BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 10:27 PM

The truth is what people need to know... Not the latest propaganda campaign by the anti-Bushites...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 11:35 PM

The tap-dance gets even more involved. Dancing in the clouds.

Bruce, you're amazing!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 01:07 AM

I think beardedbruce should 'get over himself' and teribus should 'grab a brain'.

I have nothing more to say on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 08:31 AM

"All those who claim that everything would have been better with Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein declare so now."

No takers? Bit different to the rush to proclaim belief in the fact that a nuclear Iran would pose no threat.

Bobert advises that I "Enlist!!!", that if I want a war then I must "enlist!!!" (Hey Bobert is !!! = SHOUTING?)

So "What you say is nuthin' more than BS, BS and more BS" if so Bobert it is BS, BS and more BS that can be backed-up and substantiated, which is a damn sight more than the drivel you and your fellow travellers come out with on this forum.

So "Saddam bluffed becasue it was all he had..." All he had to do what Bobert? Rhetorical question Bobert, Saddam lied and bluffed and acted in every way possible to make the world believe he still possessed WMD for two reasons, one solely for domestic purposes and the other international, to maintain his dream of becoming the leader of a pan-Arabist movement united against Israel, and also to counter Iran. Domestically, he required the people of Iraq including his regular armed forces to believe that he still possessed the capability to mount another Anfal campaign, he still required to maintain a credible threat to terrorise large sections of the population of Iraq.

One thing is for certain Bobert, it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any external threat from the USA. Why am I so certain of that Bobert? Again a rhetorical question, because when he was faced with a similar threat in 1990, when he most certainly did possess WMD in abundance, he did not use them.

So Bobert, before I go off to enlist!!! I have to imagine myself, "the leader of Irag with enemies on every front and see what you would do if you really didn't have the means to defend yourself and were in the middle of sanctions which further crippled your ability to defend yourself..."

Now then, "enemies on every front" eh Bobert, well they were all of Saddam's own making. Among them number, an army that he could not trust beyond providing them with 24hrs supply of ammunition and fuel; more than 60% of a population that he had preyed upon and terrorised for 24 years. Saddam's Iraq was surrounded by neighbours that he had threatened and bullied over those same 24 years, two of them he had actually invaded and plundered.

Well Bobert, I'll let you into a little secret, in his place I would never have done anything remotely like what Saddam did.

Now this next bit is absolutely astounding:
"Do I view Saddam as some great hero??? No... He did what he had to do to survive fropm internal and external threats until Bush got a hard-on for his hide..."

"He did what he had to do to survive fropm internal and external threats" sort of like all the other villains of history (Ghengis Khan; Nero; Napoleon; Hitler; Stalin; Pol Pot; etc, etc) On your reasoning you would have done nothing against any of them, proof of that assumption being the lack of condemnation of what is, and has been, happening in Darfur for the past 20 years. It's ten times worse than what has happened in Iraq but not a peep out of any of you, why because it cannot be laid at George W. Bush's door, God are you pathetic, your hypocracy beggars description.

Example of how pathetic and self-centred comes from this jewel:

"It was never a queation whether or not the US military could put Saddam in a box... That was a given...

But what wasn't a given was the costs to do so..."

As the old saying goes - Freedom ain't free. One thing is for certain, you Bobert would never stir yourself off your ass for it.

Another classic example of socialist, left-wing whining, "Oh its all somebody else's fault":

"the domestic agenda is very much a part of the security of our country..." - Very true.

"We have kids who can'tr read..." - then maybe more parents should actually try parenting Bobert. Neither myself, my brother or my sister were taught to read in school, that job was done by my mother before we reached school age. My wife and I did exactly the same when we became parents. Now if we can do it then so can the rest as a parent its your job not the Governments.

"We have 40 million people leivibng in poverty..." Good heavens I never knew that the ancient germanic sport of "leivibng" was so popular in Poverty. 40 million people eh Bobert? Out of a population of 300 million, that's just over 13%, no wonder all the third world and its dog are trying their utmost to get into the US.

"We are deeply in debt to China..." Really Bobert? well simple matter of choice ould son, stop buying shit from them.

"Our kids can't think..." - Here we come back to parenting again Bobert, parents job Bobert not the Governments

"This is where the money could have gone..." Bobert both you and I know that with the crop of politicians you have not one single penny would have gone anywhere near those areas.

"Instead, we have another Vietnam on out hands..." Nothing like it Bobert, and you know that very well. At present you have less than 17% of your military deployed.

"Meanwhile, oil rich Russia is seanakingg abck up on US..." At $90 per barrel I hope they enjoy their "seanakingg" whatever that may be. They are sneaking back up on the good old USofA Bobert, because they have ditched all that communist crap, they don't give a hoot for civil rights, human rights and they will sell arms to anybody that wants them. But do I hear any condemnation from the likes of you - not a whisper, you see not GWB, so its alright eh?.

"Afganisatn is falling back into Takliban hands..." I could well believe it Bobert, but meanwhile in Afghanistan, the Taleban are getting their arses kicked very effectively.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 08:42 AM

No, bb, it is you who is ignoring facts... I have never once said that Blix's report was all roses... I freely admit that their were still lots of concerns... That is a million times more open minded than you who has never answered the question "What's the hurry" when Blix also stated in his report that the Iraqi's were ***cooperating*** in letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted...

See, my view emcompasses the total report where yours and t's focus only on those things that in you minf justified invading Iraq... This is the problem I have with you and it's the same problem I have with Bush... You seem to draw conclusions from only the facts that you want to focus on... That is why you both make serious errors in judgement... Cherry picking facts or even possible facts and building a foriegn policy around them is ***narrow*** minded and a sure formula for failure...

Thus... Iraqmire which is a collasal failure...

"The mind is like a parachute... It only works when it is open."

And you also don't answer the question that I've asked over and over going back to the mad-dash-to-Iraq days and that is if you had so much distaste for Saddam why didn't you just have him killed???

(But, Bobert, that would have been against international law!!!)

Oh??? But invading and occupying a sovergn nation, installing a handpicked government, executing Saddam and killing upwards of a million folks is fine???

Like I said, ***narrow*** little thinking...

As for the propaganda??? Follow the $$$$... In these day$ of corporate media con$olidation and the Billion$ and BillionS that are out there for the taking it is the folk$ with the microphone who are in the po$ition to ram propaganda down the throat$ of the people...

Those of us who have opposed this war since the very beginning don't have the microphone... What we have is enough smarts to know when the stories that the corportist/militarists are tellin' US smells like dead fish...

But I guess you, bb, and yer bud, T, have gotten used to that smell because you are no longer capable of independent thought and both highly susceptable to propaganda...

And again, how 'bout the two of you marchin' your "true beleiver" butts down to your local recruiting offices???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 10:36 AM

Now then Bobert while we are talking about cherry-picking:

"What's the hurry" when Blix also stated in his report that the Iraqi's were ***cooperating*** in letting the inspectors inspect where ever they wanted..."

Here is what Dr Hans Blix said in his report relating to Iraqi co-operation, note Bobert these are his words not mine:

"I turn now, Mr. President, to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has DECIDED IN PRINCIPLE to provide cooperation on process, notably access. (NOTE: Decided in principle Bobert, he does not say that they have decided in fact, he does not say that they have decided in practice)

A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course. (NOTE: What he is stating here is that co-operation in substance is totally lacking, the Iraqi's have not even decided in principle to provide any co-operation in substance - that Bobert represents a "material breach" of the terms and conditions of UN Resolution 1441)

On co-operation relating to substance Dr. Blix goes on:

"The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO OPEN DOORS. INSPECTION IS NOT A GAME OF CATCH AS CATCH CAN. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items."

The truth of the situation as of 27th January 2003 with regard to the 100% full, unstinting and pro-active co-operation required under the terms of 1441, was reported by Dr. Hans Blix as being somewhat less than 50%.

By the bye Bobert the question that you've asked over and over going back to the mad-dash-to-Iraq days and that is if you had so much distaste for Saddam why didn't you just have him killed???. Has been answered many, many times. You just don't like the answer, but seeing as you have asked I'll lay it out for you one more time. And this time you address that answer and tell me where I am wrong, or where the logic of my answer is at fault.

The assassination of Saddam Hussein would have accomplished nothing by way of improvement in the lives of the citizens of Iraq. It would accomplish nothing in terms of increasing the prospects of peace and stability in the region.

Why would it do neither of these things? Because the Ba'athist Regime and the Revolutionary Council would still be in power in Iraq with an unaltered agenda and Saddam would have been replaced by one of his sons, who believe it or not were a damn sight worse than their father.

Take your pick Bobert, who would you have preferred:

Uday Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti
- Eldest son of Saddam Hussein.
- He headed the Iraqi Olympic Committee. In this role he tortured athletes who failed to win. Uday had his bodyguard Mohammed Haroon executed in 1995 for not showing enough enthusiasm in torturing Iraqi journalists at the Iraqi Olympic Committee. Uday seemed proud of his reputation and called himself "abu sarhan", Arabic for "father of the wolf."
- He was the head of one of Saddam's security organizations
- He raped and murdered scores of young women across Iraq during his father's reign, although, presumably due to nepotism, he was never charged with or tried for such crimes.
- In October 1988, at a party in honor of Suzanne Mubarak, wife of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Uday murdered his father's personal valet and food taster, Kemal Hana Gegeo. Before an assemblage of horrified guests, Uday—intoxicated and in cold blood — bludgeoned Gegeo with a cane, reputedly administering the coup de grâce with an electric carving knife. Briefly imprisoned for this crime, Saddam released Uday, banishing him to Switzerland as the assistant to the Iraqi ambassador there. He was expelled by the Swiss government after he threatened to stab a person in a restaurant.

Qusay Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti
- The second son of Saddam Hussein.
- He was appointed as his father's heir apparent in 2000, so no doubt about my contention that one of his sons would have taken over.
- Head of the internal security forces and had some authority over the Iraqi Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units.
- Played a vital role in crushing the Shiite uprising in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War and is also thought to have masterminded the destruction of the southern marshes of Iraq. The wholesale destruction of these marshes was aimed against the Marsh Arabs, as retribution for their participation in the 1991 uprising.
- Responsible for the killing of many political activists. The Sunday Times (London) reported that Qusay Hussein ordered the killing of Khalis Mohsen al-Tikriti, an engineer at the military industrialization organization, because Qusay believed he was planning to leave Iraq. In 1998, Iraqi opposition groups accused Qusay Hussein of ordering the executions of thousands of political prisoners after hundreds of inmates were summarily executed to make room for new prisoners in crowded jails.

Another couple of facts that you might not really like to acknowledge Bobert:

- MNF troops are present in Iraq at the specific request of the Iraqi Government.
- MNF troops are present in Iraq under the terms of a legally constituted United Nations Security Council Mandate.
- The Governmentof Iraq was elected in free and fair elections by the population of Iraq 70% of those eligible to vote did so in spite of dire threats.
- No country is being occupied
- No hand-picked Government has been put in place.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 11:26 AM

In the end there were no WMD's, this administration fucked up & we will pay through the nose & pocket & the ghosts of the dead for ages to come.

We are no safer now (less safe IMO) than before cause we were not under a real threat to begin with.

Who's fault is this fuck up's? The guys that pushed the envolope & the button, not the guy who the button was pushed on.

I say fuck you, you take out a gun & shoot me, what's your excuse?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 01:56 PM

"because you are no longer capable of independent thought and both highly susceptable to propaganda..."

And I can say the same about you, with more justification. Care to reply to ANY of T.'s comments?

As for enlisting, have I seen YOU go to any third world country and lend a habnd? No, you seem to be working hard ( which is not a bad thing) in your own self-interest.

As for what I was doing in 1991,

UMPAC System Manager        1990 - 1992
UMPAC (UVPI [UltraViolet Plume Instrument] Mission Planning and Assessment Center) LAVC System Manager for LACE (Low-power Atmospheric Compensation Experiment).
•        Responsible for computer and network development, operations, management support and configuration
•        Responsible for secure operations of the MV3800 and workstations as the AISSR
•        Developed the UMPAC Secure System SPP Annex
•        Managed user interaction and problem resolution
•        Interfaced with DEC and other vendors to provide customer with information and options
•        Enhanced the Siting Ephemeris Generation (SEG) software as required by UMPAC
•        Provided software and analysis support for DSPSE
•        Interfaced with the PDS (Planetary Data System) for data format requirements and design


Just working to expand human knowledge, and support the SDIO program as best as I could.

In other words, I was doing a job I thought to be worthwhile, as you were at the same time.

As for enlisting, they will not have me, with CHF, cardiomiopathy, and 9 stents. If they would, I would jump at the chance.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 02:01 PM

Barry,

" say fuck you, you take out a gun & shoot me, what's your excuse?"

IF you were a criminal,had been given 12 years to comply with the law and refused, been found guilty in a court such as the UN, and had been told MANY times to "STOP or I'll shoot!" and STILL refused to stop your illegal actions, YOU would be shot- legally, and all the cases correctly so.

BANG

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 03:16 PM

Outstanding questions for Bobert:

1.        Could you tell us at what time Saddam Hussein was going to tell the United Nations that he had murdered the 603 Kuwaiti nationals he had abducted in 1990?

2.        You first state that the US should have assassinated Saddam Hussein, you then clearly state that you would prefer to see him still in power. Which one is it Bobert, can't have both.

3.        Had he been assassinated who would you have preferred carry on Saddam's task of killing all those innocent Iraqi civilians? Who would you have preferred to confront Iran and prosecute the second Iran/Iraq War? Uday or Qusay?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 03:21 PM

Bobert,

""The mind is like a parachute... It only works when it is open.""


You may be full of hot air, but I fail to see how your mind is open- you do not acknowledge anything that might dispute the "facts" as you WANT them to be, nor do you attempt to address any of the points that have been brought out that do not back you up.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 03:56 PM

Some things are better as a result of the invasion and its aftermath. Some are worse.

I've seen no evidence that the former outweigh the latter. And it seems very possible indeed that, when all this is over, the regime or regimes in power in Iraq will be just about as bad as Saddam's.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 05:20 PM

Well, first of all, T... Here is where you're not seeing clearly...

You still are playing the prove-you-don't-have-something game... That is, in essence, Blix's critisim of the Iragis...

But this, given the short time (some two months) that the inspectors were back in Iraq coup0led with the fact taht it had been close to 10 years since the last inspections, was ***not*** grounds to invade... Blix repeatedly reported cooperation from the Iraqis in giving the inspectors freedom to inspect where ever they wanted... Blix also spoke with some amazement on just how many well the team was organizized...

So this invasion was grossly premature!!! Millions of people took to the street aropund the world because of the complete insanity of what we all knew and that was the Bush wasn't going to let the inpector ecceeed... That is why he pulled the plug...

The decision to invade Iraq was made long before 9/11... There is sufficient testimoney to that for this not even to be debateable...

Bush wanted his war and he wasn't going to let not psky UN or inspectors ruin it for him... Period... End of story...

Now, to wit: Saddam killed 603 Kuwaitis!!! Okay, so he did... Bush has killed upwards of a million people!!!

As for me I'd rather see Saddam still in power... By now he would be back in the fold having done his repentence, Donnie Rumsfelf woulf still be the Secretary of Defense and over there showering Saddam with gifts and Saddam and Bush would be back to exchanging Christman cards...

Lost in all various defenses of the Bushites is that Saddam was a company lap dog for the US until Kuwait... Saddam was such a Bush I inasider that he thought he had gotten a "wink" from the Bush I folks on taking Kuwait or I don't think he would have pulled off such a bonehead stunt...

But nevermind that... Bottom line is that Saddam coyuld have been broughjt back around... The US plays and/or contains bad dictators quite well when it is so motivated and had the inspectors finished their work Saddam would now be every much contained and repentent...

My opinion about assasinating him is why you, T, and your buddy Bush, thought that taking out upwards of a million Iraqis, plunging the US economy into ruin and killing the US reputation around the world was better than assasinating him and maybe even his sons???

That is the big queation for you...

As for killing innocent Iraqi civilians, you and Bush are in cahoots on the killing of upwards of a million Iraqis, most of whom were civilians... This was the dumbest question of your three...

As for your bud, bb, T??? He is beyond hope... Ahhh, not that you aren't... He won't answer any questions anymore with anything but thwe sme tired, worn out bumper sticker crap... His mind is so closed that you couldn't get a feeler guage between it and the propaganda...

Any more questions, T-zer??? Keep 'um in threes like in your last post and we can do this until they burty one of us in 30 or so years...

I know exactly why you have chosen this time to refight your previuosly lost batteles... It's that thirst for more blood... More Sock 'n Awe...

Whay don't you just take up video games where real moms and kids don't get killed???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 05:28 PM

Bobert,

When YOU try to answer a question put to you, instead of ignoring it, I will try to answer your questions.

I had thought that between my statements and quotes, and T.'s observations, quotes, and comments, we had dealt with your comments- If not, let me know- BUT stop asking what YOU will not answer: When you even try to deal with what ** I ** have said, I might not have to repeat it again, and again, and again...

"He won't answer any questions anymore with anything but thwe sme tired, worn out bumper sticker crap"

Applies to ALL that you have said. You keep ignoring what is said, and trying to put words into other's mouths, then complain that you don't like the words YOU said they said.

Is the idea that someone can look at the facts and come to a different comnclusion than YOU have arrived at such a threat to your liberal ubermench ideals?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 05:34 PM

Bobert buddy - give up. It's useless. It absolutely kills them that you were right all along. They love to load up one gazillion nonsensical bullet points and questions then play gotcha if you try to answer any of it. It is not worth your time or effort. History has already proven you right, and will continue to confirm this. If a couple of Asshats don't agree, they can take their delusions to the grave. Don't waste your time.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 05:36 PM

"You still are playing the prove-you-don't-have-something game"

And you have never addressed the point I stated: That the items HAD been in existance, and Blix was asking that Saddam prove that he, Saddam HAD done something with it- IN OTHER WORDS, that Saddam prove what he said. If you were capable of reading the text of the Jan 27th report, you might even be aware of the specific items that Saddam had, and was responsible for proving the disposition of.


ONLY those who are ignorant of the UNR say that it is asking Saddam to prove a negative.


"Millions of people took to the street aropund the world because of the complete insanity of what we all knew "

Yet how many even ASKED Saddam to comply with the UN to avoid any conflict???

Still waiting to hear how you spent even 1% as much effort to tell Saddam to avoid war as you did to tell Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 05:54 PM

Here's some news.

Seems like we really have made a big difference. Or not.

Of course it will be much better when the Americans leave - won't it?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:27 PM

Prove to me, bb, that you don't have "The Scream" painting by Edvard Munch...

End of argument...

As fir UN resolutions???

Here's 89 cents... Take it and all the UN resolutions combined to your local Kwik-Mart for a 12 ounce cup of coffee...

End of argument, Part B...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:42 PM

"Prove to me, bb, that you don't have "The Scream" painting by Edvard Munch..."

You obviously miss the point.

Show that I HAD that painting previously, and THEN you are entitled to ask me to prove that I no longer have it- OR YOU PRESUME THAT I STILL DO.

You are beginning to act like a real shithead about this.

Prove to me that YOU are not a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:43 PM

"Here's 89 cents... Take it and all the UN resolutions combined to your local Kwik-Mart for a 12 ounce cup of coffee..."

YET YOU insist that the UN resolutions take priority over the requirement for the President to protect the interests of the US???

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:50 PM

Bobert,

I will state again, since you have shown yourself incapable of reading coprehension:

And you have never addressed the point I stated: That the items HAD been in existance, and Blix was asking that Saddam prove that he, Saddam HAD done something with it- IN OTHER WORDS, that Saddam prove what he said. If you were capable of reading the text of the Jan 27th report, you might even be aware of the specific items that Saddam had, and was responsible for proving the disposition of.


ONLY those who are ignorant of the UNR say that it is asking Saddam to prove a negative.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 06:55 PM

"Now, to wit: Saddam killed 603 Kuwaitis!!! Okay, so he did..."

OK Bobert, now answer my question, when was the ever so co-operative Saddam Hussein going to tell the United Nations that he'd murdered them? You are trying to put it across to us that Saddam was co-operating fully aren't you? By the bye Bobert the safe return of those hostages was a requirement of both UNSC Resolution 687 and 1441. Now I don't know about you Bobert but I would call the absence of some 600-odd people occasioned by the fact that they were dead, murdered in fact, a fairly clear case of a "material breach".

Your main problem Bobert is that you are incapable of reading something and understanding what it says.

One million Iraqis have been killed by GWB Bobert? - Now where on earth did you dream that one up from? Or is this just another "Bobert Fact".

Another link - I'm surprised that Folkiedave didn't put it up with his other one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7089168.stm

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 07:01 PM

No, I don't miss the point, bb... You hoopelessly miss the point... It is a rediculous argument to make where you expect someone to prove that they don't have something that they clearly don't have...

So where do you have the painting... We know you have it... So where is it... Did you give it to someone else... If so, who... We will ntot let this rest until you tell us what you have done with the peinting... Might of fact if you don't ell us where it is we are going to blow you ass up!!! Now, what have you done with it???

I mean, this gets into a mindlessness in no time...

As for the UN resolution, it was a farce... Bush was ready to pull the trigger and Powell did about the only thing he copuld do to slow his boss down and suggest that Bush go thru the formality of the UN... What came out of this, however, was Bliz's team... Bush didn't forsee this most unfortunate roadblock so just as Blix said he was making progress, Bush told him to get the fu*k out... Times up!!!

This reminds me of the 2000 recount... Remember that... Just as the so-called lead was vanishing one vote at a time infavor of Gore, Bush's 7 Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices said "Stop the fu*king recount"!!! History does repeat itself...

I mean, if you had any level of worldly intellegence, bb, you would just back down... You have no winning arguments... All of them end up in the same place and that is on the wrong side of the facts and the wrong side of history...

Iraq is the worse foriegn policy decision perhaps in the history of our country...

Your arguments have grown stale... Thay aren't even half as thoughtfull as T-Birds and really not worth responding to until you find something with at least a little merit of thought so...

... that being the case...

... continue making a fool of yourself... That is your right... It is also my right to not waste any more time with you on this subject until you come up with something new or thoughtfull...

No dsirespect intended here but you'll ahve to work a liitle harder than what I read lately from you...

and don't take it persoanl... T-Bird ain't hittin' on much either and if he can't fo any better than his last little pop quiz then I'm gonna have to flush him, too...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 07:30 PM

Tell, ya' what, T... When you tell me where every Iraqi oman and chile was killed by an American bomb, artillery shell or by small arms, I'll answer your question...

I promise...

Until then your question, though more intertesting than BB's, is still a red herring...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 07:34 PM

"So where do you have the painting... We know you have it... So where is it... Did you give it to someone else... If so, who... We will ntot let this rest until you tell us what you have done with the peinting... Might of fact if you don't ell us where it is we are going to blow you ass up!!! Now, what have you done with it???"


Since you got the message that stated that you could ask that IF you had reason to believe- evidence- that I had it before, I will assume you will present that evidence NOW or be called the liar that you appear to be.

Have you ANY reports that I had that material at an earlier date?
Have you any reports that I pruchased it?
Have you any inspector's reports that I had it a few years ago?


If not, YOU are a damned LIAR.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 07:55 PM

"I burnt it"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 08:12 PM

No, BB, I am not "damned LIAR"...

You think it's quite okay to go to war by putting Saddam in a prove-you-don't-have-it-trick-bag but when I use the very same tactic on you you can't handle it???? Hmmmmm??? Try being the leader of a MIddle Eastern country with dangerous neighbors on all sides and having to play that game??? Hmmmmm???

See, bb, you aren't any better at Saddam at playing that game...

Might of fact, I think Saddam played it better than you just played it... But then again, he had more practice...

McG,

Say it ain't so... I loved that painting...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 09:16 PM

"You think it's quite okay to go to war by putting Saddam in a prove-you-don't-have-it-trick-bag but when I use the very same tactic on you you can't handle it???? "

If you really do not understand the difference as I have * pointed * it out, I am sorry for you- I pity the mentally handicapped.

If you are intentionally lying and trying to equate your unsubstantiated claim as being on the same order as the UN reports that had Saddam having the material as late as 1999, you are intentionally misleading us- What you accuse Bush of as "lying"

Are YOU telling us that the earlier UN reports were false?

Shall I call you Bushbert, for your choice of comment?

" the items HAD been in existance, and Blix was asking that Saddam prove that he, Saddam HAD done something with it- IN OTHER WORDS, that Saddam prove what he said. If you were capable of reading the text of the Jan 27th report, you might even be aware of the specific items that Saddam had, and was responsible for proving the disposition of.


ONLY those who are ignorant of the UNR say that it is asking Saddam to prove a negative. "

So, being so ignorant of the UNR, no wonder you stated:"Here's 89 cents... Take it and all the UN resolutions combined to your local Kwik-Mart for a 12 ounce cup of coffee..."


So, without the UNR, I guess the US can act as it sees in its own interest, and you will shut the fuck up about it?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 09:22 PM

Have you ANY reports that I had that material at an earlier date?
Have you any reports that I pruchased it?
Have you any inspector's reports that I had it a few years ago?

The UN had all of the above on Saddam- Unless you think that item found by the UN Inspection team should be ignored for some reason.

You seem unable to understand that the UNR was asking Saddam to prove he had done what he said that he had.

How is this proving a negative? Unless you claim he did NOT destroy that material?

Or show that the information he gave earlier was false- though I would think the earlier inspection teams might have something to ssay about that. I guess UN Inspection teams mean nothing, either- so what basis do you have for saying that the US response should wait on the results of the declared by Bushbert to be useless UN inspection teams?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 04:08 AM

No Bobert, you will never answer my question because the answer to it would completely contradict your unsupported claim that Saddam Hussein was co-operating fully with the UN with respect to Resolution 1441.

Counter to what Guest TIA believes I think that anybody reading through the posts of this thread would deduce the following:

1. Iran did have nuclear weapons programme, which was, on evaluation of new information received in August 2007, halted in the summer of 2003.

2. While the President was informed about the a new intelligence source in August 2007 he was not told what that information was because at that time it had not been fully analysed and evaluated.

3. From 1 & 2 above it is clear that when the President made his remarks on 23 October he was not aware that his intelligence services evaluation was leading them to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear weapons programme had been halted. So when he made his remarks on 23rd October he could not have been lying as Bobert claims.

4. The President was informed with regard to the analysis and evaluation of the new information roughly one week before the NIE was made public, i.e. long after 23rd October.

5. Has the Iranian nuclear weapons programme been abandoned or renounced? No it has not, there has been no clear statement from Tehran on this. Nobody outside of Iran knows anything for certain about the status and aims of their nuclear programme. Recent reports suggest that it was restarted in 2004, so there is even uncertainty as to whether at the moment it has been halted or not.

6. If the Iranian nuclear weapons programme has in fact been halted, does it still pose a threat? Of course it does, it lies outwith the terms and conditions of the NPT and could be restarted at any moment in the future.

Conclusion #1
It would appear that Bobert was 100% wrong with regard to the World War III jibe and the "Bobert fact" that the President lied.

On WMD
1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003.

2. This claim has been disproved from at least two quarters purely by direct quotations from the same report which stated quite clearly that Iraq was not co-operating to the level required by UNSC Resolution 1441 or as claimed by Bobert, i.e. Bobert is knowingly misrepresenting the situation or he is deliberately lying.

3. On the "Prove a negative" aspect, BB has laid it out very well:
- Iraq was asked to submit a full declaration of what they had.
- UNSCOM/UNMOVIC have purchase orders, shipping records, import licences, manufacturing records, munitions records, disposal records.
- The Iraqis claim to have disposed of, or unilaterally destroyed it all.
- UNMOVIC point out that the Iraq disposal records do not accord with the amounts manufactured, that there is a shortfall that needs to be explained, to which the Iraqis offer no explanation. If unilaterally destroyed outwith the supervision of the UN there would be traces found at the disposal sites, none were found, surely the Iraqis would know where they had destroyed these items?

4. That France stated quite categorically that it would allow no "second resolution" that presented Saddam Hussein with an ultimatum to be tabled. This in effect eliminated the UN from the process of resolving what the USA and the UK saw as the clear threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the peace and security of the region.

5. Faced with the prospect of Saddam, supported internationally by France, Russia and China, playing the same old game he had successfully employed between 1991 and 1998, the US acted, they gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to quit and avoid the coming war. Saddam refused the offer and suffered the consequences.

6. Since May 2003 the following is now known about Iraq:
- They no longer have any WMD arsenal of weapons
- They no longer have any WMD programme running that could be used to terrorise its own population or its neighbours.
- They no longer sponsor international terrorist groups.

Conclusion #2:
It would appear that Bobert is 100% wrong about his claims relating to Iraqi compliance with UNSC Resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 06:10 AM

- They no longer have any WMD arsenal of weapons

Unlike the USA

- They no longer have any WMD programme running that could be used to terrorise its own population or its neighbours.

Unlike the USA

- They no longer sponsor international terrorist groups.

Given the USA's history of sponsoring terrorism across the globe, there is a distinct possibility the USA is still sponsoring terrorism somewhere in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 07:35 AM

Yes indeed Stigweard, the US does have a WMD arsenal, which, since the end of the Second World War they have threatened nobody with. They have been the leading world power when it has come to universal disarmament and act as the main point of storage and collection of chemical and biological weapons and agents for verifiable disposal. Russia and China on the other have always lagged behind, Russia has 50% more operational nuclear weapons than the US and both Russia and China still maintain for use massive quantities of chemical and biological weaponry. Can you explain why you didn't bring all this to our attention, or is this only one more "let's bash the USA" attempt.

I am unaware of any occasion in recent times when the USA has terrorised its own population, perhaps you could enlighten us.

The USA's much vaunted "School of the America's" - Shut down decades ago and strictly a "Cold War" phenomenon, comparable to its Soviet counterpart, the Patrice Lamumba Institute in Moscow.

So "there is a distinct possibility the USA is still sponsoring terrorism somewhere in the world" Well I would suppose that you could take the view that anything is possible, then counter that by evaluating what is probable. This I notice that you have not done Stig. Subsequent to the attacks of 911 I would think it highly improbable that the USA is sponsoring terrorism anywhere in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 08:19 AM

Here's 89 cents, t... Take it and 1441 to your local convience store and get you a cup of coffee...

You seem to have taken 1441 and elevated it to God0like proportions.... If you can remember back to when it was adopted, the reality on the ground was that the world was shocked by Bush's insistence on invading Iraq... You seem to conviently leave that out... Other than Blair, Bush had no real support for such a venture...

Bush was ready to invade in the fall of 2002... Remember them having to reload the "marketing" of the war from August until late September because the American people are too busy in August with late vations, upcoming Labor Day and getting kids back to school...

So they delayed the marketing after some August sabre rattling...

Powell was the long voice that fall as the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumdfelds War Machine pounded and pounded for war but Powell told Bush that no one was going to buy this war if there wasn't some level of legitimacey. meaning going to the UN... UIt was a delaying tactic on Powell's part as demonstartions around the countery and world brought pressure on Bush to reverse course...

This is the way historians will sort it out...

I mean, we were all there, T, so for you to now think that the UN was the motivation behind the invasion is not talling the correct story...

Everyone knew that Bush was going to invade... Even the half a million or so of US who marched in January on that very cold day knew that all we were doing was making a stand against a decision that had been made much earlier...

Secretary of the Treasury O'Niel said that Bush was consumed with invading Iraq from Day 1... Why would this loyal, lifetime Republican lie??? Just to sell a book??? I think not...

So the UN got pounded with new 'n improved propaganda fro Powell, who by now and been pounded into submission by the chickenhawk war machine in Bush's tiny circle of trusted advisors... They gave him photographs, which BTW proved nothin', and sent him off to do to the UN what had been done to him...

A reluctant UN passed 1441 but it wasn't what you have it made it out to be: the Holy Grail!!! It was an framework for the situation to be corrected without the invasion... Yes, there were expectations placed on Iraq, some of which were met and others, not...

There was alot of progress made in a very short time by the Blix team...

Now, there is a concept known as the "spirit of the law" as opposed to the letter of the law... Tghe spirit of the law allows people to use good judegment when the letter of the law isn't strictly followed...

What historians, unlike you, T, will get right is that the letter of the law was perhaps upheld at the expense of the spirit of the law and thus, upwards of a million people have been killed because folks like you only see balck and white... Black and white does not explain human behavior or exhistence... Most is in the gray...

Thus, by having no ability to see anything but black and white, this terrible decision was made.. It isn't what the UN forsawe with 1441 and certainly isn't way Congresss had in mind with it's own Resolution...

Historians will get this right...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 08:26 AM

Basra opinion poll:

Residents of Basra believe British troops have had a negative effect on the Iraqi province since 2003, an opinion poll suggests.

The survey for BBC Newsnight of nearly 1,000 people also suggests that 56% believe their presence has increased the overall level of militia violence. ...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 08:58 AM

"Historians will get this right..."

I agree with this statement- but I do not agree that they will come to the same conclusions that you have.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 09:06 AM

"The verdict of history" can never decide for sure whether a particular course of action that wasn't followed would have led to a better or worse outcome. People still argue about that kind of stuff thousands of years after the event.

I imagine there'll be the odd revisionist historian saying that Bush wasn't as big a disaster as everyone assumes.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 07 - 11:52 AM

""The verdict of history" can never decide for sure whether a particular course of action that wasn't followed would have led to a better or worse outcome. People still argue about that kind of stuff thousands of years after the event."

Verily. Total agreement here.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 09:36 AM

Interesting article Kevin, now what else would you expect a "survey" undertaken by the BBC to say. Hell if today's crop of BBC reporters had been reporting the events related to the Second World War we'd have lost.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 10:49 AM

You all were well on your way to loosing WW II, T, when we Yanks came in an' saved yer butts...

Awwww, jus' funning wid ya'... I'm sure you had Hitler right where you wanted him... Right???

B;)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Folkiedave
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 12:46 PM


Yes indeed Stigweard, the US does have a WMD arsenal, which, since the end of the Second World War they have threatened nobody with

Clearly Vietnam didn't happen then.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 01:25 PM

Ah Bobert the truest, and most prophetic, words spoken during the course of the Second World War were spoken by Sir Winston Churchill in the summer of 1940:

"Hitler knows he must defeat us on this island or lose the war"

Fact was Bobert he didn't manage to defeat Britain, fact was Bobert he did lose the war. The Axis powers lost the war because of an allied effort, they were not defeated by any one nation, although Holywood and recent American TV Series might seem to suggest so. To do so is wrong, although IMO if any country has any right to claim that they defeated Nazi Germany it would be the USSR.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 01:50 PM

The USSR defeated Germany on the Eastern front. Without the Western front, and particularly the Normandy and Italy invasions, it is doubtful whether they could have pulled it off, as their costs in repelling the German forces were very high. That is why Stalin repeatedly begged and demanded that the Western front be opened up. It is interesting to speculate how events would have turned out if we had launched the Western invasion a year earlier instead of investing resources in the North Africa campaign.


A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 03:10 PM

Hey, I was jus' messin' with T, Amos... He knows that the UK couldn't have taken the German military by itself,,, Well, I think he knows that but given some of the bonwehead stuff he says here maybe that assumption on my part is just that??? Who knows???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 04:13 PM

Teribus,

In reesponse:

"1. Iran did have nuclear weapons programme, which was, on evaluation of new information received in August 2007, halted in the summer of 2003."

this is true.

"2. While the President was informed about the a new intelligence source in August 2007 he was not told what that information was because at that time it had not been fully analysed and evaluated."

How in the world would you know this? This sounds like Dana Perino propaganda.

"3. From 1 & 2 above it is clear that when the President made his remarks on 23 October he was not aware that his intelligence services evaluation was leading them to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear weapons programme had been halted. So when he made his remarks on 23rd October he could not have been lying as Bobert claims."

1 may be true but 2 is far from substantiated except through an opinion not a fact.


"4. The President was informed with regard to the analysis and evaluation of the new information roughly one week before the NIE was made public, i.e. long after 23rd October."

Bush probably knew about the information long before then.

5. Has the Iranian nuclear weapons programme been abandoned or renounced? No it has not, there has been no clear statement from Tehran on this. Nobody outside of Iran knows anything for certain about the status and aims of their nuclear programme. Recent reports suggest that it was restarted in 2004, so there is even uncertainty as to whether at the moment it has been halted or not.

Not much uncertainty. Only an agenda that would like to be accusatory to Iran and have an excuse to bomb them.

6. If the Iranian nuclear weapons programme has in fact been halted, does it still pose a threat?

Not really. There is more of a threat from North Korea or Pakistan.

"Of course it does, it lies outwith the terms and conditions of the NPT and could be restarted at any moment in the future."

The US and Israel are not now signatories to the NPT and Iran is.

"Conclusion #1
It would appear that Bobert was 100% wrong with regard to the World War III jibe and the "Bobert fact" that the President lied."

There is no evidence here to support that claim.

On WMD
1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003.

This is true and has been substantiated for some time.

"2. This claim has been disproved from at least two quarters purely by direct quotations from the same report which stated quite clearly that Iraq was not co-operating to the level required by UNSC Resolution 1441 or as claimed by Bobert, i.e. Bobert is knowingly misrepresenting the situation or he is deliberately lying."

No, the lies are coming from the "two quarters" that are not being mentioned. Iraq was indeed cooperating with 1441 and there was propaganda to insist that Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda which is also incorrect.

"3. On the "Prove a negative" aspect, BB has laid it out very well:
- Iraq was asked to submit a full declaration of what they had.
- UNSCOM/UNMOVIC have purchase orders, shipping records, import licences, manufacturing records, munitions records, disposal records.
- The Iraqis claim to have disposed of, or unilaterally destroyed it all."

It was in Bush's interest to ignore this claim because he had intended to go to war with
Iraq even prior to his election so that he could gain "political capital" according to his own statements.

"- UNMOVIC point out that the Iraq disposal records do not accord with the amounts manufactured, that there is a shortfall that needs to be explained, to which the Iraqis offer no explanation."

The US supplied Iraq with these nuclear materials at the time of the war with Iran.
The shortfall has been addressed by some who claim that they were sold on the black market. It wouldn't have mattered one bit what explanation the Iraqis offered because Bush's plans were already in place to invade Iraq.

" If unilaterally destroyed outwith the supervision of the UN there would be traces found at the disposal sites, none were found, surely the Iraqis would know where they had destroyed these items?"

They were destroyed under UN supervision. Pure and simple.

"4. That France stated quite categorically that it would allow no "second resolution" that presented Saddam Hussein with an ultimatum to be tabled. This in effect eliminated the UN from the process of resolving what the USA and the UK saw as the clear threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the peace and security of the region."

Only Bush and Blair were under the misapprehension that there was a clear threat.
Although I wonder if it was really a misapprehension at all and just a pretext for war and occupation of Iraq.

"5. Faced with the prospect of Saddam, supported internationally by France, Russia and China, playing the same old game he had successfully employed between 1991 and 1998, the US acted, they gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to quit and avoid the coming war. Saddam refused the offer and suffered the consequences."

This is patently false information. Saddam was never unilaterally supported by France, Russia or China. As to playing any game, of course he was not to be trusted. But neither was Bush who was playing his own game.

"6. Since May 2003 the following is now known about Iraq:
- They no longer have any WMD arsenal of weapons
- They no longer have any WMD programme running that could be used to terrorise its own population or its neighbours.
- They no longer sponsor international terrorist groups."

This is true. As far as sponsoring any groups, they are not a cohesive government as of yet and it is in the interest of defense industry corporations to advance their hegenomy in the reason and keep this from happening.

"Conclusion #2:
It would appear that Bobert is 100% wrong about his claims relating to Iraqi compliance with UNSC Resolutions."

No, not enough legitimate evidence has been presented to support this claim.
These speculative enumerations are based on hypothesis, not fact and reflect the
opinion of the writer.

" the US does have a WMD arsenal, which, since the end of the Second World War they have threatened nobody with."

You have never heard of the Cuban missile crisis? We nearly had WW III.

" They have been the leading world power when it has come to universal disarmament and act as the main point of storage and collection of chemical and biological weapons and agents for verifiable disposal."

Dream on. They have not signed the nuclear proliferation treaty and Bush has even sabre rattled with a prospect of limited nuke bombs. As to the disposal of the storage, this has not only been effectively done but because of Bush's economic priorities, nuke facilities are not protected against international terrorism.

" Russia and China on the other have always lagged behind, Russia has 50% more operational nuclear weapons than the US and both Russia and China still maintain for use massive quantities of chemical and biological weaponry. Can you explain why you didn't bring all this to our attention, or is this only one more "let's bash the USA" attempt."

I don't know the source for this information but there is no reason to believe that it is true.
There is no way to know just how much operational nuclear weapons exist in the US or Russia today since Putin and Bush both deal in propaganda to bolster their images.

"I am unaware of any occasion in recent times when the USA has terrorised its own population, perhaps you could enlighten us."

You might consider Blackwater and the National Guard's role in Katrina for one. Also,
I'm sure you have heard of the McCarthy era in American politics where an alcoholic
senator terrorized many people who lost their jobs as a result.

"The USA's much vaunted "School of the America's" - Shut down decades ago and strictly a "Cold War" phenomenon, comparable to its Soviet counterpart, the Patrice Lamumba Institute in Moscow. "

The School of the Americas is far from being shut down. It has a new name now
with the acronym WHIMSEC and is very active in supplying help to terrorists in Colombia,
and other Central American countries as well as Afghanistan.

"So "there is a distinct possibility the USA is still sponsoring terrorism somewhere in the world" Well I would suppose that you could take the view that anything is possible, then counter that by evaluating what is probable. This I notice that you have not done Stig. Subsequent to the attacks of 911 I would think it highly improbable that the USA is sponsoring terrorism anywhere in the world."

This is entirely naive. The assasination of Castro and of Chavez has been a subject of
controversey regarding the role of the CIA as was the deposition of Allende in Chile.
The US is not immune from dispensing terror when it serves the needs of those of the Bush Adminstration and their agenda.

The sanctions placed on Iraq were motivated by the GOP's political interest in occupying that territory. Many innocent civilians were horribly affected by these sanctions. Unfortunately the UN bought them by being pressured by the US Administration.

There would be no political gain to be made by Blix distorting his appraisal of the WMD
situation. There would be much "political capital" gained by Bush to deny Blix.


Frank

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 08:17 PM

Some fine work there, Frank... Hurt my heard readin' it but, hey, I got Excederin....

Yeah, the real story is out there but it doesn't have mish shelf life before the Bush apologist/revisonists starte trying to make chicken salad outta chicken sh*t...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 10:45 PM

"Counter to what Guest TIA believes..."

Here's what TIA believes.

I played four gigs this weekend with my daughters, while you and your toady spent the weekend screaming and throwing red herrings at Bobert.

TIA believes that TIA has a more productive and happy life than that.

Now, please, post at least twenty bullet points to prove me wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 08:23 AM

"...what else would you expect a "survey" undertaken by the BBC to say. (Teribus)

In fact the research evidently wasn't carried out "by" the BBC's Newsnight, it was carried out for the programme: "The Public Attitudes in Basra survey carried out for Newsnight by the UK-based polling agency, Opinion Research Business (ORB), interviewed a random sample of 922 adults across the southern city of Basra between 3 and 8 December."

Other clients of ORB include the Conservative Party and the Countryside Alliance. Not exactly card-carrying left-winders...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Keith A o Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 09:58 AM

Bobert, I expect that T was meaning that before US arrived Britain had defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, Halted Hitler's advances on all fronts except the East, and turned the tide aginst Rommel's Afrika Corps in the desert, by defeating them at El Alamein.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 12:01 PM

"2. While the President was informed about the a new intelligence source in August 2007 he was not told what that information was because at that time it had not been fully analysed and evaluated."

How in the world would you know this? This sounds like Dana Perino propaganda."

Did you even bother to read the Washington Post piece that stated:

"Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 02:23 PM

quotes from the Washington Post Dec 8, 2007 article "A futile Quest on Iranian Arms" P A10:

"By mid-November, the agencies were ready to deliver their conclusions to the White House. Intelligence officials gave a preliminary breifing Nov. 15 in the Situation room to Vice President Cheney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials.

The process was climaxing just as Bush was convening a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, a meeting designed at least in part to rally the region against Iran. No one told the participants about the new information, but on the same day they were gathering in Annapolis on Nov. 27, the National Intelligence Board met to finalize the new NIE. McConnell and others breifed Bush and Cheney the next day. Even though intelligence officials planned to keep it from the public, Bush later that day passed it on to Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert and Cheney told Defense Minister Ehud Barak."


Now Bobert stated:
""President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two *******after****** he had been told about frssh indidctaions that Iran had actaully halted it's nuclear weapons program.""

So, Bush knew the results of the report last fall that were finalized on Nov. 27, and presented to him the next day ( Nov. 28th)"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 12:09 PM

On WMD
1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003.

This is true and has been substantiated for some time."

Not by anyone capable of reading the text of the Jan 27th report by Blix. "FULLY?????"



**********************************
"2. This claim has been disproved from at least two quarters purely by direct quotations from the same report which stated quite clearly that Iraq was not co-operating to the level required by UNSC Resolution 1441 or as claimed by Bobert, i.e. Bobert is knowingly misrepresenting the situation or he is deliberately lying."

No, the lies are coming from the "two quarters" that are not being mentioned. Iraq was indeed cooperating with 1441 and there was propaganda to insist that Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda which is also incorrect."

You now claim that the direct quotes from the Jan 27th report by Blix are lies?

****************************************************
"3. On the "Prove a negative" aspect, BB has laid it out very well:
- Iraq was asked to submit a full declaration of what they had.
- UNSCOM/UNMOVIC have purchase orders, shipping records, import licences, manufacturing records, munitions records, disposal records.
- The Iraqis claim to have disposed of, or unilaterally destroyed it all."

It was in Bush's interest to ignore this claim because he had intended to go to war with
Iraq even prior to his election so that he could gain "political capital" according to his own statements."

SO?? Do you dispute that the material HAD been obtained, according to Iraqi records, and that no records or evicence of the destruction exist?


**************************************
"- UNMOVIC point out that the Iraq disposal records do not accord with the amounts manufactured, that there is a shortfall that needs to be explained, to which the Iraqis offer no explanation."

The US supplied Iraq with these nuclear materials at the time of the war with Iran."


SO??? That was under the NPT.

"The shortfall has been addressed by some who claim that they were sold on the black market. It wouldn't have mattered one bit what explanation the Iraqis offered because Bush's plans were already in place to invade Iraq. "

I fail to see any evidence other than your opinion to support this.




*******************************
" If unilaterally destroyed outwith the supervision of the UN there would be traces found at the disposal sites, none were found, surely the Iraqis would know where they had destroyed these items?"

They were destroyed under UN supervision. Pure and simple."

No, not according to the UN reports. Pleaseshow me where Blix says anything that could be twisted into this statement.