at the time in question he was actually running the place in a pretty hands-on fashion. The links between Saddam/Iraq and Al-Qaeda were known of from intelligence reports pre-dating GWB's arrival in the White House. But the message that Ron Davies was trying to put across was that GWB and members of his administration were wandering around stating that Saddam/Iraq had a hand in the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001, when in actual fact the direct opposite was the case, I can again prove and give clear examples of that, Ron Davies and the rest of you cannot come up with a single quote to substantiate what you believe to be the case. The claims of WoMD?? No big lie Arne & Co. Details relating to the unaccounted for stocks, munitions and precursor chemicals thought to exist in Iraq were brought to the attention of the Governments of the World by the United Nations - Not by George W. Bush - Not by Tony Blair. Did GWB and Tony Blair believe the UNSCOM Report - Of course they did, so did everybody else at the time - otherwise explain exactly how 1441 got passed. Don't take my word for it, the speeches made by all 15 Ambassadors sitting on the UNSC when 1441 was adopted are a matter of record - They are what they actually said at the time Arne, not what some anti-war, anti-Bush Blogger bashed out on the subject using 20 x 20 hindsight. Again I can provide substantiation for what I am saying - Arne & Co will find it somewhat more difficult. Arne, at his cherry-picking best,..."Dubya couldn't stop lying afterwards, even, and invented this fantasy (or hallucination? -- scary...) about Saddam not letting the inspectors in (as I posted in an early article here)." When was UNMOVIC formed Arne? We know that UNSCOM were withdrawn on the advice of the US Government (Clinton) in December 1998 just before "Desert Fox" was launched. After "Desert Fox" did Saddam invite the UNSCOM Inspectors back into Iraq Arne? - No he did not Arne. UNMOVIC was formed to replace UNSCOM on 17th December 1999, almost a year to the day that UNSCOM left Iraq. That was the UNSCOM that Saddam had run ragged, deceived, threatened and intimidated for the best part of seven years (Don't bother disputing that Arne, for the proof is overwhelmingly in favour of what I have just said). Now UNMOVIC, duly constituted by the United Nations were allowed back into Iraq when Arne? 1999 - No; 2000 - No; 2001 - No; 2002 - Yes, right towards the end of the year. Now you can tell us why, you can tell us how that was achieved, can't you Arne. You can also tell us exactly who had kept the UNMOVIC Inspectors out of Iraq in 1999, 2000, 2001 and the first three quarters of 2002 - Couldn't have been Saddam Hussein could it Arne? Now then Arne let's take a look at the President's Statement, made at a Press Conference during question time on the 14th July, 2003, and let us all remember that AT THAT TIME inspections by the US Survey Group were still ongoing: "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely." Now Arne that was true, or are you going to tell us that there were no activities, or programmes, proscribed under the terms of applicable UN Security Council Resolutions taking place in Iraq. Please don't because they are easily verifiable. "And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." As stated above he had kept the UNSCOM Team out for a year, UNMOVIC out for the best part of three years. Once allowed back in they were not given the full co-operation they were required to have from day 1, despite what Bobert might say to the contrary, the words of Hans Blix, Report to the UN Security Council 7th March 2003: "Mr. President, What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat RELUCTANT CO-OPERATION, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear. Against this background, the question is NOW asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as is REQUIRED under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions that I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following: The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it. It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution CANNOT BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE "IMMEDIATE" CO-OPERATION." "And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region." The reasonable request - "You and your regime have 48 hours to quit the country, or we, along with our allies, will remove you by force." GHWB's Coalition with full UN backing consisted of 34 different countries back in 1990/1991. GWB's Coalition consisted of 38 different countries who shared the view of the US that Saddam Hussein was better off being removed from the scene. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 05 Dec 05 - 06:19 AM Bobert: Sems to be a different story than the one that Hans Blix told the UN??? The date of that Dubya hallucination is also significant: July 14, 2003! Here's Teribus's (and BeardedBruce's) response: *crickets chirping*.... That statement of Dubya's (which he repeated in a later speech) has simply no defence. And shows that Dubya's a flat-out liar (or psychotic, take your pick). At the point you admit that, it becomes morally indefensible to back that lying, war-mongering sum'o'a'b*** on anything he says. When he shows that he has no compunctions about flat out lying to you and me, bald-faced, lying, trivially shown to be so, you get the idea the guy's a pathological liar, and you can't trust a single word he says.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Amos Date: 05 Dec 05 - 12:03 AM One other: From http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842 Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence 6/20/03 Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows. But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence. Here is a transcript of the exchange: CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein." RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?" CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence." Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not." Despite its implications, Martin's report was greeted largely with silence when it aired. Now, nine months later, media are covering damaging revelations about the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, yet still seem strangely reluctant to pursue stories suggesting that the flawed intelligence-- and therefore the war-- may have been a result of deliberate deception, rather than incompetence. The public deserves a fuller accounting of this story." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Amos Date: 04 Dec 05 - 11:58 PM "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01 The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."" CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks. That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. At 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. The caller said he had "heard good news" and that another target was still to come; an indication he knew another airliner, the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania, was at that very moment zeroing in on Washington. It was 12:05 p.m. when the director of Central Intelligence told Rumsfeld about the intercepted conversation. Rumsfeld felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something," and that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden. But later that afternoon, the CIA reported the passenger manifests for the hijacked airliners showed three of the hijackers were suspected al Qaeda operatives. "One guy is associate of Cole bomber," the notes say, a reference to the October 2000 suicide boat attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, which had also been the work of bin Laden. With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden. Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld. "Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." From "Scoop" e-mag: Bush Gang Swore Saddam Was Behind 9/11 In Lawsuit Friday, 18 November 2005, 10:38 am Opinion: Evelyn Pringle Bush Gang Swore Saddam Was Behind 9/11 In Lawsuit By Evelyn Pringle Much to the dismay of President Bush, Americans can remember all on their own, without any coaching from Democrats, that in the run up to war in Iraq, it was top official from the administration who were making the claim that Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden and that he was secretly involved to 9/11. The fact that the administration's disinformation campaign was entirely successful is evidenced by an October 2004, Harris Poll, taken three weeks before the last presidential election, which reported that 62% of all voters, and 84% of those planning to vote for Bush, still believed that Saddam had ''strong links" to Al Qaeda, and that 41% of all voters, and 52% of Bush backers, believed that Saddam had ''helped plan and support the hijackers" who had attacked the country on 9/11. As we now know, the basis for these allegations were false but the saddest part of the situation is that many Americans are just now beginning to realize that Bush knew the stories were false for more than a year when he cited them as justification for taking the country to war. Documents recently declassified and made public show that the administration was warned by the Defense Intelligence Agency in February 2002, that the tale about a trip to Prague by the leader of the 9/11 highjacker, Mohamed Atta, had come from an unreliable drunk, and that the story about Iraq training members of al Qaeda on the use of chemical and biological weapons was deliberately fabricated by an Iraqi defector. A recent poll conducted by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, indicates that Americans recognize the significance of this revelation, where 57% of Americans now believe that Bush misled the country about prewar intelligence; a 52% majority of those polled say the war was not worth it; and by a 58% to 38% margin, Americans believe that Bush has not given good enough reasons to keep our troops in Iraq. ADVERTISEMENT The debate over who was most responsible for convincing the nation that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 will probably continue for years but an important piece of the puzzle can be found by zeroing in on a woman by the name of Laurie Mylroie, that most people have probably never heard. Mylroie had been pushing for an all-out war against Iraq for a decade. In the run-up to the first Gulf war, Mylroie, along with the recently fired New York Times reporter Judith Miller, wrote a book titled, "Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf." The original Iraq war obsession originated at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think-tank that served as a home base for the many neocons who were rendered powerless during the Clinton years such as Richard Perle, who became chairman of the Defense Policy Board under Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz, who moved into the number-2 position at the Pentagon, and Newt Gingrich and John Bolton, to name just a few. In 2000, at a time when Dick Cheney sat on AEI's board, the group's publishing arm put out a book by Mylroie titled, "A Study in Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America." In the author's acknowledgement section of the book, Mylroie thanked a familiar case of characters, including John Bolton and the staff of AEI, for their assistance. She also wrote thanks to Scooter Libby for his "generous and timely assistance." Mylroie noted that Paul Wolfowitz was instrumental to her in writing the book and said, "At critical times, he provided crucial support for a project that is inherently difficult." She said that Wolfowitz's wife (at the time), had "fundamentally shaped the book." Neocon, Richard Perle, described the book as "splendid and wholly convincing," If Mylroie is to be believed, Saddam was involved in every anti-American terrorist event that took place since the early 1990s, from the bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which she says may have been "the work of both bin Laden and Iraq," to the federal building in Oklahoma City. She also accuses Saddam of involvement in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center even though the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the US Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the CIA, the National Security Council, and the State Department, all determined that there was no evidence of the Iraq's involvement in the attack back in the mid-1990s. Mylroie has also claimed that the TWA flight 800 which crashed into Long Island Sound is a likely Iraqi plot even after a lengthily investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board determined that it was an accident. She maintains that in 2000, Saddam provided the expertise for the bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 sailors, even though no law enforcement agency has ever made such a claim. She even blames Saddam for the anthrax sent through the mail shortly after 9/11. Once Bush became president, the neocons were brought back into power as either members of the administration or members of the influential Defense Policy Board and war against Iraq became the administration's obsession, with Mylroie and the hawks working hand and hand to promote the theory that Saddam was involved in every terrorist act against the US over the past decade. After the attacks on 9/11, the race towards Iraq was on, and Mylroie's book was reissued by Harper Collins under the new title, "The War Against America." The foreword for the second edition was written by Woolsey, who described her work as "brilliant and brave." The book's cover displayed an endorsement from Paul Wolfowitz which stated: "Provocative and disturbing ... argues powerfully that the shadowy mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing ... was in fact an agent of Iraqi intelligence." In the book's acknowledgment, Mylroie thanks Wolfowitz for being "kind enough to listen to this work presented orally and later to read the manuscript. At critical times, he provided crucial support for a project that is inherently difficult." She also praised the assistance of John Bolton. Now, a nutcase like Mylroie, if left to her own devices, would probably have been harmless. But when the neocons made her a consultant to the Pentagon, the position granted grossly misplaced credibility to her hair-brained conspiracy theories. There is no doubt that she was hired to convince the world that Saddam played a role in 9/11 and although I don't know how much she was paid, its plenty obvious that the Bush team got a lot of bang for the buck. In February 2003, Mylroie was featured for an interview on Canadian television where she discussed why Bush was going to war against Iraq and at the same time, emphasized the certainty of a Saddam-9/11 link. Shortly after the interview got underway, she stated: "Listen, we're going to war because President Bush believes Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Al Qaeda is a front for Iraqi intelligence…[the U.S.] bureaucracy made a tremendous blunder that refused to acknowledge these links … the people responsible for gathering this information, say in the C.I.A., are also the same people who contributed to the blunder on 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 Americans, and so whenever this information emerges they move to discredit it." From CBS: ""From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. "From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed." As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap." And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later. He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq." During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that." "The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election." " From MSNBC: Presidential brief The president's daily brief, or PDB, for Sept. 21, 2001, was prepared at the request of President Bush, the Journal reported, who was said to be eager to determine whether any linkage between the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraqi regime existed. And a considerable amount of the Sept. 21 PDB found its way into a longer, more detailed Central Intelligence Agency assessment of the likelihood of an al-Qaida-Iraq connection. The Journal story reports that that assessment was released to Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, and other senior policy-makers in the Bush administration. The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested from the White House the detailed CIA assessment, as well as the Sept. 21 PDB and several other PDBs, as part of the committee's continuing inquiry into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the months before the start of the war with Iraq in March 2003. The Bush administration has refused to surrender these documents. "Indeed," the Journal story reported, citing congressional sources, "the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004." Long-alleged connection After Sept. 11, the administration insisted that a connection existed between Iraq and al-Qaida. President Bush, in an October 2002 speech in Cincinnati, said the United States had "learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and gas." And Vice President Cheney, in a September 2003 appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," alleged there was "a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s." Click for related content Transcript of Cheney's "Meet the Press" appearance But the National Journal report said that the few believable reports of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida "involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group." Saddam considered al-Qaida "as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime," the Journal reported. "At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks" of al-Qaida with Iraqi intelligence operatives as a way to get more information about how the organization worked, the Journal said. Journal: Little has changed The Journal story asserts that little has changed to refute the initial absence of information linking Saddam and the al-Qaida network. "In the four years since Bush received the briefing, according to highly placed government officials, little evidence has come to light to contradict the CIA's original conclusion that no collaborative relationship existed" between Iraq and al-Qaida, the Journal reported. Common Dreans Newscenter: "9/11 Commission: No Link Between Al-Qaida and Saddam by Hope Yen WASHINGTON - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was ``no credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States. In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were ``apparently quite good.'' Terrorists-to-be were encouraged to ``think creatively about ways to commit mass murder,'' it added. Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army. Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorists Attacks Upon the United States (9-11 Commission) Gov. Thomas Kean looks on at the beginning of their final two-day hearing at the National Transportation Security Board conference center in Washington, June 16, 2004. The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks began its final hearings on Wednesday before delivering its findings at the end of next month. REUTERS/Larry Downing While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a ``collaborative relationship.'' The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq."... The BBC offers this study on how Bush and his galoots 'conflated' Saddam with 9-11 over and over. These took me all of ten minutes to find... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 04 Dec 05 - 11:44 PM TIA, I think you're having altogether too much fun. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 04 Dec 05 - 11:17 PM Hmmmmm>>> Sems to be a different story than the one that Hans Blix told the UN??? Like, what's that all about, T-Apologist???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 04 Dec 05 - 11:03 PM Teribus hefts the ol' goal posts and marches 'em another 20 yards towards the tennis courts...: I take it therefore that you cannot substantiate what you claim as being fact above then CarolC - Didn't think you could. No need to feel downhearted by it - neither can Ron who actually does believe that GWB or someone in his administration clearly stated that Saddam/Iraq had something to do with 911 attacks. I'll agree that it's difficult to find anyone in the maladministration making a "clear state[ment]" on anything. But this is just Teribus with his game of "Simon says"; his dip into Clintonesque parsing. Plenty of quotes have been given by myself, TIA, Davies, and others by the maladministration making definitive links between Saddam and Iraq. (And what do you suppose that link is supposed to do? Paint a picture through outlines and shadows of Saddam's hand on the controls of that 767, perhaps?) But Teribus is great at moving the goal posts and insisting on the Clintonesque parsings of Dubya's speeches in his "Simple Simon" game: Dubya didn't say "Simon says", so it don't count, you're out, ha-ha-ha.... And that's not even mentioning the claims of WoMD, which was the other big lie that Teribus wants you to forget about with his prevarications on this "Dubya didn't say 'Saddam and osama are secret homosexual lovers and Dubya's a bottom to boot" diversion of his. Don't let him muddy the waters. Dubya and company lied repeatedly. Dubya couldn't stop lying afterwards, even, and invented this fantasy (or hallucination? -- scary...) about Saddam not letting the inspectors in (as I posted in an early article here). I have still to see either Teribus, BeardedBruce, Geoduck, or any of the RW apologists here acknowledge this very strange and counter-factual statement of Dubya's. Tell me, folks, and give me an honest answer: Why did the Preznit of the United States make the following statement:
That statement is truly mind-boggling! So, Teribus, what was up with Dubya when he said that??? Don't be shy to offer an opinion..... Is Dubya about prime for a tour of the funny farm? Or is he just the most despicable liar on the face of the planet right now? Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 04 Dec 05 - 10:50 PM Depends just on who the master is, TIA??? If it's T-Master then, ahhhh, maybe I wouldn't have led off with the "Bullsh*t"... Yeah, think I would have snuck it in a little letter... Maybe called a few folks "fu*ks" first... You know, a little foreplay.... Now as fir the likes of GUEAT A??? Who the heck knows... I'm not sure if GUEST A knows from one minute to the next??? Actaually, I think it's more like a croos bgetween T-Lite and the old and unimproved Martin... In other words, needs a little polish... It ain't easy being a Bush apologist these days... Ya gotta be trained up "right"... But a good start.... Bobert |
