BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:17 PM

Once more for Arne with the vacuum packed brain:

The folowing quotes do not read "did":

"the allegation"

"pretty well confirmed"

"We have reporting"

"cited the possibility"

You are the one carrying on a propaganda campaign and it is not working.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 05:46 PM

"They didn't find them because there was nothing to find."

Now, THAT is unsupported opinion.

Nah. That's what MET Alpha found. That's what Kay said before resigning in disgust. That's what Duelfer and the ISG reported. That's what UNMOVIC basically said before Dubya had them kicked out. That's what Dubya has even said (and then joked about his little faux pas which has cost 2100+ U.S. soldiers and many more other people their lives). "





Now, this next point may be too subtle for you, Arne, but no-one has said that there was nothing to find- NO-ONE.

All that has been said was that we did not find any. By YOUR logic, since NO-ONE ever found ( for certain) Hitler's body, either he did not exit, or he did not die in WWII.

Lack of eveidence is NOT evidence of lack.

I QUOTED the UNMOVIC report- do you have some sort of reading problem?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:54 PM

So, uh, they found any WMDs yet?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:45 PM

From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 03:13 AM

(arne) "They didn't find them because there was nothing to find."

Now, THAT is unsupported opinion.

Nah. That's what MET Alpha found. That's what Kay said before resigning in disgust. That's what Duelfer and the ISG reported. That's what UNMOVIC basically said before Dubya had them kicked out. That's what Dubya has even said (and then joked about his little faux pas which has cost 2100+ U.S. soldiers and many more other people their lives). Granted, Dubya's prevaricated here and said both that WoMD were found and that there weren't any, but when he gets a pang of honesty or is off-guard, he sometimes lets the truth out. He's even recently come close to admitting a mistake in this respect (but in typical Republican manner of taking responsibility, foisted off culpability on someone else).

Clear now?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Merde, alors!
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 01:19 PM

No, Teribus, not a personal attack. An observation. I've waded through enough of your posts to know that most of that bulk is goatfeathers and kapok padding. It LOOKS like you've done a lot of research, but it just doesn't bear out. Bloody waste of time!

But the sheer mass of it LOOKS impressive.........

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:28 AM

Of course, it was outta fear, TIA...

T-The-Dog-Ate-My-Homework is long on assigning other folks homework, long on proclaimation, loong at CAPS, but short on backing up stuff when T-The-Avoider is asked to back up his proclaimations...

Sound familiar???

Lot like his hero, if ya' ask me...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:16 AM

Teribus - you ducked a simple assignment. Out of fear I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:15 AM

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:30 AM

...trouble is, you can argue with flat-earthers, creationists, neo-cons and similar until you're blue in the face. It doesn't seem to change anything.
These are people who would like to see the world in purely black and white terms - and the worrying thing is that the Bush administration is stuffed with them. What I do find astonishing is that so many people actually believe and respect these people and spend time and energy parroting their views on forums like this. Do they really expect us to swallow such crap just because some 'me too' conservative wannabee spends his time cutting and pasting? At least Coloin Powell had the grace and dignity to apologise.

To recap, however:
1: No WMDs in Iraq
2: No link between Saddam and 9/11
3: The Earth is round

Got that?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:19 AM

2. Show me ANY statement of this. The statement was that Saddam , with WMD , posed a real threat. All on his own. 9/11 just made some people aware that some problems needed to be dealt with, not swept under the rug as the Clinton administration had.
Try these...

Powell: "Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al-Qaida. These denials are simply not credible."
Powell again: ""These al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months,"Cheney: Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Geroge Tenet: "Iraq has, in the past, provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates."
Tenet again: ""We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qa'ida going back a decade,"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 05:57 AM

"The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. "

Blix, Jan. 2003

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 05:53 AM

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 05:51 AM

Blair, 24 Septemebr 2002: "It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability..."
And later (28 September 2004): "The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it."
Powell: (February 5 2003): "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent."
Powell again: "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 04:49 AM

Gervase,

Show me the direct quote.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 04:43 AM

Sorry guest, but not according to tht nice Mr Blair, or that nice Colin Powell. They both stated unequivocally that Saddam had WMDs.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 04:13 AM

"I was under the impression that the reasons for invading Iraq were:
1) That Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was prepared to use them, and
2) That Iraq was linked to the 11 September attacks."



You obviously had the wrong impression. Perhaps you should have read beyond the headlines, into the quotes of statements rather than the editorial blurbs in large letters.

1- The stated point was that he had PROGRAMS that would lead to his having WMD in the near future, in violation of the UN resolutions.

2. Show me ANY statement of this. The statement was that Saddam , with WMD , posed a real threat. All on his own. 9/11 just made some people aware that some problems needed to be dealt with, not swept under the rug as the Clinton administration had.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 04:06 AM

Amid all the verbiage here, can anyone actually point me to an official or at least reputable source where it states that there were WMDs in Iraq, as stated in the title of this thread?

I was under the impression that the reasons for invading Iraq were:
1) That Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was prepared to use them, and
2) That Iraq was linked to the 11 September attacks.
Regime change, the fostering of democracy or the salvation of the suffering people of Iraq were not mentioned.

As far as I can see, reason one is now dead in the water, and even Bush has implied that the decision was based on faulty intelligence.
Reason two never was a starter - why on earth would a secular Ba'athist regime which had already repressed Islamicist thought in Iraq turn to fundamentalist Islamicists? As far as I can see there is absolutely no evidence of any significant link between Saddam's government and Al Quaida, and would appreciate the help of the hawks here in finding it.

And surely, if there was any substance at all in either of the reasons given, don't you think we would have heard it trumpeted from the rooftops by now. Erudite and articulate as the posters here undoubtedly are, I rather doubt that the Bush administration has passed to them the baton of truth and enlightenment.
As for the failure of the UN inspectors to find WMDs; yes, I'm sure the Ba'ath regime was unhelpful and obstructive. But can anyone find me a link that shows that Hans Blix or any other part of the UN therefore agreed that the subsequent aggression was justified?
So come on chaps, admit that the world isn't flat and that the reasons for the war, as given, were not supported by the facts. And that, surely, is what matters.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 03:42 AM

from UN Res 1441:

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

          1.       Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

          2.       Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

          3.       Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

          4.       Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

          5.       Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;



[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 03:13 AM

(arne) "They didn't find them because there was nothing to find."


Now, THAT is unsupported opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:59 AM

{BeardedBruce]: "just that they did not find any BECAUSE HE DID NOT COOPERATE."

That's editorial on your part, BB.

Counterfactual, actually. They didn't find them because there was nothing to find. The U.N. inspectors did report that they hadn't found anything of any significance (albeit they added they had more work to do to confirm this assessment and make sure). They did report that there was some initial resistance to the inspections but that they were getting reasonable levels of co-operation towards the end, and were confidant they could complete their job successfully if given some time. But that was the last thing that Dubya wanted to happen, for some strange reason....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:59 AM

Please note the following statement by Blix, in the above report:

"UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq, but nor is it – or I think anyone else after the inspections between 1991 and 1998 – presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem. "


What part of "but nor is it(UNMOVIC) ... presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq." do you have a problem understanding?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:52 AM

Peace:

Since you cannot seem to bother actually looking at the facts as presented by some of us here, I will put a portion of the report by the UN here, in hope you might decide how "editorial" my statement was. Or is that too much to ask?



"While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. I hope this attitude will change.



Another air operation problem – which was solved during our recent talks in Baghdad – concerned the use of helicopters flying into the no-fly zones. Iraq had insisted on sending helicopters of their own to accompany ours. This would have raised a safety problem. The matter was solved by an offer on our part to take the accompanying Iraq minders in our helicopters to the sites, an arrangement that had been practiced by UNSCOM in the past.



I am obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.



On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites.



The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again.



Shortly thereafter, we receive protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not. Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional and, at the same time, correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.





Cooperation on substance


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



Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002) 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 declaration of 7 December



On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of resolution 1441 (2002) and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome.



One might have expected that in preparing the Declaration, Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the many open disarmament issues, which the Iraqi side should be familiar with from the UNSCOM document S/1999/94 of January1999 and the so-called Amorim Report of March 1999 (S/1999/356). These are questions which UNMOVIC, governments and independent commentators have often cited.



While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current "unresolved disarmament issues" and "key remaining disarmament tasks" in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.



They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.



I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.





Chemical weapons         


The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.



Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.



UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.



There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.



I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.



The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.



The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.



The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. "

THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 12:53 AM

Little Hawk - 22 Dec 05 - 09:27 PM - Humorous

GUEST 22 Dec 05 - 09:52 PM - Huh??

GUEST,TIA - 22 Dec 05 - 09:55 PM - Opinion nothing else, but if it's based on the same as some of the arrant rubbish you have posted, no wonder you don't want to share it with anyone.

GUEST,Merde, alors! - 22 Dec 05 - 09:56 PM - Personal attack

GUEST,AR282 - 22 Dec 05 - 09:58 PM - Demonstrating that he has not bothered reading anything on this thread.

Bobert - 22 Dec 05 - 10:00 PM - Typical Bobert rant.

Arne - 22 Dec 05 - 10:22 PM - Personal attack

GUEST,beardedbruce - 22 Dec 05 - 11:20 PM - Don't wait for Bobert to answer your question.

Peace - 22 Dec 05 - 11:29 PM - Incorrect, please refer to UNMOVIC Reports to UN Security Council and to terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

GUEST,beardedbruce - 22 Dec 05 - 11:34 PM - BB most here cannot, or will not read original source material. Instead they tend to rely on what their pet media sources tell them to think. I suppose it does have the advantages of speed and that it takes no effort on their part and therefore does not tire them out.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:34 PM

Mope, THAT is what the UN report said. TRY READING some of the links I have posted so often in the past, instead of just deciding what they say without looking at them

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:29 PM

"just that they did not find any BECAUSE HE DID NOT COOPERATE."

That's editorial on your part, BB.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:20 PM

Bobert,

Just as a question, "You go ahead and give us the sources where the UN says that Saddam did not have WMD!!!!

Can you do that???









Trick question, I know- the UN NEVER said he did not have WMD- just that they did not find any BECAUSE HE DID NOT COOPERATE.


So you have conceded that the US invasion was justified, by the PUBLISHED UN REPORTS.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:22 PM

But...how can we feel SAFE if we aren't allowed to invade and kill everyone we're afraid might someday attack us?    (hysterical laughter)

There are a lotta places left to invade before I am gonna feel safe, lemme tell ya. And I ain't just talkin' Muslim places either. You can't really trust anyone who doesn't speak English, for a start. That's a given. Because...you can't understand what they're saying, and that could mean they're saying they hate you and want to kill you, couldn't it?

As I said above, I'll take the point in the Palau invasion (now that one should be a "cakewalk"; they don't even have an army, and I probably met each and every policeman they have my last "scouting mission" there). I speak the language (or at least one of them). And they take MC/VIsa and American $. Only a few unexploded munitions from WWII, and I'll avoid those approaches.

And if Palau is taken, Fiji's my second choice....

Some numbnutz quoted my Peggy Seeger:

"Every day another vulture takes flight
There's another danger born every morning
In the darkness of your blindness the beast will learn to bite
How can you fight if you can't recognise a warning?"

Then there's the rest of it:

Today you may earn a living wage
Tomorrow you may be on the dole
Though there's millions going hungry you needn't disengage
For it's them, not you, that's fallen in the hole

It's alright for you if you run with the pack
It's alright if you agree with all they do
If fascism is slowly climbing back
It's not here yet so what's it got to do with you?

Guess the numbnutz lost interest after he saw the quote he wanted. Maybe if he'd bothered to read for comprehension, he'd know a bit more of what the real dangers (and not those of his fevered hallucinations) are....

Next time I'll stir up the hornet's nest real good and link to Lean Rosselson's "Stand Up For Judas". But it may be worthwhile waiting until after the holidays.   ;-)

Happy Holidays to all!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:00 PM

You answered "No", T...

Yer sources, please...

Ain't about quantity but quality... You go ahead and give us the sources where you have sjust stated that the Busdh administartion didn't hire independent PR people in the selling of the Iraq invasion!!!!

Can you do that???

Hey, you took the quiz so now it's time to put-up-or-shut-up!!!

And guess what, pal??? You give??? Yer juvinilistic CAPS don't impress too many folks here... Yeah, you can BOBERT FACT me all you want but guess what, part B???

Give up???

This ain't no kiddie site here... All theese folks are adults whomhave been 'round the block a time or two... Lotta of them have been insuide the governemnt... Some were private conbtarctors... Yet you think you can out-bluff them with the ability to hit the "Shift" button on yer pudder.... Fine, that's real good... Now that you ahve conquered the "Shift" button ow maybe you can get yer head outta the fog...

Opps, didn't mean to give you an out on yer job now... I asked you if the Bush administration hired a independent PR company to heklp them with the crafting of the sellin of the invasion of Iarg and you said "No" so I guess it's time for you provide your sources....

Yeah, I know you will come back with a bunch of "BOBERT IS THIS OR THAT" rather than stand behind what you said here because that's what you do... Just like Bush "the Proclaimer", yer hero, you'll fall right back into yer MO of attacking me rather thah providing your sources...

Normal!!!

We're gettin real used to yer crap...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:58 PM

>>The point that members of the anti-war, anti-Bush brigade were making was that the consent and approval of the United Nations was required. I am so very pleased that you so firmly agree with me that that is not the case (i.e. "This applies to anybody and everybody on planet earth." - absolutely, even GWB and the US in the case of Iraq).<<

As usual, you have no idea what you're saying or what I'm saying. I don't need anybody's sanction to do anything I want and that includes killing you and raping your wife and selling off your kids to a motorcycle gang if I feel like it. That DOESN'T mean anyone should approve of it or that it is lawful. I just don't need anybody's sanction to do it if I am so inclined.

Whether Bush was required to get UN sanction to invade is beside the point. My point is, he'll do it if he wants to UN sanction or no.

In the future, you would do well to understand the postion you are quoting before you quote it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Merde, alors!
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:56 PM

Teribus apparently has a staff consisting of an infinite number of chimpanzees helping him cut-and-paste.

500 pages of goat feathers makes it next to impossible to determine if there is any truth to be found in that large a pile. If there WERE truth to be found, wouldn't it be better to simply let it shine through on its own without buring it in all the verbiage (garbiage?). Or is it the aim to convince folks that all that chaff just HAS to hide a grain of truth somewhere. If you babble incoherently long enough, just by sheer chance you might possibly say something with a touch of substance. You, know, infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters. But then, maybe not. But who has the patience to wade through all of that?

Just a thought.........

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:55 PM

Nope, I know the answer. But I don't think you do. Copy off someone else's homework.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:52 PM

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:27 PM

Whoa! By God, I wish I was getting paid by the word on that one.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:24 PM

FIRST:
GUEST,TIA - 22 Dec 05 - 09:33 AM

"Teribus:

What exactly was the purpose of the WHIG? Come on now, do just a teeny bit of research, and tell us. Maybe you could find some statments by the actual members concerning their purpose."

Why TIA can't you tell us? I've got a feeling that you are going to so might as well do it now. You might find some reasoning behind it's conception in the pre-emption of the findings of the 911 committee with regard to oversight of intelligence material from different sources.

SECOND:
Ron Davies - extremely well spaced post of 22 Dec 05 - 09:52 AM

The first six inches says absolutely nothing.

Now for the nth + 1 time Ron comes up with this:
"One among many examples from the Bush propaganda campaign:

From the 2003 State of the Union address:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained".

What did he say in the 2002 State of the Union Address Ron? Or does that just get thrown out as time expired? Sorry, no it does not, it is still relevant - Remember first objective the terrorist groups themselves, Second the regimes likely to provide those groups with technical or material support. Ron do try and keep up and please try to be at least aware of the bigger picture than your antipathy towards your elected head of state.

As for this from Ron:
"if Cheney had not changed his mind between 16 Sept 2001 and 8 Sept 2002 about the link between Saddam and 11 Sept 2001, the proper answer to Russert's question as whether he had changed his mind on that issue was "No, sir".

Now you see Ron, Arne and Co., only use the sound bites the media (i.e. the media they approve of) provide them with, not the transcripts of the complete interview. I'm not going to paste them again they are readily available by scrolling down this thread. What was the question he was asked Ron? and what had occured in between answers given in previous interviews?

Also from Ron:

"Cheney is an expert propagandist."

That your opinion Ron? Can you substantiate it? I believe, having read through the man's CV his expertise lies in a completely different area of human endeavour. But what the hell Ron you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, irrespective of how wrong it is, just please don't try to present it as being fact - IT'S NOT, it's just Ron's opinion.

Next from Ron:
"It's only your ego that prevents you from acknowledging the propaganda campaign carried out by the Bush regime to link Saddam and 11 Sept 2001--a campaign which was-----all together now-----from mid-2002 to March 2003.

So, yet again your citation of the statement "within days" of 9-11 is, like everything else you have contributed to the discussion, totally worthless.

You are truly pathetic."

Having been repeatedly asked to provide an example of this propaganda campaign (that never was), Ron and his anti-Bush cohorts cannot come up with a single instance that is not some sound bite, suitably edited by the media (as approved by Ron & Co.). No mate, you are the one that is proving himself to be totally pathetic. Oh I think he "inferred this", Oh I think he "inferred that" does not quite match up to, well this was the question asked, this is what the man actually answered, hence this was the answer to that question.

It would appear that Ron has gone over to BOBERT FACTS a reprise of which is given below, just substitute RON for BOBERT:
Definition of a BOBERT FACT - something that has been pulled out of thin air, a statement made with absolutely no substantiation.

Note on BOBERT FACTS - in any ensuing reply Bobert will not provide evidence to substantiate his case, instead he will rant on about T-something this, T-something that, Quack-this, Quack-that. The one thing you will not get is rational arguement, because the man is incapable of it.

Your post Ron does not address a single issue, carry on with your personal attacks. After all Bobert told us all exactly what those signify. As someone else reading this thread commented you, Arne and Bobert tend to attack the person, I tend to challenge the content of what a person says.

THIRD:
GUEST,Rekset - 22 Dec 05 - 11:32 AM

Good post, which I see remains unanswered, whatever you do please don't hold your breath waiting, your questions are far too direct to get a response from most posting to this forum.

But in response to your first point:
"Does anyone here, left or right, honestly think Saddam Hussein wouldn't have used NBC on us?"

This verse of that song of Peggy Seeger's that Arne wishes he'd played more seems to be rather apt:

"Every day another vulture takes flight
There's another danger born every morning
In the darkness of your blindness the beast will learn to bite
How can you fight if you can't recognise a warning?"

Fortunately for the citizens of the USA and for the rest of the world, post-911 the US President and his Administration have not been blind, they have assessed and evaluated the threat, and not being blind, they have acted and heeded the warnings.

FOURTH:
GUEST,AR282 - PM
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:55 PM

>>FACT - The President of the United States of America does NOT need the sanction of ANYBODY to act in, what he and his administration believe to be, the best interests of the United States of America - End of story.<<

FACT - This applies to anybody and everybody on planet earth. What is your point or do you actually have one? "

The point that members of the anti-war, anti-Bush brigade were making was that the consent and approval of the United Nations was required. I am so very pleased that you so firmly agree with me that that is not the case (i.e. "This applies to anybody and everybody on planet earth." - absolutely, even GWB and the US in the case of Iraq).

FIFTH:
Bobert - 22 Dec 05 - 06:32 PM

Nice attack, T-Attack!!!

I rest my case:
Note on BOBERT FACTS - in any ensuing reply Bobert will not provide evidence to substantiate his case, instead he will rant on about T-something this, T-something that, Quack-this, Quack-that. The one thing you will not get is rational arguement, because the man is incapable of it.

Bobert Fact Application

Now in this you must remember that it was Bobert who clearly stated that the Bush Administration had orchestrated audience response, had hired audiences, analysised their responses to various questions posed in various accents - Bobert's contention.

Now does he substantiate any of that? No he does not!!! What we get from Bobert is this:

"Okay, it's time again to take Bobert Quiz...

You ready?

Good...

Here's the question: Did the Bush administration hire any PR firms to help them sell the invasion of Iraq?

Yes __________

No____________"

Bobert, you idle prat, you want me to do your work for you??? By the bye the answer is NO, if you dispute that then please give the name and address of the PR Company involved. If you can't then please desist from making higly fanciful, unsubstantiated and untrue statements about things you know absolutely nothing about.

SIXTH:
GUEST,AR282 - 22 Dec 05 - 07:04 PM

Answer to first question a complete cop out, answered as Guest AR282, responsible for sod all, now try to answer that question as someone responsible for the safety and security of a nation.

Answer to the second question is based on the false assumption that the US provided the Iraqi Government with WMD - They did not - AR282, if you have ANY proof that they did please come forward with it. AR282, it is very easy and definitely the right thing to forget something that never happened. It is just plain stupid to use a fictional occurance as the basis of any arguement.

Answer to the third question based on the misconception that the US provided Saddam Hussein with WMD - totally false.

Answer to the fourth question denies what did happen throughout the time that UNSCOM were present in Iraq and also denies the bits of pre-war intelligence that was correct. Denies the logic that if faced with having to make a decision, that decision can only be made on the information you have at the time. Again I am extremely pleased that most on this forum are not responsible for the safety and security of a nation.

Answer to the fifth question, I would tend to agree with, but with some reservations. My reason for saying that stems from the time it took to get UNMOVIC into the country plus the objections Saddam had to U2 surveillance. He certainly had time to move them. Is it possible that he moved them - well all things are possible. Is it probable that he moved them - if he thought that he could stall the US attack then yes - If he believed that the US would attack then no. I do believe that items associated with a nuclear development programme, supplied by Dr. A.Q. Khan, were removed from Iraq via Syria before UNMOVIC arrived, but only Dr. Khan can tell us that.

Answer to the sixth question is remarkably immature and irresponsible, considering the utterances of the President of Iran. As is the statement referring to the A-Bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both dropped in time of war on an aggressor who attacked the US without warning. Now that is a bit different from a country that is a signatory of the Nuclear NPT, covertly developing a nuclear capaiblity that will allow it to obtain nuclear weapons, who have recently acquired delivery systems with a range of 2500 kilometers and whose Head of State has stated that a Sovereign State that has been recognised by the UN for almost 57 years should be "Wiped off the map".

AR282, you state..."Were these questions supposed to unleash some amazing, undeniable truth on us about something?"

Well certainly not from you, as stated above IMHO, your responses are immature and irresponsible.

Apologies for the length of this post but there were a few points I felt required answers. Merry Christmas to ALL.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 07:41 PM

Oh, geeze, GUEST... Don't go writin' stuff like that... You know the NSA is monitorin' this joint an' yer last post surely ain't one that needs to be printed off and sent to Bush at Christmas... He's have the Joint Chiefs on the phone tonight....

And, GUEST AR282... Maybe you'd like to shed some light on the itme line between when Saddam "gassed the Kurds" and when Don Runsfeld presented Saddam with a bunch of preswents form the US governemnt???

Ahhhh, maybe you'd like to also make mention of who was president when these gifts were bestowed upon Saddam???

Oh, nevermind those facts...

The Duck will come along an' accuse me of ranting... Oh, that would be bad... Real bad...

Awwwww, heck with him... He's a friggin' duck... Make a better Christmas dinner...

Go ahead and reveal taht time ine if you'd like...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 07:14 PM

But...how can we feel SAFE if we aren't allowed to invade and kill everyone we're afraid might someday attack us?    (hysterical laughter)

There are a lotta places left to invade before I am gonna feel safe, lemme tell ya. And I ain't just talkin' Muslim places either. You can't really trust anyone who doesn't speak English, for a start. That's a given. Because...you can't understand what they're saying, and that could mean they're saying they hate you and want to kill you, couldn't it?

Like I say, lotta places left to invade yet. We are hated out there. Just hated. I know it's hard to believe, but we are. We have to take the bastards out before they take us out, and that will take guts, determination, and will. Just ask GW. He knows when to lead and how. He is not a quitter and neither am I. Kill 'em all, I say, until you and I can wake up feeling safe.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 07:04 PM

>>Does anyone here, left or right, honestly think Saddam Hussein wouldn't have used NBC on us?<<

I don't know. Maybe.

>>Does anyone here believe that he DID NOT have NBC in the past?<<

Sure he did. He used it on the Kurds and we gave it to him. Ah, how soon they forget.

>>Does anyone here think SADDAM HUSSEIN would give up the power to use WMD, a power he'd exercised in the past?<<

When the US gives him the weapon, I'm pretty sure he would think it okay to use it or why did we give it to him? But that's his fault not ours, I know.

>>Do you really think that a few investigators couldn't be fooled?<<

Yeah, there's just so much of that bad intelligence floating around these days. It could fool anybody.

>>Or that Hussein didn't have more than enough time to move stockpiles to Syria?<<

Now that I seriously doubt. Moreover, not even Bush tried to use that one to justify his mistake. Of course, we can always invade Syria and prove the WMDs are hidden there. I'm sure we'd be right this time.

>>If so, I suppose you believe Iran is pursuing Nuclear energy for strictly peaceful reasons.<<

Doesn't make any difference what Iran is doing it for? We have nukes and we are still the only nation ever to use them on people--on women and children. If we can do it, who are we to tell others they can't? OH, because we're morally superior to everyone else. Silly me.

>>I'm sure I will get some very humorous and enthusiastic answers - no one seems to want to start with a QUESTION. People so often start with the answer and limit their logic and fact-gathering to what fits.<<

Were these questions supposed to unleash some amazing, undeniable truth on us about something?

>>Try to understand that an intense desire to feel safe does not mean we are safe. If we are not safe, the WOT is a hell of a lot more important than your personal dislike for the Pres, or even your political ideology. Think practically!<<

Justifying invading another nation in a war we now can't get out of and for which we have become the laughingstock of the world is your way of thinking logically? Is it logical to kill somebody you think might want to kill you? Tell it to the judge, I'm sure he'll find your logical compelling. Mr. Spock, you ain't.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 06:32 PM

Nice attack, T-Attack!!!

Had lots of CAPITAL LETTERS in in so we're all sure that it had to be the truth...

Okay, it's time again to take Bobert Quiz...

You ready?

Good...

Here's the question: Did the Bush administration hire any PR firms to help them sell the invasion of Iraq?

Yes __________

No____________

I've finally figured out why you like Bush so much... He;s just like you... Full of proclaimations and short on substance...

Yeah, you and the Quackster all ready at a moments notuice to pounce with proclamations but, hey, do you have knowledge that the Bush folks didn't use any independent PR firms???

Opps... Don't want to mess you up while yer contimplating the above quiz... Hey, if you guess you have half a chance of being correct which is a lot better than yer doing with Ron...

As fir you, Duck. You arer just a tad too pathetic to even discuss anything... You only know attack the messenger... Kinda a one trick duck...

Quack, quack...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:55 PM

>>FACT - The President of the United States of America does NOT need the sanction of ANYBODY to act in, what he and his administration believe to be, the best interests of the United States of America - End of story.<<

FACT - This applies to anybody and everybody on planet earth. What is your point or do you actually have one?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:15 PM

September 27, 2010: While the United States searches valiantly for WMDs in Iraq . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:04 PM

NBC? I thought it was CBS that Saddam had gained control over... ;-)

Safe? We will NEVER be safe. Life isn't safe. More wars and more weapons won't make it safe. Get used to it, and stop terrorizing other people in small countries because YOU don't feel safe.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:26 PM

Rekset,

You are NOT allowed to bring up points like that! ONLY that which SUPPORTS the viewpoint some here have, that Bush is evil, and responsible for all evil in the world, and has no reason for what he does, is allowed to be presented. Facts are not a part, nor are any references to reality.


But Happy holidays to all, and may we drink a toast to Peace, regardless of how one feels that may be best obtained.


Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Rekset
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:32 AM

Very witty comebacks - very entertaining. As I expected.

Let's get down to brass tacks here -

Does anyone here, left or right, honestly think Saddam Hussein wouldn't have used NBC on us?

Does anyone here believe that he DID NOT have NBC in the past?

Does anyone here think SADDAM HUSSEIN would give up the power to use WMD, a power he'd exercised in the past?

Do you really think that a few investigators couldn't be fooled? Or that Hussein didn't have more than enough time to move stockpiles to Syria?

If so, I suppose you believe Iran is pursuing Nuclear energy for strictly peaceful reasons.

I'm sure I will get some very humorous and enthusiastic answers - no one seems to want to start with a QUESTION. People so often start with the answer and limit their logic and fact-gathering to what fits.

Try to understand that an intense desire to feel safe does not mean we are safe. If we are not safe, the WOT is a hell of a lot more important than your personal dislike for the Pres, or even your political ideology. Think practically!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:02 AM

Ron, I too thought I was an intelligent person, on certain given days.
But I also fell for the entire 9-11 scenario and the call to war as presented by the US goverment and prime time Billy Graham song and dancers... for nearly a month.

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

(now its your turn George)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:52 AM

Teribus--

Well, it looks like it's down to thee and me--and soon it'll be just thee.

Look on the bright side--at least you'll finally have somebody- who believes all the unmitigated drivel with which you've been honoring us---yourself.

Enjoy your soliloquy.





Never thought I'd have to explain to you, of all people---who fancies himself an expert on military strategy and geopolitics------so much for that------- how propaganda works.

Had to explain it over and over again---and still you don't understand.

Before you go criticizing Bobert, Arne or me--PLEASE visit your library.

And I took you for an educated person. I won't make that mistake again.



For the n plus 1th time, propaganda does not need a direct statement to be effective.

One among many examples from the Bush propaganda campaign:

From the 2003 State of the Union address:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained".


If you don't think that's propaganda--and very effective propaganda, directed as it was at a US population already on edge after 9-11 --(remember the US had not been living with the direct threat of terrorism for decades, as had the UK)---you need to make that library trip in the worst way.

First try your encyclopedia--you do know what that is, don't you? --look under under P for propaganda.

And that bridge I have for you has your name right on it--in 14 carat lead, just for you.


"Well, I want to be careful about..." (recognize that?)


Fine--as I believe I've also mentioned before--if Cheney had not changed his mind between 16 Sept 2001 and 8 Sept 2002 about the link between Saddam and 11 Sept 2001, the proper answer to Russert's question as whether he had changed his mind on that issue was "No, sir".

That should have been the end of the topic.

You've still refused to answer why Cheney said ANYTHING else on the topic on 8 Sept 2002.

Far from dropping the topic, Cheney instead went on with "On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light" and then detailed that "evidence", while maintaining deniability.

Ever heard the term "deniability"? You can go to your dictionary for that one.

Don't worry, we'll educate you yet.

Deniability is very useful for propagandists.

Cheney is an expert propagandist.


Hope I'm not going too fast for you to follow.


But somehow, I think you just might understand. I suspect you're a good propagandist yourself--though your recent efforts have been unbelievably clumsy.


It's only your ego that prevents you from acknowledging the propaganda campaign carried out by the Bush regime to link Saddam and 11 Sept 2001--a campaign which was-----all together now-----from mid-2002 to March 2003.

So, yet again your citation of the statement "within days" of 9-11 is, like everything else you have contributed to the discussion, totally worthless.

You are truly pathetic.

And possibly a fool--that's my chosen 4-letter word----in contrast to yours, say on 3 Dec 2005, to pick a purely theoretical occasion.


But congratulations on no vulgar outbursts since 3 Dec.

Well done. Good job.


My "political prejudice" (registered Republican that I am) in seeing a propaganda campaign by the Bush "team" between mid 2002 and March 2003. is called thinking.

Too bad it's a foreign concept for you.






However, you may have heard the term Truce of God, which was sometimes invoked between combatants long ago. One of the times was around Christmas. I think it's time to invoke that wonderful custom now. I have better things to do these days than to to try to make the horse drink. After all, you've been staring at the lake for about a month now, and still haven't realized that it's water.

So---this is my last post on this topic---til after Christmas.


But, after that, I'll be back rubbing your face in what you've done (another metaphor)--til you realize it.



Merry Christmas to all!!!!--yes ,even you, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:33 AM

Teribus:

What exactly was the purpose of the WHIG? Come on now, do just a teeny bit of research, and tell us. Maybe you could find some statments by the actual members concerning their purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:47 AM

Bobert - 21 Dec 05 - 10:52 PM

As to why some of us..."still don't get it,"

According to Bobert:
"Bush's War Machine...used sample audiences who were eired (hired?) for responses"

CAUTION - THIS IS A BOBERT FACT

Definition of a BOBERT FACT - something that has been pulled out of thin air, a statement made with absolutely no substantiation.

Note on BOBERT FACTS - in any ensuing reply Bobert will not provide evidence to substantiate his case, instead he will rant on about T-something this, T-something that, Quack-this, Quack-that. The one thing you will not get is rational arguement, because the man is incapable of it.


"Bush's War Machine...went over the script's woor (word?) for word"

CAUTION - THIS IS ANOTHER BOBERT FACT.

"Bush's War Machine... Accent by accent in hopes of acpitalizing (capitalizing?) on the spikes in folks responses"

CAUTION - THIS IS ANOTHER BOBERT FACT.

"... This wasn't baout facts or lioes but condition responses and stuff the ad-nman know all about...."

Well Bobert this post of yours certainly isn't based on facts, it is based largely on lies and you are the one telling them, or attempting to present them as fact.

"In bringing up 9/11 with just about every new sales pitrch the ad-men knew tghat eventually the connection would happen in the mionds of those who listened and it did... Right after the invasion about 70% of Americans thought that Saddam had Al Qeada connections..."

Hmmmmmm??? Not making much sense there Bobert. The media brought up 911 with every sales pitch from what I can see, the media having editorial control created the sound bites that were continually broadcast, both of those contentions can be clearly demonstrated and substantiated. If 70% of Americans thought that Saddam/Iraq had connections with Al-Qaeda "right after the invasion", then 70% of Americans plus their Government would be right, those links, contacts and connections dated back to 1994. What the US Administration ALWAYS stated was that Saddam/Iraq had NOTHING to do with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001. The media continually tempted them into stating that there was such a connection, and when they could not be drawn, the media resorted to carefully edited sound bites.

Bobert, you, Ron and Arne should write a book:

"The Propaganda Campaign That Never Was - June 2002 to March 2003"

I would look forward to it being published only half as much as reading the lambasting it would get by historians and political observers in review.

Facts aren't for losers Bobert, when looked at from all angles and all perspectives they provide extremely good indicators to the truth of any situation. I would advise that you start looking to fact rather than emotion if you actually want to put a point across.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 03:57 AM

Come on then Arne in your post 12:32AM 22 Dec 05 - why did you not quote the full transcript of the conversation including the date and the question asked:

Now this is what Arne and Mr. Olbermann would like all the anti-Bush sheep to believe what the Administration was stating as fact:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that--it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Now take a look at the date and the question the Vice-President was responding to and more importantly what he did actually say:

From the December 9, 2001 Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: "Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. Since that time, a couple articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: 'The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.' And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: 'We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses -- three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it -- a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.' And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck -- and there it is, the plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers. Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"
   
CHENEY: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was THAT REPORT THAT -- IT'S BEEN PRETTY WELL CONFIRMED THAT HE DID GO TO PRAGUE AND HE DID MEET WITH A SENIOR OFFICIAL OF THE IRAQI INTELLIGENCE SERVICE in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

Point 1
Oh Dear the date of the "statement" and its transmission is before Ron Davies randomly self-selected period for the "Propaganda Campaign that never was"

Point 2
Russert establishes Cheney's view of 16th September (Iraq had nothing to do with 911) then asks the V-P for his reaction to two articles that have subsequently come to light.
- The first being the first regarding the Atta/Iraqi Security Official apparently coming from the Czech Interior Ministry
- The second relating to training based at Salman Pak

Point 3
Although Arne is adept at highlighting sections of text his ability when it comes to basic english comprehension are rather faulty. The one part of what the Vice-President says that stands out like a ball on a billiard table is:
"THAT REPORT THAT -- It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a Senior Official of the Iraqi Intelligence Service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."
Arne he is stating what the subject matter of the report was not what he, or anyone else in the Bush Administration, believed to be the case.

Point 4
Having established what the report sourced from the Czech Interior Ministry claimed (i.e. Arne/Olbermann's quote) you get what Dick Cheney's reaction to that report (i.e. the second sentence that Arne/olbermann conveniently omit):
"Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

Point 5
The final part of Russert's question:
"Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"
The second sentence quoted by me in point 4 above answers that. On 16th September Cheney stated that Iraq was not involved. On the 9th December, with the recently introduced reports relating to the Atta/Prague meeting and the training facilities at Salman Pak still under evaluation, Cheney clearly states that he does not know but that it is something that is being investigated.

Point 6
Where in that entire "Meet the Press" exchange/conversation does the Vice-President state, hint, infer that Iraq had something to do with 911.   

Sorry Arne, it simply does not wash, your continued use of selectively misleading soundbite clips to support your extremely shakey, unsupported opinions is not very effective.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 12:32 AM

Geoduck:

I still see no quotes by anyone in the Bush administration stating Saddam and 9/11 were connected. Cheney did not say "Atta" met He said, as per your posting "WE HAVE REPORTING" He said atta "did apparently travel to Prague" are you saying Atta did not travel to Prague?

Yeah, there's those ones (which you snipped the rest of, for some unfathomable reason which is suspected to have somthing to do with the fact that Cheney was talking about Atta meeting an Iraqi agent in them), which pretty much say what I said Cheney said ... and there's also this one:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that--it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Which I posted above (along with a link). Which you conveniently ignored. How many quotes do you friggin' need before you throw in the towel, eh? Terminally lame, Geoduck, to keep flogging the SOS you're floggin here....

You know, Geoduck, maybe it is you that would be best "high as a kite on weed". That might be an exculpatory excuse for your being such a blithering eedjit here.... Is it true, Geoduck? Do you get lit up before you post here? Maybe we can cut you some slack....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:10 PM

There is nothing to get from you Bobert. The little strips of paper in fortune cookies carry more gravitas that your incoherent fact devoid ramblings.

Tookie had more sincerity than you do. Dan Rather's National Guard Expose was more factual that your flatulence.

Peacenik sounds high as a kite on weed.