BS: Proof that Bush lied

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:09 PM

TIA - I was told to stop arguing with a madman because by the very nature of his madness, he was incapable of logic and reason.

I keep reminding myself of that.

Its pointless and a waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:17 PM

Well, yeah, like what's wrong with the SRS rule???

With as much $$$ as is being pumped into Boss Hog blogs these days I think that's it's only fair for the Bushites here to at least make some attempt to siftr thru the factual basis of the cut ' posts they throw into discussions...

Actually, it's not a discussion at all if that's about all these various lazy Bushites can come up with... It's a proxy discussion with $$$ Bushite/RulingClass blogs...

Real friggin' intellectual...

Not...

How 'bout some of spokesfolks of the ruling class come out from behind BossHog.com and speak for yerselves???

Askin' too much???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM

Bobert, TIA, et al,

I remeber as well, and the conclusion was that the evidence was NOT even looked at. Why is it so difficult to get people here to actually look at the UN reports, on the UN sites, and READ what they say instead of taking a summary by a reporter from some newspaper that has a bias?

Bobert,

YOU have never dealt with any of the facts I have presented, nor presented any evidence that what YOU claim is valid. Sorry, but that is what I see.

Any expression of OPINION is valid- AS OPINION. Your belief that something is a fact is only as valid as the evidence you present. I have quoted the UN Reports- HOW can you state that the UN has NOT said what I have stated, when I give the UN webpage that has the section on it?

I have tried to give the context, as well, and get nasty comments from dianavan that I should summarize it. THEN the statement is made that I am not reporting what was said.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:09 PM

Bobert's Corollary to the SRS Rule:

Attack the source, ignore the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:11 PM

TIA's Axiom:

If a liberal repeats a lie, it becomes true:, If a conservative repeats the truth, it becomes false.



NOW I understand!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 05:18 PM

No, not really, bb...

You think nuthin' of postin' from Bushite blogs which are financed by rich people who want to stay that way... But do you actually try to verify what these blogs say??? I doubt it... Some of them are so long that I doubt if you even read them...

Is that an opinion??? Well, yeah but I don't think you'd pass a poligraph if you were asked if you made any attempts to verify the stuff you are willing to take from blogs and offer up as facts...

I don't do blogs because they are partisan and have axes to grind but I do read the heck outta the Washington Post every day, the New York Times on Sundays and between the two of them one can keep a purdy good perspctive of what is going down... Page A-1, tho, ain't where the meat and taters is... Ya gotta be willin' to do some huntin'...

But no blogs... Can't rely on 'um 'cause they are all biased one way or another...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 01:36 AM

Tia: I am sorry about that. Whatever is missing I am sure you know alreaedy. Otherwise you wouldn't know it was missing.

Is it this information?

On August 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against a chemical weapons factory in Sudan. The cruise missle strike was in retaliation for the August 7, 1998 truck bomb attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya which killed more than 200 people and wounded more than 5,000 others. The chemical weapons factory in Sudan was funded, in part, by Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the embassy bombings. Richard Clarke, a national security advisor to President Clinton, told the Washington Post in a January 23, 1999 article that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts had produced a powdered substance at that plant for use in making VX nerve gas.

On November 5, 1998 a Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment charging Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad. The grand jury indictment also charged that Al-Qaeda had reached an arrangement with President Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq whereby the group said that it would not work against Iraq, and that the two parties agreed to cooperate in the development of weapons.

On January 11, 1999, Newsweek magazine ran the headline "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The subheadline declared, "It would be a marriage made in hell. And America's two enemies are courting." The article points out that Saddam has a long history of supporting terrorism. The article also mentions that, in the prior week, several surface-to-air missles were fired at U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones and that Saddam is now fighting for his life now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective.

On January 14, 1999, ABC News reported, "Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the most notorious terrorists of their era, all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad. Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

On February 13, 1999, CNN reported, "Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday. Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known....." The article reports, "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden....."

On February 18, 1999, National Public Radio (NPR) reported, "There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi, sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq." NPR reported that Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when Farouk Hijazi met with bin Laden when he lived in Sudan.

On February 14, 1999, an article appeared in the San Jose Mercury News claiming that U.S. intelligence officials are worried about an alliance between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The article states that bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan in late December 1998 and that "there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world." According to this article, Saddam has offered asylum to bin Laden in Iraq. The article said that in addition to Abu Nidal, another Palestinian terrorist by the name of Mohammed Amri (a.k.a. Abu Ibrahim) is also believed to be in Iraq.

On February 28, 1999, an article was written in The Kansas City Star which said, "He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States....."

On December 28, 1999, an article appeared in The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) titled, "Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West." The article starts, "The world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq....." The article quotes a U.S. counter-terrorism source who said, "Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying." Source

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:38 AM

I am reminded of when the neo-cons (Bushites supporters) put out a report some years ago which stated that Russia had more nuclear weapons than the USA - justifying the spending of even more billions on the arms race - it drew heavily on reports from newspapers outside the USA.

The CIA found difficulty in accepting these reports as fact, because it had in fact itself planted these false stories as part of their own 'black ops'....

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 10:44 AM

Dickey's credulity is legendary. Iguess it takes a certain nose for truth to be able to sort out the blather and smoke from statements of fact.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 12:03 PM

But I'd like to state clearly right now that Dickey is not an amazingly credulous right-wing fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 12:47 PM

That feels right.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 02:38 PM

Wise counsel accepted Dianavan.
Besides, BB has resumed his habit of putting words in people's mouths, so I believe he can carry on the "conversation" alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,RFW
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 06:10 PM

Quote from Foolestroupe:

"I am reminded of when the neo-cons (Bushites supporters) put out a report some years ago which stated that Russia had more nuclear weapons than the USA - justifying the spending of even more billions on the arms race..."

Reply:

Do a Google search for "John Kennedy missile gap".

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:41 PM

Hey Foolstroupe:

Declared nuclear weapons states:
Country - Warheads active/total* - Year of first test

United States - 5,735/9,960 - 1945 ("Trinity")

Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) - 7,200/16,000 - 1949 ("RDS-1")

United Kingdom - <200 - 1952 ("Hurricane")

France - 350 - 1960 ("Gerboise Bleue")

People's Republic of China - 400 - 1964 ("596")

India - 40-50 - 1974 ("Smiling Buddha")

Pakistan - 24-48 - 1998 ("Chagai-I")

North Korea - 0-10 - none

*All numbers are estimates from the Natural Resources Defense Council, published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, unless other references are given. If differences between active and total stockpile are known, they are given as two figures separated by a forward slash. If no specifics are known, only one figure is given. Stockpile number may not contain all intact warheads if a substantial amount of warheads are scheduled for but have not yet gone through dismantlement; not all "active" warheads are deployed at any given time. When a spread of weapons is given (e.g., 0-10), it generally indicates that the estimate is being made on the amount of fissile material which has likely been produced, and the amount of fissile material needed per warhead depends on estimates of a country's proficiency at nuclear weapon design.

Now what was the number of Russian warheads compared to US warheads again? Invention of the CIA "Black Ops" - Do me a favour, investigate the truth for once, before you open your trap.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:43 PM

Danged, TIA, I musta missed the bb relapse...

I really thought the boy was gonna beat it after the last 2 week stint at the Betty Ford Clininc so this is really hard to take...

Well, so far he hasn't pulled one on me but if he does I'll pull some strings with the Betty Ford folks an' see if we can get the boy's readmittence expidited...

BTW, Google searches are like menu's... Yeah, one can find out a lot about alot of stuff but can also find a bunch of knothead bloggers with axes to grind...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:11 PM

"Invention of the CIA "Black Ops" - Do me a favour, investigate the truth for once, before you open your trap. "

Mind like a steel trap, Mr T - closed...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 11:55 PM

From The Washington Post

Sunday, November 25, 2001

"Iraq's unsuccessful attempt to secure the Ames bacteria from Britain represented a minor setback in its largely successful campaign in the mid-1980s to acquire ingredients for a massive covert biological weapons program.

Iraq sought materials from government and commercial labs in the United States, Europe and Africa.

"The Iraqis had set up this very secret and very sophisticated procurement system so that there would be no chance that outsiders could figure out what they were doing," said Raymond Zalinskas,a former U.N. inspector who is now senior scientist in residence at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

In 1988, Iraqi scientists obtained from a private British business, Oxoid Ltd., and other suppliers, nearly 40 tons of medium to grow anthrax and botulinum bacterium for its biological weapons, according to former U.N. officials and a 1999 U.N. report.

Iraq also acquired at least two other forms of anthrax, the Sterne strain, commonly used in an animal vaccine, and the A-3 strain derived from Spanish sheep, from France's Institut Pasteur.

"There was absolutely no reason to refuse an order from Iraq in the 1980s," said Michael Haynes, a spokesman for Unilever, the Anglo-Dutch consumer goods giant that owned Oxoid until 1997. Haynes noted that Iraq at that time was not considered hostile to the West and was under no economic sanctions. "As far as we knew the growth medium would be used for genuine medical, humanitarian purposes," he said.

U.N. inspectors got their first glimpse at Iraq's offensive biological weapons program during an August 1991 U.N. inspection of Salman Pak, one of Iraq's premier biological weapons facilities.

Rihab Taha,the head of Iraq's germ warfare program, provided a team of U.N. biologists with several sealed glass vials containing freeze-dried anthrax spores. The vials included two variants of the Vollumstrain, which had been used in U.S. and British biological weapons programs.

The Iraqi scientist initially claimed that some of the anthrax spores were used in research but had never been weaponized. Baghdad also acknowledged that it had received the two Vollum strains and five other strains of anthrax bacterium from the American Type Culture Collection, a commercial germ bank now located near Manassas, Va.

Iraqi documents later obtained by the United Nations indicated that Baghdad subsequently filled more than 50 bombs and missile warheads with a liquid form of Vollum anthrax."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 12:06 AM

Document 61: United States District Court (Florida: Southern District) Affidavit. "United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Cardoen [et al.]" [Charge that Teledyne Wah Chang Albany Illegally Provided a Proscribed Substance, Zirconium, to Cardoen Industries and to Iraq], January 31, 1995.

Former Reagan administration National Security Council staff member Howard Teicher says that after Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the U.S. to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq's defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.

This affidavit was submitted in the course of one of a number of prosecutions, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, of U.S. companies charged with illegally delivering military, dual-use, or nuclear-related items to Iraq. (In this case, a Teledyne affiliate was charged will illegally selling zirconium, used in the manufacture of explosives, to the Chilean arms manufacturer Carlos Industries, which used the material to manufacture cluster bombs sold to Iraq.) Many of these firms tried to defend themselves by establishing that providing military materiel to Iraq had been the actual, if covert, policy of the U.S. government. This was a difficult case to make, especially considering the rules of evidence governing investigations involving national security matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 12:07 AM

Document 59: Department of State, Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs Briefing Paper. "Iraqi Illegal Use of Chemical Weapons," November 16, 1984.

Indicates that the U.S. concluded some time ago that Iraq had used "domestically produced lethal CW" in the Iran-Iraq war, developed in part through "the unwitting and, in some cases, we believe witting assistance" of numerous Western firms. The State Department's Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs thinks that Iraq stopped using chemical weapons in response to a U.S. demarche in November 1983, and resumed their use in February 1984.

Source: Declassified through Congressional investigation


Document 60: Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to the United States Embassy in Iraq. "Memcon [Memorandum of Conversation]: Secretary's Meeting with Iraqi DepPrimMin [Deputy Prime Minister] Tariq Aziz, November 26, 1984, 10:00 a.m.," November 29, 1984.

Following the restoration of formal diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iraq, George Shultz meets with Tariq Aziz and emphasizes "the U.S. desire to base these relations on the presumption of equality, mutual respect, and reciprocity." After Aziz says that Iraq's advantage in weaponry was enabling it to defend itself against Iran, Secretary Shultz comments "that superior intelligence also must be an important factor in Iraq's defense. Aziz acknowledged that this may be true." (The U.S. had been secretly providing Iraq with extensive intelligence support for several years.) Secretary Shultz concludes by welcoming the candor of the ongoing U.S.-Iraq dialogue, and remarks that "Iraq can expect the U.S. to maintain its opposition to both the use and production of chemical weapons. This position is not directed specifically at Iraq . . . "

Source: Declassified under the Freedom of Information Act

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:38 AM

So Foolestroupe the Natural Resources Defense Council are a bunch of "neo-cons (Bushites supporters)" who put out a report some years ago which stated that Russia had more nuclear weapons than the USA. I think that you'll have to work damn hard to show proof of that.

Quite a number of years ago F, more than twenty. And in this arms race that you allude to over 65% of the nuclear weapons in existence were decommissioned - Matter of record and treaty obligations (SALT & START). The thing that brought all this to a halt was the emergence of India and Pakistan as nuclear powers.

The UK by the way, as much as CND protesters, MGOH, the BBC, etc bang on about it, are not developing a new generation of Trident missiles. What the current Labour Government are planning to do is replace the submarines that carry the existing missiles. In the process Britain will reduce the number of warheads from around 200 to about 150.

Question for you. Do you believe that Iran's nuclear programme is entirely peaceful? A simple Yes or No will suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 06:21 AM

"Natural Resources Defense Council are a bunch of "neo-cons""


Bzzzt! wrong answer - keep looking - it'll keep ya off the streets... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 06:53 AM

These are the people that Foolestroupe believes are a bunch of "neo-cons (Bushites supporters)" who put out a report some years ago which stated that Russia had more nuclear weapons than the USA.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is a New York City-based, non-profit, non-partisan environmental advocacy group, with offices in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Founded in 1970, NRDC today has 1.2 million members and online activists nationwide, and a staff of more than 250 scientists, attorneys, and other specialists. Along with Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, World Resources Institute, and Earthjustice, NRDC is widely considered to be one of the leading environmental groups.

The NRDC has published a number of studies on nuclear weapon stockpiles around the world, both as monographs and as individual studies in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

According to the NRDC:

Country - Warheads active/total* - Year of first test

United States - 5,735/9,960 - 1945 ("Trinity")

Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) - 7,200/16,000 - 1949 ("RDS-1")

Still reckon that the above figures result from CIA "Black Ops" Foolestroupe?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:02 AM

Teribus--

Hope you noticed this. It seems I'm not the only one to remark a change in the Bush regime's attitude towards Iraq: "Perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

And when did this happen? Clue: quote is from the Downing St. memo of 23 July 2002. That is, summer 2002.

Sound familiar? It should.--start of the propaganda campaign by the Bush regime against Iraq--as I have cited more than once, you may note.

And exactly the connection I have mentioned before--"conjunction of terrorism and WMD". Specifically, the implication--or blunt prediction-- that the next 9-11 style attack on the US would be supplied by Saddam--with his WMD's.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:38 AM

Summer 2002 - if you are looking at conjunction of terrorism and WMD in 2002, Ron, you need go no further into that year than 29th January and the State of the Union Address.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:46 AM

State of the Union address January 2003--part of the propaganda campaign--as I have said before--and you have denied.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:48 AM

Well, well, well...

When I saw the BIG "Washington Post" I figured that we were going to be provided with something that has to do with the "here 'n now" but was disappointed to find it was from 2001 talkin' about stuff that happened 2 decades ago... And not even written by a "Washigton Post" reporter, for that matter...

So, "Exhibit Q" that some folks have their noses so far in the rear view mirror that they are not capible of dealin' with here and now problems, such aas the appropriate question taht T-zer has brought up which asks:

"So you believe that Irans nuclear program is entirely peaceful?"

This is a dir question and it is my opinion that it is ***not*** entirely peacefull...

Heck, If I'm the president of a country and another country puts me in an "axis of evil" category and then wacks one of the other 3 countries in that category, then it would be irresponsible for me to not do everything I could to protect my people and mu countries assests... This is a no brainer...

So where does this leave us??? Buyin' yet another boatload of manure from Goerge Bush...

No thanks... He has no credibility whats so ever...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:56 AM

If nothing else, the mentions of Iraq in the Jan 2002 State of the Union address start to lay the groundwork for the propaganda campaign later that year--but do not compare with sentences like " Before September 11, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained." (from Jan 2003 SOU).

How many mentions of Saddam by name are in 2002 SOU--vs 2003?

And regardless, neither speech helps your contention that there was never a propaganda campaign by the Bush regime against Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 12:32 PM

Embassy Attacks Thwarted, U.S. Says

Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden
Clinton Seeks $10 Billion to Fight Terrorism

The Washington Post
by Vernon Loeb
Jan 23, 1999


U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies have prevented Osama bin Laden's extremist network from carrying out truck-bomb attacks against at least two American embassies since the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania more than five months ago, the Clinton administration's senior counterterrorism official said yesterday.

Richard A. Clarke, who occupies the recently created post of national coordinator of counterterrorism and computer security programs, also said U.S. officials do not believe that bin Laden, a Saudi millionaire now living in the mountains of Afghanistan, has acquired chemical or biological weapons despite his contacts with experts in the production of nerve gas and biological toxins.

"I think we've made life extraordinarily difficult for {bin Laden}, but he's still there," Clarke said. "I think it is very difficult for him and his lieutenants to travel. I think it's very difficult for them to raise money or move money or move explosives."

Clarke's assessment came as President Clinton unveiled a $10 billion budget proposal for fighting terrorism and protecting the nation's computer infrastructure from attack. "The fight against terrorism is far from over, and now terrorists seek new tools of destruction," Clinton said.

In a speech at the National Academy of Sciences, Clinton said his fiscal 2000 budget proposal includes $1.4 billion for enhancing domestic readiness in the event of a chemical or biological terrorist attack, an increase of more than 50 percent since fiscal 1998, and $1.46 billion for protecting the nation's computer systems.

Clinton proposed an array of initiatives in both areas, from new vaccine research to creation of a "Cybercorps" of government computer experts. He said those programs would come on top of $7 billion in counterterrorism spending on intelligence, diplomatic security, military readiness and law enforcement, including a tripling of FBI resources since 1993.

"We are doing everything we can, in ways I can and ways that I cannot discuss, to try to stop people who would misuse chemical and biological capacity from getting that capacity," Clinton said. "This is not a cause for a panic. It is a cause for serious, deliberate, disciplined long-term concern."

Clinton, who took office one month before the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, has since issued three high-level directives making counterterrorism the nation's No. 1 priority.

The president's proposals drew immediate praise on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have voted for large increases in spending on counterterrorism in response to the World Trade Center bombing, a sarin gas attack by the Japanese religious cult Aum Shinrikyo in 1995 and the bombing of the federal office building in Oklahoma City later that year.

Rep. Thomas J. Bliley Jr. (R-Va.), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, pledged his "full cooperation" but said that, if anything, Clinton's counterterrorism strategy does not go far enough, leaving "huge gaps in federal laws and regulations governing the possession, use and transfer of biological and chemical agents such as anthrax and sarin gas."

Clarke declined to go into detail on U.S. counterterrorism operations that he believes preempted the planned truck bombings at embassies in Africa and the Middle East. He would not say which embassies had been targeted, although U.S. officials previously disclosed that they had foiled an alleged attempt by bin Laden associates to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Uganda.

Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if he didn't blow up the facility."

Clarke said the U.S. does not believe that bin Laden has been able to acquire chemical agents, biological toxins or nuclear weapons. If evidence of such an acquisition existed, he said, "we would be in the process of doing something."

Assessing U.S. counterterrorism policy to date, Clarke said it's no accident that there have been so few terrorist attacks on American soil.

"The fact that we got seven out of the eight people from the World Trade Center {bombing}, and we found them in five countries around the world and brought them back here, the fact we can demonstrate repeatedly that the slogan, `There's nowhere to hide,' is more than a slogan, the fact that we don't forget, we're persistent — we get them — has deterred terrorism," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 01:13 PM

Now yer going even further backward, Dickey... What next???... Thomas Payne???

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:08 PM

OK Dickey--time for your two-question PSAT (don't know if you can manage the SAT)

Who invaded Iraq with "shock and awe"?

1) G W Bush
2) W Clinton

Who accused Clinton of "Wag the Dog" when he did attack Osama?

1) Republicans
2) Democrats

If you don't know what "Wag the Dog" is, ask your master, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:51 PM

Master of what??? Baitin'???

Nevermind...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 07:01 PM

Sorry Ron, the State of the Union Address I was referring to was the one made in 2002, not the one given in 2003 - There was no propaganda campaign, that is just the figment of the imagination of those who tell you what to believe.

As to your question:

Who invaded Iraq with "shock and awe"?

1) G W Bush
2) W Clinton

The answer to that question Ron is - Neither - now you tell me why?

GHWB in 1991 on the other hand, completely different kettle of fish - again Ron you tell me why? As a military man (ex-Army) I am absolutely sure that Captain Ginger could explain it to you, as it would appear that you are incapable of independent thought and have to be told what to think on any given subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 07:25 PM

More revisionism...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:44 PM

It's been done so many time before - the Yanks are a pushover for it...

British Security Coordination - the secret group set up by Churchill to infiltrate the US media to plant stories to convince the public that the USA should enter WWII... Pearl Harbour eventually made it unnecessary, of course.

Btw, there were only 12 copies of the original book detailing this secret operation published after WWII...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:19 PM

Teribus--

Your reading skills are deterioriating again. I did in fact note the Jan 2002 SOU--and that it laid the foundation for the 2003 SOU-- and the rest of the propaganda campaign--but was not as blatant as the 2003 SOU. And I specified exactly why.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 12:20 AM

Still ducking questions Ron, still peddling a line (The propaganda campaign = Exists only as Ron's opinion) that has been discredited by others and as yet remains unproven by yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: lennice
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:12 AM

Be still my beating heart! At first I read the thread name as "Proof that Bush Died."   Oh, well.

With profuse apologies for not having time to read the whole thread (and not really wanting to, to be truthful, because I don't want to hear Grim fairy tales just before bed), has anybody mentioned that at least one member of one of the groups that were sent looking has, in writing and speaking engagements around the country, declared they found no WMD's and no ability to make any, and Bush suppressed their report. I heard him speak in Massachusetts, very persuasive. And a conservative and former Bush supporter!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:17 AM

propaganda

Official government communications to the public that are designed to influence opinion. The information may be true or false, but it is always carefully selected for its political effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:33 AM

NY Times' Readers Hit Coverage of Iran/Iraq Weapons Link

By E&P Staff

Published: March 04, 2007 11:15 AM ET

NEW YORK Three weeks ago, E&P Online and other Web sites raised questions about The New York Times featuring prominently on its front page and Web site a report by Michael R. Gordon -- based wholly on unnamed sources -- claiming firm evidence that Iran was supplying "the most deadly" weapon used against U.S. forces in Iraq: a certain kind of roadside bomb. Gordon had produced key articles relating to alleged WMD in Iraq in the runup to the war that proved false.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 02:00 AM

Dear Bobert:

I am going back to a time when the previous administration was doing and saying the same things that are being said now and Libs never worried about it.

But now the Bush bashers claim this is all started with the Bush administration. Same with Walter Reed. They don't want to hear anything in the past that lead up to the present unless thay can blame it on Bush I Nixon or Reagan.

Ever heard of the Carter Doctrine?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 03:31 AM

"We are doing everything we can, in ways I can and ways that I cannot discuss, to try to stop people who would misuse chemical and biological capacity from getting that capacity," Clinton said. "This is not a cause for a panic. It is a cause for serious, deliberate, disciplined long-term concern." - Clinton

Thats a far cry from throwing fear into your citizens, going it alone and invading Iraq like Bush did.

No comparison, Dickeybird, none at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 09:25 AM

Now then dianavan, let's see what was said and was done shall we:

February, 1998 - Clinton's speech that warned of the threat to the United States of America posed by Saddam's Iraq, Iraq's WMD and the possibility of them teaming up with an international terrorist group.

December, 1998 - Clinton advises the UN's UNSCOM Inspectors to leave Iraq. For years they have been reporting that they are being harrassed by the Iraqi Authorities, they are not receiving the co-operation that they should expect in terms of the Safwan agreements and that Iraq is running an extremely comprehensive deception scheme to mask and protect their WMD programmes.

October, 1998 - Clinton enacts "The Iraq Liberation Act", regime change in Iraq is now official US Government Policy.

December, 1998 - Clinton, goes it alone, unleashes an aerial assault on Iraq "Operation Desert Fox". This he does unilaterally without going to the UN.

Now reaction to all of the above was all fairly muted, certainly nowhere near the outcry that we have heard regarding the path trodden by GWB. Now let's see what he did.

11th September, 2001 - Al-Qaeda strike at mainland USA in a series of suicide attacks. In the immediate aftermath, Joint House Security Committee and US Intelligence Agencies are tasked with evaluating greatest threat to USA. They identify precisely the same threat idntified in Clinton's speech of three years before. Not surprising really as basically the same people are involved.

November, 2001 - Taleban "Government" of Afghanistan overthrown by Northern Alliance Forces aided by US. Over the fact that Osama Bin Laden was based in Afghanistan, GWB's Administration, through the auspices of UN, requested that the Taleban handover Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda leadership, the Taleban refused.

January, 2002 - State of the Union Address, defines the two pronged approach to combating international terrorism.

September, 2002 - US goes to the UNSC and requests that the UN act to resolve the outstanding matters related to Iraq.

October 11, 2002 - The United States Congress passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002", giving U.S. President George W. Bush the authority, under US law, to attack Iraq if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not give up his weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and abide by previous UN resolutions on human rights, POWs, and terrorism

November 9, 2002 - At the urging of the United States government, the UN Security Council passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, and 1284), notably to provide "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles".

March 17, 2003 - Bush Administration demands Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay to surrender and leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline. This demand was reportedly rejected.

March 20, 2003 - Invasion of Iraq by a Coalition of 48 UN member states.

So there was a "rush" to strike at Iraq was there dianavan? Certainly by Clinton who said. "This is not a cause for a panic. It is a cause for serious, deliberate, disciplined long-term concern" or in other words within 10 months. He then attacked Iraq unilaterally and without consulting the UNSC. Bush on the other hand, seems to have "rushed" for the best part of two years before going to the UNSC. The actions of GWB and his Administration were instrumental in enabling the UNMOVIC Inspectors to resume inspections inside Iraq. As reports of lack of co-operation on the part of Iraqi Authorities US warns Iraq and the UN that if they will not act America will. Saddam Hussein is given every opportunity to comply in order to avoid a conflict, all such opportunities are ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 11:20 AM

But Clinton didn't order up the invasion, now did he???

Yes____

No_____

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 12:25 PM

Gee, T, you sure have the script down cold, don't you. But you forgot to add the cloud of misdirection surrounding the notion of Iraq's alleged WMD, the nation-wide protests about the unnecessary militancy, the protests from Iraq that they had disabled their programs in 1998, etc., etc. So what we have here is a party-line Punch and Judy, a shadow play ignoring the substantive body of counter-indications that were present at every step of the way. In short a PR shell game.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 12:58 PM

Don't bother poor ol' T with world view and common sense stuff, Amos... T ain't wired that way... He likes his discussions to be confined to a tiny drop of acedemia under a high power microscrope... That's his comfy zone...

Now if you want to engagge him on the wording of this or taht UN Resolution and how that is the crux of the discussion, you have the right guy but as for Iraq not having WMDs, that jus' ain't his cup of tea...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 03:41 PM

Teribus:

Your timeline:

November 9, 2002 - At the urging of the United States government, the UN Security Council passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, and 1284), notably to provide "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles".

March 17, 2003 - Bush Administration demands Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay to surrender and leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline. This demand was reportedly rejected.

Third of a year there. Missing a few items:

Iraq agrees to U.N. inspections. Inspections begin. El Baradei says there's no nuke program. We learn that the "Dodgy Dossier" was plagiarised from a decade-old grad thesis, and that the Niger yellowcake documents were a cheap fake. Blix gets Saddam to agree to destroy the arguably legal al Samoud missiles rather than provoke a fight, and his inspectors start to work on the U.S. 'intelligence'. The inspectors get check out the "WoMD" sites and come up with (literally) chickensh*t. One inspectors refers to the U.S. 'intelligence' as "garbage, garbage, and more garbage" (although reportedly in earthier terms). Blix reports finding no WoMD, but does report that there's evidence that the Iraqis destroyed large portions if if not all in the aftermath of GWI. Dubya promises to seek a second resolution from the Security Council for military action, but withdraws and reneges on his promise after it becomes clear that even with arm-twisting and bribes, he won't manage more than an embarrassing five votes in the Security Council.

Wonder why you omitted that stuff, Teribus.....

Maybe because you think we're unedjoomakated hicks. Nope. We are not fooled (nor was I at the time). We were right (and I was right before the war). You were wrong. You're on the distbin of history, and you don't have the sense that Gawd gave a chicken so as to climb off. Your words here will be your legacy; a sad and pathetic commentary on the essence of human nature: Some of us are capable of the sublime, but there's still way too many subject to fatal flaws as well. Enjoy.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 03:56 PM

actually its irrelevant For Teribus to quote any wording of this or that UN resolution since the US withdrew its attempt to get UN support for the invasion of Iraq, knowing full well that it would be defeated.
Bush and Cheney also pointed out that they dont need a permission slip from the UN even while they were trying to put the matter before the UN

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:14 PM

didn't order up the invasion, now did he??

Except for Somalia, Haiti and the Balkans.

And he didn't take UBL when he had the chance now did he?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:16 PM

None of which alters the track record of either President.

Clinton is represented as the epitomy of reason and a statesman with international vision. Yet in fact within ten months of being made aware of the potential threat posed by Iraq, he has started bombing the place and has the US adopt regime change in Iraq as official government policy - at no time in any of this chain of events does he go the the UN.

Bush on the other hand is represented as being a war-monger, a man that "raced" to war with Iraq. Yet in fact this took over 75% of his first term to achieve (Three years). Unlike Clinton he did go before the UN with regard to the outstanding matters detailed in all those UN Security Council Resolutions that had been ignored by Iraq dating back to 1990. Like Clinton, George W Bush was appraised of the threat, by the same people who had advised Clinton, Bush told the UN and Iraq in very clear terms get this situation resolved or we will act.

A couple of points:
1) Amos - you forgot to add the cloud of misdirection surrounding the notion of Iraq's alleged WMD, all came from UNSCOM Reports.

2) Amos the protests from Iraq that they had disabled their programs in 1998, with regard to the requirements of the UN were irrelevant. Dismantling of Iraq's WMD capability, weapons, agents and development programmes had to be verified. Saddam ordered and made sure such verification was impossible, to such an extent that even today no-one can categorically state that there are no WMD in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 05:17 PM

"...the cloud of misdirection surrounding the notion of Iraq's alleged WMD, all came from UNSCOM Reports"

Baloney.