BS: Proof that Bush lied

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:24 PM

Awwwck, Bush's Fault, aaawwck!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:51 PM

Awwwck, Clinton's Fault, aaawwck!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:40 PM

"if Clinton said to keep engaged on the Isreali/Palestian situation"

Did he?

"If Clinton said to Bush to keep an eye on bin Laden"

Did he?

"If Clinton ssid to Bush that tax cuts for the wealthy would bring about deficits"

Did he?

People like Tenet, Freeh, and others were kept over from the Clinton administration and continued their previous policies.

If you will notice the recession, rising gas prices and the reversal of Clinton's paper "surplus" all started in 2000, well before Bush took office. I remember the voice of Greenspan announcing an emergency 1% drop in the Fed rate early in Jan 2001 to try to head off a recession or at least Lessen it. That's the only reversal I recall.

What did Mr Clinton do after the attack in the USS Cole? He was too busy working on pardons for the likes of exiled, wanted, fugitive, criminal arms dealer convicted of 50 felony counts, including tax evasion of $48 million, Marc Rich who's wife contributed millions to HRC for congress campaign.

But charts, graphs, numbers and facts don't mean anything to Bobert, only ifs and personal opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:38 PM

"Uranium from Niger, aluminum tubes, "north south east and west of Tikrit", implied connexctions with Al Queda, and the scary 45-minute Mushroom Cloud scenario were all just terror tactics designed to strike fear."


The " scary 45-minute Mushroom Cloud scenario" was what the people who opposed action said- Bush was talking about the danger of an Iraq with the weapons Saddam was working on developing.

Implied connections? You mean like the ones the Czech government said existed?


You have not shown that the information AT THE TIME would not lead one to the conclusion that the statements made were true.

first post here

"Subject: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: kendall - PM
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 08:35 AM

What proof do we have that Bush lied about WMDs? "

The question was asked, and the EVIDENCE has not been presented to provide proof at anything like the level that Bobert insists upon for his own statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:34 PM

More than you wanted to know about it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:33 PM

What happened to that British memo?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:24 PM

BB:

I posted a dozen links enumerating specific statements made by Bush and Co that were false, or whose implications were false.

Uranium from Niger, aluminum tubes, "north south east and west of Tikrit", implied connexctions with Al Queda, and the scary 45-minute Mushroom Cloud scenario were all just terror tactics designed to strike fear. Why do you think these were honest or intelligent statements?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:48 AM

Bobert's Corollary to the SRS Rule:

Attack the source, ignore the facts.




Have you ever looked at the actual UN reports? READ them, then tell me about my poor ( ie, ones you don't agree with) sources.


Can you even try to find anything incorrect with the FACTS, other than YOU don't want to believe them?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:45 AM

BB's Axiom:

Just keep posting poorly-source crap over and over again (preferably five to eight times in a row, with lots of CAPS).

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:20 AM

"However, none of this is proof Bush lied."

True. The statements made were that Saddam had a program to develop WMD. Which he did. See the UN reports of Nov, 2002, Dec 2002, and March 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:18 AM

So glad to see the issue is sorted - not! If only I'd put money on it back at the start of February...after all I could have foretold what would happen to the thread. Bless us one and all, we don't just flog dead horses, we expect them to gallop too.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:17 AM

"After Duelfer delivered his Iraq Survey Group's report to the Senate, Bush acknowledged that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time he ordered the invasion but said Saddam was "systematically gaming the system" and that the world is safer because he is no longer in power."

Bush on CNN from
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:OfkRlMBym1IJ:www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html+no+weapons+of+mass+destruction,

However, none of this is proof Bush lied. Perhaps the Neocons simply believed what they chose to.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:11 AM

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:55 AM

Bobert,

You might ask that the the claims you present must be proven wrong, AND the claims that have been presented here by those YOU call "bushites" must be PROVEN wrong,


The claims you present will be assumed correct until PROVEN wrong, AND the claims others present ( that you disagree with) MUST be assumed correct until PROVEN wrong.


You can't pick just half- what applies to YOU has to apply to others.


The burden of PROOF is upon those who claim that Bush lied about WMD-

TO PROVE that Bush lied about WMD.

No such PROOF has been presented here.

On the other hand, if you want to accept the comments here that Bush lied because YOU think he did, you will have to also accept that the study you refer to, and state as fact, has been called into doubt by those more knowledgable about the topic than you are about WMDs in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:46 AM

Hey, bb, the Johns Hopkins folks ain't friggin' slouches so I'd say the burden of ****proff**** is exlucsively on yer back... Not mine and not opinions of folks who weren't part of the study...

Where's the illogic in this???

Yeah, it's you who is blind to "world view", not me...

As fir me bein' partisan??? Yer gonna have to define that term...

Speakin' of definitions: Busite = Bush supporter... You certainly haven't swayed too far from the company fight song...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:17 AM

A new axiom!

Bobert's Logic:

Whatever Bobert believes can only be disproven by rigorous, academic proof.
Whatever Bobert disagrees with can only be proven by rigorous, academic proof- and THEN he applies the SRS rule.



Bobert's Corollary to the SRS Rule:

Attack the source, ignore the facts.




TIA's Axiom:

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



SRS Rule

" I will only accept information that

1. agrees with what I want to believe.
2. Is from a source that agrees with MY viewpint.
3. Can't be used to show that I am wrong in any aspect."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:07 AM

Is there an echo in here?

Methinks, someone stole a fool's trick...

The Fooles Troupe may have to leave here - too much competition...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:05 AM

Bobert:

You were correct then, and you are correct now.

They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

The internet makes it possible to find links to support any whacky position imaginable, and if all else fails, they can blame it on the Clintons.

They, like their heroes, will never admit any mistake, and will never alter their position - no matter what "reality-based" information is revealed.

Please don't waste any more time and effort on their nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:53 AM

"Iraq Body Count relies on passive surveillance, counting civilian deaths from at least two independent reports from recognised newsgathering agencies and leading English-language newspapers ( The Times is included). So Professor Gilbert Burnham, Dr Les Roberts and Dr Shannon Doocy at the Centre for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, decided to work through Iraqi doctors, who speak the language and know the territory.

They drafted in Professor Riyadh Lafta, at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, as a co-author of the Lancet paper. Professor Lafta supervised eight doctors in 47 different towns across the country. In each town, says the paper, a main street was randomly selected, and a residential street crossing that main street was picked at random.

The doctors knocked on doors and asked residents how many people in that household had died. A person needed to have been living at that address for three months before a death for it to be included. It was deemed too risky to ask if the dead person was a combatant or civilian, but they did ask to see death certificates. More than nine out of ten interviewees, the Lancet paper claims, were able to produce death certificates. Out of 1,849 households contacted, only 15 refused to participate. From this survey, the epidemiologists estimated the number of Iraqis who died after the invasion as somewhere between 393,000 and 943,000. The headline figure became 650,000, of which 601,000 were violent deaths. Even the lowest figure would have raised eyebrows.

Dr Richard Garfield, an American academic who had collaborated with the authors on an earlier study, declined to join this one because he did not think that the risk to the interviewers was justifiable. Together with Professor Hans Rosling and Dr Johan Von Schreeb at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Dr Garfield wrote to The Lancet to insist there must be a "substantial reporting error" because Burnham et al suggest that child deaths had dropped by two thirds since the invasion. The idea that war prevents children dying, Dr Garfield implies, points to something amiss.

Professor Burnham told The Times in an e-mail that he had "full confidence in Professor Lafta and full faith in his interviewers", although he did not directly address the drop in child mortality. Dr Garfield also queries the high availability of death certificates. Why, he asks, did the team not simply approach whoever was issuing them to estimate mortality, instead of sending interviewers into a war zone?

Professor Rosling told The Times that interviewees may have reported family members as dead to conceal the fact that relatives were in hiding, had fled the country, or had joined the police or militia. Young men can also be associated with several households (as a son, a husband or brother), so the same death might have been reported several times.

Professor Rosling says that, despite e-mails, "the authors haven't provided us with the information needed to validate what they did". He would like to see a live blog set up for the authors and their critics so that the matter can be clarified.

Another critic is Dr Madelyn Hsaio-Rei Hicks, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, who specialises in surveying communities in conflict. In her letter to The Lancet, she pointed out that it was unfeasible for the Iraqi interviewing team to have covered 40 households in a day, as claimed. She wrote: "Assuming continuous interviewing for ten hours despite 55C heat, this allows 15 minutes per interview, including walking between households, obtaining informed consent and death certificates."

Does she think the interviews were done at all? Dr Hicks responds: "I'm sure some interviews have been done but until they can prove it I don't see how they could have done the study in the way they describe."

Professor Burnham says the doctors worked in pairs and that interviews "took about 20 minutes". The journal Nature, however, alleged last week that one of the Iraqi interviewers contradicts this. Dr Hicks says: : "I have started to suspect that they [the American researchers] don't actually know what the interviewing team did. The fact that they can't rattle off basic information suggests they either don't know or they don't care."

And the corpses? Professor Burnham says that, according to reports, mortuaries and cemeteries have run out of space. He says that the Iraqi team has asked for data to remain confidential because of "possible risks" to both interviewers and interviewees"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:51 AM

"Body counts in conflict zones are assumed to be ballpark – hospitals, record offices and mortuaries rarely operate smoothly in war – but this was ten times any other estimate. Iraq Body Count, an antiwar web-based charity that monitors news sources, put the civilian death toll for the same period at just under 50,000, broadly similar to that estimated by the United Nations Development Agency.

The implication of the Lancet study, which involved Iraqi doctors knocking on doors and asking residents about recent deaths in the household, was that Iraqis were being killed on an horrific scale. The controversy has deepened rather than evaporated. Several academics have tried to find out how the Lancet study was conducted; none regards their queries as having been addressed satisfactorily. Researchers contacted by The Times talk of unreturned e-mails or phone calls, or of being sent information that raises fresh doubts.

Iraq Body Count says there is "considerable cause for scepticism" and has complained that its figures had been misleadingly cited in the The Lancet as supporting evidence.

One critic is Professor Michael Spagat, an economist from Royal Holloway College, University of London. He and colleagues at Oxford University point to the possibility of "main street bias" – that people living near major thoroughfares are more at risk from car bombs and other urban menaces. Thus, the figures arrived at were likely to exceed the true number. The Lancet study authors initially told The Times that "there was no main street bias" and later amended their reply to "no evidence of a main street bias".

Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of mortality figures suggested by other organisations, an inaccurate graph, the use of the word "casualties" to mean deaths rather than deaths plus injuries, and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen. Using the "three-to-one rule" – the idea that for every death, there are three injuries – there should be close to two million Iraqis seeking hospital treatment, which does not tally with hospital reports.

"The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions," contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. "They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated." The paper had "no scientific standing". Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? "No."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:27 AM

Bobert,

I have given you opportunities to offer up ***proof*** that Bush lied but you have offered up the ***opinions*** of others who were ***not*** even part of the situation...

When you have ***proof***, get back to us... Yer little articles would not hold up in an academic environment as *** proof*** seeing that its authors weren't involved but rather second guessers...

As for your bad habit of calling people "liars" and "bushites" you need to quit this very bad habit... It makes you sound like an assh*le and doesn't make anyone agree with you, but quite the contrary, refuse to accept anything you say as having any validity...



"little article would not hold up in an academic environment as *** proff*** seeing that its authors weren't involved but rather second guessers"

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



But then I guess the rules you try to apply to other people aren't supposed to be applied to YOUR statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:17 AM

Bobert,

You, and yer buddy Amos, are so partisan that from just about any non-true belivers perspective would be laughable if it wasn't so sad...

But, both of you have nice days, ya' hear...

beardedbruce

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:15 AM

No, bb...

I have given you opportunities to offer up ***proff*** that the Johns Hopkins findings were flawed but you have offered up the ***opinions*** of others who were ***not*** even part of the study...

When you have ***proff***, get back to us... Yer little article would not hold up in an academic environment as *** proff*** seeing that its authors weren't involved but rather second guessers...

As for you bad habit of calling people "liars" you need to quit this very bad habit... It makes you sound like an assh*le and doesn't make anyone, but quite the contarty, accept anything you say as having any validity... Especially whyen not only fo you do it but you do it with CAPS which, in case it hasn't made it into yer thinerator, is RUDE INTERNET BEHAVIOR... Get some counseling...

No, Dicky,

What you think are boobie-traps are quite the opposite... The first thing that Bush did when he came into office was do a 180 on all of Clinton policies... Yeah, if Clinton said to keep engaged on the Isreali/Palestian situation then Bush said "screw 'um"... If Clinton said to Bush to keep an eye on bin Laden Bush said "screw 'um"... If Clinton ssid to Bush that tax cuts for the wealthy would bring about deficits then Bush said "all speed ahead for tax cuts for the rich", etc, etc...

Yeah, you still seem to be in some world that doesn't exist where everything that is good and beautiful is the reuslt of Besh and everything ugly is Clinton's fault...

You, and yer buddy bb, are so partisan that from just about any non-true belivers perspective would be laughable if it wasn't so sad...

But, both of you have nice days, ya' hear...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:06 AM

Bobert,

You state:

"Why is it that you Bushites will not accept responsibility fir yer own screw-ups??? I thought you all were into that "personal responsibility" stuff??? "

You have also stated that the figures YOU keep throwing out about 600,000 dead civilians are correct, since there "has never been any " criticism og the report you refer to.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece

So, 'fess up now. YOU lied to us.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:36 AM

Ron--


Interesting. We have, as a matter of record, clearly provided evidence that "the next spectacular terrorist style attack would be supplied by Saddam--with his WMD's". Here I am referring to Bill Clinton's speech of 17th February, 1998

According to you, "As the vast majority of sentient beings who understand English recognize the propaganda campaign" - was this the start of the propaganda campaign you are so keen on Ron? If so then say so, but one thing Ron, GWB and his administration were not the first ones to identified Saddam and Iraq as a potential threat via a linkage of WMD and international terrorists - True?

It also remains noteworthy that, after more than a year, and having come up with two clear examples of quotes by a Bush regime spokesman refuting the idea of a connection between Saddam and 9-11, broadcast on MSM in the USA in September 2002. You have not come up with even one quote by a Bush regime spokesman stating that there was any connection between Saddam and 9-11 period.

Your contention regarding the Cheney 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press interview provides both quotes:

"From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:
Russert:
"One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:"

Russert (On the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press):
"Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
   
Cheney:
"No."
   
Russert (Asked on the 2002 show):
"Has anything changed, in your mind?"
   
Cheney:
"Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that.


Blow up Ron? Hardly it only demonstrates your lack of comprehension in the english language. You also have to rely on taking pieces of the interview out of context to support your baseless contention. You see what Ron fails to mention is that Cheney is on the programme to discuss the significance and import of reported and alleged meetings between Atta and an Iraqi Intelligence Officer in Prague. Matters that at the time of this interview were under investigation.

I asked you before Ron what part of "No" do you not understand. That was Cheney's answer to the question posed in 2001, he then states that his opinion has not changed in 2002.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:42 AM

When did Clinton take responsibility for his screw ups?

The Washington Post Jan. 29, 2001:

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

Those assertions about Perle and Wolfie are from the people who claim that 9/11 was done by the US in order to spark a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 11:03 PM

Teribus--


Interesting. We have provided many quotes by Bush admininistration figures--and Mr. Blair-- linking Saddam and 9-11. Particularly predicting that the next 9-11 style attack would be supplied by Saddam--with his WMD's.

The vast majority of sentient beings who understand English recognize the propaganda campaign.

You don't. Being a charitable soul, I wouldn't suggest that you are stupid. The only other explanation is your tender ego. It must be just agony to have an ego as fragile as yours.

It also remains noteworthy that, after more than a year, you have not come up with even one quote by a Bush regime spokesman refuting the idea of a connection between Saddam and 9-11--during the period of the propaganda campaign, which again was--all together now--between summer 2002 and March 2003.

Your pride and joy--the Cheney 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press quote--blows up in your face in the very next paragraph. Too bad.

You need not "prove the absence" of such a propaganda campaign. But surely you can come up with just one quote to start to refute it. Unless of course such quotes do not exist--for the rather good reason that the propaganda campaign is a fact.

Just one quote?   It's not asking much.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 06:29 PM

Well, least we forget in this gleefull attempt by the Bush apologists to blame Bush's failures on Clinton that Wolfowitz and Pearle presented the same hair-brained scheme to Clinton and Clinton threw them outta of his office...

'Er Treasury Secretary O'Niel statin' that Bush was hell-bent on attacking Iraq from Day 1...

'Er Richard Clark's testimony before the 9/11 Commission that the Bush folks didn't seem to take Al Qeada too serious...

I mean, let's get real here, folks...Tryin' to pin the mess on Iraq on Clinton is about as illogical as blamin' cancer on Clinton... 'Er lunar eclipses...

Why is it that you Bushites will not accept responsibility fir yer own screw-ups??? I thought you all were into that "personal responsibility" stuff??? Guess not...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 06:24 PM

No, the misdirection did NOT come only from UNSCOM, by any means. It came from Bush. It came from Rice and her "mushroom cloud" scare-tactics. It came from Rumsfeld and his bullshit about "north, south, east, and west". Your effort to re-paint the past in rosy hues for the klutzy shmuck called Bush is just misguided claptrap, in my humble opinion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 06:07 PM

"...cloud of misdirection..."

Sounds an awful lot like a propaganda campaign dunninit?

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

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

Baloney.

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

None of which alters the track record of either President.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except for Somalia, Haiti and the Balkans.

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

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

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

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

Teribus:

Your timeline:

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

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

Third of a year there. Missing a few items:

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

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

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

Cheers,

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

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

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

B~

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

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

A

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

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

Yes____

No_____

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No comparison, Dickeybird, none at all.

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

Dear Bobert:

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

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

Ever heard of the Carter Doctrine?

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

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

By E&P Staff

Published: March 04, 2007 11:15 AM ET

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

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

propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teribus--

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

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

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

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

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

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

More revisionism...

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

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

As to your question:

Who invaded Iraq with "shock and awe"?

1) G W Bush
2) W Clinton

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

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

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

Master of what??? Baitin'???

Nevermind...