BS: Proof that Bush lied

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:16 PM

"Who gives a crap WHAT this ignoramus said in any speech or address whatsoever?"

Now that is the problem, very few posting on this forum do. What they do do, is believe anyone or any source that deliberately "invents" what he said, believe anyone or any source that selectively "quotes and reports" out of context. For just one refreshing minute why don't you actually listen to what is being said, instead of listening to a second hand report. Just for one refreshing minute read what was said, instead of reading what somebody else reporting on what was said.

No Dianavan, not devious, responsible. What is this man's responsibility with regard to the security of the United States of America? In the evaluation of anything the use of words like "could", "threat," "might", "possible" and "imagine" is common.

Dianavan: - "As a world leader, he is obligated to be transparent and accountable."

Just where on earth did you dig that line of complete and utter rubbish from!! That is ridiculous and flies against reality, take any national leader and try to apply the words "transparent" and "accountable" to any of them - The list would be damn short, if there was a list at all.

Notice Belgium was not on that list of countries Dianavan, I believe they tried that sort of crap before and lived to regret it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:36 PM

"What they do do, is believe anyone or any source that deliberately "invents" what he said, believe anyone or any source that selectively "quotes and reports" out of context. For just one refreshing minute why don't you actually listen to what is being said, instead of listening to a second hand report. Just for one refreshing minute read what was said, instead of reading what somebody else reporting on what was said."

Are we referring to the 911 Commission Report, the Duelfer Report, and various NIEs here? Did they "invent"? Did they "selectively quote"? Did they report what somebody else said was said?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:40 PM

TIA,

If you bother to read the post, the reference GIVEN was

""Who gives a crap WHAT this ignoramus said in any speech or address whatsoever?""

Do you really think you can make a valid comment about whether someone lied when you don't know what he said?


"FIrst the execution, then the trial" seems to be the standard that many here are advocating.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:49 PM

Well, teribus,

If Bush isn't transparent, then he is ambiguous, unclear and vague.

If Bush isn't accountable for what he says and does, he is irresponsible, unreliable and untrustworthy.

Not what I would consider good leadership qualities.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:25 PM

I think y'all are giving Bush too much credit.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:37 PM

What T gives above is a deceptive statment, Bush used this to terrorize the American people falsely. Bush used these falsehood to bring us into war. Tlak of WMD & this government supporting terrorism & that government doing something else. He's lumped all these evil nations with terrorist groups & tried to lead us all to believe it's one cmplete network. Of course these were lies, it sure wasn't the truth. No matter how it's spun it was deceptive & grossly wrong in it's content. Call it whatever you want, bottom line it's criminal & he needs to be tried in, not a court of his peers but in the World Court for War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:39 PM

The multi-nationals and Neocons will ensure THAT never happens!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:49 PM

BB: I have no idea what you just told me.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:58 PM

Ahem:

(/11 comission stated:

"No 'collaborative relationship' seen"
It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

"The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.""

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: pdq
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:07 PM

If you are going to accuse someone of lying, you must consider the following:
   
       1. the facts in the case also known as the truth

       2. you must have an absolutely accurate quote from the person in question (hint: you cannot make-up one to suit your purposes)

       3. you must be able to tell intent to deceive as opposed to faulty memory or an accidental mistake in facts

(Hint: I hate Bush therefore he lied is not good enough for any rational person.)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:10 PM

I choose ...

.3 Intent to deceive

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:11 PM

"beardedbruce":

for a second time, let me post :

[Arne]: "did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Where do you find ANY of this to be false?

The bolded part is quite obvious and blatant.

Did he have a prohibited weapons program? YES, according to the UN report.

No. Even the U.S. was reduced to using the mealy-mouthed "Weapons of mass destruction program related activities".

Did the UN demand that he allow inspectors in? YES

That wasn't one of the assertions.

Did he allow them the access that the UN had specified? NO, according to the UN report.

False. But immaterial. He let them in. While they were initially hassled, Saddam did ease up even on that, allowing inspections of the palaces and such, and Blix said that the co-operation was improving. But once again, that wasn't the assertion Dubya made.

So?

So Dubya's a liar. And you're an eedjit for refusing to admit it.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:14 PM

Barry Finn's post of 22 Feb 07 - 04:37 PM

Number of questions for you Barry:

1) The date is 20th March, 2003 - What falsehoods were used to "bring us into war".

2) "Talk of WMD & this government supporting terrorism & that government doing something else. He's lumped all these evil nations with terrorist groups & tried to lead us all to believe it's one cmplete network." Now tell us who lumped all these evil nations with terrorist groups:

Answer A - President Bill Clinton on 17th February, 1998
Answer B - Joint house Security Committee in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 11th September, 2001, when they were asked to identify what posed the greatest threat to the United States of America
Answer C - The Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America, during the last term of the Clinton Presidency.

Note Barry, GWB does not appear on that list because all of the above had put those pieces in place long before GWB made that State of the Union Address in January 2002.

3) The date is 20th March, 2003. What lies have been told? The world and its dog believe that Iraq is armed with WMD. The President of the United States of America has been advised by many sources that there is a threat and that he must act.

4) The date is 20th March, 2003. Call it whatever you want, bottom line is that it is duty and sole responsibility of the President of the United States of America to ensure the security of the United States of America and to defend it, and its best interests, against all threats. He can only do that by acting on the information and threat evaluations available at the time - he cannot, dare not, wait and see - A decision has to be made - True?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:22 PM

Ron, after it has been shown that he has nothing but sayso evidence, is back to square one again with his

"What happened on Sept 11 to cause many in the world to no longer believe that Saddam could be contained?

Did Bush link Saddam to Sept 11 in this sentence? Question.

The answer once again is no, no, a thousand times no.

I think this is a sterling example of repeating the same actions and expecting different results.

Unless Ron can show some specific way that people were convinced by this statement that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11, his allegation is a non sequitur.

It has been shown that during Ron's specified period, Bush stated the opposite of what Ron claims he said and it has been shown that the number of people who thought Saddam was connected to 9/11 decreased during that time.

Additionally it has been shown that prior to 9/11, even prior to the Bush administration, much of what is blamed on an imaginary Bush propaganda campaign was already public sentiment.

Ron obviously believes he can wear people down with at least six methods that I can identify:

The use of personal attacks to try to discredit the person, thereby discrediting anything they have to say. I have nothing bad to say about Ron except that I think some of his opinions are wrong. He is obviously intelligent but the reaches the wrong conclusions and is unsuccessful in supporting them.

He constantly asks for proof which he immediately claims is not proof, it is wrong and than claims no proof was presented. At the same time he is claiming no proof was presented, he has no proof other than his opinion which he can only support with personal attacks.

During his denials of proof, he makes some sort of a side statement and demands that it be responded to. If the person does not respond he tries to use that as proof that his original allegation is true.

He avoids answering simple yes or no questions by asking another question. The he claims he has answered the question asked of him but his question was not answered.

After he has runs out of material and has gotten nowhere, he wants to start all over again like the man with the stage fright

He stated the the best way to loose an argument is to get mad so he constantly tries to provoke the person who disagrees with him.

I think Ron needs to do better.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:28 PM

I do wish that the people who lied to Bush had been called to account. I have trouble believing that Bush wasn't a willing participant in one of the larger robberies in history--that is, the American taxpayer has contributed billions of dollars into a slush fund called the Iraq War, and many companies are making hundreds of millions of dollars from the war, and there is no real accounting of what was spent (in a DETAILED fashion). The whole thing stinks. That's just my opinion--which maybe is shared by a few hundred million Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:38 PM

"Why hasn't Bush been impeached yet?"

President Cheney?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:42 PM

Good point. One helluvan insurance policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:55 PM

The answer once again is no, no, a thousand times no.

Repeating a false answer a thousad times does not make it any truer.

Even if it could be demonstrated that an statement that was self-evidently intended to mislead had actually failed to mislead anyone, it would still be intentionally misleading.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:06 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:47 PM

The 9/11 commission report stated that there were contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq:

"...In a report based on research and interviews by the commission staff, the panel said that bin Laden made overtures to toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein for assistance, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.

The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for "anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan..."


"...a meeting between the al-Qaida leader and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 in Sudan, the report said. At the meeting, bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded, the staff report said..."

Apparently? Does that mean they did or didn't?

MSNBC says:

"They [Bush & Co] stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public."

Critics say. Critics do not have proof other than what they say.

Existing opinions before Bush:

Bill Clinton 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"

Existing sentiment before 9/11:

On Jan. 29, 2001 Washington Post "of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous — or more urgent — than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf," including "intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons."

Public opinion 2 days after 9/11:

In a poll 9/13/01 %78 of people polled answered it was likely that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Public opinion during the alleged propaganda campaign:

In a poll conducted 2/6/03 %72 of people polled answered it was likely that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:56 PM

Bush in his own words.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:58 PM

Public opinion polls only record the effectiveness of propaganda brainwasing.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:04 PM

"brainwasing" ahem - brainwashing...

but on second thoughts "brainwasing"...

"I like it! I like it!"

Danny Kaye - Movie 'The Inspector General'

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:05 PM

No need for brainwashing. A light rinse would have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:13 PM

Repeating a false allegation a thousand times does not make it any truer.

"Public opinion polls only record the effectiveness of propaganda brainwasing."

Ron claims his alleged propaganda campaign was highly sucessful yet the numbers go down rather than up.

That means the poll records that if there was and alleged propaganda campaign, it was ineffective.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:27 PM

"Repeating a false allegation a thousand times does not make it any truer."

Except for those who have 'Faith'... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 11:42 PM

He lied T 1,000 times yes. No, not every dog believed his WMD lines. Many were screaming for proof, he lied & ignore all calls. Look back many didn't & many relied on their own intellegance, I wish Bush would've been capable of doing the same.

You lead the country around by the nose using fear & when the nation finally realizes there was nothing to fear from the start to take the finger out & then ask why did you have your nose on my finger to start with! I'd call that deceitful & lying. Again, call it what you want.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:08 AM

Dickey--


As, usual, you are wrong--situation normal. "The numbers go down" after the war started--for the very good reason that it was obvious by then--US troops were in Iraq and could easily tell--that Bush's stories about Saddam's WMD were hogwash--so obviously he wasn't as big a threat as Bush had told us.

But between summer 2002 and March 2003, "the numbers" do not go down.

You lose again.

Better luck next time.



No time tonight to demolish Teribus' feeble arguments. Some of us don't post from work. But I'll attend to you, Teribus, tomorrow.


Suffice it to say that your statements are amazing coming from somebody who alleges to have some knowledge of geopolitics and how propaganda works. But perhaps I was overestimating you.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:08 AM

Bush Watch log of Bush lies

Eric Alterman's dissertation on Bush's lying

The Bush Lies Blog

A CHart of Bsuh Lies About Iraq

Compilation of False and Misleading Assertions from Bush & Co

Compilation of Bush Administration Lies up to 2004

The Economist on Bush Credibility

Bush's Top 10 Lies About his Military Service, Etc.

Bush Administration Lies Supporting the War

Lie by Lie: Timeline of the Iraq War

Exposing Bush and his Techniques of Deceit

Bush Admits He Lied...

G.W. Bush's Many Lies in Four Parts

Bush's Worst Lies of 2006

Why Bush Lies About Iraq--2003

The Truth About Bush's Lies

Bush, Lies, and Videotape

Lies, Damn Lies and Bush's Iraq Statistics

Bush's Enron Lies

Archives of Bush Lies

---

Kinda hurts mah fingers....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:38 AM

Och Amos, that's gonna hurt.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:40 AM

Barry's response:

"He lied T 1,000 times yes." - But Barry cannot supply an example.

"No, not every dog believed his WMD lines." - I take it that the "lines" should read "lies"? Apart from Barry's assertion, the record shows the exact opposite. Support for UNSC Resolution 1441 was 100%. Barry also ignores the estimates of the WMD, stocks of WMD agents, delivery systems and the R&D programmes associated with those WMD were provided by the UN's weapons inspectors not by GWB, that Barry is a matter of record also.

"Many were screaming for proof, he lied & ignore all calls." - I am certain that there were, but with regard to proof positive you cannot give what you do not possess. That Iraq under Saddam was a threat to the region, US interests, US allies in the region and to the US itself was an official position inherited from the previous administration. It was not engineered by GWB or by any members of his administration. Iraq was an intelligence "black-hole", due partly to a grave mistake made under President Jimmy Carter when the emphasis on gathering of intelligence was switched from "human-intel" to electronic means. Post-911 what intelligence there was had to be evaluated. In the UK this was done by the JIC Intelligence Committee, they then deliver best and worst case scenarios for consideration by the PM and his Cabinet. They then have to take the decision on which to adopt in the best interests of the UK. I would imagine that the same sort of process occurs in the US.

In the light of what happened on the 11th September, 2001. No American President could just sit back and adopt a wait-and-see attitude. Irrespective of who was sitting in the White House the cards would have fallen pretty much the same way, the intelligence would have been the same, the background would have been the same, the evaluation would have been the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 06:48 AM

Arne,

Your statements of Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:11 PM are both unsupported and false. If you have any evidence to present, please do so: I have previously ( in other threads) posted the quotes from the U.N. reports that prove you wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:12 AM

" Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief, Sunday Telegraph (UK) 1/25/04"
David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.
"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:13 AM

Another Ignored Discovery
The American Spectator ^ | 6/16/2004 | Steven Martinovich
Posted on 06/15/2004 9:55:18 PM PDT by elhombrelibre
With the media's focus on chronicling every attack on coalition forces or terrorist attack against Iraqi civilians in Iraq, they might be forgiven for missing other stories occasionally. Reporting democracy at the local level or the opening of a new school isn't sexy work for the most part. It's the equivalent of traveling halfway across the world to cover stories that local beat reporters write every day in your local paper. That focus on Iraqi insurgents, however, seems to have blinded almost everyone to a major story that surfaced last week since it was largely ignored by the media with the exception of the World Tribune and some smaller newspapers.
On June 9, Demetrius Perricos announced that before, during and after the war in Iraq, Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction and medium-range ballistic missiles to countries in Europe and the Middle East. Entire factories were dismantled and shipped as scrap metal to Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey, among others, at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. As an example of speed by which these facilities were dismantled, Perricos displayed two photographs of a ballistic missile site near Baghdad, one taken in May 2003 with an active facility, the other in February 2004 that showed it had simply disappeared.
What passed for scrap metal and has since been discovered as otherwise is amazing. Inspectors have found Iraqi SA-2 surface-to-air missiles in Rotterdam -- complete with U.N. inspection tags -- and 20 SA-2 engines in Jordan, along with components for solid-fuel for missiles. Short-range Al Samoud surface-to-surface missiles were shipped abroad by agents of the regime. That missing ballistic missile site contained missile components, a reactor vessel and fermenters -- the latter used for the production of chemical and biological warheads.
"The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through these yards and other yards elsewhere," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "We can't really assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors."
Perricos isn't an American shill defending the Bush administration, but rather the acting executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and his report was made to the Security Council. Yet his report didn't seem to be of much interest to a media which has used the lack of significant discoveries to question the rationale for the war. After over a year of searching, experts have managed to find little in the way of the biological and chemical weapons that every major intelligence service -- including those of Germany and France -- maintained existed. We still haven't, but Perricos' report brings us one step closer.
The report neatly disarms arguments that Hussein's WMD programs were non-existent after the first Gulf War. While it's true that these finds are not the chemical and biological weapons we know existed after that war, they illustrate the tremendous difficulty in locating something in a semi-hostile nation larger than the state of California. They also prove that Hussein made ongoing efforts to hide illegal weapons programs from the world. Ironically, he and his agents used the world in which to hide them.
The implications of the United Nations' discovery of how Hussein's regime got rid of many of its banned weapons programs is staggering, especially considering that it happened partly under the watch of U.N. weapons inspectors. And yet many in the media are either unwilling or unable to break out of their cycle of waiting to report the next terrorist attack. The truth about the justification for the war and Saddam Hussein's Iraq is gradually being revealed to the world, but it seems our journalists don't want to tell the story.
Steven Martinovich is a freelance writer in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:19 AM

Were any WMD's ever found? NO! Was Iraq a real threat to the US? NO!
Did Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton go to war with Iraq? Yes!

Were we mislead into Iraq by Bush & company? NO!
It was Nixon's fault.
Slap!! Ok,Ok, it was Bush, I was just kidding.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:26 AM

Barry,

You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but you have presented no facts to support your viewpoint. Have you even read the UN reports? Or anything else that might present a viewpoint you disagree with?


"Were any WMD's ever found? NO!"

1.Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
2. The claim was of WMD programs, which were found.

"Was Iraq a real threat to the US? NO!"

Sorry, the answer is YES.


"Did Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton go to war with Iraq? Yes!"

And your point? That they did not act in the US's best interests?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:40 AM

BB, you can wave that tripe as much as you'd like but Bush lied to the American people. To mislead is to lie & that's what he done & it costing thousands of innocent lives.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:41 AM

"On June 9 (,2004), Demetrius Perricos announced that before, during and after the war in Iraq, Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction and medium-range ballistic missiles to countries in Europe and the Middle East."

"The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through these yards and other yards elsewhere," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "We can't really assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors."


"Perricos isn't an American shill defending the Bush administration, but rather the acting executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and his report was made to the Security Council."

"After over a year of searching, experts have managed to find little in the way of the biological and chemical weapons that every major intelligence service -- including those of Germany and France -- maintained existed. We still haven't, but Perricos' report brings us one step closer.

The report neatly disarms arguments that Hussein's WMD programs were non-existent after the first Gulf War. While it's true that these finds are not the chemical and biological weapons we know existed after that war, they illustrate the tremendous difficulty in locating something in a semi-hostile nation larger than the state of California. They also prove that Hussein made ongoing efforts to hide illegal weapons programs from the world. "

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 09:02 AM

Where is all this evidence, where are the WMD'S that could strike us in 45 munites? That's what we were going into Iraq for. Please. Where are the free Iraqis, there not falling all over us in the streets? Well, they are dropping dead! Where is their Free Democratic Society? Well, we now have created the setting for Civil War! Where were all of those terrorists camps? Did they get covered up in a sand storm? Even Bush got tired of looking for WMD's & had to grovel & eat those words. Where in the world is it better because we invaded Iraq? How has terrorism deminished, it's blossomed & flowering everywhere & we've become the targets of most. How are we better off, though that's a purely selfish reason for going into Iraq but it was a reason? How better off are the Iraqi people since we've gone in there? Of course hardley anyone now believes that we had their best interests at heart to begin with! What is right with anything that's happened since Bush came into office, you can stack up the failures though.


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 09:21 AM

"Where is all this evidence, where are the WMD'S that could strike us in 45 munites? That's what we were going into Iraq for."


See my post of 23 Feb 07 - 08:41 AM

The unaccounted for WMD (mostly chemical) could have been used ( should I bring up the unfilled artillery shells and distributed Iraqi suits again?) but were not- probably because he had shipped the active componats to another country ( see UN report). We FAILED-
because we gave a 5 month period for Saddam to hide, distribute, and destroy evidence.

As for the blood spilled, I hold those around the world who demanded that the US not enforce the UN resolutions while NOT demanding that Saddam comply to be far more guilty than I do a US administration that was acting to protect the US population.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 10:26 AM

Acting to protect the US population against...all those ICBMs with chemical warheads? That is really silly.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 10:34 AM

Amos,

"Acting to protect the US population against...all those ICBMs with chemical warheads? That is really silly."

Yes, YOUR claim of ICBMs is.



1. The missiles were IRBMs, and only capable of 1200-2000 KM range. Like from ships offshore to most US cities. Or from Iraq to some European cities.

2. The use of WMD does not require more than a shipping container for delivery.

3. The ARTILLERY shells could have been used against US Troops.

4. The possesion of the prohibited weapons and delivery systems, and the active programs of WMD development were violations of UN resolutions and the Kuwait war cease-fire- thus acts of war in themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 10:38 AM

Barry,

In response to your post

1) "Where is all this evidence, where are the WMD'S that could strike us in 45 munites? That's what we were going into Iraq for."

For the first part, refer your question to the UNSCOM Inspectors. They were the ones, who in 1998, gave the estimates of what they believed Iraq still possessed in terms of WMD, delivery systems, stored agents and precursors and relevant development programmes. If you read what the UNSCOM Inspectors wrote in their report this was all stuff that could be in existance, or it could have been stuff that had been destroyed in such a way that it's destruction could not be verified. Either way the matter had to be resolved to the satisfaction of the UN. During the course of 1998 UNSCOM reported to the UNSC that due to lack of co-operation, denial of free-access to sites ("Presidential Palaces"), deception and harassment on the part of the Iraqi authorities, they could not do their jobs.

The 45 minute claim applied to tactical battlefield munitions and medium range missiles. The instant I saw it reported, I recognised it from "The Threat" lectures I had been given. Weapons designed to carry chemical or biological agents are not stored in a filled condition. Authorisation is given for them to be used and they are then armed - that complete process takes 45 minutes - to actually arm the weapons only takes about 20 to 25 minutes. What the US went into Iraq for was to enforce the requirements of all outstanding UNSC resolutions relevant to Iraq and to topple the Ba'athist Regime of Saddam Hussein (Official US Foreign Policy since 1998).

2) "Please. Where are the free Iraqis, there not falling all over us in the streets? Well, they are dropping dead! Where is their Free Democratic Society?"

All Iraqi's are now free Barry, unfortunately they now enjoy such a degree of freedom that they are free to kill one another, exactly as those who resorted to violence in Northern Ireland did. What ever it is that Iraqi's want is there for the taking, all they have to do is talk about it - It took the paramilitaries thirty years to realise that in Northern Ireland - somehow I don't think that the Iraqi's will take that long. For all the media hype much of Iraq is peaceful.

3) "Well, we now have created the setting for Civil War!"

"We" have created nothing, the setting for this "Civil War" that all the anti-Bush, anti-War crowd yabber on about has been in existence since 1922. And as has been pointed out above if that is what the Iraqi's want then let them have it, after all both the USA and the UK have had their "Civil Wars" and managed to come through it OK, Likewise Spain, Greece and a whole rake of other countries. Why deny the Iraqi's the benefits if that is what they are so hell bent on.

4) "Where were all of those terrorists camps? Did they get covered up in a sand storm?"

Shut down Barry

5) "Where in the world is it better because we invaded Iraq?"

Number of international terrorist "spectaculars" is way down on pre-2003 levels.

Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terrorist organisations (Indicator of that is the drop in suicide bombings in Israel since March 2003).

6) "How has terrorism diminished,"

- They now find it harder to train
- They now find it harder to move money
- They now find it harder to plan anything other than extremely small time operations.
- They have been sucked into fighting a visible war in Iraq, whereas their first guiding principle should be for them to pick "their ground", "their target", "their battles".
- Al-Qaeda in Iraq's losses so far have amounted to over 4000 men
- Taleban and Al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan lost approximately 3000 men in 2006 alone. It will be intersting to see how effective their much vaunted "spring offensive" will be.
- How many Terrorist attacks have been carried out in the USA since 20th March 2003?
- How many Terrorist attacks were carried out in the USA prior to that date?
- How many US or foreign vessels been attacked since 20th March 2003?
- How many were attacked prior to that date?
- How many US Embassy's have been blown up since 20th March 2003?
- How many had been attacked/blown up prior to that date?

7) "it's (Terrorism) blossomed & flowering everywhere & we've become the targets of most.

Sorry to disillusion you Barry but you (The US) have been the targets for decades, nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, or Afghanistan. Where is the evidence that supports your contention that it is blossoming and flowering everywhere? The media? Don't make me laugh, they are solely in the business of selling news and bad news sells better than good.

8) "How are we better off, though that's a purely selfish reason for going into Iraq but it was a reason?"

That was the primary reason "we" went into Iraq. It was done to eliminate what was evaluated as being the greatest threat to the United States of America, the interests of the USA and the allies of the USA in the region.

9) "How better off are the Iraqi people since we've gone in there? Of course hardley anyone now believes that we had their best interests at heart to begin with!"

Well to get an answer to that Barry you would have to ask someone who had actually sufferred under the rule of Saddam Hussein, or had experienced the attentions of either of that man's sons, and by God you'll find enough of them. One thing is for certain though Barry, the future of Iraq and its people is a damn sight better in prospect now than it ever could have been had Saddam remained in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:52 AM

We are of two different minds.
Iraq's future is in the toilet for the next more than few years.
There was no possible chance of civil war prior to US going in to Iraq & had we not mismanaged things so badly there probably wouldn't had been a chance of it but there sure is now. But go on blame the Iraqis if you want. As for their present freedom to do what ever they wish, you've got to be kidding the best they can hope for is to surivive long enough to see the followwing day.
Anf if you think we've made the world a safer place, keep amusing yourself.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:18 PM

"We" have created nothing, the setting for this "Civil War" that all the anti-Bush, anti-War crowd yabber on about has been in existence since 1922. And as has been pointed out above if that is what the Iraqi's want then let them have it, after all both the USA and the UK have had their "Civil Wars" and managed to come through it OK, Likewise Spain, Greece and a whole rake of other countries. Why deny the Iraqi's the benefits if that is what they are so hell bent on."


Teribus, this is the most callous and yet, revealing statement you have made to date.

Many Iraqis hated Saddam but not enough to risk civil war. By meddling in the affairs of another nation, we have given Iraq what they most feared. Nobody wants civil war and nobody should wish it on another nation.

Now that the U.S. has failed in every aspect of their invasion of Iraq, you have decided that the Iraqis are not worth it anyway. It makes me wonder if this wasn't the end game all along. If you can't win, at least you can save face and walk away laughing.

You delight in the misery of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:27 PM

Is an alleged propaganda campaign that raises poll numbers by 1% brilliant successful?

"The process of convincing the US public of this was the propaganda campaign-----and it was brilliantly successful."

"and to convince his audience that if nothing was done about Saddam, we faced a similar attack--but this time with WMD---supplied by Saddam."

Bill Clinton 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:12 PM

Dickey,

I must point out *again* that without a control group, the polling data are meaningless.

It is possible, if not probable, that *without* the propaganda campaign, the poll numbers would have plummetted very quickly to zero. It was the propaganda that kept them from zeroing, and in fact raised them a bit. Quite an effective propaganda campaign actually.

If that is your best evidence against a propoganda campaign, you had better give up, because it could easily be proving the opposite of what you are asserting. At the very best, it is totally inconclusive without a control group (composed of people who were somehow shielded from Bush Administration innuendo)....

Wait a minute --- that would be much of the rest of the World! What was the belief in a Saddam-Al Quaeda connection amongst people outside the USA (during the same period)? Find me those numbers, and a rational discussion can be had.

In particular I would like to see the numbers for people outside the US who are not regular viewers of FOX News, or listeners of Limbaugh (who helped "catapult the propaganda").

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:27 PM

Are saying that no poll is accurate or just the ones that you want to use as proff of something?

Was 1% the results of a catapult?

If you say those numbers on the rest of the world are necessary, you need to find them or are you going to put the responsibility to find something that may or may not exist on someone else?

Did Bill Clinton and Sandy "the pants" Berger work for FNC?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:40 PM

Bobert: How is that "per capita poverty" number arrived at?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:46 PM

No Dickey. I'm not saying I don't trust the polls. You are saying that the poll numbers are proof of something else, and I am saying you cannot make that leap without other evidence.

And yes, it is possible that the 1% is the reuslt of the catapult. It is possible that 59.5% is the result of a catapult (i.e. without the propaganda campaign, the poll would have yielded a rate 58.5% lower. And yes, the 59.5 is totally made up, just to illustrate the point.

And yes, if you are going to claim that the polls prove something, and another piece of information is necessary to support that claim, the burden is upon you.