 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Proof that Bush lied
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: dianavan Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:09 PM "...43% increase in population over 13 years..." Source please. btw - Standard English is not a valid method of judging a person's critical literacy skills. A person can speak standard English with only functional literacy skills, ie: they know how to balance a checkbook and read advertisements: they can therefore become good little consumers in a corporate world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:32 PM Dear Amos: My arms are stationary, my mouth is shut and I am not calling you names. I am merely pointing out that you are doing what you accuse others of doing. You post hundreds of personal attacks but if somone dares say anything about you, you come all unglued. You can hand it out but you can't take it. Why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Amos Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:06 PM Oh? What am I doing, good Dick, that I accuse others of doing -- exactly? And whom have I accused of it? Be specific, man! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:35 PM You accuse others of ad hominem attacks. You accuse others of demagoguery. "tell that Dubya boy his pecker is in my pocket and to sign the goddamned marching orders NOW!" Very academic. Definitely no arm waving or tongue flapping there "I'm sorry. You are being a jerk. Perhaps you have been drinking, or perhaps you are that way naturally." No personal attacks there. "I guess if you voted for him, you have to believe him. Sad, because believing madness often leads there..." No references to who someone voted for there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Feb 07 - 07:06 AM Bobert, If the claim that has been shown to be inflated is OK by you, than PLEASE tell me why you object to US troops being there- the coalition forces have not yet killed 40,000 people in total. You WANTT us to leave the country to the ones who YOU claim have killed 560,000 of their OWN people?????? You are a sick puppy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Scrump Date: 28 Feb 07 - 07:25 AM Q. How do you tell when a politician is lying? A. When he opens his mouth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: TIA Date: 28 Feb 07 - 08:21 AM The 560,000 have been killed by quite a number of causes. Many of which may be exacerbated by the presence of US troops. One might claim that Johns Hopkins people were not in Iraq and this invalidates the study. BUT, their research was done in collaboration with Mustansiriya University which is in.....? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Donuel Date: 28 Feb 07 - 08:38 AM I just watched the director of veteran hospital affairs being interviewed. He said that they are caring for 23,000 injured troops and only 6,000 of those were amputees,. The reporter read off 7 catagories (like brain trauma, musclar skelatal, mental illness, organ damage...) of the injured that totaled over 200,000. He responded "Well some of them come in for dental problems." boy, that guy sure can spin it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Amos Date: 28 Feb 07 - 09:18 AM Dickey: Good on ya. I stand corrected -- I have made ad hominem remarks, leavened with a little humor, and I have waved my arms a bit, haven't I? Very sorry. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Peace Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:21 AM "let's not get totally petty here" Tom and the Heartbreakers should likely avoid "Totally Petty" as a CD title. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: TIA Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:25 AM From William rivers Pitt (sorry the clip is so long, but every word is worth reading here. "Just because the Supreme Court set that poison precedent and anointed Bush, who brought in a crowd of neocon yahoos which earned no attention before the 2000 campaign, just because we 'Muricans vote for the man and not the mob, which in this case turned into the mob that ruined the country, you know, Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Pearl and Feith and Ledeen and Negroponte... ...just because unreasonably massive tax cuts were combined in 2001 with the economic depth-charge that was the Enron/Arthur Andersen/inflated revenues/overstated tax earnings scandal, which was umbilically connected to the White House, just because the economy (not to mention our whole psyche) absorbed another blow when four commercial airplanes somehow managed to pierce the most impenetrable air defense system in the history of the universe, fooling the entire intelligence community as well, if you believe what you hear... ...just because this happened despite a blizzard of warnings delivered in the weeks and months beforehand, along with a raft of information gathered by the previous administration, just because a bunch of anthrax got mailed to Democrats by the Ashcroft wing of the Republican Party in what were obvious assassination attempts and yet nothing but nothing has been done about it, just because the 9/11 attack was immediately - and I mean the day after immediately - grasped as an excuse to invade Iraq, just because virtually everyone in the administration lied with their bare faces hanging out about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, terrorism ties in Iraq, so break out the plastic sheeting and duct tape because we're all gonna die... ...just because they did this in no small part to win the 2002 midterms by any means necessary, just because they have used that day against us with deliberation and intent, just because 3,160 American soldiers have been killed looking for 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons (which is one million pounds) of sarin and mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 munitions to deliver the stuff, mobile biological weapons labs, aerial drones to spray the aforementioned stuff, and let's not forget the uranium from Niger for use in Iraq's robust "nukular" program, all of which was described to the letter by Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address, claims that still remain today on the White House web site, on a page titled 'Disarm Saddam Hussein'... ...just because the medical journal Lancet estimated that as many as 198,000 Iraqi citizens have been killed as well in the war to get at this stuff, and that was a while ago and a whole slew of bombings ago, just because none of the stuff was there, and by the way none of the stuff was there, and did I mention that none of the stuff was there, just because the idea that Hussein was allied with bin Laden was laughable because Osama has wanted Saddam's head on his battle standard for decades, just because the true source of world terrorism, which is Sunni Wahabbist extremism out of Saudi Arabia, goes completely unaddressed because the Houses of Bush and Saud have been partnered for decades... ...just because the lie that says the GOP is strong on national defense still permeates everything, though the loss of those 3,160 soldiers combined with the grievous wounding of between 47,000 and 53,000 other soldiers amounts to the evisceration of between a fourth and a third of our entire active fighting force, which makes us safer in no way that can be fathomed, and never mind the soldiers living in filth and among rats and roaches because they have been deliberately shafted so the Bush boys can squeeze a few more pennies into the coffers of folks like Halliburton and Exxon... (snip) ...just because our national reputation is ravaged and our future has been sold out from under us, just because Truman's wartime economic footing has morphed into a machine that Eisenhower would recognize in horror as the very thing he warned us about before he left, just because the whole system now requires us to manufacture wars if none are available because the system itself has been wired to feed the beast no matter the consequences, just because television tells you not to worry, look at these breasts or this shaved starlet's head, or this shiny thing, look here, shhh, be silent, be still, sleep... ...doesn't mean We The People are finished, because all of this is why "We The People" was written down in the first place, and though the day is late and the road is long and the chances for success are slim, We The People are here to stay, so strap in and look out, because we are just getting started, and the next sentence will be ours to write." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:28 AM The New York Times and Iraq Published: May 26, 2004 Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. We have examined the failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists. We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves. In doing so — reviewing hundreds of articles written during the prelude to war and into the early stages of the occupation — we found an enormous amount of journalism that we are proud of. In most cases, what we reported was an accurate reflection of the state of our knowledge at the time, much of it painstakingly extracted from intelligence agencies that were themselves dependent on sketchy information. And where those articles included incomplete information or pointed in a wrong direction, they were later overtaken by more and stronger information. That is how news coverage normally unfolds. But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.On Oct. 26 and Nov. 8, 2001, for example, Page 1 articles cited Iraqi defectors who described a secret Iraqi camp where Islamic terrorists were trained and biological weapons produced. These accounts have never been independently verified. On Dec. 20, 2001, another front-page article began, "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." Knight Ridder Newspapers reported last week that American officials took that defector — his name is Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri — to Iraq earlier this year to point out the sites where he claimed to have worked, and that the officials failed to find evidence of their use for weapons programs. It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq, but in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in. And until now we have not reported that to our readers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST,Guest PTBL Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:31 AM Does anyone here recall a certain memo signed by Blair(?)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:36 AM More NYT CYA: "On Sept. 8, 2002, the lead article of the paper was headlined "U.S. Says Hussein Intensified Quest for A-Bomb Parts." That report concerned the aluminum tubes that the administration advertised insistently as components for the manufacture of nuclear weapons fuel. The claim came not from defectors but from the best American intelligence sources available at the time. Still, it should have been presented more cautiously. There were hints that the usefulness of the tubes in making nuclear fuel was not a sure thing, but the hints were buried deep, 1,700 words into a 3,600-word article. Administration officials were allowed to hold forth at length on why this evidence of Iraq's nuclear intentions demanded that Saddam Hussein be dislodged from power: "The first sign of a `smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud." Five days later, The Times reporters learned that the tubes were in fact a subject of debate among intelligence agencies. The misgivings appeared deep in an article on Page A13, under a headline that gave no inkling that we were revising our earlier view ("White House Lists Iraq Steps to Build Banned Weapons"). The Times gave voice to skeptics of the tubes on Jan. 9, when the key piece of evidence was challenged by the International Atomic Energy Agency. That challenge was reported on Page A10; it might well have belonged on Page A1. On April 21, 2003, as American weapons-hunters followed American troops into Iraq, another front-page article declared, "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert." It began this way: "A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said." The informant also claimed that Iraq had sent unconventional weapons to Syria and had been cooperating with Al Qaeda — two claims that were then, and remain, highly controversial. But the tone of the article suggested that this Iraqi "scientist" — who in a later article described himself as an official of military intelligence — had provided the justification the Americans had been seeking for the invasion. The Times never followed up on the veracity of this source or the attempts to verify his claims." Se also The Times and Iraq: A Sample of the Coverage The following is a sampling of articles published by The Times about the decisions that led the United States into the war in Iraq, and especially the issue of Iraq's weapons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:41 AM "On April 21, 2003, as American weapons-hunters followed American troops into Iraq, another front-page article declared, "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert." It began this way: "A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said." The informant also claimed that Iraq had sent unconventional weapons to Syria and had been cooperating with Al Qaeda — two claims that were then, and remain, highly controversial. But the tone of the article suggested that this Iraqi "scientist" — who in a later article described himself as an official of military intelligence — had provided the justification the Americans had been seeking for the invasion. The Times never followed up on the veracity of this source or the attempts to verify his claims." And where are the demands for a grand jury to investigate this cover-up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Amos Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:51 PM Well, mate, why don't you start your own movement? I have seen no hard evidence that actual WMD capable of actual harm to the United States existed at the time of all these claims, or that the earlier programs had not been retired as claimed by inspectors and Iraq alike. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:55 PM "I have seen no hard evidence that actual WMD capable of actual harm to the United States existed at the time of all these claims," 1. Not what was claimed. 2. You have not bothered to look at the evidence as stated by the UN. ( see previous posts here- or do I need to repeat it a third time?) "or that the earlier programs had not been retired as claimed by inspectors and Iraq alike." The UN Inspectors stated that they could NOT state that the programs had been retired, as there was NO evidnce that it was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: TIA Date: 28 Feb 07 - 02:04 PM I.e. there is No proof that the programs did NOT exist. So, we're back to the "proving a negative" thing...where's Dickey to explain? This is something we actually agree on! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Feb 07 - 02:28 PM "I.e. there is No proof that the programs did NOT exist." NOT what was stated in the UN reports. The PREVIOUS existance of the prohibited programs WAS shown, in multiple reports over the years 1994 through 2002. The REMOVAL of the programs is what there is NO proof of. THEREFORE, the programs must still exist, BY YOUR LOGIC. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: TIA Date: 28 Feb 07 - 03:55 PM No (and must you always end your posts by putting words in someone's mouth?). It is impossible to prove a negative. Doesn't matter what snippet you put before it. No matter what evidence you don't find, it is always possible that you didn't see the evidence, or looked for the wrong type of evidence, etc. It is impossible to prove a negative. For example, what evidence could you provide to PROVE that the tooth fairy does NOT exist? Now let's say the tooth fairy really really does exist, and you saw it last week, and we all agreed that it did exist, but then not all the children clapped when it got sick, so it disappeared. What evidence could you provide today to PROVE that it does NOT exist? Notice that I will not provide your answer for you, I will let you speak for yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Amos Date: 28 Feb 07 - 04:17 PM I have seen plenty of conjecture, plenty of caterwauling, scads of hypotheticals, reams of noise, lots of smoke and mirrors... But the burden of proof of the accusation is with the accuser. There is a much-more-than-reasonable doubt whether such weapons existed, at the time that Bush, Rice and Rumsfield were insisting (but not substantiating the assertion) that they did, that I can only conclude they had some other agenda than what they let out of their mouths. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Bobert Date: 28 Feb 07 - 05:38 PM BB, Proclaimation and facts are two different things... Yer back into the proclaimation cycle that you occasionally go thru where if you can find one person out there who prints anything that will justify Bush's invasion of Iraq you put it up there as if was the Holy Grail... You have not provided any factual evidence that the Johns Hopkins study is flawed and no one else has either... Now you ask my why I'm against the US military being in Iraq??? Funny question... I thought we'd been over this a few hundred times and if you wish, go back and read my arguments againt the invasion in the 1st palce... They still apply... T-Bird, First of all: bite me!!! Awww, jus' funnin' but what I ain't funnin' with is reminding you that it was ***your*** world views, not ***mine*** that proved to be wrong... ...you spent night after night explaining just why the US/UK needed to invade Iraq and now look at the predicted keetle of fish you have on yer hands??? And you smugly dismiss me as having weak arguments... Well weak, okay maybe, but correct ones... History right here in Mudville has shown who had the weaker world view and that, T-zer ol' bud, is you... Yeah, I predicted just about exactly what has occured in Iraq down to the street fightin we now see... I predicted the civil war that we now see... I predicted that the US would get bogged down... I predicted that the US would destabilze the region... Yeah, some mighty weak predictions, indeed!!! So you can take yer war mongin' smugness, stick it in a pipe and smoke it... Maybe then you'll have a reason to feel all superior and smug in yer little wrong-thinking world... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:32 PM TIA, YOU are attempting to prove the negative- PLEASE READ MY POST! "NOT what was stated in the UN reports. The PREVIOUS existance of the prohibited programs WAS shown, in multiple reports over the years 1994 through 2002. The REMOVAL of the programs is what there is NO proof of. THEREFORE, the programs must still exist, BY YOUR LOGIC. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Bobert Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:44 PM T-Bird, Part B... Jus' for gtins I have just revisited portions of a thread from the mad-dash-to-invade-Iarq entitled "Bush, Iraq and War, PART EIGHT" and maybe you should as well... I think it would take you down a peg 'er two on yer smugness totum poll... No, not a peg or two but prolly closer to the bottom as ***your*** views then were as wrong as they are today... Now, I know you don't like to be reminded of this but the views and opinions that I and others put forth ended up being the correct ones and yer were just plain ill-thought out and wrong as wrong can be... Yeah, ***you*** picked the company fight song and sang it at the top of yer smug little lungs... Problem is that with most company fight songs they are just there to keep the ***true believers***, such as yerself, entertained and not much more than that... And when all else failed in yer and Blair/Bush's little scheme and you were faced by having to allow-- horrors, amn-- weapons inspectors back into Iraq you din't want to give them time to do their job and make their reports... Then you poopoo'd Blixes address to the UN where he said the Iarqi's were cooperating and allowing inspections of any places they wanted to inspect... Yeah, you and yer buds Bush and Blair had no patience for that... You and they had allready made up yer little war-mongin' minds and you wanted to fire up the "SHOCK 'n AWE" as if it was like gettin' laid fir the first time... No time for Hans Blix... No time to consider what a post-Shock ' Awe Iraq would look like... Just attack, attack, attack... Then things went bad---real bad--for your side as we had predicted and even gave you specifics of just how bad things were going to be and so you disappeared in disgrace but now you think that.. ...we've forgotten those days??? And you think it's perfectly okay to critcise me and say that my arguments are weak??? Bite me, T-zer, just friggin bite me... Anyone here can go back and review the arguments... You were wrong!!! I (and others) were right!!! No smug, no brag, jus' pure unaltered fact... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST,TIA Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:09 PM Jeeezus BB. I'm reading it over and over. You are just not following. One more try, then I am giving up forever. Leprechauns exist. We all agree that leprechauns exist. But, the last leprechaun goes to the big Guiness pint in the sky. Now, some claim that there still are some leprechauns hidden somewhere in some little fairy glade. Can anyone, ANYONE, disprove that claim? What evidence could one possibly produce that would PROVE that the supposed surviving leprechauns do NOT exist. Now, remember that you just said that there is "{NO proof of the REMOVAL of programs}". To me that is preczactly the same as no proof of the non-existence of leprechauns. Not possible for leprechauns, nor W's of MD. (deep breaths, deep breaths) And I am very sorry for the caps, I am, in fact, on the verge of yelling. Apologies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Arne Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:17 PM beardedbruce: 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. Huh? Since when? If you think that specific statements of mine are false, say which ones, and explain why they're false. We've been through this before, but as I pointed out, the fact that Saddam did let the inspectors in is pretty much uncontested by any sentient organism, and my claims that your 'objections' were irrelevant are quite demonstrably and obviously true. It is also true that the Whitehouse has used the phrase "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities". (Mea culpa on my initial word transposition of that neologistic gobbledygook). Keep in mind that this Whitehouse statement was after the invasion (and subsequent weapons search). Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Arne Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:37 PM beardedbruce emits this tripe: 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.... Yeah, we all just suck up American Spectator/Freeperville effluvia like it was ambrisia from the gods.... Notice an actual lack of cites to original materials there? You know, something approaching an actual news (or other reliable source) statement reporting the alleged claims by Mr. Perricos? You know, maybe somthing like this????: UNITED NATIONS — Demetrius Perricos, acting head of the United Nations weapons inspection program, can't disguise his satisfaction that almost a year after the invasion of Iraq, U.S. inspectors have found the same thing that their much-maligned U.N. counterparts did before the war: no banned weapons. Just to clue the brainless here, from beardedbruce's quote: "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." May 2003?!?!? February 2004?!?!? No one claims that the U.S., during its invasion and occupation, didn't allow the looting of all kinds of stuff, some of which ended up on the black market, and some of which (explosives, etc) sadly enough ended up in the hands of insurgents and are now killing U.S. troops. But surface-to-air missiles aren't WoMD. And the al Samoud missiles were arguably permissible, but Hussein agreed to destroy them (and Blix was watchng them be destroyed) just to keep the U.S. from getting all frisky for an unjustified and useless war. If Saddam didn't manage to destroy them all before the invasion, that's hardly his fault. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Arne Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:48 PM beardedbruce: "the killing of over a half million people" As has been proven multiple times before, YOUR numbers are false, fraudulent and lies of the first order. Oh. I thought I'd beat you to a pulp on that nonsense last time around. Here we go again. Where's the "fals[ities], fraud[], and lies of the first order"? Be specific. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Peace Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:15 PM Fact is folks, there are NO definitive 'numbers' for deaths of Iraqi civilians. Many organizatiuons have given their best guess, and depending on who ya listen to, there is a spread of a several hundred thousand. Anyway, what does it matter on this thread 'how many'? It is separate from whether or not Bush lied. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Amos Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:41 AM From a senator who was there, excerpted from today's Times, New York: ...The situation facing the candidates who cast war votes has, to my surprise, often been presented as a binary one — they could either vote for the war, or not. There was no middle ground. On the contrary. There was indeed a third way, which Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, hailed at the time as "one of the most important votes we will cast in this process." And it was opposed by every single senator at the time who now seeks higher office. A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States' international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002. Senator Levin's amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not "promptly adopted" or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America's right to defend itself if threatened. An opponent of the Levin amendment said that the debate was not over objectives, but tactics. And he was right. To a senator, we all had as our objectives the safety of American citizens, the security of our country and the disarming of Saddam Hussein in compliance with United Nations resolutions. But there was a steadfast core of us who believed that the tactics should be diplomacy and multilateralism, not the "go it alone" approach of the Bush doctrine. Those of us who supported the Levin amendment argued against a rush to war. We asserted that the Iraqi regime, though undeniably heinous, did not constitute an imminent threat to United States security, and that our campaign to renew weapons inspections in Iraq — whether by force or diplomacy — would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states. We also urged our colleagues to take seriously the admonitions of our allies in the region — Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. As King Abdullah of Jordan warned, "A miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil." Unfortunately, these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23. It was clear that most senators were immune to persuasion because the two votes were almost mirror images of each other — no to the Levin amendment, aye to war. Their minds were made up. It was incomprehensible to me at the time that the Levin amendment received only 24 votes. However, there were some heroes, like Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, who even in the midst of a very difficult re-election campaign voted to slow the march to war. And then there was the moving statement by Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in support of the Levin amendment and against the administration-backed resolution: "This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the president's authority under the Constitution of the United States — not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head." ... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 Mar 07 - 11:26 AM PC been down - did I miss anything important? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: dianavan Date: 01 Mar 07 - 12:53 PM "But there was a steadfast core of us who believed that the tactics should be diplomacy and multilateralism, not the "go it alone" approach of the Bush doctrine." Exactly! The rest of the world would have appreciated it. A little respect goes a long way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST,TIA Date: 01 Mar 07 - 12:54 PM Sorry for another long cut and paste, but the prescience of this is spectacular... US Senator Robert Byrd Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003 "To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war. And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11. Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher. This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders. In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come. Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on. The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land. Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace? And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein? Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income? In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years. One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings. To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Bobert Date: 01 Mar 07 - 06:48 PM Sniff... The worst part about leavin' Wes Ginny was loosin' Senator Bryd as my Senator... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Teribus Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:00 PM A very good speech TIA, very good indeed. But from the text of his speech there are a number of things that Senator Byrd (Sniff) must have been aware of: On the contemplation of war, he says, "Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing." Could that have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that it was the Joint House Security Committee (i.e. House of Representaives and the Senate) that had identified the threat that Iraq posed? - Matter of record. That this threat had been previously identified almost five years less four days before in a speech made by President Bill Clinton. He goes on: "We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war. And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world." Absolutely, this is the war on terror and those who would propagate it. It is a turning point, it is a definitive moment in the history of mankind. It is a moment when a leader said enough is enough, those shadowy organisations and the nations who back them will not dictate through terror the path of mankind. We shall enter this struggle with the full intent to see it through irrespective of the cost, because we believe that we stand for the values of our forefathers and that all of mankind should share in that freedom, if they so chose, but by Christ at least give the people that choice. "This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine...... -.......The doctrine of pre-emption" I would like to point out to Senator (Sniff) Byrd, that the doctrine of pre-emption has been a reality since the first successful Soviet Atomic test. "...that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense." Senator (Sniff) Byrd does not state how he, or, more correctly those responsible for the safety and security of the United States of America, knows when part 1 of his statement becomes part 2. "It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter." - Not really. It is up to the government of each country in the world to assess what threatens it, and under the terms of the Charter of the United nations each country is allowed to act in self-defence if it believes that it is threatened without recourse to any other authority. If you don't believe me read the Charter. "High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq." - This should have come as no great surprise to Senator (Sniff) Byrd. Since when has anybody gone into a potential conflict and assured their opponent what punches they are going to throw? Besides Iraq armed with Chemical & Biological Weapons must have realised that standard NATO doctrine was that such a threat would be answered by the use of Tactical Nuclear weapons. If not, their major trading partners, the Russians would have acquainted them of that fact - that and that alone prevented the use of Chemical and Biological weapons during Desert Storm. "Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur." - In other words they are being advised to be vigilant - True? But somehow Senator (Sniff) Byrd sees this as threatening? "Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed." - Alarmist claptrap based upon absolutely nothing at all. The question I would have asked of Senator (Sniff) Byrd would have been, prove it. "This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal." - Pure politics, nothing more. I would like to hear Senator (Sniff) Byrd's take on the inaction during the final two years of President Bill Clinton's Presidency with regard to a threat that the security services of the United States of America and his own Administration identified - probably least said the better, Eh? I could go through the speech in detail - Absolutely no point. All I can say is thank Christ that this man (Senator 'Sniff' Byrd) was not President, and was not responsible for the safety and security of the United States of America. This man had he been in charge would have stood silent and acquiescent guardian to: - The UN's abandonment of sanctions against Iraq (possibly in 2002/2003) - The renewal and acceleration of Iraq's WMD programmes including nuclear (No way Saddam would have stood back and let Iran pip Iraq to the post on that score - True?) - Increased support for international terrorism from Iraq in the light of Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections Depending on exactly when Saddam would have attacked Iran, you peace loving appeasing shower could possibly have been looking at a nuclear war sometime within the coming four to five years. Well done Sniff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Arne Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:27 PM Teribus: I would like to point out to Senator (Sniff) Byrd, that the doctrine of pre-emption has been a reality since the first successful Soviet Atomic test. Say "huh?!?!?!?" Absolute nonsense. Teribus must be living on a different planet..... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Bobert Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:28 PM Same ol' lies, T... Saddam didn't = terrorism... And given the current state of affairs with Bush frothin' at the mouth to invade Iran, but can't now that he has blown all credibility outta the water like who would have cared within the neocons if Iraq did invade Iran??? Donnie Duck??? No, seems that instability and a Muslim civil war is about all the neocons, you included, want in the 1st place... Well, they, an' you, sho nuff have one... Enjoy... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Arne Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:29 PM Teribus: "It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter." - Not really. It is up to the government of each country in the world to assess what threatens it,... Oh, goodie, goodie! I want to be the judge at my own bank-rpbbery trial.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Arne Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:33 PM Speaking of judging: Sen. Byrd: 32.641 Teribus 0 Teribus isn't fit to hand Sen. Byrd a roll of toilet paper. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Teribus Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:42 PM Oh! Dear!! Arne 09:27; Bobert 09:28; Arne 09:29 & Arne 09:33. So pleased to note that I rattled your cages. Thread readers please note, in response to my post, not a single thing of any consequence or sense has been added. Carry on chaps. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: TIA Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:50 PM Nothing "of any consequence" is required in response to your latest spinathon. The jury is in and... Byrd was right Bobert was right Teribus was (sniff) wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Arne Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:54 PM teribus: So pleased to note that I rattled your cages. Thread readers please note, in response to my post, not a single thing of any consequence or sense has been added. Did that upstairs. You ignored it. But do tell us how "pre-emption" has been the Way Of The World since the first Russian nuke test. How many times did we bomb 'em? I keep fergettin'.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Teribus Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:02 PM Arne, Go read something and find out for yourself - for once - it would make a change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:54 PM Nop - didn't miss nuttin'... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 01 Mar 07 - 11:59 PM Its funny how everything that was said before 9/11 has been erased from the minds of the Bush haters. Iraq and a History of Terrorism On December 3, 1976, the New York Times reported that radical Palestinians have gathered in Iraq to mount a terrorist campaign against "moderate" arab governments. The group referred to in the article was known as Black June and they were led by the terrorist Abu Nidal. On August 5, 1978, the New York Times reported that this Palestinian group was linked to Iraq's intelligence service. Abu Nidal was a ruthless terrorist who planned the 1973 assault on an American passenger plane in Rome that resulted in 34 deaths and the 1974 bombing of TWA 841 which resulted in 88 deaths. link link On April 24, 1977, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) was reorgainized under the leadership of the terrorist Abu Abbas. According to an October 13, 1985 article in the New York Times, the group was organized with money and help from the Iraqi government. link In December 1977, Carlos the Jackal (a.k.a. Ilich Ramirez Sanchez) a "terrorist for hire" met with Saddam Hussein. Carlos was openly supported by the Iraqi government. link link On July 15, 1978, the LA Times reported that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had formally asked the government of Iraq to hand over the terrorist Abu Nidal "so he would get what he deserves." The article reported Iraq had given support to Abu Nidal and even provided him with his own radio station which he called "the voice of the Palestinian revolution." Among other things, the radio station had launched virulent attacks on two Palestinian leaders shortly before they were assassinated earlier that year. link In 1979, Congress passed legislation (Export Administration Act of 1979) which required the executive branch to create and maintain a list of countries deemed to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. In December 1979, the Carter Administration declared four countries as state sponsors of terrorism including: Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Southern Yemen. link link On August 30, 1980, the New York Times reported in an article titled "U.S. Forbids Sale of Jetliners to Iraq" that the Carter Administration decided to block the sale of five Boeing jets due to Iraq's involvement in recent terrorist activities. The article reported that, within the previous few months, Iraqi diplomats were involved in attempted bomb attacks in Vienna and West Berlin. link On November 9, 1982, the Los Angeles Times reported in an article titled "Top Arab Terrorist Back in Baghdad" that Abu Nidal had recently moved back to Iraq after being expelled from the country four years earlier. His presence in Iraq was confirmed by President Saddam Hussein. link Abu Abbas was the mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking. Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Manhattan retiree, was rolled by Abbas's men, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. After holding some 400 passengers hostage for 44 hours, the hijackers surrendered to Egyptian authorities in exchange for safe passage to Tunisia aboard an Egypt Air jet. The airliner, however, was forced by U.S. fighter planes to land at a NATO base in Sicily. Italian officials took the hijackers into custody but Abu Abbas possessed a get-out-of-jail card: an Iraqi diplomatic passport. Seeing that this terrorist traveled as a credentialed Iraqi diplomat, the Italian authorities let Abbas flee to Yugoslavia. link link link On May 13, 1986, the New York Times reported that the French Interior Ministry had received confessions for three terrorist bombings including the Marks & Spencer department stores in Paris and London. According to reports, the terrorist in custody had received his orders from a "contact in Baghdad". That contact was Abu Ibrahim, the leader of a radical Palestinian organization called the "15 May Faction". This group, which received Iraqi government support, was known for its use of sophisticated explosive devices in the form of plastic explosives and suitcase bombs. Among other crimes by this terrorist group, the 15 May Organization was responsible for five attacks on American and Israeli airliners between 1982 and 1983 including the August 11, 1982 bombing of Pan Am flight 830 over Honolulu which killed one teenager and injured 15 other passengers. They were also responsible for the April 2, 1986 bombing of TWA flight 840 which killed four people. The Los Angeles Times reported in a January 9, 1992 article that this group had close ties to Iraq. link link link During the first Gulf War, on February 4, 1991, the Washington Times wrote an article titled "Terrorist Camps Deserted in Iraq." The article reported that several terrorist camps inside Iraq were abandoned shortly after the start of the allied bombing campaign. One camp in the western desert was operated by the terrorist Abu Nidal for weapons and explosives training. A terrorist camp near Bagdad was operated by Abu Ibrahim, leader of the Arab Organization May 15. And another terrorist camp near Bagdad was occupied by terrorists of unknown affiliation. Later, after the war, the Washington Times wrote another article dated November 24, 1992 reporting that terrorists were once again training at a camp near Bagdad in violation of the cease-fire terms that ended the Gulf War. link link During the 1992 presidential campaign, Al Gore criticized the first Bush administration for its "blatant disregard" of Iraq's ties to terrorism. On September 29, 1992 Al Gore said, "The Reagan/Bush Administration was also prepared to overlook the fact that the terrorist who masterminded the attack on the Achille Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer fled with Iraqi assistance. Nor did it matter that the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came from Baghdad with suitcase bombs." Al Gore went on to say, "There might have been a moment's pause for reflection when Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May 1987, killing 37 sailors -- but the [Reagan/Bush] Administration smoothed it over very fast." link Former President George H.W. Bush visited Kuwait between April 14 and April 16, 1993, to commemorate the allied victory in the Persian Gulf War. In late-April 1993, the United States learned that terrorists had attempted to assassinate Bush during his visit to Kuwait and evidence indicated that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) was behind the assassination attempt. The Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. On June 26, 1993, the United States launched a cruise missile attack against a building housing the Iraqi Intelligence Service in Baghdad in retaliation for the assassination attempt on former President Bush. link On June 27, 1994 ABC News reported that Abdul Rahman Yasin (indicted for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) was known to be living in Iraq. A reporter working for ABC News and Newsweek spotted Abdul Yasin at his father's house in Baghdad. Newsweek reported that, according to neighbors, Yasin was "working for the Iraqi government." At the time, the U.S. government was offering a $2 million reward for information leading to his capture. Yasin was never brought to justice and still remains at large today. The reward for his capture has since increased to $5 million. link link After the Gulf War in 1991, no-fly zones were established in northern and southern Iraq to protect the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites from Saddam's forces. The U.S. military enforced these no-fly zones up until the second Iraq war in March 2003. Iraq considered this an affront to its sovereignty and in December 1998 began shooting at American aircraft patrolling these zones. On March 28, 2001, General Tommy Franks reported to the House Armed Services Committee that during the prior year alone, coalition forces had flown nearly 10,000 sorties inside Iraqi airspace and those aircraft were engaged by surface-to-air missiles or anti-aircraft fire more than 500 times. Franks reported that during the prior year, naval forces had intercepted 610 ships while enforcing U.N. sanctions designed to limit Saddam Hussein's ability to smuggle oil out of Iraq. On any given day, U.S. Central Command operated in the region with some 30 naval vessels, 175-200 military aircraft, and between 18,000 and 25,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines. video video link link On January 27, 1999 an article in the New York Times titled "A Much-Shunned Terrorist Is Said to Find Haven in Iraq" stated that "Abu Nidal, one of the world's most infamous terrorists, moved to Baghdad late last year and obtained the protection of President Saddam Hussein, according to intelligence reports received by United States and Middle Eastern government officials." The article quoted a counterterrorism expert who said that, regarding Abu Nidal, "Osama bin Laden is a student by comparison." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:02 AM I missed some: Before the rise of Usama bin Laden, Abu Nidal was widely regarded as the world's most ruthless terrorist. The Associated Press reported on August 22, 2002 that Nidal entered Iraq during the late 1990's "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities." He lived there until August, 2002 when he died of between one and four gunshot wounds. It is believed by many that Abu Nidal was killed on the orders of Saddam Hussein although the Iraqi government claimed that Nidal had committed suicide. On October 14, 2001, a former Iraqi army captain named Sabah Khodada granted an interview to the PBS television program "Frontline" in which he talked about a terrorist training camp in Iraq called Salman Pak. During this interview Khodada stated, "This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world." Saddam Hussein paid $25,000 bonuses to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. "President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000," Iraq's deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz declared on March 11, 2002. Mahmoud Besharat, who dispensed these funds across the West Bank, gratefully said: "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue." On February 13, 2003, the Philippine government expelled Iraqi diplomat Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary at Iraq's Manila embassy. Cell phone records indicated that the Iraqi diplomat had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, just before and just after this Al-Qaeda allied Islamic militant group conducted an attack in Zamboanga City. Abu Sayyaf's nail filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos plus killing U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age 40. link link link After the fall of Saddam's government, coalition forces found and destroyed a terrorist training camp located near Baghdad called Salman Pak. This terrorist training camp featured an airplane fuselage where Iraqi defectors had earlier reported foreign terrorists were being trained in hijacking aircraft. On April 14, 2003, Abu Abbas was captured by U.S. Special Forces during a raid near Baghdad. Abbas had lived in Baghdad since 1994, where he was living under protection of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Khala Khadr al-Salahat, accused of designing the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 (259 killed on board, 11 dead on the ground), also lived in Iraq. He surrendered to U.S. Marines in Baghdad on April 18, 2003. On September 18, 2003, USA Today ran an article with the headline "U.S. says Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack." The article reported that U.S. authorities have evidence Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Military, intelligence and law enforcement officials reported finding a large cache of Arabic-language documents in Tikrit, Saddam's political stronghold. Some analysts have concluded that the documents show Saddam's government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin. Russian President Vladimir Putin said on June 18, 2004, "I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: dianavan Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:14 AM Dickey - Its redundant to provide a link and then cut and paste the whole article. You are very boring and your source leaves out alot of pertinent information. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Captain Ginger Date: 02 Mar 07 - 04:02 AM Dickey dearie, links to websites run by freerepublic.com have about as much credibility as the ravings of Melanie Philips. Have you actually looked at the stuff before cutting and pasting it? Much of it has been knocked down (with citations and context) in this very thread. As one who is now adopting a more detached view of this interminable and ultimately pointless debate, I would nevertheless urge you to try to be a little more original in your arguments rather than relying on tired propaganda from neo-cons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:13 AM I see that the use of the SRS Rule is popular here. " I will only accept information that 1. agrees with what I want to believe. 2. Is from a source that agrees with MY viewpint. Can't be used to show that I am wrong in any aspect." Given the lack of willingness to even consider that the infoirmation presented might be correct, and look at what the UN reports SAID, it becomes obvious that the only proof that some here MIGHT accept is a nuclear explosion, provided it is within a few miles of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST,TIA Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:38 AM There you go with that "SRS rule" crap again. I was there, I read the whole thing. You were wrong then, and continue to be so. |
