 sj |
||
|
||
BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 Dec 05 - 10:34 PM Bullshit! Unless you can provide a handwritten admission by George W. Bush, that has been notarized by the Pope, and dated September 16, 2001 at 6:03 PM, that is only your opinion Bobert (and Dianavan and CarolC and Ron Davies). You proven liars have no proof, only unsubstantiated twaddle. I am schooling at the feet of the master. HowmI doin? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 04 Dec 05 - 10:25 PM What Dianavan said.... You guys are in serious denial... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: dianavan Date: 04 Dec 05 - 06:35 PM teribus - the link between Saddam and 911 was a highly orchestrated plot to deceive the American people and justify a war of aggression. The best source of the Bush administration was a conspiracy theorist (Mylroie). People like you and other right wingers try to discredit the left as conspiracy theorists which is a very shallow defense considering the basis of the link between Saddam and 911. I am sick of listening to your self-righteous indignation and your attempt to deflect criticism. Its pretty obvious to the majority of people in this world that the Bush administration doesn't give a shit about the American people or any other people. They care only for profit at the expense of humanity. Figure it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: freda underhill Date: 04 Dec 05 - 09:46 AM ..! FBI Is Taking Another Look at Forged Prewar Intelligence by Peter Wallsten, Tom Hamburger and Josh Meyer; Published on Saturday, December 3, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times WASHINGTON — The FBI has reopened an inquiry into one of the most intriguing aspects of the pre-Iraq war intelligence fiasco: how the Bush administration came to rely on forged documents linking Iraq to nuclear weapons materials as part of its justification for the invasion. ..read on.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: freda underhill Date: 04 Dec 05 - 09:41 AM ..and BTW.. Military autopsy reports provide indisputable proof that detainees are being tortured to death while in US military custody. Yet the US corporate media are covering it with the seriousness of a garage sale for the local Baptist Church. A recent American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posting of one of forty-four US military autopsy reports reads as follows: "Final Autopsy Report: DOD 003164, (Detainee) Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy revealed bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominately recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide. Whitehorse Detainment Facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq." The ACLU website further reveals how: "a 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was "undetermined" although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death. Another Iraqi detainee died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated. He was standing, shackled to the top of a doorframe with a gag in his mouth, at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries. So read several of the 44 US military autopsy reports on the ACLU website -evidence of extensive abuse of US detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan 2002 through 2004. Anthony Romero, Executive Director of ACLU stated, "There is no question that US interrogations have resulted in deaths." ACLU attorney Amrit Sing adds, "These documents present irrefutable evidence that US operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations." Additionally, ACLU reports that in April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the use of "environmental manipulation" as an interrogation technique in Guantánamo Bay. In September 2003, Lt. Gen. Sanchez also authorized this technique for use in Iraq. So responsibility for these human atrocities goes directly to the highest levels of power. A press release on these deaths by torture was issued by the ACLU on October 25, 2005 and was immediately picked up by Associated Press and United Press International wire services, making the story available to US corporate media nationwide. A thorough check of Nexus-Lexus and Proquest electronic data bases, using the keywords ACLU and autopsy, showed that at least 95percent of the daily papers in the US didn't bother to pick up the story. The Los Angeles Times covered the story on page A-4 with a 635-word report headlined "Autopsies Support Abuse Allegations." Fewer than a dozen other daily newspapers including: Bangor Daily News, Maine, page 8; Telegraph-Herald, Dubuque Iowa, page 6; Charleston Gazette, page 5; Advocate, Baton Rouge, page 11; and a half dozen others actually covered the story. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Seattle Times buried the story inside general Iraq news articles. USA Today posted the story on their website. MSNBC posted the story to their website, but apparently did not consider it newsworthy enough to air on television. "The Randi Rhodes Show," on Air America Radio, covered the story. AP/UPI news releases and direct quotes from the ACLU website appeared widely on internet sites and on various news-based listservs around the world, including Common Dreams, Truthout, New Standard, Science Daily, and numerous others. Published on Friday, December 2, 2005 by CommonDreams.org Hard Evidence of U.S. Torturing Prisoners to Death Ignored by Corporate Media; by Peter Phillips; Peter Phillips is a Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and Director of Project Censored. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 04 Dec 05 - 09:30 AM Can't substantiate? No, that's not why I'm not bothering to comply with your demand. I'm not bothering with your demand because anyone but a five year old can see that you are, A. making up the rules as you go along, B. you change the rules to suit your own arguments, and C. you have not provided any of the same kind of documentation for your arguments that you are demanding from me. Show us the direct quote/transcript from the office of the President of the United States of America telling us that, despite the accusations that have been made against him and his people that they have tried to insinuate a connection between Saddam and 9/11, the president and his administration unequivocally state that Saddam was not responsible for 9/11. Let's see you do that. Otherwise we can take everything you have said in this thread to be the total bullshit that it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Donuel Date: 04 Dec 05 - 08:10 AM CNN poll in Oct. 82% of all respondents would support a third party. I suggest a one syllable party The Fact Party. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 04 Dec 05 - 07:54 AM CarolC - 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM "Regardless of whether or not they ever clearly stated a link between Saddam and 9/11, it certainly was (and to a large extent, continues to be) their intention for the US public to make that connection in their minds, and they have done everything they could to foster that link in the minds of the general public (perhaps just short of coming right out and saying it)." 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 - only thing is while I can prove quite clearly that they didn't Ron cannot find one single statement to back up his contention. It's a trap that you can tumble into when instead of reading what somebody actually said, you rely on reports of what somebody else thought was said. Then like Ron you take single sentences in isolation and completely out of context to try and back up what you, at second-hand have accepted as what was said and meant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:46 PM Plus, T-Going-Down-Hill-Fast... The ol' T would have known to put an apostophe in "Boberts posts" to show ownership rather that plural... Sorry, pal, but I won't tell yer boss... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:29 PM Anything less than a direct quote/transcript from the office of the President of the United States of America to the effect that what you have stated above is true will not be accepted Bullshit. Ron Davies, you should check out the link in TIA's 03 Dec 05 - 04:26 PM post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:12 PM Oh, real cute, T-Cute... I'm givin' you a 5.9 on cuteness but the usaul -5.9 on your two posts that I critiqued... You are going down hill faster than a bullet with a tailwind, pal... Yer really going to have to dig way down deep and try to find ways that are more old T-ish... Yer bosses are whisperin' behind yer back... They think you're not wrapped to tight... This ain't merely about gettin' a good evaluation but could mean yer job, pal... Callin' folks "fu*ks" is out 'er din't you get the memo??? (Ahhhh, T... Was it the marriage that didn't work out??? Man, I can't believe that you have slipped so far but between you and me if yer bosses come an' talk with me I'll say that yer doing a fine job... Oughtta be easy fir me since gettin' my "proven liar" certificate in the mail.) Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 03 Dec 05 - 11:00 PM In relation to Boberts posts: "I generally tend to not bother responding to his posts because....they are so full of fanciful, unsubstatiated twaddle, that they are not worth reading let alone considering them serious enough to answer." Bobert - 03 Dec 05 - 10:26 PM And Bobert - 03 Dec 05 - 10:27 PM I rest my case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 03 Dec 05 - 10:27 PM ...500... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 03 Dec 05 - 10:26 PM I'd like to enter T-Hogs last two posts as "Exhibit A' and "Exhibit B" in the scenerio that I outlined above an' would galdly invite T-Mouth to drive thru the South in, oh, 'bout 3 years in his tour bus... Awwww, heck, he prolly won't make it another 3 years... Seems to be a heart attack waitin' to happen... What a waste??? Bobert and.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 03 Dec 05 - 10:19 PM CarolC - 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM "Regardless of whether or not they ever clearly stated a link between Saddam and 9/11, it certainly was (and to a large extent, continues to be) their intention for the US public to make that connection in their minds, and they have done everything they could to foster that link in the minds of the general public (perhaps just short of coming right out and saying it)." This apparently is a FACT - CarolC please substantiate it. Anything less than a direct quote/transcript from the office of the President of the United States of America to the effect that what you have stated above is true will not be accepted - because you see just because CarolC says so doesn't make it true. By the way Ron Davies I want a direct quote from the President of the United States of America stating that Saddam Hussein or Iraq, or any rogue faction in Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with the atacks of 11th September 2001. Dig out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 03 Dec 05 - 10:11 PM Ron Davies - 03 Dec 05 - 05:47 PM - Fuck all absolutely nothing!!! Ron Davies - 03 Dec 05 - 09:05 AM - Fuck all absolutely nothing!!! Ron Davies - 03 Dec 05 - 08:41 AM - Fuck all absolutely nothing!!! Ron Davies - 03 Dec 05 - 08:37 AM - Fuck all absolutely nothing!!! Ron Davies - 03 Dec 05 - 08:33 AM - Fuck all absolutely nothing!!! Now DO COME ALONG you complete and utter TWAT you have been asked to provide SOME SORT OF EVIDENCE to back up your arguement TO DATE YOU HAVE given us absolutely NOTHING - Now get the fuck on with it or shut the fuck up. I have at least attempted to answer your questions, from your side I have noted nothing to back up any statement that you have made. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:16 PM Hate to tell ya, Ake, but the way I see it it woulodn't matter if the Dems did decide to have a backbone... In their case, they have been out gerrimandered with redistrictin'... Plus, in 90% of all races the canidate with the most money wins... So, no, the Dems most likely won't be able to do a danged thing... Unfortunately, what has to happen before the settin' will be right for either the Dems to assert themselves or the Green Party to replace the Dems as a real 2nd party, is not going to be too purdy... What I have predicted is that Boss Hog will continue to flaunt his new found wealth as the working class stiffs continue to slide backwards... Now you may call this the "Bobert Prediction" but when the Southerners get squeezed too much they will turn the show around... Yeah, Boss Hog only thinks he understands Southern Man.... Yeah, Southern Man, likes his beer. He likes his country music, He likes his flag. He ain't fir abortions... He hates falg burners... But all this is just the fluff that Boss Hog has used as he uses Southern Man but... ...a day will come when Southern Man been squeezed too hard in the wallet. This is the part about what Boss Hog doesn't understand 'cause when Southern Man begins to turn, there won't me 'nuff "I'm sorry's" from Boss Hog to turn it 'round... You know them million dollar buses that Boss Hog feels real comfy riding thru the South??? They willl become targets and there will be a rash of Boss Hog's killed and buses burned in the South... When that happens, and I very much fell it is heading thast way rapidly, then the country will be ready for a major correction... But what progressives need to be doing is "stayin' our course" and not let the T-Diverters throw their crap in out path... They know that our message is pro-earth an' pro-human and theirs is based on greed, power and control... Jus a mattter of time but at least we don't have to change the story, just be patient while perssistent... Peace Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 03 Dec 05 - 06:44 PM Seems like our govt just has a thing about controlling public opinion through the media. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/03/politics/03propaganda.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: akenaton Date: 03 Dec 05 - 06:40 PM Teribus is irrelevant. The people who took us to war are still in power. We need to expend less energy shouting at a deaf man, and more in working out what sort of administration is to replace those of Bush and Blair. The Democrats seem a very bad alternative. They dont appear to have the guts to lead. When Murtha changed his stance ,and called for withdrawal of troops, other leading Democrats failed to support him even though public opinion has swung strongly against the war Historically, Democrats have been responsible for some of the worst crimes of US Imperialism. It was the Democrat Truman who Atom bombed Japan, mainly to convince the Soviet Union of American "!superiority" It was the Democrat Lyndon Johnson who escalated the Vietnam War ,started by Democrat John Kennedy. The Democrats may have small differences on how to get the job done, but in reality their "job" is the same as the Republicans. If the Iraq War hadn't turned out to be such a fiasco, Democrat politicians would be falling over themselves in an attempt to be associated with Bush and his fellow criminals. So dont rely on the Democrats to fix America's foreign policy, its up to free thinking folks like Bobert, Tia , Carol,Ron and many others to work for an alternative to the Republicrats, and wipe the fil;th from your fine Constitution...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 03 Dec 05 - 06:14 PM Well, Ron, the *new & unimproved* version of the old T is nuthin' but T-Lite and T-Jerk, who came back, guns a' blazin', callin' anyone who didn't agree with him dumb "fu*ks" and "proven liars"... Hmmmm? No wonder he'll fight to death, continuing to use whatever distrations he can think of, to keep folks off him... Hey, I ain't never had to call nobody a "fu*k" in the years I been here, You haven't either, Ron... Yeah, folks like T-Jerk may not like having to be called to the carpet fir things they say but, hey, let one of us slip on one little insignificant point and he's ready to pounce with his "fu*ks" and "proven liars"... Yeah, he knows his days are numbered.... I have been tempted to order him a suitable-for-framing "proven liar" certificate to hang over his pudder but, hey, some folks is pathological and they actaully don't realize just how far out of touch with the truth they are... So it wouldn't mean anyything to him at all... He knows he's has messed up here so I predict that he's gettin' ready to split again, just like he did the last time when nuthin' was found in Iraq that backed up any of his hero's claims... That's my take on it... This guy wouldn't cop to jay-walkin', Ron... But continue to shread his crap all you want.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 03 Dec 05 - 05:47 PM A draw--not likely. So far Teribus has stubbornly-- (indeed, beyond "stubbornly",-- as I noted earlier) refused to accept the fact that the Bush "administration" engaged in a propaganda campaign between mid 2002 and the invasion (March 2003) to convince the US public of a link between al Queda and 11 September 2001 on one hand and Saddam on the other. It is so blazingly obvious to the rest of the world that it's clear the only reason Teribus refuses to accept it is damage to his own ego--especially since he's already had to concede another point-- that the US did not have UN authority to invade Iraq--so his delight in citing UN resolutions does him no good. In the face of a blizzard of quotes establishing the above propaganda campaign, he has not come up with one quote--during the period in question--to contradict this. As I said, the quote from 2001 has no bearing on the time period in question. As for the ostensible "subject" of the thread--that has been and remains a joke. As several of us have said, if it were true, Bush and his cronies would be shouting it from the rooftops--funny thing therefore that there hasn't been a press conference to announce this "hot news" . Therefore Teribus' only accomplishment is the ability to continue to type drivel--he has not made one point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 03 Dec 05 - 04:58 PM Well, well, well... Once again, T-Distrator, has moved the discussion away from the reality that the American people were given enough suggestive sellin' in the mad-dash-to-attack-Iraq so that even several months after them invasion, the Washington Post still found an alarming number of folks taht still believed the BIG THREE : Nukes, WMD and an Al Qaeda link... How could they not with the constant poundin' of the 9/11 Drum... I don't think that can be successfully argued against... Yet here folks are argurin' on symantics tricky little "loopholes" that the Bush War PR Room came up with... I remember the supposed mobile chemical labs that looked qutie menacing from 50 m iles above yet turned out to be rusted old junk in reality... Seems that rusty ol' junk was the rule rather thanthe exception when it came to Saddam's Iarq's defenses... Heck with "Shock and Awe"... There realkly doesn't seem there was much of value to actually blow up... Well, one thing is fir sure... One of the reasons that Saddam was reluctant to furnish documentation on just how ill-propared to defend his country is because, with his neighbors, had he shown all of his cards then maybe he felt if the US didn't attack hinm, one of his neigbors would... But, no matter, Hans Blix was satisfied that the inspectors had Sddam's cooperation so there was never any real reason, of the ones provided before the attack, to invade Iraq... And, 20/20 hindsight, seems there hasn't been a decent reason the Bush War PR folks have come up after the invasion... Which leads us very much back to what a lot of us have been saying all a long: The war is about oil and keeping the Bush administartion in power so it can continue its little redistribution of income away from the working class and poor toward the wealthy... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 03 Dec 05 - 04:26 PM Ron, Carol C: Although it is irresistable to fight such nonsense when the facts and the written record are so clear. But, I've given up. It's definitely a draw TIA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 03 Dec 05 - 09:11 AM "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained" Yeah, Ron. I think that's one of the more damning ones. What happened on 9/11 that would cause many in the world to change their belief that Saddam could be contained? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 03 Dec 05 - 09:05 AM And "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained"--just pure coincidence that "Saddam" and "September the 11th" happened to be in that context? Anything you say. By the way--I have a real nice bridge for sale--interested?. You seem like a man who would appreciate a good bridge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:41 AM Teribus-- So you don't think "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein" is an attempt to link the two in the minds of Bush's listeners?" Just how naive are you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:37 AM Teribus-- A clip--or a quote--from 2001--does not cut it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:33 AM Ah, so one of your quotes was from 8 September 2002--very clever. But 1) Your 8 September 2002 citation by Cheney disassociating Saddam and 11 September 2001 is not in fact a quote from 8 September 2002. What you quote is that they both watched a clip from 2001. You say nothing that was actually said in 2002. 2) For some reason you have neglected to tell us what was said after Cheney and Russert watched the clip (FROM 2001). I suspect Russert pointed out that Cheney had changed his tune since that clip. Very slick. But you still have no quote FROM THE PERIOD MID 2002 TO THE INVASION (a clip from 2001 doesn't cut it)--to disassociate Saddam and 11 September 2001. Once more--the propaganda campaign to confuse Saddam, 11 September 2001, and al Queda in the minds of the US public took place in the period mid-2002 to the invasion--its purpose was to prepare the public for the invasion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:28 AM No, its a fact. On the other hand, if we want to talk about opinions, pretty much all of your posts on this thread fall into that category. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:27 AM From the 2003 State of the Union Address delivered by President George W. Bush "With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein COULD resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he COULD provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. 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." Ron that is the context in which the single sentence you quote, ""Before September the 11 many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained". was used. Now tell me where does he state clearly that Saddam Hussein, or Iraq had ANYTHING to do with the attacks of the 11th September 2001. What he is doing is drawing peoples attention to a POSSIBLE FUTURE THREAT. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:11 AM 8th September 2003???? Where the hell does 8th September 2003 come into the equation. Example 1 - One Quote as requested - Dick Cheney: From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press: Interview excerpt quoted from - Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?" Cheney: "No." Do you require it any clearer than that Ron??? CarolC - 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM "Regardless of whether or not they ever clearly stated a link between Saddam and 9/11, it certainly was (and to a large extent, continues to be) their intention for the US public to make that connection in their minds, and they have done everything they could to foster that link in the minds of the general public (perhaps just short of coming right out and saying it)." The above is purely CarolC's OPINION, to which, of course, she is perfectly entitled. What it is NOT is fact, and therefore should not be presented as such. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:05 AM So. Teribus--which came first--20 March 2003, the day of the invasion, or 8 September 2003 (or 17 September 2003), the dates of your quotes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:50 AM Teribus-- Now go back, consult your calendar, and tell me whether your quote is from BEFORE the invasion. My calendar seems to indicate that 8 September 2003 and 17 Septmber 2003 were after the invasion. Your assignment was to find such a quote from the period leading up to the invasion--between mid 2002 and the invasion, as I've said many times before. What Bush or his cronies said after the invasion is immaterial. My point is that the propaganda campaign to confuse 11 September 2001, Saddam Hussein and al Queda in the minds of the US public obviously took place in the period leading up to the invasion--its purpose was to prepare the US public for the invasion. Duh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM Regardless of whether or not they ever clearly stated a link between Saddam and 9/11, it certainly was (and to a large extent, continues to be) their intention for the US public to make that connection in their minds, and they have done everything they could to foster that link in the minds of the general public (perhaps just short of coming right out and saying it). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:41 AM Is nuthin' sacred??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:37 AM Alfred E. Newman? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:36 AM "September the 11th" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:33 AM Teribus-- Well, where's that direct quote by Bush, with source and date, clearly stating Saddam had nothing to do with the events of 11 September 2001? Having a little trouble locating it? Not surprising, for the rather good reason that it doesn't exist. Compare, however, this, from the State of the Union 2003: "Before September the 11 many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained". As I said earlier, now why do you suppose Bush used "September 11" and "Saddam Hussein" in that context? Could it be he wanted to foster a link in the minds of his listeners? And just in case the association wasn't clear enough--for people with mental capacity like yours-- this: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein". No, in fact those statements are not taken out of context. They are perfectly in context. Have you ever read the entire speech? I'm sure, with the aid of a dictionary, you can slog through it in a few hours. Bush and his cronies learned well from their mentor, Herr Goebbels. Between mid 2002 and the Iraq invasion they tried to, and in the end were successful in, confusing Saddam Hussein, 11 September 2001, and al Queda in the minds of the US public. Now is the time for you to slink away and go back to watching "Big Brother"--or whatever else you do to improve your mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:18 AM Hi Ron, Example 1 - One Quote as requested - Dick Cheney: From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press: Russert: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:" Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?" Cheney: "No." Example 2 - One Quote as requested - George W Bush: 'We've Had No Evidence' of link to 9-11 (George W. Bush Sep. 17, 2003) Q: Mr. President, Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld both said yesterday that they have seen no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11th. THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th." Similar statements made in the immediate aftermath of 911 attacks were made by Colin Powell in an interview on the steps of the UN Building. Condalezza Rice can also be quoted making the same statement. The content of the PDB's relating to this subject in the immediate aftermath of 911 are now all public knowledge and support what is stated above I realise that the GWB quote is outside your time line by about six months, but it is clear enough. Now its your turn - Please refer us to any direct quote in the period you have stipulated where President George W. Bush clearly stated that Iraq WAS directly involved with the attacks of 11th September, 2001. Note direct quote/transcript - NOT what some sound bite edited by a journalist or TV station to suit THEIR spin put out into circulation - i.e. I want what the man said NOT what some people THOUGHT he said, NOT what some people wanted others to THINK he said. Your post Ron of 24 Nov 05 - 10:25 AM doesn't really cover the bill - Teribus 23 Nov 2005 4:40 PM--G W Bush "establishes very early on that Saddam Hussein and Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attacks" (of 11 Sept 2001). And how long did that last? About 20 minutes? Neither Bush nor his minions ever thereafter implied that Saddam and the events of 11 September 2001 were linked?" Plain FACT is Ron they didn't, they did exactly what I stated that they did, they established very early on that Saddam Hussein and Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attacks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: dianavan Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:53 PM teribus says - "The links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda were already established and known about..." Really??? How about a source. Was the source a Mr. Chalabi by any chance? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:49 PM One of the problems with tryin' to pin anything on the Bushites is that they constantly tell different stories... Yeah, on the whole, they are very much on their message but once in a whikle one will, ahhhh, come close to tellin' the truth, just in case they get called down... But the message, irregardless of ht very infrequent lettin' of the truth, is this: Saddam = Al Qeada = Nukes = WMD's... That's, irregardless of an occasional back-handed qualifier has been and continues tom be their message... They have no othwer choice. They decided to do the invasion and now thay have no other choice but to spin, spin, spin.... Any excuse for invadin' Iraq is game... Lets see??? Who haven't they blamed... Oh yeah... They haven't gottenb 'round to blamin' Alfred E Newman yet... What Me Worry... Peace Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:45 PM Gee, Guest mirsy-- Hope whoever is forcing you to read this thread lets you up soon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:37 PM So now you are backing off and saying Bush was just saying there was no link between Saddam and 11 September 2001. Sorry, that won't fly either. Let's have just one quote by Bush--with source and date-- from the period mid-2002 to the Iraq invasion in which he makes it clear there is no link between Saddam and 11 September 2001. Good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,mirsy Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:30 PM I am not impressed yet. Please, more statistics. And more quotations from Mr Bush, etc. Remember, you could save the world by convincing me that you are right and Bush is either: 1. a great leader of the Free World or: 2. a threat to the whole world I may BE the 100th monkey! Convincing me could do it. Come on, Teribus! Come on, you haters of Teribus! I am waiting desperately for the quintessential post that will utterly and absolutely prove once and for all that George Bush is a glorious saviour or a blood-sucking moronic destroyer of all that is decent. I MUST know! And I require a post of at least 500 well chosen words on that. Within the next, say, five days or so... Get to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:16 PM Where's the direct quote saying that Bush made it clear there was no link between al Queda and Saddam? Of course, with source and date. We've given you plenty--we're coming to the-- pardon the bluntness--put up or shut up stage. I hope you'll excuse my hesitancy to accept what you say without a source--since you've always up to now been totally reliable and never once misled us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:02 PM Ron, "Teribus -01 Dec 05 - 08:54 AM The links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda were already established and known about, Bush and Co., did not have to "imply" anything with regard to Iraq/Al-Qaeda Linkage any reference to it was based on fact." Now then Ron what do you not understand about that sentence? Because you obviously are having some difficulty judging by the questions you are asking. "What Ron Davies was trying to put across was that GWB attempted to link Saddam/Iraq to being part of the attacks of the 11th September 2001, which of course they were not. The President and his Administration at the time made it perfectly clear that they were not." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 02 Dec 05 - 09:45 PM Teribus-- Quiz: What is meant by the following sentences? a) "Iraq has sent bomb-making and document-forgery experts to work with al-Queda." b) "Iraq also provided al Queda with chemical and biological weapons training." c) "And an al Queda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990's for help in acquiring poisons and gases." Is it possible this could be alleging a link between Iraq and al Queda? To a rational mind, it's just possible. To yours, evidently not. Anytime I or anybody else quote Bush or one of his "team" linking Iraq and al Queda up to the 2003 invasion, that's "taking it out of context". Sorry, it only takes so many "exceptions to the rule" before the "rule" is shot to kingdom come. In fact, in this case, the "exception" is the rule--check also the 2003 State of the Union address, which I cited earlier, as well as others' citations. Once more with feeling--Bush and his cronies engaged in a steadily increasing and eventually successful propaganda campaign to link Saddam and al Queda between about mid 2002 and the Iraq invasion. This is a fact--and you have provided no contrary evidence. I and others have provided many direct quotes from Bush and co during the period in question--supporting this statement. But you still disagree. Fine--would you mind coming up with just one direct quote by Bush--with specific date and source, of course, and during the 2002-2003 period---which says that Saddam had nothing to do with al Queda? It's a reasonable request. Let's see what you come up with. Sorry Teribus (pun intended)--you really should have picked out a more seaworthy vessel before lashing yourself to the mast. Alternatively--Mr. Custer--even though this is an election year and you were the youngest general in the Union army, I don't think you'll be going for the Republican nomination any time soon. The crowning irony of all this is--I'll bet a nickel you do realize that Bush carried on a campaign 2002-2003 linking Saddam and al Queda. (I suspect your buddy Bearded Bruce also realizes this). It's just that you've denied it a few times--so now you feel you can't lose face by backing down--perhaps especially since you've also already had to admit that the US had no right to cite UN resolutions as a basis for invasion--UN resolutions are to be enforced by the UN and groups authorized by the UN to do so---which the US in this case emphatically was not. Your case is crumbling around you--and it's painful to admit it Pobre cito. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 02 Dec 05 - 08:15 AM And not to be spliitin' hairs here but as Arne has pointed out, there have been alot more casualties since "Mission Accomplished" way back when... And BTW, this phase of the war, if I am not mistaken, has now lasted longer than the Korean War... BTW, Part 2, if the mission was to remove Saddam Hussien, then why didn't the troops come home then??? And, BTW, Part 3, how do you spell "Iraqmire"??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 02 Dec 05 - 01:52 AM Teribus: I will return to hit you with the same facts, time, after time, after time, because thewy do not stop being facts, the rational behind them, which you do not and cannot counter, never changes. Ya misspelled "talking points and lies". As for you comments on Kaplan, here in the United States, we have a First Amendment (read, e.g., "Make No Law" by Anthony Lewis). Easy of you to dismiss Kaplan and say he should have been sued. Harder to do the actual spadework and show that he's wrong, eh? TIA: Us woolly lefters have been saying the same damn thing for years now. Ayup. I pointed out before the war that Chalabi was spinning us for his own purposes and that the intelligence wasn't worth shite (here, and I predicted (here) in the first week that there would be more casualties after the invasion was over (actually didn't know how right I would be there; I was proved a freakin' geenyus by Dubya and his crew). And I ain't no psychic. I just read widely, and actually try to understand what is going on (doesn't mean taking what anyone, much less the maladministration, says as gospel truth and flipping quotes around). Pretty good indication that I know what the "Eff" I'm talking about. Doubt that Teribus can come up with any kind of track record like that. So he's reduced to trying to tell us all that black is white and that he's still "right, right, right" sans any evidence .... Well, I guess that we can acknowledge that he's "right". Faaaaaarrrrrr right. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 01 Dec 05 - 11:25 PM Rubbish, Whatnoll, is in thw eyes of the beholder... I think you said it quite well... Yeah, T-DraftDodger, why don't you sign up fir Iraq duty??? |
