BS: Proof that Bush lied

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 10:51 PM

So, Dickey, you finally realize that your favorite idea, that "the numbers went down" despite the propaganda campaign, is, to put it bluntly, worthless tripe--since your number proving the decline was only from Aug 2003--that is, when the whole world could see that the Bush regime's scare tactics on Saddam's WMD were smoke and mirrors.

If you would actually take the time to look at the poll you love so much--and if you had any idea of what was going on at the various times the poll was taken, you might actually learn something--(sorry if learning is against the Bushite creed.)

But you may wind up learning something, despite your aversion to doing so.

First of all, if you actually go to the article from which your "numbers" are taken, it clearly states that the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3%. So all your trumpeting about a change of 3%, much less 1%, needs to be taken with-- about a mountain of-- salt.

Secondly there is no poll cited between Sept 2001 and Oct 2002. In Sept 2001, a fearful country was looking for scapegoats--anywhere. Then came the attack on the Taliban, and the hunt for Osama (now Osama bin Forgotten--wonder why that is). I suspect that polls taken in late 2001 would show a lower number--since the focus was on Osama--then, starting about June 2002--with the start of the full-bore propaganda campaign against Saddam-- would show a trend upward toward the 71% . These polls (cited by the Post), however, will never answer that question, since they were taken infrequently.

Thirdly, it appears you never even examined the actual question--which is "How likely is it that Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept 11, 2001 attacks?"

Nobody here is claiming that Bush said Saddam was directly involved in those attacks---just that the Bush regime--and Blair-- tried--successfully--to associate those attacks with Saddam--and predicted that the next 9-11- type attacks would be supplied by Saddam--in fact supplied by him with WMD.

It was this approach which was the heart of the propaganda campaign--that the next attackers would be using Saddam's WMD.   It was not at all necessary for the public to believe that Saddam had been behind 9-11 in order to associate him with it, nor to believe that he would be involved in the next one---and his involvement in the next one--with WMD-- is what the Bush regime hammered away at.

And neither you nor Teribus have provided one clear statement by the Bush regime contradicting this--despite wasting untold amount of time trying to do so.

Both your favorite--the Blair press conference of Jan 2003--and Teribus' favorite--Cheney's Meet the Press appearance of 8 Sept 2002--crash and burn, due to context--specifically what comes directly after your respective favorite sentences.

The propaganda campaign is a fact--and you have no evidence against it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:21 PM

Teribus--

Congratulations, you win the ostrich award. It'll look good next to your others, like the Fantasyland award--for your wonderfully imaginative theory that Clinton made Bush invade Iraq.

Look, when somebody says "Before Sept 11, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained", it is an obvious link of Sept 11 and Saddam. Elementary technique of propaganda--I thought you claimed some knowledge of history and geopolitics. Evidently no knowledge of psychology.

Obvious link--except, however to someone whose ego is so bound up in denying the obvious propaganda campaign that he may be one of the last in the world to acknowledge it. Now I wonder who that might be.

Here I stand; I can do no other--right? Or maybe, What? me worry?

You are truly a profile in....uh....uh....

The question, which you still have not answered, is: what happened on Sept 11 to cause many in the world to believe that Saddam could no longer be contained?

All of a sudden, Saddam is front and center for Bush. Why mention any person by name, if the only concern is your absurdly clumsy "asymetric attack". Unless by some chance he wanted to link Saddam to said "asymetric attack".

Spoken like a true military fossil.....uh, I mean genius.

Your song and dance, I'm sure, will be a big hit--somewhere.

There's a future for you in vaudeville.   Or maybe a past.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:31 PM

Public opinion 2 days after 9/11:

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

Public opinion during the alleged propaganda campaign:

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

I don't know why those facts get Ron so upset. TIA has already said polls mean nothing. By the way she says another piece of information is necessary so she needs to find that information and prove that it is necessary.

I ould say a third piece of information is required for her to prove her point about polls being worthless and it is therefore her obligation to find that information. But I won't because it is just her last ditch attempt to discredit fact in favor of sayso evidence.

Did it occur to TIA that the NYT was responsible for making the case for WMDs in Iraq? Should I tell her that she needs to find that evidence and present it here to disprove herself? That would be ridiculous so here it is:

The Source of the Trouble

"Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller's series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabi—helped the New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war. How the very same talents that caused her to get the story also caused her to get it wrong."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 12:09 AM

Dickey--

If you knew anything about polling or statistics, perhaps you'd be worth discussing this topic with. But it doesn't appear likely anytime soon. Too bad.

Again, if you want to know who brought up the topic--look in the mirror. You're the one who seems to think the poll you cited is significant. The rest of us know better.

And you still have no evidence that the propaganda campaign-- to convince the US public to back Bush's planned Iraq war-- did not happen. Situation normal.

While we have cited many examples of it.

But don't stay up all night stewing about it.

Sweet dreams.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 03:41 AM

Putting words into peoples mouths again Ron - Really, I would have thought that by now you would know that that just does not work.

Example 1:
"...your wonderfully imaginative theory that Clinton made Bush invade Iraq."

Please quote me from any of my posts where I have ever stated that "Clinton made Bush invade Iraq".

Take a look at Clinton's speech of 17th February 1998. Does it identify Iraq/Saddam Hussein as a threat to the USA? - Yes, matter of record. Does it mention Iraqi WMD and the threat that they pose? - Yes, matter of record. Does it mention a potential link between Saddam's Iraq, Iraqi WMD weaponry and technology and terrorists? - Yes, matter of record. Also a matter of record Ron is that Clinton did not come up with this on his own - he was advised. Furthermore Ron if you check the names, you'll find that it was exactly the same people who advised George W Bush four years later. All of which blows rather a large hole in your contention:

"All of a sudden, Saddam is front and center for Bush."

Example 2:
"Why mention any person by name, if the only concern is your absurdly clumsy "asymetric attack". Unless by some chance he wanted to link Saddam to said "asymetric attack"."

My clumsy "a-symetric attack" Ron? Do you mean to tell us that this something that I "dreamt up"? That the Joint House Security Committee did not identify such a threat? That the combined Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America did not identify such a threat? Not only did both bodies identify and describe the threat Ron, they actually put a list of likely "rogue states" together in order of threat - Iraq was at the top of that list Ron. Flap about all you like, throw personal insults around all you like, attempt to air whatever sense of superiority you may feel that you have - none of that will alter the above statement of facts one iota.

Oh, and Ron, when somebody says "Before Sept 11, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained", it simply means exactly what it says. The events of 11th September are not referred to, the date is given as a watershed after which potential threats to the US have to be taken more seriously. Elementary english comprehension --Of which I thought you claimed some knowledge. Evidently not so.

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

Has been answered - You just didn't like the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 07:53 AM

Ron,

If you knew anything about logic or statistics, perhaps you'd be worth discussing this topic with. But it doesn't appear likely anytime soon. Too bad.

And you still have no evidence that Bush lied. Situation normal.


And you still have no evidence that the WMD programs, material, and prohibited delivery systems did not exist. Situation normal.


While we have cited many examples of it.

But don't stay up all night stewing about it.

Sweet dreams.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 11:00 AM

Barry, Peace, Amos, Ron, & all other sentient beings:

"On a dead man's door, you can knock forever."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 01:05 PM

Dickey,
I am afraid you are incapable of understandign a relatively simple point. You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting my statements - I think intentionally. In any case, carry on with your delusions, any further discussion is pointless.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 01:28 PM

"And you still have no evidence that the WMD programs, material, and prohibited delivery systems did not exist"

futile.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:29 AM

Evidence, Barry.

I know you don't read UN reports, or pay attention to anything that interfers with the imaginary world you would like to see, but where is the evidence that YOU are right?


You can't present it, so, by your logic, IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:38 AM

sorry. that was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 10:27 AM

Bruce:

Proving something did not exist is quite difficult, but an approximative argument can be made on the basis that the nation of Iraq was extensively searched by inspectors and much MORE extensively scoured by troops after the invasion. And, reasonably, since so much moral rationalization was balanced on their existence, any time something WAS found it would have been trumpeted to the press in vindication of the whole sorry mess. Every article or photo that has been claimed to prove the case has been rebutted or proved an artifact of the programs that were earlier dismantled and of now danger.

That's a lot of evidence. Granted, it is negative evidence. But so is the proposition you pose.

But Bush's cohorts, on the other hand, have been unable -- despite the strongest motivation -- to offer proof they did exist. Despite Rumsfeld's assurances that they were around Tikrit and "north, south, east and west of there".

There were no WMDs in Iraq constituting a meaningful threat.

The promoted basis of the war was fallacious.

The genuine basis of the war was un-confessed.

The difference was covered up by false impressions, exagerrations, and direct falsehoods.

As a result of this insane policy, Al Qeda is re-strengthening itself and Iraq is a shambles coming together only shamefully slowly. This is a case of rampant mismanagement from the top down.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 11:00 AM

Amos, in case thgat was too much for you to read,

"Perricos isn't an American shill defending the Bush administration, but rather the acting executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and his report was made to the Security Council. Yet his report didn't seem to be of much interest to a media which has used the lack of significant discoveries to question the rationale for the war. After over a year of searching, experts have managed to find little in the way of the biological and chemical weapons that every major intelligence service -- including those of Germany and France -- maintained existed. We still haven't, but Perricos' report brings us one step closer.
The report neatly disarms arguments that Hussein's WMD programs were non-existent after the first Gulf War. While it's true that these finds are not the chemical and biological weapons we know existed after that war, they illustrate the tremendous difficulty in locating something in a semi-hostile nation larger than the state of California. They also prove that Hussein made ongoing efforts to hide illegal weapons programs from the world. Ironically, he and his agents used the world in which to hide them.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:00 PM

Whatever ...

The intel from the U.S. has been so unreliable since 2002 that nobody pays any attention to it anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:05 PM

Since my posts without cookie are being deleted, let me repeat:


dianavan,

Obviously, you can't read.

That was a CANADIAN writer, about a UN Report.

No mention of US at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:09 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:14 PM

Amos,

You state:
"There were no WMDs in Iraq constituting a meaningful threat."

Please provide some proof of this. YOU have claimed that lack of proof means one is wrong- so please give me proof of your claim, or we must assume YOU are wrong.

Lack of evidence is NOT evidence of lack- right?

Please define "meaningful- How many dead do you require for it to be meaningful?

"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:39 PM

Lack of edivence requires a dismissal when dealing out justice!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Clinton lied, Bush lied
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:50 PM

Glanced at some of the entries, saw the word 'impeach'.

3 states are now moving ahead under "Jefferson's Rules of the House" to initiate impeachment proceedings against Bush. New Mexico (strongest push), Washington State and Vermont. Under the rules, if a state presents a request to impeach, all business in the U.S. House of Reps must stop and the matter must be debated as the "most important" issue on the floor. The only thing that would take priority would be a crisis, as when Clinton fired some cruise missiles to kill foreign civilians in order to stall the commencement of his impeachment. Bush would have to have something more lasting, like an invasion of Iran, to dodge the matter. An invasion, release some bird flu, and he can declare himself dictator.

But the state-level move to impeach Bush is going on in 3 states. Problem is, Cheney is infinitely worse than GWBush. And Pelosi (#3 in line) is onboard with them, so an impeachment of Bush will mean nothing. Probably even result in Cheney talking him into the dicatator thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:57 PM

Just because one doesn't like the options doesn't mean that the right thing should not be done.

Good, the timing will be perfect for the Mach 17th march on DC.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:59 PM

My comment was not a response to your post, bb.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 02:06 PM

Example of Bush lies from a site linked by Amos - 23 Feb 07 - 12:08 AM, the site was picked at random.

Barry, having been unable to come up with one example of a Bush lie, obviously seemed impressed.

The "Bush Lies" were charted in three columns. These form the sub-headings given below.

1)Here's what Bush said:
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." -
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

2)Bush's Claim:
Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons:
-       Sarin gas
-       Mustard gas
-       VX Nerve agent

3)Reality:
Not True - Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq

Comments:
Anybody see any difference between what the President actually said in the State of the Union Address (1) and what the compositor of this table said the President said in (2)? When did a reported estimate of materials necessary to produce equate to the definite statement that Iraq HAS?

Conclusion, this so-called lie is a fabrication on the part of the people who put the list together. Anybody doubting that can supply the reference to the speech in which the President said, "Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons".

The "Reality" as stated is incorrect the casings of chemical/biological munitions were found, the whole of Iraq has not been searched. Even today, those responsible for inspection (UNMOVIC) would refuse to state categorically that there were no WMD, agents or precursors in Iraq, as such a claim could not be verified.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 02:16 PM

Ron:

I haven't seen any proof, only things like why do you think he said such and such.

You are asking me to prove something didn't happen. Is it possible to prove a negative?

You are trying to reverse the burden of proof.

You need to loose the anger and come up with some proof that what you say is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 02:17 PM

We went in because of 45 minute WMD's, There were none. We were lied to. The one most important lie! Doesn't matter that there was no reliable intellegance or that "we were mistaken". There's still no intellegance worth spitting at in this man's government as far as I'm concerned.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 02:35 PM

Excuse me, but when a feller takes a course of action that decimates thousands of human beings, ruins their lives and slaughters their wives and children on the basis of a proposition, Mister Dickey, I would say that the burden of proof concerning that proposition was very much on him. I would submit to you, sir, that to justify the scale of human slaughter which Bush signed into action with his wonderful new powers on the basis that there was no proof his claims were not so is essentially to be, morally, accomplice to a brutal criminal act. So far the only weapon of mass destruction involved in the Iraq war started by the US has been Bush himself.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 02:50 PM

Bush lied and continues to lie because he doesn't want to admit he was duped into removing Saddam by Chalabi.

Now Bush wants to go to war with Iran because Iran has made a fool of him. He continues to be an idiot by risking the lives of so many in a game he doesn't know how to play. He doesn't even know his opponents. Israel would be wise to keep Bush at an arms length, avoid confrontations and work towards peace in the Middle East.

Chalabi has made a comeback and continues to deceive and manipulate the U.S. through the new government of Iraq.

Why anybody would defend Bush is beyond me. He was lied to and passed those lies on to the rest of the world as truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 04:52 PM

"All that does is add to evidence that the Bush administration knowingly and repeatedly misled Americans about the intelligence on Iraq."

Read more at -
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/11/opinion/ediraq.php

In addition, keep an eye on Wolfowitz. He's trying to set up loans to Iraq from the world bank. Sounds like more nasty business to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 05:09 PM

Wolfowitz has become the World Bank for no small reason & has been laying low for quite awhile now.

Chalabi alone has been costing US a fortune by just by having had him on the payroll never mind in the human suffering. How he could be anyone's darling is beyond me.

Bush will try Iran with the same unfounded proofs that he had going into Iraq. Make no mistake, he will want to be in Iran before he's shown the door.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 05:47 PM

I think Isreal--which has a higher stake in it all than the US or Britain--will destroy Iran's nuclear production facilities (three would have to be hit) before the US gets into it with Iran. Then the world can talk about how bad the Israelis are. They took out the Osirak reactor in 1981(?) and I think did the world a favour. Of course, it inflamed the Jew haters, but I would opine that Israel is worried about survival, and many of the other countries are just worried about oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 06:35 PM

Israel won't strike unless they're sure that the US will back their play. It may well be that the US is pushing Israel to strike 1st so that America can use that as the excuse drawn in to enter into Iran. You can be sure though that Iran will not be the 1st to strike. If & when this happens the rest of the Mid East (including Israel & Iran included) will not be recognized after the fire finally dies down & the dust has settled.

Peace, the way to spell Israel is not REAL. (being lighthearted here)

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 06:36 PM

You got it right Peace.

I'd like to know how a person becomes a bank and I'd like to know when the last time Chalabi got a paycheck from the US.

It dosent matter that his connections go back 8 years before Bush took office. Only what happened when Bush was president matter to the Bush haters.

For over a decade, Chalabi's chief goal in life had been to get Saddam Hussein overthrown and replace him as the leader of Iraq. In 1992, shortly after the first Gulf War, which expelled Saddam from Kuwait but left him in power, Chalabi formed the Iraqi National Congress, which he built into the savviest of the several exile organizations. He briefly convinced the CIA that he could mount a coup, received tons of money to that end, but fell out of favor when the operation proved hollow. He then cultivated the rising neocons, who assumed key positions in the Bush administration.

Chalabi was a banker and a businessman who had spent his adulthood in America; he was multilingual, smooth in all currencies of power and influence. He targeted his pitch to his audience. To the neocons who had strong feelings for Israel (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith, in particular), he pledged, once in power, to open up friendly relations with Jerusalem and to build an Iraqi oil pipeline to Haifa. To more strictly pragmatic conservatives, he offered the appealing prospect of a westernized Iraq, which would alter the balance of power in the entire Middle East. To liberals and human-rights activists, he pointed to his support in the mid-'90s of the Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq. All in all, he seemed a dream come true: an Americanized Iraqi, a capitalist tribesman, a beacon of freedom, and a secular Shiite.

http://www.slate.com/id/2101123/

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: pdq
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 06:52 PM

Raid on the Iraqi Reactor

(June 7, 1981)


Iraq built the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad with French assistance. When intelligence confirmed Iraq's intention of producing weapons there, the Israeli government decided to attack. However, the raid would have to occur before the reactor went "hot" so as not to endanger the surrounding community.

Every detail of the mission was planned meticulously. The target was distant: 1,100 km from Israel. Preparations included building target mockups and flying full scale dressúrehearsal missions. The aircrews were selected from the cream of the Israel Air Force's (IAF) fighter corps.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Rafael (Raful) Eitan, briefed the pilots personally. Displaying unusual emotion, he told them: "The alternative is our destruction."

At 15:55 on June 7, six F-15 escorts and eight F-16 fighter bombers roared off the runway from Etzion Air Force Base in the south. After a tense but uneventful lowúlevel navigation route, the fighters reached their target. They popped up at 17:35 and quickly identified the dome gleaming in the late afternoon sunlight.

Enemy defenses were caught by surprise and opened fire too late. In one minute and twenty seconds, the reactor lay in ruins.

The way home was quiet, bringing the mission to its successful completion. It was a perfectly orchestrated opera conducted by the IAF Commander, Maj. Gen. David Ivry. At least for the present, the atomic genie of Baghdad was put back into his bottle.

[Source: Israel Defense Forces        ]

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 07:25 PM

"Chalabi's chief goal in life had been to get Saddam Hussein overthrown and replace him as the leader of Iraq."

That's right but he cared little for the people of Iraq & they cared little for him. Conflict of interest? He almost suceeded in getting himself crowned too.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 07:27 PM

"Peace, the way to spell Israel is not REAL. (being lighthearted here)"

Dnag. taht is crooect. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:40 PM

Dickey, it matters because he convinced the U.S. that Saddam had WMD's. It matters because Jordan convicted him of bank fraud. It matters because he fed info about the U.S. to Iran. It matters because organized a resistance among Kurds in northern Iraq in the mid-1990s and hundreds of his supporters were killed. It matter because he is so slimy that not even the Iraqis would vote for him. It matters because:

"In his latest remarkable political reincarnation, onetime U.S. favorite Ahmed Chalabi has secured a position inside the Iraqi government that could help determine whether the Bush administration's new push to secure Baghdad succeeds. …

Chalabi will serve as an intermediary between Baghdad residents and the Iraqi and U.S. security forces mounting an aggressive counterinsurgency campaign across the city. The position is meant to help Iraqis arrange reimbursement for damage to their cars and homes caused by the security sweeps in the hope of maintaining public support for the strategy."

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/23/chalabis-return/

Do your homework.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 10:14 PM

Sorry Teribus-

You are really more than a bit boring at this point.   "Before Sept 11, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained" does not link Saddam and 9-11 in the minds of his audience.

Anything you say.

Nor does, I'm sure "Imagine those 19 hijackers, this time with weapons supplied by Saddam Hussein" ( in the same speech). I'm sure there's no link implied there either.

Because you say so.


And I could go on (and in fact have done so before)--and so have others.

But there's none so blind as he.....

As has been pointed out, virtually all sapient beings who understand English are aware the Bush regime carried out a propaganda campaign- between summer 2002 and March 2003--to convince the US public to support Bush's planned war in Iraq. This was mainly done by implying-- or stating baldly--that the next 9-11 style attack would be supplied by Saddam with his WMD.

And no Bush supporter, including your good self, has ever come up with even one clear quote from that period-- by a Bush regime spokesman--definitely refuting any connection between Saddam and 9-11---although we have asked you for over a year to do so.

Just one quote--and you can't even manage that.

As I have pointed out, your pride and joy, Cheney's 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press, is a disaster for your argument--because of context.   Ditto for Dickey's Blair press conference of Jan 2003.

And it's painfully obvious that it's your ego that keeps you from admitting it. Must be terrible to have such a tender ego.

And it's likewise obvious that Dickey can't bring himself to acknowledge the propaganda campaign since it was done by somebody he voted for--probably twice.

But, as I said, you are starting to get more than a bit boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 11:19 PM

Dianavan: "he convinced the U.S. that Saddam had WMD's"

I thought you said Bush ran a propaganda campaign that convinced the U.S. that Saddam had WMD's

When did Mr Chalabi's paychecks begin?

Hint: October 31, 1998: President Clinton Signs the Iraq Liberation Act into Law.

I am still waiting for Ron to explain how to prove a negative.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 11:28 PM

Dickey, it is painfully clear to most people outside the USA that the Democrats and the Republicans work for the same basic interests. Namely: they work for the major coroporations who fund them and for the military-industrial complex.

You're saying that the corruption with Chalabi started during Clinton's administration?

Yeah? So???? What difference does it make if it did? So Bush and Clinton have both been involved in it? Wow. What a surprise that would be! (joke/sarcasm)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 12:43 AM

Bush invaded Iraq, Clinton did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 02:09 AM

Ron - offer proof, not opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 04:10 AM

Christ on a bike; I go away on the piss for a few days (with a mate who has just returned from Basra - and he certainly doesn't subscribe to the Terry/Dicky/Brucie school of analysis!), and this thread is still writhing away, with the chairborne warriors jumping around like fleas in a frying pan to find ever more desperate ways to justify the unjustifiable.
Amid the spittle-flecked screens and pounded keyboards, could I gently remind those on both sides that there will be no Damascene conversion; trenches have been dug and shields have been erected against reason. There are precious few concrete facts in the public domain - most of what is being chucked around here is opinion. Come up with a few facts and you'll see the thread change tack quicker than one of Nelson's frigates (there are still questions posed from about five pages back that have been conveniently "forgotten").
For Pete's sake, none of us has any influence on the decison-making process other than the ability to put a cross on a ballot paper every so often (cue the usual wearisome smart-arse remarks about that), and none of us has the rhetorical ability to cause our little band of opponents to doubt their stance - so why not give it a rest? They will still be stamping their feet and saying "It ain't so," when the Tomahawks have hit Iran.
I remain convinced that the Iraq war was prosecuted illegally on the basis of trumped-up propaganda. Nothing that Terry, Dickey, Brucey or any of the handful of neo-con apologists have said has made me waver in that opinion. It is just an opinion, of course, just like theirs. Furthermore, nothing they have posted has added to the debate or actually been of any interest or philosophical merit. It really is getting terribly tedious.
I do know, however, that the Earth isn't flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 06:52 AM

Barry,

"Lack of edivence requires a dismissal when dealing out justice!"

Very well, I have dismissed your claims that Bush lied.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:33 AM

Have just watched an interesting documentary on 'The Denial Projects' run by Tobacco, and how many of the same 'experts' are now running on the 'anti-global warming' campaign.

Their denial tactics are identical to those used by here by the neo-con apologists clique that insist that 'George Did Not Lie about Iraq'.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 09:22 AM

I guess if you voted for him, you have to believe him. Sad, because believing madness often leads there...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 09:34 AM

"Sad, because believing madness often leads there..."

So that is where believing without any facts to support your beliefs has led you to!

So young to fall victim to senility...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 02:43 PM

Viewed from the perspective of the United States of America, Carrots the decisions taken on Iraq were perfectly justifiable. I sincerely hope that you are retired, Carrots (If indeed you ever served at all). If not, I pity any poor sod that happens to be under your command and has to depend on you to evaluate any threat, in a "live" situation, let alone hang around while you decide what has to be done.

As for facts Carrots, we've had loads of the anti-Bush, anti-War tribe prattling on about the thousands of lies told, yet cannot come up with one single example that stands any degree of scrutiny.

Bush is charged with having deliberately created a situation that is patently obvious a situation that he inherited.

Bush is charged with having dreamt up intelligence regarding Iraq's stockpile of WMD and agents, when it can be clearly demonstrated that the intelligence he used was supplied by the UN.

Bush is accused of having pre-emptively attacked Iraq, when it can be clearly demonstrated that he first went to the United Nations in order to allay the fears of those responsible for the protection of the United States of America. The warning given to Saddam Hussein and to the UNSC at the same time was clear, "Resolve all outstanding matters relating to UNSC Resolutions, or we will act independently". Unfortunately Saddam listened to his international trading partners and those with vested interests in Iraq (France, Russia, China and Germany), they thought that they were dealing with the US of old, the US of Jimmy Carter. Big mistake on the part of Saddam - it cost him everything, and quite right too. How exactly you can launch a pre-emptive attack on a country you have given over three months notice to I am at odds to explain, no doubt you can provide an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 02:58 PM

Pathetic.

Generations of military service has brainwashed you.

Time to bring in the de-progammers.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 03:00 PM

Pathetic.

Generations of believing what you want to be true rather than getting the facts has brainwashed you.

Time to bring in the de-progammers.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 03:22 PM

Not even on the reserve now, Terry, but even in my day we had to undergo lectures on international law, which laid down what was and was not permissible. We were also told that we could and should challenge any order we believed to be illegal.
That such challenges were not made was due to the fact that we were told categorically that there was a clear and present danger. We were also assured that the action we were about to undertake was legal (on the basis of a judgement which, to this day, the Attorney General refuses to make public). Even then, more than a few had doubts - but they tempered their misgivings by believing that removing Saddam would mean an end to division and bloodshed in the region and would allow an overdue account to be closed.
However, given what the intelligence services actually knew, and how this was spun by politicians and their staff, we were lied to.
It was a classic scenario where good men were duped by lesser men into doing the wrong thing. Pace Tim Collins - who then had to undergo the indignity of a trumped-up (and, thankfully, thrown out) war crimes allegation when he had the temerity to question the sense of the Iraq enterprise, after having spoken with such grace at its outset. I am given to understand that the knowledge that Bush framed a transcript of his eve of battle address to hang on the wall of the Oval Office is something that to this day TC finds hard to stomach.
As I have said elsewhere, I have absolutely no problem with the current operations in Afghanistan. Iraq is another matter. You know my position and it is not going to change. In a way I almost admire your faith - it reminds me of my Roman Catholic grandfather who was able to contemplate anything that life threw at him, including the death of his beloved wife, in the sure and certain knowledge that all would be well in the hereafter.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 04:20 PM

It is much easier to contemplate that acts of extreme violence against persons is justified, than they might be the act of insanity made manifest.

Powell's presentation at the United Nations, the consummation of all the pro-WMD intell the Administration had, was a bag of hot air, and almost everyone who saw it, saw through it. Huge conclusions being leapt to on little evidence (speaking of believing what one wished to rather than the facts.)

There is an enemy afoot in the world, of that 9/11 left no doubt, and one who must needs be stopped as fast and as cold as can be done.

The insanity enters in when that observation is adulterated by choosing wrong targets, operating on false data, and causing wrongful death.

Wrongful death, as Bush has precipitated thousands of times against his own people and the innocent bystanders in Iraq, is -- to my mind -- as big a crime as one individual can perpetuate against another whether the perpetrator is the dictator of Iraq or the President of the United States.

A