BS: Proof that Bush lied

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

What proof do we have that Bush lied about WMDs?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: John Hardly
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 08:52 AM

The desire to believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Scrump
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 08:56 AM

It was Blair that lied, and he told Bush who believed him. Then Bush told Blair back, and Blair believed it.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 08:57 AM

To prove that Bush (or anyone else, for that matter) lied about anything you'd have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that, knowing the truth, he deliberately said something else. Not "he reported what he was told" or "to the best of his knowledge" but "he knew this and said just the opposite."

More, he depends upon what information he is given. If a subordinate lies to the boss and provides false data to support the lie, is the boss guilty of lying? If the subordinate withholds relevant data and the boss acts upon the data he has, does the boss lie?

I'm not a big Bush supporter or fan, but I think that these distinctions are important. Bush doesn't do his own research and I think that he places too much trust in his advisors. I think that he doesn't demonstrate healthy skepticism. But then this is the case with politicians everywhere....

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,ozchick
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 08:57 AM

Then they both told John Howard..............

I like to call him Bonsai

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:20 AM

Bush can always use the excuse that he is congenitally stupid, as was his father before him.
Blair does not have that excuse.

I was taught that the question could be answered by a simple general principle...

How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving!

Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:35 AM

Bush is afflicted with a sort of tunnel-vision that makes his world-view quite narrow. A person afflicted with tunnel-vision isn't lying if he simply doesn't see things that are outside his narrow visual range. However, other people who know about his affliction have a responsibility to point things out to him when he misses them. In Bush's case, there seems to be nobody performing that function. On the contrary, his advisors seem to suffer from the same disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:43 AM

Bush and his mouthpieces repeatedly and deliberately asserted there were WMDs in Iraq and a significant threat of a nuclear strike by Saddam Hussein. In addition they repeatedly and deliberately conflated Iraq with the 9-11 attacks making it appear that Iraq had participated in those attacks, by multiple and intentional insinuation as well as a small number of direct false statements.

What proof are you looking for? Both these propositions were hollow.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:09 AM

Amos:

Please make some statement that are not hollow please.

Tell us something you believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:09 AM

Anyway, what does it matter if he lied? The fact that his assertions were wrong (i.e. no WMDs, not collaboration between Saddam and Al Qaeda), for whatever reason, prove his and his administration's incompetence - and that's enough to see anybody off the job, right? Especially when the advocated course of action has resulted in the destabilisation of a nation and possibly a whole region, and the loss of so much life. This is a serious failure on the job, right? Not your usual "whoopsie-daisy, made a mistake there, folks, I'll be more careful next time"...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:17 AM

Dickey:

I have told you what I have recorded historical data on.

Your puerile knee-jerk reactionary rhetoric is futile. Your boy is and was a liar.

Oh, and by the way he ALSO lied about the effort of the Hussein government to buy uranium from Niger.

I suggest, for example, the documented lists of intentional falsifications enumerated in Al Franken's "The Truth -- with jokes", which covers this territory nicely. Or either of the "Views of the Bush Administration" threads which have captured hundreds of instances, I expect (I didn't count them).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Grab
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:26 AM

Him personally? None.

That the US and UK governments as a whole lied? Plenty. At the time, the security services provided the information that there were no WMDs, no risk of nuclear attack from Hussein, no link between Hussein and al-Qaeda, and there's masses of evidence that this information was provided. Whoever intervened to ensure that Bush presented a lie to the US (and ditto for the UK government) doesn't really matter - call it corporate responsibility.

If the US and UK governments were corporations and their cabinets were the boards of directors, every last one of them would be axed as a result of that kind of lie to the people who put them there to run things effectively.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:32 AM

What George Papavgeris said...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:51 AM

Amos:

Do you believe it or are you just saying what you want others to believe?

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying

* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush's 16 words "well founded."
    * A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from "a number of intelligence reports," a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
    * Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush's 16 words a "lie", supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
    * Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 11:02 AM

Hey, don't yell at Amos-

He knows what he believes, why bother him with the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Alba
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 11:04 AM

Spin it, twist it..re-write it to make it look 'better' if that is possible..to make it fit your Political view
That does not make it responsible Goverment however and the buck stops right at the man behind the desk marked Commander in Chief.
Where he supposedly got the information from is irrelevant. What he did with that information is HUGE. What has occured due to acting on HIS say so has resulted in disasterous consequences.
To some that think he may not have 'lied' well let's put it another way. It is pretty clear that George Bush Jnr. ignored the truth.
Impeach Him.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 11:12 AM

"At the time, the security services provided the information that there were no WMDs"

Who? Where? And when? At the time the only information relating to what Iraq was thought to have was contained in the UNSCOM Report presented to the UN Security Council in January 1999.

Going back over Dr Hans Blix's last report to the UN Security Council after the UNMOVIC Inspection Teams had left Iraq in March 2003, even then he stated that he could no categoric assurance that Iraq did not hold any WMD, or that programmes relating to WMD had been abandoned.

What you are looking at is not the intelligence itself but the evaluation of that intelligence. Post-911, as far as the US was concerned it was always going to be the "worst case scenario" that would be advocated as the case for action.

Nobody lied, nobody acted in anything other than good faith, irrespective of how much some people on this forum would wish it otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,MarkS
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 11:16 AM

http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html

Hi all

Follow the above link for documentation of WMD in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 11:18 AM

1. The president (or his handler - Rumsfeld, Cheney, Blair...) decides what "the truth" needs to be.
2. He makes sure underlings in "intelligence" know what is wanted of them.
3. "Intelligence" tailors the evidence as necessary (selecting and rejecting material on the basis of whether or not it supports the predetermined desired outcome), pass it on to other foreign "intelligence", and then get feedback from them, based on that evidence.
4. "Intelligence" gathers together and presents to the president (or his handler) the tailored evidence, together with the evidence from foreign intelligence, which serves as confirmation.
5. Bombs away.

In computing terms it's a case of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.

As George (our George, that is) said, whether the President was consciously lying or not isn't really that important. To tell a lie you have to say something that you know not to be true. Some people are incapable of that - for example, our Tony Blair is probably constitutionally incapable of believing that anything he says is false, so, in a sense, he is unable to lie. The same may well be the case for Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 11:20 AM

...and the same nobody, even acting in good faith, messed up big time. Or is a destabilised Iraq and tens, hundreds of thousands of dead does not constitute "messing up big time"? That should be enough for any CEO to be kicked into touch. But not for leaders of nations, apparently - more's the pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 11:20 AM

I meant the same "nobody" that Teribus was referring to.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 11:31 AM

Going back over Dr Hans Blix's last report to the UN Security Council after the UNMOVIC Inspection Teams had left Iraq in March 2003, even then he stated that he could no categoric assurance that Iraq did not hold any WMD, or that programmes relating to WMD had been abandoned.

Which was precisely why he had wanted to carry on the inspections - and precisely why he was prematurely stopped from doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 11:45 AM

REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCECOMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTSON IRAQ

Ordered Reported on July 7,2004

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE

108thCONGRESS PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,West Virginia, Vice Chairman, ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah MIKE DEWINE, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TRENT LOTT, Mississippi OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia CARL LEVIN, Michigan DIANNE FEWSTEIN, California RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARDJ. DURBW,Illinois EVAN BAYH, Indiana JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina BARBARA MIKULSKI, Maryland BILL FRIST, Tennessee, Ex Officio THOMAS A.DASCHLE, South Dakota, Ex Officio

"...the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium..."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 12:56 PM

I'm sorry Dickey, but a single quote taken in isolation from a report means, er, what exactly?
Kendall has simply posed a question. The answer, like the subject, is tricky. Lying can mean the utterance of untruths, or can mean not uttering the truth, or can mean the slective uttering of the truth to imply something that is false.
The fact is, the US administration wanted to invade Iraq before 11/9/2001 and after that date made every attempt to paint Saddam as a danger to the West and a terrorist's friend. Those claims turn out to have been false, and some people actively involved in the intelligence community knew them at the time to be false.
I fear your delivery, showmanship or whatever you'd like to call it needs a bit of a polish if you are hoping to be able to go 'Ta-da!' and expose a killer fact that reduces your opponents to gibbering wrecks.
But don't beat yourself up about it. Not even the neo-cons in the White House can do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 01:30 PM

If that's really "the most inmportant fact in the report" it doesn't say much for the imoportance of the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 01:37 PM

In 2000, Saudi Arabia went on kingdom-wide alert after learning that Iraq had agreed to help al Qaeda attack U.S. and British interests on the peninsula. In 2001, satellite images show large numbers of al Qaeda terrorists displaced after the war in Afghanistan relocating to camps in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Hussein regime. In 2002, a report from the National Security Agency in October reveals that Iraq agreed to provide safe haven, financing and weapons to al Qaeda members relocating in northern Iraq. In 2003, on February 14, the Philippine government ousted Hisham Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, for his involvement in al Qaeda-related terrorist activites. Andrea Domingo, head of Immigration for the Philippine government, told reporters that "studying the movements and activities" of Iraqi intelligence assets in the country, including radical Islamists, revealed an "established network" of terrorists headed by Hussein.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 01:44 PM

Umm, Crazyhorse - if you want to be taken seriously, it's probably not a very good idea to link to someone like Melanie Phillips!
She's not exactly the most rational of commentators. It's a bit like a Brit linking to a blog by someone like Rush Limbaugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 01:56 PM

It's just another viewpoint and many people take her seriously. Whether you like her is of no import, can you prove her wrong?

Personaly I don't pretend to know the truth about whether or not B & B lied. As far as Blair is concerned his address to the congress was honest and good enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 02:00 PM

Many people take other conspiracy theorists seriously. Sometimes they are right to do so, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 02:27 PM

Extreme claims require extreme measures of evidence. The assertions of a fanatic don't pass the stink test, sorry.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 02:32 PM

So, we should ignore YOU?


You seemed willing to accept the unsubstantiated claims of Saddam. So who's the fool, now?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 02:36 PM

Extreme claims require extreme measures of evidence

I hope you're not religious or you have one hell of a problem now

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 02:39 PM

In fact I'm going to quote your complete remark everytime a religious thread appears.

Extreme claims require extreme measures of evidence. The assertions of a fanatic don't pass the stink test, sorry.
Amos

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 03:33 PM

Crazy Horse, feel free.

Bruce, I wish you wouldn't just fling such broad statements around. What on earth are you referring to, that I accepted claims of Saddam? That he had no WMD? I was operating more on Blix than Hussein. And I think since then there has been considerable substantiation of the notion that the WMD charge was fabricated. The only motives I have been able to discover for such a distortion of intelligence is (a) wanting to break the French contract for oil which Saddam had made with Elf Aquitaine and (b) wanting to stop him from having aloose cannon effect on the OPEN market strategies and the Saudian control thereof.

I could be wrong about the motives.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 03:47 PM

Blix stated in the UN reports that he was UNABLE to verify whether Saddam had an active WMD Program, since he did not get sufficient cooperation ( as required by all the UN resolutions).

" And I think since then there has been considerable substantiation of the notion that the WMD charge was fabricated."

AT THE TIME, the information presented was thought to be correct- so how is THAT a lie?

The validity of Saddam's WMD program is UNKNOWN-

LACK OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF LACK>

I could suppose YOU have information the rest of us do not have as to the contents of those trucks which went from various sites and storage depots into Syria ( and perhaps other countries)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 04:19 PM

"I'm sorry Dickey, but a single quote taken in isolation from a report means, er, what exactly?"

Obviously it means nothing to you because it does not say GWB lied. You can click the link and read it if you want to but you prefer private opinons from anti bush blogs.

Do you beleive that Saddam did not try to buy Uranium ore from Nigeria?

I beleive he did.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 05:27 PM

Dickey -

"Mr. Bush said in his address to Congress in January that the British government had learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.

The president's statement in the State of the Union was incorrect because it was based on forged documents from the African nation of Niger, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday."

From CBS

Jeez - You'd think that the Prez would want to double check with Niger before jumping to conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 05:46 PM

On the Niger/Uranium thing - British Intelligence has never walked back on what it passed on to the US. They have always thought that there was something there.

MGOH - The UNMOVIC Inspections were stopped and the US and their Coalition partners acted because Iraq was considered to be in material breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 on seven counts. The President of the United States of America and the Government of the United States of America had made it abundantly clear to both the United Nations and to Saddam Hussein that they would act if the UN did not.

MGOH - your step-by-step outlined in your post of 12 Feb 07 - 11:18 AM, is ludicrous. There would be no way that anything like that could be kept under wraps. If you want to sell a lie sucessfully Kevin, the maximum number of people that can be involved is three, or less.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 05:53 PM

If you want to sell a lie sucessfully Kevin, the maximum number of people that can be involved is three, or less.
What absolute bollocks!
It's not even worth dignifying that twaddle with a detailed refutation.
And as for the SIS thoughts on Niger - who have you asked, Terry? There are major misgivings about the way suspicions and rumours were seized upon and presented as fact. You'll find few in the service who have much of a regard for the way their work was presented.
And quite a few who believe that Blair's policy has made their job harder and increased the risk to all of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 06:09 PM

Dianavan:

Do you beleive that Saddam did not try to buy Uranium ore from Nigeria?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 06:13 PM

I think that Iraq HAD weapons of mass destruction. I also think that the dickin' around the UN inspection teams did allowed those weapons to exit the country. Kinda like, "We'll be coming to your house in three days to see if you have any marijuana plants growing, and if you do you will be arrested." DOH

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 06:19 PM

Iraq had a reactor from the 1950's era US Atoms for Peace program.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 06:21 PM

Don't blame me for THAT one. Coincidence in the name is all. Sheer coincidence!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 06:32 PM

Map of Nigeria

Map of Niger

Two different countries. Do try to sort out which you are talking about, people.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 06:48 PM

Did Bush Lie? Does it matter now?

There's now so much insulation between him & any inquiry that the leads & the trails & tales will all grow cold before any one gets warm & close to the truth. Truth is the appearance of his lies are so damaging that he might as well have lied, if he didn't (my opinion is he did, many times) the out come becomes the same. It appears that he was lied to & it appears that he knew it. He was top dog & should have had intellegance weither his own or his close knit group, none had intellegance, now or then. Their heads should roll for no braining it on their own. That incompetance is reason enough. Beyond their not looking into it further in their mad rush to war they now have a split nation on their hands that doesn't trust a move they now make which costs our government daily in it's decision making process. The way that Bush & company has continued to handle "THE LIE(S)" only caused more speculation. Who's voice can the nation trust? No a one! We have been given no reliable info from jump street & still get nothing worth the air it's played on. The lack of info is the fault of Bush & company & it comes back full circle to bite us all on the ass. We didn't demand it & we never got it. Congress rolled over on the people, as well as the media. Most lied by not demanding the truth, espically when a nation goes to war over it. I'd go as far as to say that we are all either victims or as guilty as those who rolled over the rest. He should've been called on his lies then & still should be called on them today. If he doesn't like being called to task on it or can't hear the call he should be tossed out & hung to dry.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 06:56 PM

"Lying can mean the utterance of untruths, or can mean not uttering the truth, or can mean the selective uttering of the truth to imply something that is false."

The oath taken by a witness in A Court of Law is to 'tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:01 PM

Dickey -

I have seen no proof that Saddam tried to buy yellow-cake from Nigeria. Have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:15 PM

There is lots on the www about the issue of 'yellow cake' sales and attempts to buy and what the Brits said to the Yanks. The Niger/Nigeria mix up no doubt comes for the use of an unfortunate adjective. I would GUESS that someone somewhere heard a person refer to yellow cake from Niger as 'Nigerian yellow cake' and now Nigeria is involved in the fiasco. What a difficult language we have.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:16 PM

The worst fault a leader can have is to become good at lying to himself! Then, he can say almost anything with what passes for a 'clear conscience'.

Bush and his cronies had a NEED to find certain things...so they grasped at any vague implications or weak evidence for what they wanted. Whether promulgating this is lying or not is almost irrelevant now. The fact is, their entire plan, justification and understanding of what it meant to entering Iraq was flawed and poorly executed.
   They were WARNED by experts that they would run afoul of the sectarian conflicts, but they chose to listen to those who said, "oh, it'll be fine...they'll be glad to see us!"

   Whether there was 'lying' in the original plan or not, there sure is lying now about who screwed up and major deception about how they are gonna get OUT of all this quagmire!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:24 PM

And now Little Fascist Johnny has attacked a certain Democrat Presidental hopeful for wanting to pull out of the mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:31 PM

Al-Tuwaitha

Has anyone wondered why US Marines were ordered to guard a warehouse that contained--and had contained about 500 tons of yellowcake since 1991? "What were 500 tons of yellow cake uranium still doing at the nuclear research center of Al—Tuwaitha in Iraq when American tanks rolled into Bagdhad?" That was in 2004, BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:36 PM

So that explains why there were no troops available to guard the museums - or the weapon dumps...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 08:26 PM

Yes, Bush lied.

Is there "proof"? You mean like a secret presidential memo that says, "I'm lying and no one catch me," then, no, there's no proof of a tactile evidence that can be touched and examined and analysed for clues.

The proof is in the logic. Bush was telling people things he stated to be fact when he knew very well they were not facts, had not been proven. Doesn't matter what he believed and it doesn't quite wash for me that he can only be said to have been guilty of following bad advice or acting on bad intelligence. He lied--plain and simple. There's no other way to put it--nothing else that can be concluded. He told us things that he assured us were facts but which not one of his intelligence services would or could substantiate. That means, no matter what he believed to be true, he KNEW these could not be stated as facts because far too many important people and organizations doubted the authenticity. It would be essential to have the consensus of these organizations before Bush's assertions could be called facts and Bush did not have this consensus and knew perfectly that he did not have it.

If I devise a cold fusion experiment and a few scientists jump on my bandwagon while the overwhelming remainder of that community knows my experiment was flawed and the results therefore meaningless, I can believe still believe it and only be a victim of my own bad intelligence. But the instant I tell the public that my experiment did, in fact, prove cold fusion was true--I am lying. It has NOT been proven and I cannot help but know that it had not been proven because the majority of the scientific community has solid reasons to doubt my results and methodology. Until I have consensus from them, my own peers, any claim to fact by me is a lie and could only be a lie because I am saying something I must know is not true.

This is precisely what Bush did. He made statements he believed to be true and touted them to the the public as the fact he believed it to be BUT he KNEW it had NOT been proven and therefore could NOT be fact regardless of what he believed.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:23 PM

"I have seen no proof that Saddam tried to buy yellow-cake from Nigeria. Have you?"

No. I haven't seen any but I believe Saddam did try to buy yellowcake from Nigeria but was unsucessful.

What do you believe?

Read this: http://metacortex.humanfactors.uq.edu.au/lex/us_senate_intell_judgements/Map/data/iraqreport2_ocr.pdf~4.html

Go there and search for Niger. It will also shed light on the Joe Wilson ,Valerie Plame, Scooter debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:31 PM

well, all you have to do is to look at the credibility of the Bush administration in the eyes of the public and the rest of the world- and theres your answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Folkiedave
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:26 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey - PM
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:23 PM

I took a look at the page you suggested.

It is full of gross spelling errors, and total illiteracy.

Who made it up - because it obviously is made up.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:02 AM

OK, it looks like a post has been removed- and I can't see why...



"To 282RA

"He made statements he believed to be true and touted them to the the public as the fact he believed it to be BUT he KNEW it had NOT been proven and therefore could NOT be fact regardless of what he believed. "


So, YOU are lying to us?"

or something like that. Is there some editing going on here?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:07 AM

We can never answer the question "Did Bush Lie?"

But it is not an important question.

His job, as Commander in Chief, was to make sure that we went to war based on accurate and truthful information. Clearly, we did not. Where does the buck stop?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:45 AM

"His job, as Commander in Chief, was to make sure that we went to war based on accurate and truthful information."

You are joking aren't you TIA?

His job, as Commander-in-Chief of your armed forces and the elected Executive Head of State, is to safeguard the integrity, security and national interests of the United States of America. He has to make decisions related to those aspects based on the best intelligence available at the time and upon the evaluation of such intelligence in relation to any given situation at that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:04 AM

Teribus,

Give it a rest. It should be obvious that PART of ensuring the safety and the "national interests" of the nation is ensuring it doesn't, as a nation, make a bleeding idiot out of itself or make enemies unnecessarily, or in an unjust cause.

Many of us saw through the facade of his conflationary tactics, and wondered if he, in fact, had some access to data we didn't, to be doing such bizarre things. As it turned out, he did not. The intelligence that fell short was his own ability to know when things make sense and when they do not, an ability one (IMHO) would expect to be demonstrated by either a good executive or a good Commander. As it has turned out he is neither.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:07 AM

Bush couldn't evaluate a Chiquita banana with any degree of accuracy. But then, that's why he's President. The folks who got him elected didn't want a thinker. And they didn't get one. They got Bush. His NIEs seem to have been skewed. I think Bush knew something wasn't quite right, but I also think he's too stupid to have been able to figure out what.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:13 AM

Sorry Amos, in any direct competition where on one hand we have the "national interests" of the United States of America, and on the other hand we have how the United States of America may be perceived for following a certain course of action to safeguard those "national interests" - The latter is going to lose hands down if the matter has to be dictated by the US Government - From their point of view quite rightly so.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:17 AM

based on the best intelligence available at the time and upon the evaluation of such intelligence in relation to any given situation at that time
Absolutely. But the intelligence was being ferociously spun by the neo-cons and their allies in an attempt to justify the war. The people at the sharp end, gathering rather than presenting, knew damned well that it was being spun and they are still seething about that.
Bush and Blair were told what their acolytes thought they wanted to hear. And, on the rare occasions when someone dared pipe up with a converse view, they were told 'we don't want to hear this - don't come back until you're singing our tune.'
As such, to go back to the question that started this thread, I don't think that, at present, it's possible to say that Bush lied per se.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:22 AM

"national interests" is a pretty vague term. Care to elaborate, teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:31 AM

REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ
"..The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996 1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, z businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence reportsaid that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq..."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:49 AM

It appears you're still getting Niger and Nigeria mixed up, Dickey, though you aren't the only one. It doesn't take long to check those kind of things.

It's a bit like getting confused between Iraq and Iran or Austria and Australis, or Zambia and the Gambia. People who do that kind of thing undermine their credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:58 AM

MGH: What is the word for a person from Niger?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:00 AM

"His job, as Commander-in-Chief of your armed forces and the elected Executive Head of State, is to safeguard the integrity, security and national interests of the United States of America"


integrity????

security????

national interests???


---FAILED

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: bobad
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:06 AM

From Wikipedia:

The Name Niger

The adjective form of Niger is Nigerien /niːˈʒɛɹiən/ or /naɪdʒɪɹiˈɛn/, which should not be confused with Nigerian /naɪˈdʒiɹiən/ for Nigeria and derives from the French nigérien, -ne. There are different opinions about the adjective form however. Merriam-Webster lists Nigerois (which has, despite its sound, no equivalent form in French) only as the noun form. However, there are instances of Nigerois having been used adjectivally. CNN and other news sources often circumvent using the adjective altogether, using the noun instead, e.g. 'the Niger parliament', 'Niger leader slain' or 'Niger's capital', 'Niger's people'. In French, the citizens of Niger use the adjective 'nigérien'.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:09 AM

"But the intelligence was being ferociously spun by the neo-cons and their allies in an attempt to justify the war."

The "intelligence" was the contents of the UNSCOM Report to the United Nations Security Council, delivered in January 1999, both Scott Ritter and Dr. Hans Blix provided input and were responsible for the contents of this report. Damn near every intelligence service in the world believed it to be correct, even the Syrians believed it to be true, the vote for UNSCR 1441 was unanimous.

"The people at the sharp end, gathering rather than presenting, knew damned well that it was being spun and they are still seething about that."

"Utter bollocks", to use one of your own favourite expressions.

The findings of every investigation into the decision to go to war have been:

- that the spin was non-existant;
- no evaluation from the JIC Assessment Committee was ever suppressed or "doctored".

That the Prime Minister had described Saddam as posing an "imminent", or an "immediate", threat was exposed for what it was - a complete myth, no such thing was EVER said by any member of the British Government.

No-one lied, get over it, irrespective of how much you would like to believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:23 AM

What I was referring to, GUEST,Dickey, was the post (12 Feb 07 - 09:23 PM) where you (or perhaps some other GUEST using your name) wrote:

"I believe Saddam did try to buy yellowcake from Nigeria but was unsuccessful", and to back that up gave a link to a report about Niger.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:32 AM

...and Dickey -

In my post of Feb. 12 - 7:01, I was laughing at your question of Feb. 12 - 6:09.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:33 AM

Terry, poppet, I suggest you read this from the post-Hutton BBC.
Then think again about your last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:34 AM

"The findings of every investigation into the decision to go to war... "

Well, as Mandy Rice-Davies famously said, "They would say that, wouldn't they."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:12 PM

No one lied, the American people were told the whole truth at every juncture. Hence the Downing Street memo scandal was all an invention, there was actually a genuine threat that Saddam could launch nuclear missiles at the United States, and Saddam really was among the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks, Osama not withstanding. Teribus, you are a daisy indeed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:25 PM

It is what Bush has DONE that primarily concerns me, not whether or not he lied while he was doing it. I suspect that all politicians lie to some extent. I think the job almost makes that mandatory.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 01:04 PM

Apparently, we have a couple of nut cases who don't think Bush's lying to get us into this war is a big deal. IT IS A BIG DEAL!!! It's a very big deal. The truth is it doesn't matter whether he got us into this war if no charge of lying to accomplish it is ever leveled at him. It will be swept under the rug leaving the door wide open for a future president to do the same and hide behind this administration's lies to justify it.

The only way we can prevent this from happening again is to assert that Bush lied and take the appropriate action. THIS sends a message to future neocon-like political groups out there looking for a front man that this kind of thing will not be tolerated. By saying the lies don't really matter is, by definition, tolerating it. And nothing makes me sicker than hearing something justifed with "Well, everybody does it." I don't fucking care!!!! He lied, his lies have destroyed our Pax Americana, gotten hundreds of thousands killed, made folk heroes of terrorists, cost our nation our financial well-being and our military readiness and increased our debt to point that I don't think we can ever pay it off.

He lied, it's easily provable that he lied and he needs to be made to answer for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 01:08 PM

Yeah, okay. Fine with me. I hope they do prove he lied, and prosecute him for it someday.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 01:44 PM

Amos,

"there was actually a genuine threat that Saddam could launch nuclear missiles at the United States, "


NOT what was claimed- it was that he had an active program to develop WMD, which he did.

"and Saddam really was among the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks, "

Also never claimed/


Care to provide ANY examples of where Bush said either of these lies?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 02:15 PM

I meant to say:

"I believe Saddam did try to buy yellowcake from Niger but was unsuccessful"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 02:21 PM

a. There is a situation where someone tells a lie, which means they say something which they know is untrue.

b. There is the situation where they say something which they believe to be true, with the intention of telling the truth, but in fact what they are saying is not true.

c. And there is the situation where they set out to mislead, and succeed in misleading, but take care to avoid telling any direct falsehoods, or to correct (intended?) misinterpretations by the media etc.

Whether or not there were actual direct lies is hard to pin down. It's not too easy to tell what is in the mind of a politician saying something that turns out not to be true. But I think most people - and not just those on "the left" either, unless, for example, Kenneth Clark is counted as "on the left" - would agree there was intent to deceive in some of the speeches and statement that carefully trod the line of ambiguity.

For example where Bush repeatedly juxtaposed comments about Iraq and 911 in such a way as to invite listeners to understand the existence of a link between the two.

Or, for another example, the "45 minutes" allegation, arising Tony Blair's carefully crafted written comment that Saddam's "military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them." Which in tabloid newspapers became "Brits 45 Mins from Doom", and ""Mad Saddam Ready to Attack: 45 Minutes from a Chemical War". Blair made no effort whatsoever at the time, either himself or through his subordinates, to correct these exaggerated and misleading claims. (Which he subsequently distanced himself from, well aftern teybn ahd achieved their effect at the time.)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 02:29 PM

"And there is the situation where they set out to mislead, and succeed in misleading, but take care to avoid telling any direct falsehoods, or to correct (intended?) misinterpretations..."

Gee, I am having that same problem in my workplace at this very moment. I think its a sign of the times.

Is this how people convince themselves that they are justified in making decisions that would otherwise be considered unethical?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 03:20 PM

Is this a lie, propaganda, a falsehood or a true statement:

    [S]peaking on ABC's "This Week" television programme, Senator John Kerry said he has no doubt that "there are weapons flowing across the border" from Iran.

    "Nobody questions, those of us who have been to Iraq and in the region know that there are Iranian instigators, agents in Iraq, and that's happening, there's no question," Kerry said.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:18 PM

Probably true, Dickey, just as it was probably true that in Northern Ireland throughout the Eighties, there were a lot a US weapons kicking around the paramilitaries. And there were Americans collecting money for the IRA.
Tell me, Dickey, old son, what's the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:50 PM

Teribus--

You assure us that Tony never described Saddam as an "imminent" threat. Whatever you say.

Therefore, he misled the UK electorate by suckering them into a war he never told them was necessary. He never credibly justified the war in terms of Britain's national security. But he dragged Britain into it anyway.

And that's just fine with you. Because you never expect to have your leaders justify their positions.

They know more than you. And you know your place. Like a good little matelot.

The overwhelming vast majority of the UK electorate, however, doesn't share your supine stance--based on what I've read, nobody does.

But if you're comfortable in that position, that's all that matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:14 PM

Ron, I shall adopt the position that I will refuse to discuss the contents of a Report to Parliament (image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2003/07/07/WMD_report.pdf - ) unless the person I am discussing the subject with actually reads it.

By the bye, the actual words used to describe the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq were "current and serious" - i.e. much in line with what US President Bill Clinton stated four years previously. Bill Clinton and the American Government believed that to be the case to the extent that removal of Saddam Hussein from power became official US Foreign Policy and a unilateral bombing campaign was launched against Iraq. Bill Clinton was correct on the information and assessment made at that time, and Tony Blair and George W Bush were correct in March 2003, going on the information and the assessment made at that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:22 PM

Teribus--


As I said, you never expect your leaders to justify their positions. After all, they always know more than you. And you know your place.

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:45 PM

Simply read John Perkin's book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and you will know exactly why the USA decided by the time of the first Gulf War in '91 to label Saddam's Iraq a "threat" to the USA....which it most certainly was not. Never at any time was Iraq a credible threat to the USA. The USA was a totally credible threat to Iraq, however, from the moment that the USA decide to be, and they decided that because Saddam wouldn't play ball with the USA's larger corporate and strategic plans for that region.

It was the old tactic of the Big Lie, practiced with much success by Adolf Hitler's regime. You simply accuse the OTHER guy (your next chosen target) of being exactly what you are....a dire threat. And then you attack him.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:55 PM

A lot of all this reminds me of

"Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:04 PM

"And you know your place"

And thus he seems to think that it is his rightful job to tell everybody else what their place is.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:33 PM

Actually I was wrong when I said that nobody shares Teribus' supine position. In the US, quite a few did (and some still do). They're called Bush voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:56 PM

"You simply accuse the OTHER guy (your next chosen target) of being exactly what you are....a dire threat. And then you attack him."

So THAT's why Al Qaeda claimed the US was a dire threat and attacked.

It all makes sense now. Iran and Israel, Chavez and the US. Yess.

Why are Canadians claiming the US is a dire threat? Are we about to be set upon with harpoons and oosiks?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 12:17 AM

Fuckin' right. So watch out.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 01:47 AM

Let me put it to you simply, Dickey. A country with the world's largest military, the world's largest GNP, the world's largest navy and air force, the word's most aggressive national policy, and many thousands of nuclear weapons is a dire threat to many smaller nations.

Al Queda would never even have come into existence without all the insane stuff the USA has done since 1945 to provoke and oppress people in the Muslim World. Besides, the USA basically trained, armed, and funded the people who later became Al Queda. They did that to kill Russians in Afghanistan back in the 80's. Have you forgotten? Osama used to work for Uncle Sam.

Read John Perkins' book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". It was on the New York Times bestseller list in 2004. You can find it in any large bookstore. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 03:02 AM

Ron Davies - 13 Feb 07 - 05:50 PM

"Teribus--

You assure us that Tony never described Saddam as an "imminent" threat. Whatever you say.

Therefore, he misled the UK electorate by suckering them into a war he never told them was necessary. He never credibly justified the war in terms of Britain's national security. But he dragged Britain into it anyway."

If that is an example of your reasoning Ron, then it is little wonder that you think the way you do. If memory serves me correctly Ron the matter was debated fully in Parliament before the decision to use force was made.

As for:

"As I said, you never expect your leaders to justify their positions. After all, they always know more than you. And you know your place."

First Part:
"...you never expect your leaders to justify their positions".

Not true. It depends totally on the leader and on the situation.

Second Part:
"After all, they always know more than you."

If you are talking about National leaders here, what you state above is generally the case in any given situation. Main difference between you and me Ron is that I actually read and listen to what they say, whereas you read and listen to people who tell you what they said (Foolstroupe's - "Send three and fourpence...").

Third Part:
"And you know your place."

The usual superior, patronising insult which has become the hallmark of your contributions due mainly to the fact that as you do not have the capacity for independent thought you have very little to say after your instructed beliefs are demolished.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 04:29 AM

Er, Terry, have you forgotten me? You seem very keen to whirl around like a dust devil, pouring scorn on Ron, but you haven't answered any of my posts for a while. Come on laddie, let's see a bit of multi-tasking! What are your thoughts on the BBC document I linked to above?
And, as a matelot, I'd love to hear you thoughts on Geoff Hoon's admissions. Just think, had you stayed in the service, he would have been your boss. Not exactly a thought to make the chest swell with pride, is it?

But I digress. Surely there has to come a point where you have to stand back and actually ask yourself what it is you are trying to defend and why.
Do you honestly believe that our role has been played honourably and decently throughout? Your cut'n'paste trumpetings of 'reconstruction' aren't exactly a modern Marshall Plan, are they? And the corruption, back-handing and general sleaze involved make the world of the Third Man seem like Little Women.
Afghanistan I can understand. Iraq I can't. And yet our ability to deal effectively in one theatre is being hamstrung by our commitment to the other. If you want confirmation of that from all corps and ranks, just look at the current affairs section of ARRSE (I presume you already look at the Rum Ration board). You'll find that your view is very, very much the minority view.
Face it, Terry, two nations which liked to claim the moral high ground and present themselves as the successors of Greece and Rome have f*cked up.
In Bush and Blair we have two very different but equally arrogant leaders who have embarked on an illegal war for reasons which were trumped up and spun. Whether or not Bush actually, personally lied is a sideshow.
That war has happened - it can't be undone and the genie can't be put back in the bottle. As a result Iraq is tearing itself apart. British and US forces cannot stop this, and can only delay the carnage. Yet we can't pull them out because that would cause an instant and devastating loss of stability. Thus the poor sods have to hang on as a long as is decent, doing a job to the best of their abilities.
Unless, that is, there is a huge volte face on the part of the US and things do start to change in the wider Middle East. Then, perhaps, one could imagine scope for longer-term optimism. Sadly I don't see anyone with the balls to do that.

It's interesting and instructive looking back over old postings to see how things have played out. One on the "Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?" thread was perhaps prescient, and - from the same poster - now apparently no longer here - there was this on the same thread.
Not much has changed to make me disagree with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Bush lied, Clinton lied
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 09:47 PM

Well, this lady has constructed an indictmentment against Bush, et al. There should be hundreds of these already proceeding through the courts, but we get one, in 'hypothetical' form. And the same ol' crew is using the same ol' template to launch a war against Iran.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=143205

D. On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material.

I. On October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, BUSH made numerous deliberately misleading statements to the nation, including stating that in comparison to Iran and North Korea, Iraq posed a uniquely serious threat, which statement BUSH well knew was false and fraudulent in that it omitted to state the material fact that a State Department representative had been informed just three days previously that North Korea had actually already produced nuclear weapons. The defendants continued to conceal this information until after Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq.

K. In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, BUSH announced that the "British have recently learned that Iraq was seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa" which statement was fraudulent and misleading and made with reckless disregard for the truth, in that it falsely implied that the information was true, when the CIA had advised the administration more than once that the allegation was unsupported by available intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 10:01 PM

I take serious issue with the title of this thread.

Why is the verb in the past rather than in the present tense?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 10:04 PM

Because even as we speak, Grasshopper, the present has become the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 10:35 PM

And the past is the future....

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 12:35 AM

"Osama used to work for Uncle Sam"

That's bass akwards. The US. under the Mr Peanut administration helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets [commies that LH roots for] that were trying to take over the country.

"As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service agency known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), who were derived from discontented Muslims in the country that opposed the official atheism of the Marxist regime. In order to bolster the local Communist forces, the Soviet Unionâ€"citing the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that had been signed between the two countries â€"intervened on December 24, 1979. According to media and official government sources, between 110,000 to 150,000 Soviet troops, assisted by another 100,000 or so pro-communist Afghan troops, were present in Afghanistan. The Soviet occupation resulted in a mass exodus of over 5 million Afghans that moved into refugee camps in neighboring Pakistan, Iran and other countries. More than 3 million settled in Pakistan, over a million in Iran and many others in different countries of the world. Faced with mounting international pressure and the loss of over 15,000 Soviet soldiers as a result of Mujahideen opposition forces trained by the United States, Pakistan, and other foreign governments, the Soviets withdrew ten years later, in 1989."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 02:41 AM

Dickey -

The Mujahideen in Afghanistan were trained by the U.S. and financed by Osama. It was the Mujahideen who drove the Soviets from Afghanistan in 1989.

Are you saying it is Uncle Sam who works for Osama?

I hope not but anything is possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 08:51 AM

The inverse of "Osama used to work for Uncle Sam"
is "Uncle Sam used to work for Osama"

How did you interpret my statement into
"it is Uncle Sam who works for Osama"?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 08:58 AM

WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:39 AM

RE: the ongoing BuShite mendacity campaign now focusing on Iran-

How's that old saying go again? Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice......

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:51 AM

Flawed as it was, the Russian backed regime was a far better one than any that have succeeded it. Women in particular had far more freedom and influence, and drug production was much lower.

USA intervention helped create a monster that virtually destroyed Afghanistan and has gone on to bring about the current nightmare that faces us.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 05:53 PM

Dickey - Please explain what you mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey - PM
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 12:35 AM

"Osama used to work for Uncle Sam"

That's bass akwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:23 PM

Teribus--

Gee, I was holding back, waiting for you to reply to Capt. Ginger's queries. Looks like it may be a while.



So I suppose I may as well respond to your posting to me.

Well, it appears I've struck a nerve. As the Pope would say, I'm so sorry you were offended.

I'm especially sorry for having said "You never expect to have your leaders justify their positions. They know more than you. And you know your place."

Thank you for your reply: "It depends on the leader and on the situation". Perhaps you can explain why the Iraq war doesn't make the cut of issues on which you expect your leaders to justify their positions. If you don't expect them to do so in a matter of life and death, exactly when do you expect them to do so? Inquiring minds want to know.

I think I'm starting to understand your view. It's only in a matter of life and death that you know your place--you know your leaders don't want or expect any second-guessing from you---after all you're a mere citizen. So, obligingly, you decline to do any research to try to divine if your leaders are correct. Or do you perhaps accept what you read in the Sun--that's good enough for you?

In this regard, I, like Capt. Ginger, was hoping for your answer on the "45 minutes from doom" idea. But we'll just keep waiting.



So, the words used to describe the threat by Saddam were "current and serious". Wow, I'm impressed. Not only that, I'm IMPRESSED (just to make it easier for you to identify with).

1) "current" but not "imminent". That makes it all better. But the attack by Bush, supported by Blair, turned out to be "imminent". Wonder how that happened.

2) Clinton did it. Sorry, this is a rather tired excuse. Can't you try a little harder? Your fans expect better. Uh, who was it who invaded Iraq with "shock and awe"? Clinton?

3) "Going on the information at the time". And why do you suppose "the information at the time" supported the invasion? Could it be that Bush made it blazingly clear that he only wanted evidence that supported his planned invasion? Nah, not a chance.



And it sure is puzzling that many people, including many Mudcatters, with far fewer sources of information than Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, were able to tell clearly that the case for war had not been made.

But somehow you were not able to see that the case had not been made. Another mystery. Wonder if we'll ever know why.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 10:44 PM

The person that claimed "Osama used to work for Uncle Sam" has it backwards.

Uncle Sam (Carter Administration) assisted OBL and the Mujahideen repell the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 12:29 AM

Dickey -

Yes, I would agree that Uncle Sam, Osama and the Mujahideen expelled the anti clerical Russians from Afghanistan.

The U.S. thought they were using Osama but in fact, Osama was using the U.S.

The U.S. continues to play into the hands of Osama. He couldn't get rid of Saddam to make way for the clerics so he devised a plan to get the U.S. to do it for him. Now Iran is poised to take over where the U.S. leaves off. Osama is laughing.

Thats one way of looking at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: 282RA
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 12:44 AM

Bush is still convincing himself that his lies are fact. Now he is saying that he is certain that Iran is arming Iraq. How likely is this to be true? Very unlikely.

The explosives were looted from ammo dumps just days after the invasion while American soldiers watched helplessly. Barrels of powerful explosives had been loaded onto pickups and stolen. As for the knowledge of how to build armor-piercing bombs, you can find that info anywhere. Hell, I designed my own bombs after reading the Anarchist's Cookbook when I was still in my teens. I never built them, I just wanted to see what I could design on my own. And if I could get hold of that kind of information at 15, certainly Islamic guerilla cells can get info on armor-piercing IEDs anywhere. I don't see that they would be dependent on Iran for this info. I really doubt they're that stupid and unresourceful.

Bush is trying to create a new enemy over there to deflect the heat he's feeling but he's really merely putting the finishing touches on the grave he began digging for himself starting in March of 2003.

Iran is certainly not arming the Sunnis whom they hate. They passionately loathed Saddam. So Iran is arming the Shiites. And if I ran is responsible for most the deaths of Americans in Iraq then the worst enemy Americans have there are the Shia. Now, didn't Bush put intentionally put the Shia in power? Doesn't that mean he should never have invaded Iraq? Doesn't it mean Both Sunni and Shiite are killing Americans and that we therefore better get the fuck outta there?

But if it's still true that the majority of American deaths come at the hands of the Sunnis, then Iran's contribution is not significant and Bush's threat assessment not credible. Nobody's falling for it either. He's not believable.

But why would the Shia want to kill us when we put them in power? That's really the toughest question to answer if it is true that Iran is arming and abetting the Shiite insurgents. Apparently Bush doesn't understand he can't win anything this way.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 01:19 AM

The radical Sunnis hate the Shiites and the radical Shiites hate the Sunnis but they both hate the U.S. even more.

Thats why the U.S. has no business there.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 08:39 AM

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Now just which old culture came up with that one?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 09:28 AM

"He couldn't get rid of Saddam"

How did UBL try to get rid of Saddam?

If anybody used the US to get rid of Saddam, it was Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 10:10 AM

"If anybody used the US to get rid of Saddam, it was Iran."

Dead right Dickey.

Uncle Sam worked for the Mullahs.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 02:19 PM

How about "Uncle Sam and Osama Bin Laden were colleagues"; and of course the same was true for Uncle Sam and Uncle Saddam before and during the war upon Iran. Though maybe "blood brothers" might be a better term for the relationship.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:37 PM

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: kendall
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 09:46 PM

Ok, so the original question has not been answered. No smoking gun, just some evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 10:56 PM

But Kendall, you know that's how propaganda works. Insinuation, selective information, juxtaposition. Not likely there'd be obvious lies. And in propaganda, lies aren't necessary to achieve your desired result.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 04:18 AM

McGrath of Harlow, your post of 16 Feb 07 - 02:19 PM. Have you got any facts at all that back up this preposterous statement:

"...and of course the same was true for Uncle Sam and Uncle Saddam before and during the war upon Iran. Though maybe "blood brothers" might be a better term for the relationship."

Perhaps you can provide a list of those who held the post of US Ambassador to Iraq in the years 1967 to 1985 (By the bye Kevin, Saddam came to power in Iraq in 1979).

Face it Kevin, what you are producing is just another example of a popular left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush myth/lie/misrepresentation.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Cod Fiddler
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 06:36 AM

"God" told Bush to invade Iraq. If the WMDs existed "God" would have told him where to find them. Ergo, they don't exist.

"God" has "told" so many despots and lunatics what to do throughout history, causing so much misery. Not least al-Qaeda today. Doesn't this make Bush as extreme as them?

Religion is a great thing, but in the wrong hands it's a disaster. People will always exploit it and interpret it to suit their agenda. Wouldn't we all be better off without it?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:22 AM

If you answer 'yes' - then you have confirmed that you are a heretic and must be destroyed 'for your own good' - something which has been espoused by fundamentalists of both Islam and Christianity...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:25 AM

God preserve me from Religious Fanatics....

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: kendall
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:37 AM

If I could do away with one thing, it would be organized religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 08:13 AM

Propaganda is a useful tool for organizations like ANSWER, an offshoot of the communist WWP and PSL. RD is particularly suceptable to this sort of brainwashing.

These socialist organizations tout freedom and human rights when in truth socialisim leads to less freedom and human rights.

They defend dictators like Saddam and Milosevic.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Cod Fiddler
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 08:17 AM

I'm glad some of you agree. May I recommend "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. It has probbly been banned in some states of the USA, but it really is enlightning. A great book that blows fundamentalists of all types away.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 10:19 AM

NYT Review of the God Delusion Banned nowhere.

"...What Dawkins brings to this approach is a couple of fresh arguments — no mean achievement, considering how thoroughly these issues have been debated over the centuries — and a great deal of passion. The book fairly crackles with brio. Yet reading it can feel a little like watching a Michael Moore movie. There is lots of good, hard-hitting stuff about the imbecilities of religious fanatics and frauds of all stripes, but the tone is smug and the logic occasionally sloppy. Dawkins fans accustomed to his elegant prose might be surprised to come across such vulgarisms as "sucking up to God" and "Nur Nurny Nur Nur" (here the author, in a dubious polemical ploy, is imagining his theological adversary as a snotty playground brat). It's all in good fun when Dawkins mocks a buffoon like Pat Robertson and fundamentalist pastors like the one who created "Hell Houses" to frighten sin-prone children at Halloween. But it is less edifying when he questions the sincerity of serious thinkers who disagree with him, like the late Stephen Jay Gould, or insinuates that recipients of the million-dollar-plus Templeton Prize, awarded for work reconciling science and spirituality, are intellectually dishonest (and presumably venal to boot). In a particularly low blow, he accuses Richard Swinburne, a philosopher of religion and science at Oxford, of attempting to "justify the Holocaust," when Swinburne was struggling to square such monumental evils with the existence of a loving God. Perhaps all is fair in consciousness-raising. But Dawkins's avowed hostility can make for scattershot reasoning as well as for rhetorical excess. Moreover, in training his Darwinian guns on religion, he risks destroying a larger target than he intends..."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Cod Fiddler
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 11:24 AM

I agree with that too. The tone is smug and sloppy and it is certainly not a particularly philosohpical work. However, "there is lots of good, hard-hitting stuff about the imbecilities of religious fanatics and frauds of all stripes", which is just what we need.

His sloppy tone is directed entirely at the sloppy insults levelled at him by people who have been the snotty playground brat for decades. Its about time they are put in their place.

Here is a typical "spoiled playground brat" ranting at the creators of the magnifcent Flying Spaghetti Monster:

"You Atheists are so arrogant. Don't you ever consider that you're wrong about this whole 'There's no god and 90% of the world's population are just dumber than us.' thing, and admit you havn't even considered christianity to be what it is, the truth? Don't you realize why everyone hates you? Beecuase you're ignorant+arrogant, not a nice combo.Oh well….you'll have your time to pay. Unfortunately it lasts an eternity and consists of a lake of fire, a guy in red with a pitchfork, and a few pineapples (Don't act like you don't know what they are for).

As for me, i'll be chillin with Jesus. Have fun for the rest of your godless, pointless lives…cuz that's the last bit of joy you'll ever have."

How do you get through to someone like this? Philosphy doesn't work. Can't blame him for being smug when dealing with such loonies. Shouldn't people question their beliefs? Religious indoctrination is no better than Socialist, Nazi or any other sort of indoctrination.

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about Bush? Where's a sniper when you need one? Sadly, Bush wouldn't be seen anywhere near a Book Depository...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:17 PM

I'm agree Kendall! Let's orginize! HeHeHe

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:22 PM

And now we have the same phenomenon, from the other side. Like Bushites tar anybody who disagrees with them with the brush of lack of patriotism, the critics of fundamentalism seem to delight in lumping all religious people in with a few crackpots of the Falwell stripe.

Doesn't anybody believe in shades of gray around here?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 02:23 PM

True enough there wasn't any US embassy in Baghdad from 67 to 84. But that didn't mean there wasn't any contact more, especially with the war of aggression waged by Iraq against its neighbour in 1980.

I wrote about involvement "before and during the war upon Iran" - and "before" was incorrect, so far as government contact was concerned. Though I do have some doubts about whether Saddam would have risked this attack without some assurances about how the USA would view it.

However during most of the war American support for the aggressors was very significant indeed. It was very clear that an Iranian victory would not be accepted by America as an outcome to the war.

The eventual ceasefire happened in the wake of the episode where USS Vincennes shot down a civilian Iranian airliner, killing all 290 people abroad, which must have helped to get that message across to the Iranian leaders. (And I'm not assuming this was a deliberate act of policy aimed at achieving this effect - but it must have looked like that from Tehran, whatever the actual explanation might have been.)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 02:49 PM

RD certainly does not believe in shades of gray when he accuses Bush of running a propaganda campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:22 PM

Dickey - You seem to think that anyone who believes in fundamental human rights is a Commie, a Socialist or a Left Wing radical.   

Does this mean that you think human rights should only apply to a select few or do you apply it only certain groups of people?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 04:01 PM

In Bush's case it is because so many of the shades of gray fall near the black end of the spectrum, Dickey. Distinctions grow difficult when swamped by a morass of mindless identifications, garrulous rhetoric full of wild generalities and a disregard for the provenance of information and its quality.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 09:15 PM

"Doesn't anybody believe in shades of gray around here? "

"Fundalmentalists", by definition, can't...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,ETR
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 09:34 PM

dianavan writ:"Dickey - You seem to think that anyone who believes in fundamental human rights is a Commie, a Socialist or a Left Wing radical.   

Does this mean that you think human rights should only apply to a select few or do you apply it only certain groups of people?"

Trying hard to type while laughing- when did Commies, Socialists, or Left Wing radicals ever give more than lip service to human rights?

10 million dead Russian peasants would like to know the answer to that one.
Ditto at least a million Cambodians
Ditto a rather numerous number of dead Chinese
Ditto a starved million of N. Koreans
Not to mention the nation of Burma/ Myanmar.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 09:49 PM

You should read a good book by a very successful career capitalist: "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins

In it you will find much that will surprise you.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 12:44 AM

Dianavan:

I don't know how you draw that conclusion. You claim you support human rights but you support Iran, Hezbollah etc. who do not suppport human rights, only terorisim.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 12:55 AM

I'm so glad I'm not involved in this conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 01:42 AM

LH: Have you read Perkins' books on time travel, headshrinkers, shapeshifting and Shamanisim?

Psychonavigation: Techniques for Travel Beyond Time.

Shapeshifting: Shamanic Techniques for Global and Personal Transformation.

The Spirit of the Shuar (headshrinkers and not the medical type)

And here is the real apex of them all:
The World Is As You Dream It: "shamanistic techniques from the Amazon and Andes."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 02:12 AM

Dickey - I do not support Iran or Hezbollah any more than I support the U.S.A.

I support the people of the Middle East and their right to control their resources.   

The govt. of the U.S. has no right to impoverish the people of the Middle East by waging war and stealing their resources. If the people of the Middle East think that Hezbollah, etc. can protect them from the aggression of the United States and Israel, I do not blame them.   

For the people of the Middle East they have only two choices - Fight or flight. What would you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 07:46 AM

"For the people of the Middle East they have only two choices - Fight or flight. What would you do? "

So, YOU admit that Israel is justified in fighting the terrorists that have the declared intention of its destruction? Like Hamas?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 09:05 AM

"For the people of the Middle East they have only two choices - Fight or flight. What would you do? "

'So, YOU admit that Lebannon, West Bank, etc is justified in fighting the terrorists that have the declared intention of its destruction? Like Israel?'

Hey, this is a Music Forum, remember?

"Here we go round the Mulberry Bush,
the Mulberry Bush,
the Mulberry Bush,
Here we go round the Mulberry Bush,
Mudcat Mass Debating again!"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 11:44 AM

Inky pinky ponky
Daddy had a donkey
Donkey died,
Daddy cried,
Inky pinky ponky.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 01:53 PM

>>"For the people of the Middle East they have only two choices - Fight or flight. What would you do? "

So, YOU admit that Israel is justified in fighting the terrorists that have the declared intention of its destruction? Like Hamas?<<

I can't spoke for her but for me, yes, I admit it freely. Israel has that right. When has that ever been under dispute? What I'm saying is that the United States has no business aiding them. Isreal can act as brutally and childishly as they want to but the U.S. has no right to aid them in it. If they cannot survive on their own, they don't deerve to. Survival of the fittest.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 03:11 PM

Fundamentalists, true, don't see shades of gray. But the problem is that not all religious people are fundamentalists---yet around here the assumption frequently is that they are. Hence the rather intemperate characterizations of "organized religion" often seen here.

And, Dickey, the fact is that Bush did carry out a propaganda campaign between summer 2002 and March 2003. There is no doubt about that--and you have provided absolutely no clear evidence against it--despite wasting a lot of time trying to do so.   TIA, Captain Ginger, and I (among others) have provided many clear examples of that campaign.    In that, there are no shades of gray.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 06:56 PM

"Bush did carry out a propaganda campaign between summer 2002 and March 2003"

Once someone has done that, and been exposed, they are trusted less.

Mr Mulberry (George!) cried 'Wolf!' over Iraq - why would I believe him (and all his past vocal supporters!) about Iran - or anywhere else?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 09:25 AM

Dianavan,

Do YOU agree with

" GUEST,282RA - PM
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 01:53 PM

>>"For the people of the Middle East they have only two choices - Fight or flight. What would you do? "

So, YOU admit that Israel is justified in fighting the terrorists that have the declared intention of its destruction? Like Hamas?<<

I can't spoke for her but for me, yes, I admit it freely. Israel has that right. When has that ever been under dispute? What I'm saying is that the United States has no business aiding them. Isreal can act as brutally and childishly as they want to but the U.S. has no right to aid them in it. If they cannot survive on their own, they don't deerve to. Survival of the fittest. "?



282RA,

So you would also object to Iran helping the Palestinians? Or is that a different case?

How about the Syrians helping Hezbollah?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 09:31 AM

"If they cannot survive on their own, they don't deerve to. Survival of the fittest. "?



And how about Iran helping Iraq? Wouldn't this apply to the Iraqi insurgents?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:03 PM

>>282RA,

So you would also object to Iran helping the Palestinians? Or is that a different case?

How about the Syrians helping Hezbollah?<<

I have no problem with that whatsoever but I would have HUGE problems with the U.S. helping them.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:15 PM

How about everyone stop interfering in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, and the bits of the Holy Land that aren't in Israel? No troops, no supplying arms or technical support for military equipment. Wouldn't that be something!

Perhaps the USA could start the process by putting an offer to do that on the table.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 03:28 PM

"Fight or flight"

How did you come to that conclusion Dianavan?

Is there a fight or flight only option in Turkey?

And the last time I looked, Israel was in the middle east so they derserve your support too.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 03:54 PM

"I have no problem with that whatsoever but I would have HUGE problems with the U.S. helping them."


So you claim that other countries have rights that the US does not?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 03:58 PM

Recalling your ""If they cannot survive on their own, they don't deerve to. Survival of the fittest. ", your comment regarding the US is both hypocritical and evidence of a bigoted mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 04:19 PM

>>So you claim that other countries have rights that the US does not?<<

I don't care if they have the right or not. I just want the U.S. out of everybody else's business. It isn't helping them and it isn't helping us so enough already. If another nation is insane enough to want to be the world's policemen, have at it.

>>Recalling your ""If they cannot survive on their own, they don't deerve to. Survival of the fittest. ", your comment regarding the US is both hypocritical and evidence of a bigoted mind.<<

Doesn't matter whether it is or not. The bottom line is, I am now an isolationist thanks to George Bush. We just can't continue meddling in other country's affairs because we're no longer welcome and no longer trusted to do what's right. As a result, I want us out of all global conflicts while we lick our wounds and figure out where we went wrong (besides electing Mr. Cocksucker to the Oval Orifice). The rest can battle it out between them and winner take all.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 04:20 PM

Whoops, that last post was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 04:32 PM

No one deserves our support. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 04:40 PM

If the U.S. were invaded, Canada would help because our own security might be at risk.

However, neighbors helping neighbors is a completely different thing than invading a country half a world away.

Don't forget, Iran and Iraq are neighbors. For all you know, they may be standing by in case the Iraqi government needs them.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 06:27 PM

"However, neighbors helping neighbors is a completely different thing than invading a country half a world away.

Don't forget, Iran and Iraq are neighbors. For all you know, they may be standing by in case the Iraqi government needs them."



And Israel and Lebanon are neighbors, so no morre complaints about Israeli troops going into Lebenon. - Just look at the violence in Lebenon because of Hezbollah...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 06:29 PM

That might hold true if Israel were merely standing by in case Lebanon needed them. We all know thats not what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 07:38 PM

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 07:57 PM

Oh...does the expression "aluminum tubes" bring anything to mind?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 08:07 PM

They hold up my tent?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 08:19 PM

Of course there was a relationship between Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaida. Much the same relationship as between the USA and al-Qaeda.

They loathed each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 11:26 PM

Dianavan:

Are Iran and Lebanon neighbors?

"we're no longer welcome and no longer trusted to do what's right."

But Iran is welcome and trusted to do what is right?

RD:

All I have seen is personal opinions about what GWB said and no one that was convinced by the alleged propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 03:12 AM

Dickey, love, why not just give up gracefully rather than continue to bluster disgracefully?
You're not going to make anyone think any differently, however loudly you insist that the earth is flat. All you're going to do is make people think you're an irritant rather than someone with whom it's worth bantering.
Why not post some stuff above the line. This is a music forum, not simply somewhere where the mad can wander in off the streets for a McDump.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 03:16 AM

You display that you are.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 03:20 AM

Sorry Capt'n - you just got in before me...


"not simply somewhere where the mad can wander in off the streets for a McDump. "


ROFLMAO....

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 08:28 AM

Carrots, I don't believe anyone is "blustering" apart from yourself and Ron Davies. As yet neither of you have put up any form of arguement to counter the points put forward by Guest Dickey.

As long as anyone keeps repeating the same old tired lies, misrepresentations and myths regarding events, they are going to find themselves pulled up on them.

There was no propaganda campaign deliberately instigated by the Bush Administration to link Iraq to the attacks of 911 over the period carefully selected by Ron Davies. Or before or since for that matter. Just because the pair of you keep saying that there was, and just because the pair of you believe that there was, does not make it true that there was.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 08:52 AM

When the Bush haters are asked if they believe what they are saying about the alleged propaganda, they have to resort to methods such as personal attacks to avoid answering.

The mad person looking for a McDump is a perfect example if using derision to support non existent facts.

When someone repeats something they do not believe, they do so in hopes that someone else will believe it. Isn't that the essence of propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 09:55 AM

*sigh*
About twelve years ago in this thread (or another very similar thread) it was pointed out that propaganda doesn't come wrapped in paper stamped 'propaganda', and that there are implicit as well as explicit meanings.
Trouble is, that's too bloody subtle for some people here.

Do phrases like Dick Cheney's "Iraq has long-establlished ties with Al Queda" mean anything?
And in the past 12 months we've had the tacit linking of 9/11 and Iraq yet again by Bush: "...imagine a world in which you had a Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life...imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens."

Or shall we go farther back? OK, let's go on a tripe down memory lane...

Condoleeza Rice, September 2006: "We know that Zarqawi was running a poisons network in Iraq… There were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda"

Bush, June 2004: ""The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,"

Cheney, July 2004: ""He (Saddam Hussein) cultivated ties to terrorist groups." "If we had not acted… the terror network would still enjoy the support and protection of the regime…"

Bush, May 2003, in his "Mission Accomplished" address: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."

Bush, March 2003: "…the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

And before the invasion...

Cheney, March 2003: "We know he's [Saddam] out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization."

Rice, March 2003: "And secondly, a very strong link to training al Qaeda in chemical and biological weapons techniques. We know from a detainee that -- the head of training for al Qaeda, that they sought help in developing chemical and biological weapons because they weren't doing very well on their own. They sought it in Iraq. They received the help."

Rice, march 2003: "Now the al Qaeda is an organization that's quite disbursed and -- and quite widespread in its effects, but it clearly has had links to the Iraqis, not to mention Iraqi links to all kinds of other terrorists. And what we do not want is the day when Saddam Hussein decides that he's had enough of dealing with sanctions, enough of dealing with, quote, unquote, "containment," enough of dealing with America, and it's time to end it on his terms, by transferring one of these weapons, just a little vial of something, to a terrorist for blackmail or for worse."

Paul Wolfowitz, February 2003: "And, worst of all, his [Saddam Hussein] connections with terrorists, which go back decades, and which started some 10 years ago with al Qaeda, are growing every day."

Colin Powell, February 2003; "But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants."

Bush, January 2003: "[Colin Powell] will also talk about al Qaeda links, links that really do portend a danger for America and for Great Britain, anybody else who loves freedom….
The war on terror includes people who are willing to train and to equip organizations such as al Qaeda…And as I have said repeatedly, Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill and leave no fingerprints behind."

Bush, October 2002: "After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army."

Bush, September 2002: " Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world…[Y]ou can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

Richard Perle, July 2002: "This evidence is very powerful. There is collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, which means to destroy us. It entails chemical weapons, biological weapons, training in their application. And he's working on nuclear weapons. The message is very clear - we have no time to lose, Saddam must be removed from office. Every day that goes by is a day in which we are exposed to dangers on a far larger scale than the tragedy of September 11."

Is that clear enough, Terry'n'Dickey?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 10:08 AM

There was no propaganda campaign deliberately instigated by the Bush Administration to link Iraq to the attacks of 911 over the period carefully selected by Ron Davies. Or before or since for that matter.
So, Terry, if I put a dollop of brown sauce on those words, would you like to eeat them? ;-)
And any chance of any answers to some earlier points, or am I still just 'talking to the hand'?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 10:34 AM

Dianavan

That might hold true if Iran were merely standing by in case Iraq needed them. We all know thats not what is happening.


Israel attacked Hezbollah in response to Hezbollah attacks on Israel and the kidnapping of several Israeli soldiers- ( and when will Hezbollah return them, as the UN ceasefire requires?). Look at the present deadly unrest in Lebanon- Hezbollah vs the government. So, WHO is the better neighbor- Israel, who attacked Hezbollah, or the Syrians and Iranians, who, against the terms of the ceasefire, are resupplying Hezbollah?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 02:22 PM

Actually BB, Iran was probably keeping an eye on things and making sure the U.S. knew it. Who knows? One thing for sure, it cannot be considered an invasion.

This is thread drift. If you want to discuss the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah, then start a new thread. Don't forget to mention the number of men, women and children that Israel have imprisoned.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 03:06 PM

Here's Dubya lying about something that's obviously false:

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.

Note that this speech was long after the invasion. And Dubya's repeated this same claim a couple of times since.

Dubya's a lying sack'o'sh*te.... It's not even second-nature to him; it's instinctual.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 04:08 PM

A few more for the Captain's list:



"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq." Rumsfeld, October 2004

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming. It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials." Cheney, June 2004

"There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." Cheney, January 2004

"Iraq has been the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Cheney, September 2004



It's just too easy to find little gems like these. No propaganda my arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 04:11 PM

Cheers TIA.
Quiet in here tonight, innit? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 05:07 PM

for a second time, let me post :

" did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."


Where do you find ANY of this to be false?

Did he have a prohibited weapons program? YES, according to the UN report.

Did the UN demand that he allow inspectors in? YES

Did he allow them the access that the UN had specified? NO, according to the UN report.

So?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 05:27 PM

Why is it that when Israel take prisoners it's called "captured" and when Hezbollah doies it's "kipnapped"?

And no, that doesn't mean I consider holding on to captured prisoners is acceptable, it's a war crime - whoever does it, Hezbollah, Israel or the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 05:32 PM

And I think, Captain Ginger you might have to wait a long time before any of the Propaganda Deniers eats their words, or even acknowledges your impressive catalogue. But perhaps they might be a bit more careful saying that kind of thing in future.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 05:35 PM

"Why is it that when Israel take prisoners it's called "captured" and when Hezbollah doies it's "kipnapped"? "

For the same reason that an Israeli crossing of the border is an "invasion", and a Hezbollah crossing is a "raid".

Israel is a nation, Hezbollah is a (terrorist) group.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 05:47 PM

""...imagine a world in which you had a Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life...imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.""

All true statements. Are you saying that Saddam was NOT stirring up trouble in that part of the world?

Or that he did not have a WMD program, as found by the UN?

Or that he did not pay the families of suicide bombers money?


Please be specific, and tell me what you object to in this statement>

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 05:58 PM

Didn't Bush once say that there is no connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government? So that one truth compensates for all those lies or was he lying then too? Trouble with lies is that you can't keep track of them with the truth it's always the same. Captain, stop you're killing me with truths.

"did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program" of "WMD"

No but we're still looking even though Bush has now said there were none.

Has Bush lied? You couldn't name as many times that he has told the truth.
Well if he said all those statements above it would lead me to believe that he tried at the very least to lead me astray.
Please.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 06:00 PM

Bruce, you really don't get it poppet - that statement was one of a few that I posted to point out that the US administration had tried to link 9/11 and Iraq. Your reaction would seem to indicate that you, too, have fallen for it.
Bless!
Terry's very subdued tonight, isn't he? Someone put bromide in his cocoa or summat?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 07:30 PM

O.K., O.K.

Maybe Bush didn't lie. Maybe he's just too stupid to know whats really going on or maybe he's so arrogant he doesn't care.

Either way, he's going to go down as one of the most despised presidents of all time and the people who supported him will be called fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 07:46 PM

Either fools or malicious deceivers.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 11:22 PM

Teribus' obedient acolyte, Dickey, is also suddenly a bit subdued on the subject of the propaganda campaign. Amazing how that happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:15 AM

Due to a lack of facts, Ron must continue his belligerent personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:49 AM

Copy cat Dickey!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:25 AM

Not really all that quiet Carrots. You have come late to this, had you followed Ron's stipulated period of time you could have saved yourself half the typing time it took you to come out with your "so-called-comprehensive" list.

Going through your examples, I find:

- much is cherry-picked for effect and taken out of context
- the way you have chosen to present your later examples, you cloud the issue as to whether the Al-Qaeda being referred to is "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" or OBL's "Al-Qaeda" currently believed to be scuttling about from secret location to secret location in the mountains of the Hindu Cush.

Ansar-Al-Islam is what kind of organisation Carrots? Where did they seek refuge and when? Given the nature of Saddam's regime in Iraq, who would have had to have been involved in granting them sanctuary and allowing them to set up shop in Iraq albeit as a marriage of convenience?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:58 AM

Ah, Terry, you master of equivocation; you are a veritable antithesis of Gallileo, muttering under torture that the Earth "is still a little bit flat"!
There was no propaganda campaign deliberately instigated by the Bush Administration to link Iraq to the attacks of 911 over the period carefully selected by Ron Davies. Or before or since for that matter.
The list I quote is by no means comprehensive and shoots your claim out of the water. If even one of the statements on that list is true (and they all are - I can provide links to the primary sources and context for each and every one if you like) then your categorical insistence is wrong.
I've noticed that when you are proved wrong you wriggle once or twice and then you go quiet, letting the thread drop and heading off for more furious cut and paste in another thread. Shall we see what happens here?

And, apropos your nit-picking, let me see...

Al Qaeda is not a structured entity; anyone can call themselves Al Qaeda (and do). Think of it in terms of a franchising operation, where a group of radicalised Muslims, by endorsing the relatively simplistic ethos of Bin Laden, become to all intents and purposes 'Al Qaeda'. With the exception of 9-11, the Cole attack and the African Embassy bombings, most Al Queda operatons appear to be autonomous and largely home-grown, with little evidence of external quartermastering or steering. As such your distinction is irrelevant. How am I 'clouding the issue'? To contextualise Rice's comment on September 10 last year, the interviewer on Fox News Sunday asked her: "Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful CB knowledge or assistance. Didn't you and the president ignore intelligence that contradicted your case?"
Rice's direct reply was: "We know that Zarqawi was running a poisons network in Iraq… There were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
Does that help make things clearer in your mind, Terry?

Ansar al Islam is a radical Kurdish group operating in Northern Iraq which has links to Al Qaeda. It was estimated at some 700 strong in 2002, and was not representative of or supported by the Iraqi government. Its leader, Mullah Krekar, has denied any association with the Ba'ath regime in Iraq and and declared his hostility to Saddam Hussein. Such links as exist would seem to have been akin to those between HMG and PIRA - largely one-sided and based on infiltration and informants.
If you are now about to spring upon us some post-hoc justification for the invasion based on Ansar al Islam, it would be like trying to justify a British attack on the USA because NORAID was based there.

So Terry, a couple more wriggles and then off to another thread, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:14 AM

Captain Ginger,

And YOU, old chum, have fallen for the idea that any fact you do not like can be labeled as propaganda and ignored. Perhaps you should determine the truth of what people say BEFORE you declare that it can't be considered because YOU do not like what it says about the real world.

I will listen to any facts YOU present- but to declare a true statement to be propaganda seems a little unreasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:19 AM

"to declare a true statement to be propaganda seems a little unreasonable. "

But some propaganda statements ARE true!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:21 AM

So I can presume that what YOU state, even if true, is propaganda?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:25 AM

I fail to see how labeling valid statements as propaganda contributes to a reasonable discussion of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:26 AM

So I can presume that what YOU state, even if true, is propaganda?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:29 AM

YOU may presume whatever you want. It is the relationship between your statements and the real world that I will continue to call into question.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:34 AM

YOU may presume whatever you want. It is the relationship between your statements and the real world that I will continue to call into question.


I think there's an echo in here.... or two minds with but a single train of thought....

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:36 AM

Since you agree as far as truth is concerned, please try to offer true statements instead of blanket accusations in the future. That would make the discussion at least interesting if not actually worthwhile.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:59 AM

Oops!
Sorry, I phrased myself rather clumsily back there - when I wrote "If even one of the statements on that list is true...and they all are", what I meant was that every one was a true statement, and not hearsay or an invention; a statement uttered by the person named, and I that I could cite when and where.
The statements themselves are, of course, for the most part either untrue or part truths or conflations.
I do hope that clears things up a tad. Sorry to have wasted your time and rendered your last few posts irrelevant, bbruce!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:07 AM

"The statements themselves are, of course, for the most part either untrue or part truths or conflations."

Neither a true statement, nor one you have presented any evidence of. YOUR statement that something is untrue requires at least an appearance of justification.

Or will you accept, without any evidence, that the statements refered to are true and valid representations of reality?......I think not. So why should I accept your blanket " of course, for the most part either untrue or part truths or conflations."?


Or have YOU been given some God-like dispensation from having to justify your accusations?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:12 AM

I'm so sorry, I couldn't resist a follow-up...
I've just stumbled across the phrase That would make the discussion at least interesting if not actually worthwhile. and nearly swamped myself.
Huzzah for bb for perhaps the most breathtaking and amuisng piece of pomposity so far on this thread. I do hope Terry and Dickey feel suitably chagrined at being out-windbagged so impressively. Hats off to beardedbruce - I think we've found the next editor of the Skibbereen Eagle!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:17 AM

BB, do you really want me to cite the provenance of each of those statements, complete with reasons for its refutation?
See your PMs (It's a long one, but it will provide the detail you seem to require)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:21 AM

Since you agree as far as truth is concerned, please try to offer true statements instead of blanket accusations in the future. That would make the discussion at least interesting if not actually worthwhile.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:28 AM

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:37 AM

I won't bore you with the 3,000-word PM I've just sent to beardedbruce, but the simple refuation of the neo-cons' claims can be found at the following links: 9/11 Panel sees no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda
Maj Gen Bastide's testimony to "An Oversight Hearing on the Planning and Conduct of the War in Iraq"
The US Senate select committee on intelligence, "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments", particularly pages 65, 67, 73 and 109.
A British Defence Intelligence briefing refuting links between Iraq and Al Queda.
Anyone seen anythng of our Terry?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:47 AM

CG,

Your reports are all AFTER the invasion- Are you claiming that Bush should have read reports that did not get written until 2-3 years after he made the statements you attempt to refute? The statement of facts as known art the time is what is in question.

Did "The Czech interior minister said
today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of
the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the
synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."?

What was the assessment of the U.N. in reports PRIOR to the invasion?

What was the assessment of other nation's intelligence services PRIOR to the invasions as to Saddam?

Did Saddam show support for terrorists PRIOR to the invasion? THAT is known to be so- the only question is which terrorists. Or do you ignor cash payments to suicide bombers?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:51 AM

As I said before Carrots:

"cherry-picked for effect and taken out of context"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:03 AM

"Your reports are all AFTER the invasion"

... based on material in existence BEFORE the invasion...

or are you now trying to say that the information was only made up AFTER the invasion?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:04 AM

"based on material in existence BEFORE the invasion..."

Please provide some evidence of this claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:05 AM

BB - the issue at hand is whether or not the US administration has attempted to link 9/11 and Iraq. Terry and Dickey swore on their mothers' lives that no such linkage had ever been made. I merely provided examples of where it had,
The fact that such links continued to be made after the invasion is even more craven. And the fact that they continued implicitly to be made after those reports simply beggars belief.
So, to return to square one - is there proof that Bush lied? I haven't seen a smoking gun, but on the evidence I have seen I don't trust him to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
Terry, would you like the contextualised version I sent to BB (or, to save me the effort, Bruce, why don't you forward it to Terry when you've done checking it for fibs and loopholes)?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:09 AM

""based on material in existence BEFORE the invasion..."

Please provide some evidence of this claim. "


(Puts fingers in ears)

La la la, la la la, la la la...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:11 AM

CG,

See my comments re PM.

"that no such DIRECT linkage had ever been made"

And YOU have shown no DIRECT linkage between those post-war reports and the pre-war intelligence that the UN resolutions, and subsequent invasion, were based on. Using the words Iraq and Al-queda in the same paragraph is not direct linkage.

Did Saddam support terrorists LIKE those who committed 9/11? The answer is YES- he provided support to suicide bombers. KNOWN FACT

Did Saddam have an active WMD program? YES- as shown in captured documentation, as well as the U.N. reports

Was Saddam in violation of the cease-fire terms of the Kuwait war? YES, as stated by the UN reports and numerous U. N. resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:12 AM

One of the most telling comments in the links I posted was from Bastide, who told the Senate that before the invasion: "There was a fixation to find the connection between al-Queda and Saddam Hussein."
The senate report also states that the CIA dismissed Saddam-Al Qaeda ties before the invasion. Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," said the CIA. Before the invasion.
The British briefing mention earlier was also before the invasion.
Honestly, you do have to spell it out for some peope, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:13 AM

So, fooles, you have no such evidence. Your statement is thus invalid, and of no effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:14 AM

I live next to a mad woman - seriously, I've mentioned it here previously - and it's a waste of time trying to be rational with her either...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:16 AM

"It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war
Saddam's government "did not have a
relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to
excerpts of the 400-page report."

The wording states that the OCTOBER 2005 report reached that conclusion, NOT that it was concluded before the war. The CONCLUSION was that before the war there was no relationship.

Somewhat of a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:18 AM

Fooles,

Your comment is a personnal attack, and de-facto proof that you have lost the arguement.

Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:22 AM

Sorry Bruce, you're losing me there.
Ditch the upper case text and try writing in sentences - subject, verb, object; you remember? I'm afraid when I see the phrase "Known Fact" written in upper case I think of a tedious drunk in a bar jabbing his forefinger into one's chest in a haze of beer flecked spittle.

Did the US administration make false claims of links between Saddam's regime and Al Queda? And what do post-mortem payments to the families of suicide bombers in occupied Palestine have to do with the price of fish?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:24 AM

BB - No need to argue with us. You must refute the 9/11 Commission Report and the Duelfer Report (among others, but let's start with those). Please go through 'em with a highlighter and mark the mistaken or poorly-sourced passages, then get back to us with the details, 'kay?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:33 AM

"And what do post-mortem payments to the families of suicide bombers in occupied Palestine have to do with the price of fish? "

""…the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other
countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001."

Or do you consider that suicide bombers are NOT terrorists? The group
listed is inclusive- it states

"international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:35 AM

Sorry, TIA, no such thing. YOU must show that the intelligence that Bush acted on was KNOW TO BE FALSE AT THE TIME. Those reports are drawn from sources not available until after the invasion, unless you can prove otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:35 AM

BB - read the document. The CIA's report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted in September 2002 that the CIA did not have "credible intelligence reporting" of operational collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda. It adds "al-Qaida, including Bin Ladin personally, and Saddam were leery of close cooperation."
The main source for the CIA's earlier claim that Iraq had trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases was the now recanted claims of captured al-Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. The CIA has since recalled and reissued all its intelligence reporting about al-Libi's recanted claims.
You're going to have to raise your game, Brucie baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:38 AM

"The main source for the CIA's earlier claim that Iraq had trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases was the now recanted claims of captured al-Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. The CIA has since recalled and reissued all its intelligence reporting about al-Libi's recanted claims."


"now recanted...SINCE...reissue"

So you now demand that all decisions be based on information that will not be available until AFTER the decision is made?

DDo you backdate checks, too?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:39 AM

And TIA has it in a nutshell. Your argument is really rather pointless, isn't it?
It's like continuing to argue "the earth isn't entirely flat; it's dish-shaped" - after it has been proven to you that the earth is actually round!
If you do have issues with the findings of the various august bodies that have considered the issues since the invasion I suggest you write to them in green ink and in capitals.
Now be off about your business, there's a love.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:41 AM

The facts are irrelvant - you have another 'victory'!

"Never argue with a fool - onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:45 AM

"all decisions be based on information that will not be available until AFTER the decision is made?"

Called 'the viewpoint of History'.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:46 AM

CG, old chum, you have never addressed my request for how reports post-invasion, using intelligence not available at the time, prove anything in regards to what was known at the time that the decision was made. Please see my cited facts, and tell me which ones are false.


Are you saying that Saddam was NOT stirring up trouble in that part of the world?

Or that he did not have a WMD program, as found by the UN?

Or that he did not pay the families of suicide bombers money?


Did he have a prohibited weapons program? YES, according to the UN report.

Did the UN demand that he allow inspectors in? YES

Did he allow them the access that the UN had specified? NO, according to the UN report.

Did "The Czech interior minister said
today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of
the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the
synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."?

What was the assessment of the U.N. in reports PRIOR to the invasion?

What was the assessment of other nation's intelligence services PRIOR to the invasions as to Saddam?

Did Saddam show support for terrorists PRIOR to the invasion? THAT is known to be so- the only question is which terrorists. Or do you ignor cash payments to suicide bombers?

Did Saddam support terrorists LIKE those who committed 9/11? The answer is YES- he provided support to suicide bombers. KNOWN FACT

Did Saddam have an active WMD program? YES- as shown in captured documentation, as well as the U.N. reports

Was Saddam in violation of the cease-fire terms of the Kuwait war? YES, as stated by the UN reports and numerous U. N. resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:52 AM

It is a damn shame that the 9/11 Panel did not spend hours taking testimony from BB. The report would have turned out so much clearer.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:52 AM

Called 'the viewpoint of History'.


All very well, but not significant in regards to whether Bush knowingly lied or misled anyone. If he, and others, believed that the facts they had led to the conclusion they came to, there was no lie.

Given the facts as known at the time ( until you show otherwise) one has to accept that Bush acted in an appropriate manner, and made a good decision.

I will agree that the execution of the war had serious flaws, but the justification for it was reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:54 AM

TIA,

try reading my posts.

21 Feb 07 - 09:35 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:58 AM

Did the UN conclude by saying "Invade Iraq"?


Oh, and on the Atta story, do read what the head of Czech foreign intelligence says here. In a nutshell, he says reports of a pre 9/11 meeting between Atta and Iraqi agent al-Ani are "unproved and implausible". Speaking before the invasion, he says that promoting a so-called "Prague connection" between Atta and al-Ani might have been a ploy by US policymakers seeking justification for action against Saddam.
But you wouldn't be interested in that, would you bb?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:01 AM

from your clicky:

"Interior Minister Stanislav Gross, in an Oct. 26, 2001 press conference, confirmed at least one meeting between the two men, but refused to reveal further details. The existence of an encounter has been debated since then.

In May, American media quoted senior U.S. government sources as insisting the meeting never happened, attributing its creation to overzealous Czech officials.

These disclaimers led Prague's envoy to the UN, Hynek Kmonicek, to reiterate in June that an encounter had taken place. "




If you can't trust the U.N., who can you trust??????

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:05 AM

Bruce, no offence but on balance I'd rather trust the director of Czech foreign intelligence on this one. You stated it as a fact, he pisses on it from a medium height. What is a poor scmuck to think?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:08 AM

Perhaps the director was protecting humintel sources- I don't know. But the Czech government seems to have confirmed the meeting, and THAT was a fact ( the confirmation, not the meeting).

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:32 AM

Bottom line is that some folks cannot come face to face with the fact that Furless Liter is a pathological misstater of facts and a spinner of realities.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:50 AM

Amos,

You state as fact something that seems to be an opinion.


I would have expected YOU to be more precise.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:14 PM

I'm inclined to say that the Earth goes round the Sun, and smoking causes Cancer. But that's only my opinion of course, based on my opinion that the evidence is pretty overwhelming. Feel free to believe what you want...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:20 PM

All this begs the question: Why hasn't Bush been impeached yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:51 PM

McG,

" my opinion that the evidence is pretty overwhelming"

But the opinion presented has no evidence presented at all. Much more of an underwhelming thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:51 PM

To be quite honest, I dunno, except that so far no-one thought they had a clear shot at him it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:10 PM

Oh I read 'em.

Now you read 9/11 Commission Report and Duelfer Report (and Downing Street Memo, and any number of NIE's and .....)

In there, you will find plenty of "facts" that were certainly available to those who could have (and should have) bothered to check carefully pre-war (with all the original source citations you could possibly want).

Certainly DO NOT trust the OPINIONS of TIA (or Amos or Captain Ginger). The FACTS are out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:15 PM

"Why hasn't Bush been impeached yet?"

Perhaps he's not worth the effort, time and money.

Lets wait until he's out of office and convict him of war crimes.

Just be glad BB and teribus aren't in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:06 PM

Hopefully the march on March 17th on DC will give the impeachment process a nudge foreward.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: guitar
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:36 PM

they all lie these politicians, however that is a apart of their job.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:45 PM

Teribus--


OK, since you and your faithful sidekick, Dickey ---(faithful sidekick for this year--next year it'll be somebody else)--- are still stalwart members of the Flat Earth Society:

Let's just try one quote at a time:

The scene is in the jailhouse--if the curfew rings tonight.

No, actually, the occasion was the Jan 2003 State of the Union speech--yes, Teribus, one of your old favorites:


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

I thought Carol--(haven't heard from her lately--hope she's OK)--put it well:



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

Did Bush link Saddam to Sept 11 in this sentence?



Simple questions.

Looking forward to wonderfully imaginative answers from a true master of fantasy--that's you, Teribus.

Perhaps Dickey will also reply-- though his grasp of the subject, unfortunately, has not been what one would have hoped.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:06 AM

Now some would say that that's not a lie Ron. He didn't actually say there was a connection, so it's just an untruth. So is it just a case of mis-direction?

SLAP, no you idiot, it was a bold faced lie deliberately told so that the world would make the connection & that was how the war was started, mis-direction, on purpose.

There was & still is no excuse for how this man "slicked" his way into the mess we're in & there surely is no way he's getting us out either. That we'll be our job. No thank you please.

His way out is through Iran, Syria & Jordan. He's not done with the mid east yet, unless we are done with him first. Will those backing him now still support him then? What will it take?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:39 AM

As selective as ever Ron. Just for once try telling the whole story so that anyone reading this thread gets things in perspective.

Quote what was said on the subject in the 2002 State Of the Union Address.

"Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested. Yet, tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it.

Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.

Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities.

While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere. We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia.

My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf.

But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will.

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."



Quote what was said on the subject in the 2003 State of the Union Address:

"And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes."

The matter under discussion in both cases was the War on Terror, why it had to be fought and how it would be fought.

Now Ron's Questions:

The Ron Quote:
Bush: "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained".

Ron Question 1:
"What happened on Sept 11 to cause many in the world to no longer believe that Saddam could be contained?"

The USA was subjected to an a-symetric attack carried out by an unidentified (at that time) international terrorist group. Immediately following those attacks a Joint House Security Committee tasked with identifying the greatest potential threat to the USA came to the conclusion that the greatest potential threat was:

An a-symetric attack on the United States of America carried out by a group of international terrorists armed with some form of weapon of mass destruction. That weapon either being self produced by the international terrorist group (Deemed highly unlikely), or supplied by a rogue state or regime at odds with the US (In the short term the most likely event).

The date and events of September 11th, 2001, therefore became a watershed in terms of threat evaluation.

Ron Question 2:
"Did Bush link Saddam to Sept 11 in this sentence?"

No he did not, what he said was that before the watershed of 11th September, 2001, a policy of containmment towards rogue states and regimes could be considered, post-911 it could not.

By the bye, those who quote and criticise GWB regarding his reference to "Axis of evil". Take a good look at what the man actually said, not what the populist press said he said:

"States like these (North Korea, Iran & Iraq), AND THEIR TERRORIST ALLIES, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 12:13 PM

Who gives a crap WHAT this ignoramus said in any speech or address whatsoever?

Its been proven time and time again that he lies virtually every time he opens his mouth. (or he lies by proxy by reading what the BuShites have put on the teleprompter for him)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:24 PM

Bush is devious.

He uses words like "could", "threat," "might", "possible" and "imagine" to invoke fear and panic in his citizens. He couples those words with "make no mistake" and "decisive" to make the listener believe that he can overpower the evil. His speech is intended to deceive the public and pump up his own inflated ego.

Call it lies or call it deception, its the same thing. As a world leader, he is obligated to be transparent and accountable. He is neither. He hides behind a cloak of Christianity and accepts no personal responsibility for his actions.

Now that one of his big secrets (torture) has been revealed, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain are all prosecuting his goons for their hand in extraordinary rendition. Apparently even Cheney is being called to task. Although these countries cannot make the men appear before their courts, they can try them in absentia.

Hopefully, one day, Bush will also see his day in court. Then we will see if Bush lies or if his cloak of deception will be able to protect him.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:16 PM

"Who gives a crap WHAT this ignoramus said in any speech or address whatsoever?"

Now that is the problem, very few posting on this forum do. What they do do, is believe anyone or any source that deliberately "invents" what he said, believe anyone or any source that selectively "quotes and reports" out of context. For just one refreshing minute why don't you actually listen to what is being said, instead of listening to a second hand report. Just for one refreshing minute read what was said, instead of reading what somebody else reporting on what was said.

No Dianavan, not devious, responsible. What is this man's responsibility with regard to the security of the United States of America? In the evaluation of anything the use of words like "could", "threat," "might", "possible" and "imagine" is common.

Dianavan: - "As a world leader, he is obligated to be transparent and accountable."

Just where on earth did you dig that line of complete and utter rubbish from!! That is ridiculous and flies against reality, take any national leader and try to apply the words "transparent" and "accountable" to any of them - The list would be damn short, if there was a list at all.

Notice Belgium was not on that list of countries Dianavan, I believe they tried that sort of crap before and lived to regret it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:36 PM

"What they do do, is believe anyone or any source that deliberately "invents" what he said, believe anyone or any source that selectively "quotes and reports" out of context. For just one refreshing minute why don't you actually listen to what is being said, instead of listening to a second hand report. Just for one refreshing minute read what was said, instead of reading what somebody else reporting on what was said."

Are we referring to the 911 Commission Report, the Duelfer Report, and various NIEs here? Did they "invent"? Did they "selectively quote"? Did they report what somebody else said was said?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:40 PM

TIA,

If you bother to read the post, the reference GIVEN was

""Who gives a crap WHAT this ignoramus said in any speech or address whatsoever?""

Do you really think you can make a valid comment about whether someone lied when you don't know what he said?


"FIrst the execution, then the trial" seems to be the standard that many here are advocating.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:49 PM

Well, teribus,

If Bush isn't transparent, then he is ambiguous, unclear and vague.

If Bush isn't accountable for what he says and does, he is irresponsible, unreliable and untrustworthy.

Not what I would consider good leadership qualities.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:25 PM

I think y'all are giving Bush too much credit.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:37 PM

What T gives above is a deceptive statment, Bush used this to terrorize the American people falsely. Bush used these falsehood to bring us into war. Tlak of WMD & this government supporting terrorism & that government doing something else. He's lumped all these evil nations with terrorist groups & tried to lead us all to believe it's one cmplete network. Of course these were lies, it sure wasn't the truth. No matter how it's spun it was deceptive & grossly wrong in it's content. Call it whatever you want, bottom line it's criminal & he needs to be tried in, not a court of his peers but in the World Court for War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:39 PM

The multi-nationals and Neocons will ensure THAT never happens!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:49 PM

BB: I have no idea what you just told me.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:58 PM

Ahem:

(/11 comission stated:

"No 'collaborative relationship' seen"
It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

"The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.""

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: pdq
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:07 PM

If you are going to accuse someone of lying, you must consider the following:
   
       1. the facts in the case also known as the truth

       2. you must have an absolutely accurate quote from the person in question (hint: you cannot make-up one to suit your purposes)

       3. you must be able to tell intent to deceive as opposed to faulty memory or an accidental mistake in facts

(Hint: I hate Bush therefore he lied is not good enough for any rational person.)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:10 PM

I choose ...

.3 Intent to deceive

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:11 PM

"beardedbruce":

for a second time, let me post :

[Arne]: "did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Where do you find ANY of this to be false?

The bolded part is quite obvious and blatant.

Did he have a prohibited weapons program? YES, according to the UN report.

No. Even the U.S. was reduced to using the mealy-mouthed "Weapons of mass destruction program related activities".

Did the UN demand that he allow inspectors in? YES

That wasn't one of the assertions.

Did he allow them the access that the UN had specified? NO, according to the UN report.

False. But immaterial. He let them in. While they were initially hassled, Saddam did ease up even on that, allowing inspections of the palaces and such, and Blix said that the co-operation was improving. But once again, that wasn't the assertion Dubya made.

So?

So Dubya's a liar. And you're an eedjit for refusing to admit it.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:14 PM

Barry Finn's post of 22 Feb 07 - 04:37 PM

Number of questions for you Barry:

1) The date is 20th March, 2003 - What falsehoods were used to "bring us into war".

2) "Talk of WMD & this government supporting terrorism & that government doing something else. He's lumped all these evil nations with terrorist groups & tried to lead us all to believe it's one cmplete network." Now tell us who lumped all these evil nations with terrorist groups:

Answer A - President Bill Clinton on 17th February, 1998
Answer B - Joint house Security Committee in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 11th September, 2001, when they were asked to identify what posed the greatest threat to the United States of America
Answer C - The Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America, during the last term of the Clinton Presidency.

Note Barry, GWB does not appear on that list because all of the above had put those pieces in place long before GWB made that State of the Union Address in January 2002.

3) The date is 20th March, 2003. What lies have been told? The world and its dog believe that Iraq is armed with WMD. The President of the United States of America has been advised by many sources that there is a threat and that he must act.

4) The date is 20th March, 2003. Call it whatever you want, bottom line is that it is duty and sole responsibility of the President of the United States of America to ensure the security of the United States of America and to defend it, and its best interests, against all threats. He can only do that by acting on the information and threat evaluations available at the time - he cannot, dare not, wait and see - A decision has to be made - True?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:22 PM

Ron, after it has been shown that he has nothing but sayso evidence, is back to square one again with his

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

Did Bush link Saddam to Sept 11 in this sentence? Question.

The answer once again is no, no, a thousand times no.

I think this is a sterling example of repeating the same actions and expecting different results.

Unless Ron can show some specific way that people were convinced by this statement that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11, his allegation is a non sequitur.

It has been shown that during Ron's specified period, Bush stated the opposite of what Ron claims he said and it has been shown that the number of people who thought Saddam was connected to 9/11 decreased during that time.

Additionally it has been shown that prior to 9/11, even prior to the Bush administration, much of what is blamed on an imaginary Bush propaganda campaign was already public sentiment.

Ron obviously believes he can wear people down with at least six methods that I can identify:

The use of personal attacks to try to discredit the person, thereby discrediting anything they have to say. I have nothing bad to say about Ron except that I think some of his opinions are wrong. He is obviously intelligent but the reaches the wrong conclusions and is unsuccessful in supporting them.

He constantly asks for proof which he immediately claims is not proof, it is wrong and than claims no proof was presented. At the same time he is claiming no proof was presented, he has no proof other than his opinion which he can only support with personal attacks.

During his denials of proof, he makes some sort of a side statement and demands that it be responded to. If the person does not respond he tries to use that as proof that his original allegation is true.

He avoids answering simple yes or no questions by asking another question. The he claims he has answered the question asked of him but his question was not answered.

After he has runs out of material and has gotten nowhere, he wants to start all over again like the man with the stage fright

He stated the the best way to loose an argument is to get mad so he constantly tries to provoke the person who disagrees with him.

I think Ron needs to do better.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:28 PM

I do wish that the people who lied to Bush had been called to account. I have trouble believing that Bush wasn't a willing participant in one of the larger robberies in history--that is, the American taxpayer has contributed billions of dollars into a slush fund called the Iraq War, and many companies are making hundreds of millions of dollars from the war, and there is no real accounting of what was spent (in a DETAILED fashion). The whole thing stinks. That's just my opinion--which maybe is shared by a few hundred million Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:38 PM

"Why hasn't Bush been impeached yet?"

President Cheney?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:42 PM

Good point. One helluvan insurance policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:55 PM

The answer once again is no, no, a thousand times no.

Repeating a false answer a thousad times does not make it any truer.

Even if it could be demonstrated that an statement that was self-evidently intended to mislead had actually failed to mislead anyone, it would still be intentionally misleading.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:06 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:47 PM

The 9/11 commission report stated that there were contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq:

"...In a report based on research and interviews by the commission staff, the panel said that bin Laden made overtures to toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein for assistance, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.

The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for "anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan..."


"...a meeting between the al-Qaida leader and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 in Sudan, the report said. At the meeting, bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded, the staff report said..."

Apparently? Does that mean they did or didn't?

MSNBC says:

"They [Bush & Co] stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public."

Critics say. Critics do not have proof other than what they say.

Existing opinions before Bush:

Bill Clinton 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"

Existing sentiment before 9/11:

On Jan. 29, 2001 Washington Post "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."

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:56 PM

Bush in his own words.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:58 PM

Public opinion polls only record the effectiveness of propaganda brainwasing.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:04 PM

"brainwasing" ahem - brainwashing...

but on second thoughts "brainwasing"...

"I like it! I like it!"

Danny Kaye - Movie 'The Inspector General'

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:05 PM

No need for brainwashing. A light rinse would have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:13 PM

Repeating a false allegation a thousand times does not make it any truer.

"Public opinion polls only record the effectiveness of propaganda brainwasing."

Ron claims his alleged propaganda campaign was highly sucessful yet the numbers go down rather than up.

That means the poll records that if there was and alleged propaganda campaign, it was ineffective.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:27 PM

"Repeating a false allegation a thousand times does not make it any truer."

Except for those who have 'Faith'... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 11:42 PM

He lied T 1,000 times yes. No, not every dog believed his WMD lines. Many were screaming for proof, he lied & ignore all calls. Look back many didn't & many relied on their own intellegance, I wish Bush would've been capable of doing the same.

You lead the country around by the nose using fear & when the nation finally realizes there was nothing to fear from the start to take the finger out & then ask why did you have your nose on my finger to start with! I'd call that deceitful & lying. Again, call it what you want.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:08 AM

Dickey--


As, usual, you are wrong--situation normal. "The numbers go down" after the war started--for the very good reason that it was obvious by then--US troops were in Iraq and could easily tell--that Bush's stories about Saddam's WMD were hogwash--so obviously he wasn't as big a threat as Bush had told us.

But between summer 2002 and March 2003, "the numbers" do not go down.

You lose again.

Better luck next time.



No time tonight to demolish Teribus' feeble arguments. Some of us don't post from work. But I'll attend to you, Teribus, tomorrow.


Suffice it to say that your statements are amazing coming from somebody who alleges to have some knowledge of geopolitics and how propaganda works. But perhaps I was overestimating you.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:08 AM

Bush Watch log of Bush lies

Eric Alterman's dissertation on Bush's lying

The Bush Lies Blog

A CHart of Bsuh Lies About Iraq

Compilation of False and Misleading Assertions from Bush & Co

Compilation of Bush Administration Lies up to 2004

The Economist on Bush Credibility

Bush's Top 10 Lies About his Military Service, Etc.

Bush Administration Lies Supporting the War

Lie by Lie: Timeline of the Iraq War

Exposing Bush and his Techniques of Deceit

Bush Admits He Lied...

G.W. Bush's Many Lies in Four Parts

Bush's Worst Lies of 2006

Why Bush Lies About Iraq--2003

The Truth About Bush's Lies

Bush, Lies, and Videotape

Lies, Damn Lies and Bush's Iraq Statistics

Bush's Enron Lies

Archives of Bush Lies

---

Kinda hurts mah fingers....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:38 AM

Och Amos, that's gonna hurt.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:40 AM

Barry's response:

"He lied T 1,000 times yes." - But Barry cannot supply an example.

"No, not every dog believed his WMD lines." - I take it that the "lines" should read "lies"? Apart from Barry's assertion, the record shows the exact opposite. Support for UNSC Resolution 1441 was 100%. Barry also ignores the estimates of the WMD, stocks of WMD agents, delivery systems and the R&D programmes associated with those WMD were provided by the UN's weapons inspectors not by GWB, that Barry is a matter of record also.

"Many were screaming for proof, he lied & ignore all calls." - I am certain that there were, but with regard to proof positive you cannot give what you do not possess. That Iraq under Saddam was a threat to the region, US interests, US allies in the region and to the US itself was an official position inherited from the previous administration. It was not engineered by GWB or by any members of his administration. Iraq was an intelligence "black-hole", due partly to a grave mistake made under President Jimmy Carter when the emphasis on gathering of intelligence was switched from "human-intel" to electronic means. Post-911 what intelligence there was had to be evaluated. In the UK this was done by the JIC Intelligence Committee, they then deliver best and worst case scenarios for consideration by the PM and his Cabinet. They then have to take the decision on which to adopt in the best interests of the UK. I would imagine that the same sort of process occurs in the US.

In the light of what happened on the 11th September, 2001. No American President could just sit back and adopt a wait-and-see attitude. Irrespective of who was sitting in the White House the cards would have fallen pretty much the same way, the intelligence would have been the same, the background would have been the same, the evaluation would have been the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 06:48 AM

Arne,

Your statements of Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:11 PM are both unsupported and false. If you have any evidence to present, please do so: I have previously ( in other threads) posted the quotes from the U.N. reports that prove you wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:12 AM

" Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief, Sunday Telegraph (UK) 1/25/04"
David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.
"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:13 AM

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: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:19 AM

Were any WMD's ever found? NO! Was Iraq a real threat to the US? NO!
Did Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton go to war with Iraq? Yes!

Were we mislead into Iraq by Bush & company? NO!
It was Nixon's fault.
Slap!! Ok,Ok, it was Bush, I was just kidding.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:26 AM

Barry,

You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but you have presented no facts to support your viewpoint. Have you even read the UN reports? Or anything else that might present a viewpoint you disagree with?


"Were any WMD's ever found? NO!"

1.Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
2. The claim was of WMD programs, which were found.

"Was Iraq a real threat to the US? NO!"

Sorry, the answer is YES.


"Did Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton go to war with Iraq? Yes!"

And your point? That they did not act in the US's best interests?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:40 AM

BB, you can wave that tripe as much as you'd like but Bush lied to the American people. To mislead is to lie & that's what he done & it costing thousands of innocent lives.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:41 AM

"On June 9 (,2004), 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."

"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."

"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. "

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 09:02 AM

Where is all this evidence, where are the WMD'S that could strike us in 45 munites? That's what we were going into Iraq for. Please. Where are the free Iraqis, there not falling all over us in the streets? Well, they are dropping dead! Where is their Free Democratic Society? Well, we now have created the setting for Civil War! Where were all of those terrorists camps? Did they get covered up in a sand storm? Even Bush got tired of looking for WMD's & had to grovel & eat those words. Where in the world is it better because we invaded Iraq? How has terrorism deminished, it's blossomed & flowering everywhere & we've become the targets of most. How are we better off, though that's a purely selfish reason for going into Iraq but it was a reason? How better off are the Iraqi people since we've gone in there? Of course hardley anyone now believes that we had their best interests at heart to begin with! What is right with anything that's happened since Bush came into office, you can stack up the failures though.


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 09:21 AM

"Where is all this evidence, where are the WMD'S that could strike us in 45 munites? That's what we were going into Iraq for."


See my post of 23 Feb 07 - 08:41 AM

The unaccounted for WMD (mostly chemical) could have been used ( should I bring up the unfilled artillery shells and distributed Iraqi suits again?) but were not- probably because he had shipped the active componats to another country ( see UN report). We FAILED-
because we gave a 5 month period for Saddam to hide, distribute, and destroy evidence.

As for the blood spilled, I hold those around the world who demanded that the US not enforce the UN resolutions while NOT demanding that Saddam comply to be far more guilty than I do a US administration that was acting to protect the US population.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 10:26 AM

Acting to protect the US population against...all those ICBMs with chemical warheads? That is really silly.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 10:34 AM

Amos,

"Acting to protect the US population against...all those ICBMs with chemical warheads? That is really silly."

Yes, YOUR claim of ICBMs is.



1. The missiles were IRBMs, and only capable of 1200-2000 KM range. Like from ships offshore to most US cities. Or from Iraq to some European cities.

2. The use of WMD does not require more than a shipping container for delivery.

3. The ARTILLERY shells could have been used against US Troops.

4. The possesion of the prohibited weapons and delivery systems, and the active programs of WMD development were violations of UN resolutions and the Kuwait war cease-fire- thus acts of war in themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 10:38 AM

Barry,

In response to your post

1) "Where is all this evidence, where are the WMD'S that could strike us in 45 munites? That's what we were going into Iraq for."

For the first part, refer your question to the UNSCOM Inspectors. They were the ones, who in 1998, gave the estimates of what they believed Iraq still possessed in terms of WMD, delivery systems, stored agents and precursors and relevant development programmes. If you read what the UNSCOM Inspectors wrote in their report this was all stuff that could be in existance, or it could have been stuff that had been destroyed in such a way that it's destruction could not be verified. Either way the matter had to be resolved to the satisfaction of the UN. During the course of 1998 UNSCOM reported to the UNSC that due to lack of co-operation, denial of free-access to sites ("Presidential Palaces"), deception and harassment on the part of the Iraqi authorities, they could not do their jobs.

The 45 minute claim applied to tactical battlefield munitions and medium range missiles. The instant I saw it reported, I recognised it from "The Threat" lectures I had been given. Weapons designed to carry chemical or biological agents are not stored in a filled condition. Authorisation is given for them to be used and they are then armed - that complete process takes 45 minutes - to actually arm the weapons only takes about 20 to 25 minutes. What the US went into Iraq for was to enforce the requirements of all outstanding UNSC resolutions relevant to Iraq and to topple the Ba'athist Regime of Saddam Hussein (Official US Foreign Policy since 1998).

2) "Please. Where are the free Iraqis, there not falling all over us in the streets? Well, they are dropping dead! Where is their Free Democratic Society?"

All Iraqi's are now free Barry, unfortunately they now enjoy such a degree of freedom that they are free to kill one another, exactly as those who resorted to violence in Northern Ireland did. What ever it is that Iraqi's want is there for the taking, all they have to do is talk about it - It took the paramilitaries thirty years to realise that in Northern Ireland - somehow I don't think that the Iraqi's will take that long. For all the media hype much of Iraq is peaceful.

3) "Well, we now have created the setting for Civil War!"

"We" have created nothing, the setting for this "Civil War" that all the anti-Bush, anti-War crowd yabber on about has been in existence since 1922. And as has been pointed out above if that is what the Iraqi's want then let them have it, after all both the USA and the UK have had their "Civil Wars" and managed to come through it OK, Likewise Spain, Greece and a whole rake of other countries. Why deny the Iraqi's the benefits if that is what they are so hell bent on.

4) "Where were all of those terrorists camps? Did they get covered up in a sand storm?"

Shut down Barry

5) "Where in the world is it better because we invaded Iraq?"

Number of international terrorist "spectaculars" is way down on pre-2003 levels.

Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terrorist organisations (Indicator of that is the drop in suicide bombings in Israel since March 2003).

6) "How has terrorism diminished,"

- They now find it harder to train
- They now find it harder to move money
- They now find it harder to plan anything other than extremely small time operations.
- They have been sucked into fighting a visible war in Iraq, whereas their first guiding principle should be for them to pick "their ground", "their target", "their battles".
- Al-Qaeda in Iraq's losses so far have amounted to over 4000 men
- Taleban and Al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan lost approximately 3000 men in 2006 alone. It will be intersting to see how effective their much vaunted "spring offensive" will be.
- How many Terrorist attacks have been carried out in the USA since 20th March 2003?
- How many Terrorist attacks were carried out in the USA prior to that date?
- How many US or foreign vessels been attacked since 20th March 2003?
- How many were attacked prior to that date?
- How many US Embassy's have been blown up since 20th March 2003?
- How many had been attacked/blown up prior to that date?

7) "it's (Terrorism) blossomed & flowering everywhere & we've become the targets of most.

Sorry to disillusion you Barry but you (The US) have been the targets for decades, nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, or Afghanistan. Where is the evidence that supports your contention that it is blossoming and flowering everywhere? The media? Don't make me laugh, they are solely in the business of selling news and bad news sells better than good.

8) "How are we better off, though that's a purely selfish reason for going into Iraq but it was a reason?"

That was the primary reason "we" went into Iraq. It was done to eliminate what was evaluated as being the greatest threat to the United States of America, the interests of the USA and the allies of the USA in the region.

9) "How better off are the Iraqi people since we've gone in there? Of course hardley anyone now believes that we had their best interests at heart to begin with!"

Well to get an answer to that Barry you would have to ask someone who had actually sufferred under the rule of Saddam Hussein, or had experienced the attentions of either of that man's sons, and by God you'll find enough of them. One thing is for certain though Barry, the future of Iraq and its people is a damn sight better in prospect now than it ever could have been had Saddam remained in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:52 AM

We are of two different minds.
Iraq's future is in the toilet for the next more than few years.
There was no possible chance of civil war prior to US going in to Iraq & had we not mismanaged things so badly there probably wouldn't had been a chance of it but there sure is now. But go on blame the Iraqis if you want. As for their present freedom to do what ever they wish, you've got to be kidding the best they can hope for is to surivive long enough to see the followwing day.
Anf if you think we've made the world a safer place, keep amusing yourself.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:18 PM

"We" have created nothing, the setting for this "Civil War" that all the anti-Bush, anti-War crowd yabber on about has been in existence since 1922. And as has been pointed out above if that is what the Iraqi's want then let them have it, after all both the USA and the UK have had their "Civil Wars" and managed to come through it OK, Likewise Spain, Greece and a whole rake of other countries. Why deny the Iraqi's the benefits if that is what they are so hell bent on."


Teribus, this is the most callous and yet, revealing statement you have made to date.

Many Iraqis hated Saddam but not enough to risk civil war. By meddling in the affairs of another nation, we have given Iraq what they most feared. Nobody wants civil war and nobody should wish it on another nation.

Now that the U.S. has failed in every aspect of their invasion of Iraq, you have decided that the Iraqis are not worth it anyway. It makes me wonder if this wasn't the end game all along. If you can't win, at least you can save face and walk away laughing.

You delight in the misery of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:27 PM

Is an alleged propaganda campaign that raises poll numbers by 1% brilliant successful?

"The process of convincing the US public of this was the propaganda campaign-----and it was brilliantly successful."

"and to convince his audience that if nothing was done about Saddam, we faced a similar attack--but this time with WMD---supplied by Saddam."

Bill Clinton 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:12 PM

Dickey,

I must point out *again* that without a control group, the polling data are meaningless.

It is possible, if not probable, that *without* the propaganda campaign, the poll numbers would have plummetted very quickly to zero. It was the propaganda that kept them from zeroing, and in fact raised them a bit. Quite an effective propaganda campaign actually.

If that is your best evidence against a propoganda campaign, you had better give up, because it could easily be proving the opposite of what you are asserting. At the very best, it is totally inconclusive without a control group (composed of people who were somehow shielded from Bush Administration innuendo)....

Wait a minute --- that would be much of the rest of the World! What was the belief in a Saddam-Al Quaeda connection amongst people outside the USA (during the same period)? Find me those numbers, and a rational discussion can be had.

In particular I would like to see the numbers for people outside the US who are not regular viewers of FOX News, or listeners of Limbaugh (who helped "catapult the propaganda").

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:27 PM

Are saying that no poll is accurate or just the ones that you want to use as proff of something?

Was 1% the results of a catapult?

If you say those numbers on the rest of the world are necessary, you need to find them or are you going to put the responsibility to find something that may or may not exist on someone else?

Did Bill Clinton and Sandy "the pants" Berger work for FNC?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:40 PM

Bobert: How is that "per capita poverty" number arrived at?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:46 PM

No Dickey. I'm not saying I don't trust the polls. You are saying that the poll numbers are proof of something else, and I am saying you cannot make that leap without other evidence.

And yes, it is possible that the 1% is the reuslt of the catapult. It is possible that 59.5% is the result of a catapult (i.e. without the propaganda campaign, the poll would have yielded a rate 58.5% lower. And yes, the 59.5 is totally made up, just to illustrate the point.

And yes, if you are going to claim that the polls prove something, and another piece of information is necessary to support that claim, the burden is upon you.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 06:39 PM

>>>Bill Clinton 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"<<<

And Bush fell for a bunch of alarmist garbage from liberal democrats?? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!   What a dumbass!! No wonder Bush has turned out to be so dreadfully wrong--he took his facts from liberal crybabies!!! HEHEHEHE!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 06:41 PM

He took his facts where ever he pleased.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 06:47 PM

True, Barry. He wanted to get into Iraq and he did. Now the dumb fu#k doesn't know how to get out. As to the remark about liberal cry babies, sheesh. If that means not wanting to see kids killed uselessly to economically enrich a class of people who have the morals of a dog in heat, then it does make one proud to be a liberal cry baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:56 PM

Good posts from both Amos and Captain Ginger. The only things missing from both were respectively the post-script - Thank Christ that I am not the one that has to make the decision when all your most experienced and trusted advisors are telling you that a threat exists and it requires urgent attention - It's the responsibility of leadership. The days of, "let's wait and see", have long since gone, if they ever really existed at all.

"We were also told that we could and should challenge any order we believed to be illegal."

Have you ever done it? Have you ever disobeyed, or refused to carry out, an order that you considered to be illegal? I have Captain, not the best of career moves, but right just the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:19 PM

That seems to be the problem, T-zer... When you appoint idiologues as yer "most trusted advisors" you really aren't appointing people who will give you differing points of view...

In 20/20 hindasight this is painfully clear... These "trusted advisors" beat down the intellegece community in a time that they had the post 9-11 power to do so and the anaylists who said, "Hey, wait a minute, yer wrong" were either fired or ignored...

Yes, post 9-11 was the perfecy storm for Bush to get the US in the biggest mess since Vietnam and he has done his job well in doing just that... He sent Cheney to the CIA dayafter day after day to beat them up and get them "office speakin'" and inspite of the many brave and couragous anaylist who wouldn't bu7ckle under Cheneys relentless prssures, Bush cherry picked the so-called intellegence to make a case for invading Iraq...

You conviently forget that Tennant wasn't always the beat-down-lap-dog and forcefully and couragously told Bush "No, no, no" when Bush wanted to use the unrainium claim in his Oct 11th Cincinitti speach... Tenant also warned Bush prior to the State of the Union adress but the revisonists have no use for those particular facts, you included...

Did Bush lie??? Well, of course he did and a million revisionist Bush apologists can't and won't change that... Bush has never once said he didn't lie, has he??? Hmmmmmmm??? No, he's said that he was acting on the best intellgence (another lie, considering he had no use for discenting opionions) but he has never said that he didn't lie... One would think that with what the Repubs put Bill Clinton thru in regards to lieing that Bush most certainly have to ahev the same oversight that Slick Willie was given but...

...the politics just ain't the same and so in this post Clinton-i,pachement, post 9/11 erra, Bush has had a fre pass to purdy much screw things up without regard to the pressures that Clinton lived with and...

....guess what???

Bush has done a dandy job of scerwing up everything he has touched...Can anyone point to even one thing he's done right???

Thems is the facts... We all know it... T knows it... BB knows it... Dickey knows it but...

... in these partisan times one never admits that they were wrong and that's why no one ever pays for the screw-ups within the Bush administration...

Thems is the facts...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:31 PM

Unfortunately Bobert the problem with that contention of yours is that the folks who were GWB's trusted advisors were exactly the same folks who originally identified the threat posed by Saddam's Iraq, WMD and Terrorist Groups, and were the trusted advisors of WJC in 1998 (i.e. Bobert none of them were "appointed" by Bush).

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:58 PM

No, T-bird, they weren't... You are 100% wrong on this...

The "trusted advisors" that Bush listened to were:

Paul Wolfowitz & Richard Pearle who Bill Clinton threw outta his office when they went to him with their hair-brained iraq invasion idea in 1992...

Dick Cheney

Donnie Rumsfeld

These 4 people were the ***contarct partners*** who pushed Bush into this mess...

Clinton's folks were ignored as if they had radiation... Tenant is the prime example 'cause he was beat down after a year of Dick Cheney meddlin' in the CIA... Why won't the Bush administartion release Cheney's note on how he spent his time in the mad-dash-to-Ieaq??? Well, I'll tell ya why... 'Cause Cheney was camped out at the CIA using his post 9/11 clout to bully intellegence anaylists...

Thjen there was Richard Clark who said that Bush couldn't have cared less about what the Clinton folks had done in fighting terrorism or folowin' up on assignments/porjects that were underway???

Like what was that about, T-Bird???

'Er are you gonna go off on one of yer patented "prove it" defenses where you expect me to prove beyond a shodow of a doubt the stuff that has been reported and re-reported over and over as if I'm like the "Prover-of-all-truths" while all you have to do is deny, deny, deny and accuse the messengers??? Is that where we are, T-zer???

Is that what it boils down to??? Here the US is the biggest unavoidable mess in maybe forver because there were way to many T's talkin' to Bush and not many me's... And, yeah, this is the worst mess of my lifetime... Much worse than Nam 'casue we had Nam as a model of what-not-to-do... And what makes it ven worse, if we go back to the 20's the British wnet thru the same thing so...

...Iraq is not only a failure of policy but a failure in World History 101...

But Bush never met a war not worth startin', that much is for sure and that is why the US Congress is tryin' to figure out a way to stop the guy from doin' it again in Iran...

The bou ain't learnt jack and I'm not too sure you have either...

Bpbert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 09:10 PM

Bobert's right.

Chalabi and his 'defectors' were discredited by the CIA and the State Dept. but supported by Pearle and Wolfowitz.

Wolfowitz is now trying to loan money to Iraq via the World Bank.

Look out for that guy. He'll rob you blind. This is usary at its worst. These are the guys who advised Bush.

Bush ignored the CIA and the State Department. So what exactly was the so-called intel that Bush was using?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 10:08 PM

It was NOT "intel". It was just "tell"...as in "tell that Dubya boy his pecker is in my pocket and to sign the goddamned marching orders NOW!".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 02:39 AM

Bobert asks what was it all about? Unfortunately for Bobert's case the task of identifying the greatest threat to the United States of America in the immediate post-911 period was not, repeat not, given to any member of the Bush Administration. The Task was given to the Joint House Security Committee and to the combined Intelligence and Security Agencies of the United States of America.

They identified Iraq, from among a number of what the US considered to be "rogue states", as potentially posing the greatest threat. In precisely the same terms as the same men presented the same analysis to President Clinton four years previously - surprise, surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 03:56 AM

"Thank Christ that I am not the one that has to make the decision when all your most experienced and trusted advisors are telling you that a threat exists and it requires urgent attention"
Odd that even at before the invasion there were some some in Downing Street who were sceptical.

What is one to make of the "Downing Street Memo" of July 23 2002. It was a summary of the latest meetings in Washington between the heads of British intelligence and their American counterparts, prepared for the eyes only of Blair and a few close colleagues.
"There was a perceptible shift in attitude," the memo states baldly. "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

And there was Robin Cook: "I was taken aback at how thin the dossier was. There was a striking absence of any recent and alarming firm intelligence."
Cook's diaries are illuminating on the subject: On February 20 - before the invasion - Cook was given a briefing by Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee. "My conclusion at the end of an hour is that Saddam probably does not have weapons of mass destruction in the sense of weapons that could be used against large-scale civilian targets," he wrote.

On March 5, Cook saw Blair, noting afterwards: "The most revealing exchange came when we talked about Saddam's arsenal. I told him, 'It's clear from the private briefing I have had that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could strike at strategic cities. But he probably does have several thousand battlefield chemical munitions. Do you never worry that he might use them against British troops?'"
Blair replied, "Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use."

The problem was, Blair knew that Bush had already decided to go to war and that the UN weapons inspectors were irrelevant. Cook writes: "Tony made no attempt to pretend that what Hans Blix might report would make any difference to the countdown to invasion."
He goes on: "The second troubling element to our conversation was that Tony did not try to argue me out of the view that Saddam did not have real weapons of mass destruction that were designed for strategic use against city populations and capable of being delivered with reliability over long distances. I had now expressed that view to both the chairman of the JIC and to the prime minister and both had assented in it.
"At the time I did believe it likely that Saddam had retained a quantity of chemical munitions for tactical use on the battlefield. These did not pose 'a real and present danger to Britain' as they were not designed for use against city populations and by definition could threaten British personnel only if we were to deploy them on the battlefield within range of Iraqi artillery.
"I had now twice been told that even those chemical shells had been put beyond operational use in response to the pressure from intrusive inspections."
Cook sums up: "I have no reason to doubt that Tony Blair believed in September that Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes. What was clear from this conversation was that he did not believe it himself in March."

A former British Foreign Secretary - arguably better briefed than Terry, Dickey or Brucie - states his belief: "I am certain the real reason he went to war was that he found it easier to resist the public opinion of Britain than the request of the US President."

It may never be fully explained exactly why Blair pledged his support for Bush's plans to invade Iraq. However Lord Goldsmith had already told him that a war for the sake of regime change would be illegal. so the stated reason had to be that Iraq posed a "serious and current" threat to the UK. To that end, the intel was made to fit the plan on both sides of the Atlantic.
Many did see through that, but the two administrations used a supine media to ram the claims down the throats of the public at every opportunity to the point where they were largely believed by the man and woman in the street.

In his resignation speech, Cook posed a question to which I have yet to hear a convincing answer: "Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?"

It certainly wasn't 9/11 or Islamic terrorism that rendered military action urgent. It just might, however, have been the agenda of the pointy-heads at the PNAC.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 04:44 AM

To put matters into an historical perspective, there is a fascinating report here from a British MP in 1929 into falsehood and propaganda in the First World War. All the usual suspects are there, from crucified soldiers to mutilated nurses and the sinking of the Lusitania.
It just shows how little some thiings have actually changed; lies are thought up up armchair warriors and politicians, desseminated by the media and the poor bastards who have to deal with the consequences are those in uniform.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:40 AM

That some were sceptical is irrelevant - ultimately a decision has to be made. At the time Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold on Tim Sebastian's "Hard Talk" programme gave a very good summary of the make-up and working practices of the Joint Intelligence Committee.

Thankfully the decision for the UK was not made by Robin Cook - a "professional" politician, whose entire "working life" and experience was gained solely within the ranks of the Labour Party.

"Cook's diaries are illuminating on the subject: On February 20 - before the invasion - Cook was given a briefing by Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee. "My conclusion at the end of an hour is that Saddam probably does not have weapons of mass destruction in the sense of weapons that could be used against large-scale civilian targets," he wrote.

On March 5, Cook saw Blair, noting afterwards: "The most revealing exchange came when we talked about Saddam's arsenal. I told him, 'It's clear from the private briefing I have had that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could strike at strategic cities. But he probably does have several thousand battlefield chemical munitions."

My only observation on the above would be that Mr. Cook is obviously a man of little imagination, whose grasp of the capability of the weapons he is talking about is demonstrated as being minimal if not non-existant. I am certain Captain Ginger, that both you and I, if we were to put our minds to it, could do an immense amount of damage to what Mr. Cook referred to as strategic cities with just a few of those several thousands of battlefield chemical munitions - True?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 08:42 AM

Indeed Tel, but that's not what was being claimed. I didn't see anything in any of the 'evidence' to suggest that Iraqi agents were planning to use ICDs (a tactic that seems only now to have been grasped by the Sunni militias with the chlorine tankers in Baghdad, but that's a digression).

Imagination can be a dangerous thing and run away with one; sometimes a little stolidity and common sense is required to counter the chicken-licken mentality which was so prevalent. I didn't see much effort being made by Number 10 to correct the egregious and infantile errors in the reporting of the dodgy dossier, for example.

And I'm afraid I don't see your point about Cook's experience. How was Blair's significantly more worldly. Both had briefings from people one would expect to be worldly. In fact one would hope that Cook was in a better position to make a judgment than either your or I. Or am I to understand that your view of events is more accurate simply because you are more imaginative?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:23 AM

Indeed as you say Carrots, if the material is suspected of being there and means to produce it, then future developement has to be taken into account when evaluating the potential threat. With the stuff we are talking about you do not, you dare not, wait until the weapon is fully developed. It must also be remembered that Saddam Hussein was unique amongst the national leaders of the world in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11th, 2001 - He was the only one who publicly applauded the attacks. All the dots relating to the posture and potential capability of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, developement of WMD and sponsorship of terrorist groups had been highlighted and jointed together three years before, certainly before GWB won the 2000 Presidential Election.

Imagination combined with common sense is essential in any threat evaluation process, because the element of prediction of future realistic possibilities needs to be taken into account.

Robin Cook's education was in English Literature and his working experience was that gained as a party worker. Tony Blair's on the other hand was in Law and through working as a Barrister. Those Carrots are extremely distinct and significant differences.

It would come as no surprise to you at all in that I completely disagree with you on the following point. Both of us, primarily because of our backgrounds, would have got more out of a briefing by Sir John Scarlett than either Robin Cook, or Tony Blair ever could. I am certain that we both would have asked far tougher, and far more probing questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:25 AM

October 2002 statement by one person who was not fooled:

"I know that invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst rather than best impulses in the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars, I am opposed to dumb wars. "

Excerpt from an address by Barack Obama, 2002.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:58 AM

Bush/America in Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:01 AM

Excerpt from a news story on the Scooter Libby trial:

"The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested documents and interview transcripts from the Inspector General's office, while the Senate Armed Services Committee seeks further interviews with Mr. Libby and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. "The bottom line is that the intelligence relating to the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq," committee Chairman Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said at recent hearing.

"
(Italics mine)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:06 AM

And lets not forget the 15 years old college term paper that was not only used but altered to provide the final piece of so-called evidence that Saddam was tryin' to buy uranium... Our own XCIA anaylists said it looked so bogus that most folks with any intallegence would know it was a fake from a mile away... Not exactly their words but that's purdy much what it boiled down to...

Yet Balona Blair went right on in providing just 'nuff of the fabrications from a fabricated college kids old term paper to tell Bush is was fine to tell the "BIG LIE" in the Sate of the Union Addrss... These two guys must think that the rest of the world is made up of friggin' retards, ahhhhhh, not retards as that is no longer politically correct but intellelectually challenged people...

I mean, lets get real here... Using an altered 15 year old college kids term paper as the final piece of evidence to justify the killing of over a half million people and destabilizing an entire region is purdy danged shamefull...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:09 AM

Amos adheres to the Muslim extremist terrorist philosophy:

"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."

Who did Amos vote for?

Other words of Wizdom:

"Bush invaded Iraq, Clinton did not."

Clinton used "intel" from the Chalabi crowd as a reason to punatively bomb Iraq. How many innocent people died then?

"Pathetic.

Generations of military service has brainwashed you.

Time to bring in the de-progammers."

The antiwar crowd is marshalled by Ramsey Clark and his Socialist, Marxist group A.N.S.W.E.R.. It an offshoot of the SWP, WWP and PSL who engage in brainwashing and that are the product of brainwashing.


Sidebar on Clark:

"in a BBC interview while defending Saddam, Clark claimed that some of the massacres which the former Iraqi President was accused of ordering were done out of necessity, saying: "He Saddam had this huge war going on, and you have to act firmly when you have an assassination attempt"

Other defendants of Clark:
Karl Linnas
Jack Reimer
David Koresh
Jennifer Casolo
Charles G. Taylor
Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
PLO leaders in the Klinghoffer murder
Radovan Karadžić
Slobodan Milošević
Lori Berenson

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:15 AM

There is NO question that Hussein deserved to be dead. The MF should have been shot decades ago. However, he served a purpose for the balance of power and took the heat with Iran. Saying that Hussein was a bad guy is like a distractor in multiple choice exams. It is a correct answer, but it is not THE correct answer. The issue is not whether Hussein deserves to be dead (or deserved to be overthrown); the issue is the manipulations Bush and others used to get America's might into Iraq. Let's don't lose track of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:39 AM

Dickey:

Who I vote for is my own damned business, and your scurrilous arm-waving is the last thing that would prompt an answer to a question like that.

Looking in on the Wikipedia link you posted it is obvious that you -- in typical demagoguery style -- have conflated Ramsey Clark's outfit with Socialism as an identity, whren it fact the report states that the two organizations associate and some members of one were members of the other.

"Formed within three days of the September 11th attacks, and officially founded on September 14, 2001 by Ramsey Clark and members of the International Action Center, ANSWER was one of the first organizations formed to protest the policies of the Bush administration in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Its first major action was a September 29, 2001 "Anti-War, Anti-Racist" political rally and march in Washington, D.C., primarily in protest of the then-impending U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Subsequently the organization has organized rallies drawing crowds in the hundreds of thousands, including several with record-setting numbers of people. ANSWER characterizes itself as anti-imperialist, and its steering committee consists of socialists, Marxists, civil rights advocates, and left-wing progressive organizations from the Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, Filipino, Haitian, and Latin American communities. Many of ANSWER's leaders were members of Workers World Party (WWP) at the time of ANSWER's founding, and are current members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), a Marxist-Leninist organization that formed in 2004."

I suppose, using your confllationary logic, that you, by definition are a pro-war capitalist who believes in racism, right?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:52 AM

Bobert,

"the killing of over a half million people"


As has been proven multiple times before, YOUR numbers are false, fraudulent and lies of the first order. PLEASE refrain fron using such obvious bogus numbers when you have a point to make- it causes many of us to suspect the rest of your comment is of the same value.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:57 AM

Amos makes derisive remarks about who people voted for but gets defensive when asked who he voted for.

Amos does not mind making connections between Bush and Enron or Exxon or PNAC etc. in order to prove his attacks but when others make those same associations to charactarize someone like Clark or ANSWER, he goes berserk.

Better re read the definition of Demagoguery Amos and apply it to yourself:

Demagoguery, from Greek demos, "people", and agogos, "leading" refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalistic or populist themes.

The term is commonly used as a political pejorative: political opponents are described as "demagogues", while politicians approved of are "men of the people", or "statesmen".

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:02 PM

Dickey:

I'm sorry. You are being a jerk. Perhaps you have been drinking, or perhaps you are that way naturally. I am not defensive about who I voted for. I said, and will say it again, that it is none of your goddamned business. No defense involved, just a statement of simple fact.

Nor, as you put it, have I gone berserk. I do get annoyed at your covert needling, but that is a long way from berserk.

Thanks for the definition -- it matches exactly what I thought it meant, and is a primary tool of control exercised by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice and their henchpersons, their talking points, and their press conferences.

And, to a lesser degree, yourself.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:30 PM

Wrong again, Dickey.

I don't even know who this is:

"Ramsey Clark and his Socialist, Marxist group A.N.S.W.E.R.. It an offshoot of the SWP, WWP and PSL."

I arrive at my conclusions by listening and reading a variety of materials. I draw my own conclusions and they are not based on blind obedience.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:30 PM

>>Have you ever done it? Have you ever disobeyed, or refused to carry out, an order that you considered to be illegal? I have Captain, not the best of career moves, but right just the same.<<

Quit lying. A soldier not only does not obey an illegal order, he is REQUIRED not to. If you carry out an illegal order, THAT would not be the best of career moves because you will be charged no matter who gave the order. Nothing will happen to anyone who disobeyed an order they considered illegal as long as they can make a case for it (as opposed to trying to justify simple dereliction). But if you carry out an illegal order, you WILL be charged.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:33 PM

>>As has been proven multiple times before,<<

No, it has not. The death toll among Iraqis stands at at least 600,000 and climbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:37 PM

>>My only observation on the above would be that Mr. Cook is obviously a man of little imagination<<<

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Yep, imagination is what it takes to buy the Bush-Blair story because facts alone certainly can't support it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:37 PM

listening to and reading what?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:38 PM

" The death toll among Iraqis stands at at least 600,000 and climbing. "


This number has been shown to be false.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:45 PM

Loath as I am to come to Teribus' defence, there are grey areas and it is wrong to accuse a man of lying until you are in possession of all the facts.
I have refused to carry out an order because the person giving it was not in a fit state to issue such an order. For a few seconds I saw my career hanging by a gossamer thread, but fortunately there were no repercussions (very fortunately, because had I carried out the order it would have terminated the career of an unfortunate subordinate). The event was glossed over and the fool who gave the order later went on to retire with the plaudits of many ringing in his ears.
The key phrase is 'believe to be illegal'. On that pin, many angels dance. I honestly do not know how I would have reacted had I still been in a position to be sent to Iraq. I did not believe in the legality of the war, but I don't know if I would have had the balls to make a stand.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:48 PM

By whom, por favor???

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:56 PM

"The number of Iraqis killed, however, is much harder to pin down, and that uncertainty is perhaps reflected in Americans' tendency to lowball the Iraqi death toll by tens of thousands.

Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 54,000 and could be much higher; some unofficial estimates range into the hundreds of thousands. The U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq reports more than 34,000 deaths in 2006 alone."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-24-iraqi-deaths-poll_x.htm?csp=34

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 01:01 PM

Amos condemns others by saying that because of their opinions they voted for so an so. Yet when the same logic is applied to him, he gets angry.

Only Amos is permitted to use political pejoratives like demagogue.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 03:38 PM

Dickey:

I don't know where, specifically.. you think I accused someone of this ordinary act of voting based on their opinions. The logic, if you really dare to call it that, is that you have now chosen, as you have done before, to pose behind ad hominem attacks because you cannot or will not look clearly at the issues.

You may use whatever perjoratives you wish. When you wave your arms and flap your tongue in large and hateful generalizations, I call it demagoguery. Do correct me if I am wrong, won't you?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 04:17 PM

I'm counting the seconds till he does... (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 04:23 PM

BB:

" The death toll among Iraqis stands at at least 600,000 and climbing. "

This number has been shown to be false.


That's right! It is false. The real death toll is only 599,812.......hmmm...no, wait, I've got another report just coming in here....

Okay. Make that 599,843. There. Now we're back on track. ;-)

Oops. Sorry, apparently 3 more just got killed while I was typing that entry above.

Shit. Okay, let's make it official at 599,815 dead Iraqis as far as we know right now this minute, give or take a margin of error of a few thousand either way, because it's hard indentifying all the separate body parts that are lying around in the street right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 05:35 PM

>>This number has been shown to be false. <<

And apparently your evidence is that statement itself but the truth is that impartial estimates have placed the death toll at 600,000 and no credible evidence to the contrary has been produced. Like it or not, it stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 05:49 PM

Estimates on the death toll in any widespread regional conflict always vary wildly. You can easily detect people's political bias by which end of the scale they regard as most accurate... ;-)

In Vietnam, for instance, there were body counts of enemy dead announced in the US media after most battles. Those body counts were generally wildly exaggerated to give the impression that the Americans were doing just great at killing commies.

Now if it had been the other way around, and the USA military had wanted for some reason to give the impression that they were NOT killing large numbers of people, well, then, they would just have divided the real body count by 10 instead of multiplying it by ten. It all depends what impression you want to create in those impressionable minds back home...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:41 PM

Yeah, I have more faith in the scholars at Johns Hopkins than I do a reproter or editorialist for USA Today, whcih in MHO, is the 2nd worst newspaper in the country with the Washigton Times being the absoluite worst...

...BTW, bb, if you get real sick--you know, real sick-- call USA Today and just don't bother yerself with Johns Hopkins...

So until someone can trump the the study that Johns Hopkins did which conducted houasehold surveys in 47 areas around Iraq and interviews with doctors, examined death records, etc., I'm stickin' with their findings...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:58 PM

GUEST,282RA - regarding your post of 27 Feb 07 - 12:30 PM - with all due respect you ahven't got a clue about what you are talking about - stricktly a UK armed services thing that Captain Ginger and I know something about and about which you know damn all.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 08:10 PM

Has anyone else noticed jus' how the new & not-so-improved T-Bird ain't a very nice person since the days of the mad-dash-to-Iraq??? Lotta four letter words an' all... At least the old & unimproved T was civil but now he has to play tough guy and talk dirty...

What's that 'bout, T-zer??? You okay??? Seriously... An' the old & unimproved T-Bird never would have let a "ahven't" slide...

I'm worried...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 08:57 PM

Four letter words? And YOU BOBERT are picking me up on typos - You have got to be joking!!!!

Simple example:

"Yeah, I have more faith in the scholars at Johns Hopkins than I do a reproter or editorialist for USA Today, whcih in MHO, is the 2nd worst newspaper in the country with the Washigton Times being the absoluite worst...

...BTW, bb, if you get real sick--you know, real sick-- call USA Today and just don't bother yerself with Johns Hopkins...

So until someone can trump the the study that Johns Hopkins did which conducted houasehold surveys in 47 areas around Iraq and interviews with doctors, examined death records, etc., I'm stickin' with their findings...

Bobert

1) "reproter" - reporter
2) "whcih" - which
3) "Washigton" - Washington
4) "absoluite" - Absolute
5) "yerself" - yourself
6) "houasehold" - Household

Hey Bobert you stick to whatever you want to - But by Christ be prepared to be able to argue that cause on purely logical and reasonable grounds that are in some form of understandable english.

Oh, by the way Bobert, no-one from John Hopkins was actually in Iraq to carry out THEIR SURVEY - marvellous isn't it??? Believe what you will, fact remains that in the period of all this calamity and disaster the overall population of Iraq has grown from about 18.6 million in 1990 to about 26.7 million in 2003 - amazing isn't it Bobert, what with all this death and destruction going about!! Why that's a 43% increase in population over 13 years - Amazing really considering how bad things have been - any explanation for that Bobert? By the way Bobert what would a similar rise in population in the USA have resulted in with regard to overall population - Just to get things into perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:07 PM

Now, guys....(smile)...let's not get totally petty here.

I think Bobert's dreadful spelling is part of a sort of hillbilly style he likes adopting for amusement's sake. Or else he's dyslexic. I'm not sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:16 PM

Danged testy, too, I'd have to say, T-Bird...

Hey, me an' Al Gore invented bad spellin' and badder yet typin' so don't get all huffy puffy wid me there 'bout somethin' that me an' Al do 'cause we like to do it...; You hate to do it... Back in yer old & unimproved days you wouldn't let so much a single typo go into yer danged "War n' Peace" length posts... Nor would you use four letter words...

..but, gosh, man, you've come down a few rungs on the laddwer... I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear that you ain't bathin' 'er cuttin' yer danged toenails... You know, kinda like Howard Highes before he died...

Like I said: I'm worried about you...

Maybe the marriage din't pan out, I don't know but there's somethin' real outta sorts with you... Hope things turn around fir ya' though 'caue when yer on top of yer game yer somethin' else... Right now you ain't...

Sorry... Jus' observations...

Okay, now you can say that I have lost some hair since the mad-dash days an', yeah, I have... But I ain't lost my way or my sense of humor...

Sniff... I hate these things...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:31 PM

Hell Bobert, the marriage is panning out just fine, here's me at 58 with a lovely bride of 38, four wonderful children from a previous marriage (First wife died of cancer in 2001 after twenty-six years together) so don't you worry about that one jot.

And PLEASE don't for christ's sake pull me up on one typo when in the same post you make six - kinda like the pot callin' the kettle black if you know what I mean.

I have long since given up reading your posts, you are a weak, bitter, bigotted, narrow minded individual that I have no need of discourse with - On any subject - Understood.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:00 PM

>>GUEST,282RA - regarding your post of 27 Feb 07 - 12:30 PM - with all due respect you ahven't got a clue about what you are talking about - stricktly a UK armed services thing that Captain Ginger and I know something about and about which you know damn all.<<

It's not going to be any different and you know it. What you are talking about is disavowing actions of which you are, in fact, guilty. That certainly can be a career killer. And I'll grant you that you probably know a good deal more about these matters than Captain Ginger.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:00 PM

"Why that's a 43% increase in population over 13 years"

Wow, seems like we've only been occupying for four years. My how time flies.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:02 PM

Oops. Hit send before I had a chance to chuckle about how Teribus has "long since given up reading" Bobert's posts....but can certainly comb through them for typos (without reading them I presume).

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:09 PM

"...43% increase in population over 13 years..."

Source please.

btw - Standard English is not a valid method of judging a person's critical literacy skills. A person can speak standard English with only functional literacy skills, ie: they know how to balance a checkbook and read advertisements: they can therefore become good little consumers in a corporate world.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:32 PM

Dear Amos: My arms are stationary, my mouth is shut and I am not calling you names. I am merely pointing out that you are doing what you accuse others of doing.

You post hundreds of personal attacks but if somone dares say anything about you, you come all unglued.

You can hand it out but you can't take it. Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:06 PM

Oh? What am I doing, good Dick, that I accuse others of doing -- exactly? And whom have I accused of it? Be specific, man!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:35 PM

You accuse others of ad hominem attacks. You accuse others of demagoguery.

"tell that Dubya boy his pecker is in my pocket and to sign the goddamned marching orders NOW!"

Very academic. Definitely no arm waving or tongue flapping there

"I'm sorry. You are being a jerk. Perhaps you have been drinking, or perhaps you are that way naturally."

No personal attacks there.

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

No references to who someone voted for there.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 07:06 AM

Bobert,

If the claim that has been shown to be inflated is OK by you, than PLEASE tell me why you object to US troops being there- the coalition forces have not yet killed 40,000 people in total.

You WANTT us to leave the country to the ones who YOU claim have killed 560,000 of their OWN people??????

You are a sick puppy.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Scrump
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 07:25 AM

Q. How do you tell when a politician is lying?

A. When he opens his mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 08:21 AM

The 560,000 have been killed by quite a number of causes. Many of which may be exacerbated by the presence of US troops. One might claim that Johns Hopkins people were not in Iraq and this invalidates the study. BUT, their research was done in collaboration with Mustansiriya University which is in.....?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 08:38 AM

I just watched the director of veteran hospital affairs being interviewed.

He said that they are caring for 23,000 injured troops and only 6,000 of those were amputees,.

The reporter read off 7 catagories (like brain trauma, musclar skelatal, mental illness, organ damage...) of the injured that totaled over 200,000.

He responded "Well some of them come in for dental problems."



boy, that guy sure can spin it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 09:18 AM

Dickey:

Good on ya. I stand corrected -- I have made ad hominem remarks, leavened with a little humor, and I have waved my arms a bit, haven't I? Very sorry.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:21 AM

"let's not get totally petty here"

Tom and the Heartbreakers should likely avoid "Totally Petty" as a CD title.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:25 AM

From William rivers Pitt (sorry the clip is so long, but every word is worth reading here.

"Just because the Supreme Court set that poison precedent and anointed Bush, who brought in a crowd of neocon yahoos which earned no attention before the 2000 campaign, just because we 'Muricans vote for the man and not the mob, which in this case turned into the mob that ruined the country, you know, Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Pearl and Feith and Ledeen and Negroponte...
    ...just because unreasonably massive tax cuts were combined in 2001 with the economic depth-charge that was the Enron/Arthur Andersen/inflated revenues/overstated tax earnings scandal, which was umbilically connected to the White House, just because the economy (not to mention our whole psyche) absorbed another blow when four commercial airplanes somehow managed to pierce the most impenetrable air defense system in the history of the universe, fooling the entire intelligence community as well, if you believe what you hear...
    ...just because this happened despite a blizzard of warnings delivered in the weeks and months beforehand, along with a raft of information gathered by the previous administration, just because a bunch of anthrax got mailed to Democrats by the Ashcroft wing of the Republican Party in what were obvious assassination attempts and yet nothing but nothing has been done about it, just because the 9/11 attack was immediately - and I mean the day after immediately - grasped as an excuse to invade Iraq, just because virtually everyone in the administration lied with their bare faces hanging out about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, terrorism ties in Iraq, so break out the plastic sheeting and duct tape because we're all gonna die...
    ...just because they did this in no small part to win the 2002 midterms by any means necessary, just because they have used that day against us with deliberation and intent, just because 3,160 American soldiers have been killed looking for 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons (which is one million pounds) of sarin and mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 munitions to deliver the stuff, mobile biological weapons labs, aerial drones to spray the aforementioned stuff, and let's not forget the uranium from Niger for use in Iraq's robust "nukular" program, all of which was described to the letter by Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address, claims that still remain today on the White House web site, on a page titled 'Disarm Saddam Hussein'...
    ...just because the medical journal Lancet estimated that as many as 198,000 Iraqi citizens have been killed as well in the war to get at this stuff, and that was a while ago and a whole slew of bombings ago, just because none of the stuff was there, and by the way none of the stuff was there, and did I mention that none of the stuff was there, just because the idea that Hussein was allied with bin Laden was laughable because Osama has wanted Saddam's head on his battle standard for decades, just because the true source of world terrorism, which is Sunni Wahabbist extremism out of Saudi Arabia, goes completely unaddressed because the Houses of Bush and Saud have been partnered for decades...
    ...just because the lie that says the GOP is strong on national defense still permeates everything, though the loss of those 3,160 soldiers combined with the grievous wounding of between 47,000 and 53,000 other soldiers amounts to the evisceration of between a fourth and a third of our entire active fighting force, which makes us safer in no way that can be fathomed, and never mind the soldiers living in filth and among rats and roaches because they have been deliberately shafted so the Bush boys can squeeze a few more pennies into the coffers of folks like Halliburton and Exxon...

(snip)

...just because our national reputation is ravaged and our future has been sold out from under us, just because Truman's wartime economic footing has morphed into a machine that Eisenhower would recognize in horror as the very thing he warned us about before he left, just because the whole system now requires us to manufacture wars if none are available because the system itself has been wired to feed the beast no matter the consequences, just because television tells you not to worry, look at these breasts or this shaved starlet's head, or this shiny thing, look here, shhh, be silent, be still, sleep...
    ...doesn't mean We The People are finished, because all of this is why "We The People" was written down in the first place, and though the day is late and the road is long and the chances for success are slim, We The People are here to stay, so strap in and look out, because we are just getting started, and the next sentence will be ours to write."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:28 AM

The New York Times and Iraq

Published: May 26, 2004

Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. We have examined the failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists. We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves.

In doing so — reviewing hundreds of articles written during the prelude to war and into the early stages of the occupation — we found an enormous amount of journalism that we are proud of. In most cases, what we reported was an accurate reflection of the state of our knowledge at the time, much of it painstakingly extracted from intelligence agencies that were themselves dependent on sketchy information. And where those articles included incomplete information or pointed in a wrong direction, they were later overtaken by more and stronger information. That is how news coverage normally unfolds.

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.On Oct. 26 and Nov. 8, 2001, for example, Page 1 articles cited Iraqi defectors who described a secret Iraqi camp where Islamic terrorists were trained and biological weapons produced. These accounts have never been independently verified.

On Dec. 20, 2001, another front-page article began, "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." Knight Ridder Newspapers reported last week that American officials took that defector — his name is Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri — to Iraq earlier this year to point out the sites where he claimed to have worked, and that the officials failed to find evidence of their use for weapons programs. It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq, but in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in. And until now we have not reported that to our readers.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Guest PTBL
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:31 AM

Does anyone here recall a certain memo signed by Blair(?)?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:36 AM

More NYT CYA:

"On Sept. 8, 2002, the lead article of the paper was headlined "U.S. Says Hussein Intensified Quest for A-Bomb Parts." That report concerned the aluminum tubes that the administration advertised insistently as components for the manufacture of nuclear weapons fuel. The claim came not from defectors but from the best American intelligence sources available at the time. Still, it should have been presented more cautiously. There were hints that the usefulness of the tubes in making nuclear fuel was not a sure thing, but the hints were buried deep, 1,700 words into a 3,600-word article. Administration officials were allowed to hold forth at length on why this evidence of Iraq's nuclear intentions demanded that Saddam Hussein be dislodged from power: "The first sign of a `smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud."

Five days later, The Times reporters learned that the tubes were in fact a subject of debate among intelligence agencies. The misgivings appeared deep in an article on Page A13, under a headline that gave no inkling that we were revising our earlier view ("White House Lists Iraq Steps to Build Banned Weapons"). The Times gave voice to skeptics of the tubes on Jan. 9, when the key piece of evidence was challenged by the International Atomic Energy Agency. That challenge was reported on Page A10; it might well have belonged on Page A1.

On April 21, 2003, as American weapons-hunters followed American troops into Iraq, another front-page article declared, "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert." It began this way: "A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said."

The informant also claimed that Iraq had sent unconventional weapons to Syria and had been cooperating with Al Qaeda — two claims that were then, and remain, highly controversial. But the tone of the article suggested that this Iraqi "scientist" — who in a later article described himself as an official of military intelligence — had provided the justification the Americans had been seeking for the invasion.

The Times never followed up on the veracity of this source or the attempts to verify his claims."

Se also The Times and Iraq: A Sample of the Coverage

The following is a sampling of articles published by The Times about the decisions that led the United States into the war in Iraq, and especially the issue of Iraq's weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:41 AM

"On April 21, 2003, as American weapons-hunters followed American troops into Iraq, another front-page article declared, "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert." It began this way: "A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said."

The informant also claimed that Iraq had sent unconventional weapons to Syria and had been cooperating with Al Qaeda — two claims that were then, and remain, highly controversial. But the tone of the article suggested that this Iraqi "scientist" — who in a later article described himself as an official of military intelligence — had provided the justification the Americans had been seeking for the invasion.

The Times never followed up on the veracity of this source or the attempts to verify his claims."




And where are the demands for a grand jury to investigate this cover-up?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:51 PM

Well, mate, why don't you start your own movement?

I have seen no hard evidence that actual WMD capable of actual harm to the United States existed at the time of all these claims, or that the earlier programs had not been retired as claimed by inspectors and Iraq alike.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:55 PM

"I have seen no hard evidence that actual WMD capable of actual harm to the United States existed at the time of all these claims,"

1. Not what was claimed.
2. You have not bothered to look at the evidence as stated by the UN. ( see previous posts here- or do I need to repeat it a third time?)


"or that the earlier programs had not been retired as claimed by inspectors and Iraq alike."

The UN Inspectors stated that they could NOT state that the programs had been retired, as there was NO evidnce that it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 02:04 PM

I.e. there is No proof that the programs did NOT exist.

So, we're back to the "proving a negative" thing...where's Dickey to explain? This is something we actually agree on!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 02:28 PM

"I.e. there is No proof that the programs did NOT exist."



NOT what was stated in the UN reports.

The PREVIOUS existance of the prohibited programs WAS shown, in multiple reports over the years 1994 through 2002. The REMOVAL of the programs is what there is NO proof of.

THEREFORE, the programs must still exist, BY YOUR LOGIC.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 03:55 PM

No (and must you always end your posts by putting words in someone's mouth?).

It is impossible to prove a negative. Doesn't matter what snippet you put before it.

No matter what evidence you don't find, it is always possible that you didn't see the evidence, or looked for the wrong type of evidence, etc.

It is impossible to prove a negative.

For example, what evidence could you provide to PROVE that the tooth fairy does NOT exist?






Now let's say the tooth fairy really really does exist, and you saw it last week, and we all agreed that it did exist, but then not all the children clapped when it got sick, so it disappeared. What evidence could you provide today to PROVE that it does NOT exist?

Notice that I will not provide your answer for you, I will let you speak for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 04:17 PM

I have seen plenty of conjecture, plenty of caterwauling, scads of hypotheticals, reams of noise, lots of smoke and mirrors... But the burden of proof of the accusation is with the accuser. There is a much-more-than-reasonable doubt whether such weapons existed, at the time that Bush, Rice and Rumsfield were insisting (but not substantiating the assertion) that they did, that I can only conclude they had some other agenda than what they let out of their mouths.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 05:38 PM

BB,

Proclaimation and facts are two different things... Yer back into the proclaimation cycle that you occasionally go thru where if you can find one person out there who prints anything that will justify Bush's invasion of Iraq you put it up there as if was the Holy Grail...

You have not provided any factual evidence that the Johns Hopkins study is flawed and no one else has either...

Now you ask my why I'm against the US military being in Iraq??? Funny question... I thought we'd been over this a few hundred times and if you wish, go back and read my arguments againt the invasion in the 1st palce... They still apply...

T-Bird,

First of all: bite me!!! Awww, jus' funnin' but what I ain't funnin' with is reminding you that it was ***your*** world views, not ***mine*** that proved to be wrong...

...you spent night after night explaining just why the US/UK needed to invade Iraq and now look at the predicted keetle of fish you have on yer hands??? And you smugly dismiss me as having weak arguments... Well weak, okay maybe, but correct ones... History right here in Mudville has shown who had the weaker world view and that, T-zer ol' bud, is you... Yeah, I predicted just about exactly what has occured in Iraq down to the street fightin we now see... I predicted the civil war that we now see... I predicted that the US would get bogged down... I predicted that the US would destabilze the region...

Yeah, some mighty weak predictions, indeed!!!

So you can take yer war mongin' smugness, stick it in a pipe and smoke it... Maybe then you'll have a reason to feel all superior and smug in yer little wrong-thinking world...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:32 PM

TIA,

YOU are attempting to prove the negative- PLEASE READ MY POST!


"NOT what was stated in the UN reports.

The PREVIOUS existance of the prohibited programs WAS shown, in multiple reports over the years 1994 through 2002. The REMOVAL of the programs is what there is NO proof of.

THEREFORE, the programs must still exist, BY YOUR LOGIC. "

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:44 PM

T-Bird, Part B...

Jus' for gtins I have just revisited portions of a thread from the mad-dash-to-invade-Iarq entitled "Bush, Iraq and War, PART EIGHT" and maybe you should as well... I think it would take you down a peg 'er two on yer smugness totum poll... No, not a peg or two but prolly closer to the bottom as ***your*** views then were as wrong as they are today...

Now, I know you don't like to be reminded of this but the views and opinions that I and others put forth ended up being the correct ones and yer were just plain ill-thought out and wrong as wrong can be...

Yeah, ***you*** picked the company fight song and sang it at the top of yer smug little lungs... Problem is that with most company fight songs they are just there to keep the ***true believers***, such as yerself, entertained and not much more than that...

And when all else failed in yer and Blair/Bush's little scheme and you were faced by having to allow-- horrors, amn-- weapons inspectors back into Iraq you din't want to give them time to do their job and make their reports... Then you poopoo'd Blixes address to the UN where he said the Iarqi's were cooperating and allowing inspections of any places they wanted to inspect... Yeah, you and yer buds Bush and Blair had no patience for that... You and they had allready made up yer little war-mongin' minds and you wanted to fire up the "SHOCK 'n AWE" as if it was like gettin' laid fir the first time... No time for Hans Blix... No time to consider what a post-Shock ' Awe Iraq would look like... Just attack, attack, attack...

Then things went bad---real bad--for your side as we had predicted and even gave you specifics of just how bad things were going to be and so you disappeared in disgrace but now you think that..

...we've forgotten those days???

And you think it's perfectly okay to critcise me and say that my arguments are weak???

Bite me, T-zer, just friggin bite me...

Anyone here can go back and review the arguments...

You were wrong!!!

I (and others) were right!!!

No smug, no brag, jus' pure unaltered fact...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:09 PM

Jeeezus BB. I'm reading it over and over. You are just not following.

One more try, then I am giving up forever.

Leprechauns exist. We all agree that leprechauns exist. But, the last leprechaun goes to the big Guiness pint in the sky. Now, some claim that there still are some leprechauns hidden somewhere in some little fairy glade. Can anyone, ANYONE, disprove that claim? What evidence could one possibly produce that would PROVE that the supposed surviving leprechauns do NOT exist.

Now, remember that you just said that there is "{NO proof of the REMOVAL of programs}". To me that is preczactly the same as no proof of the non-existence of leprechauns. Not possible for leprechauns, nor W's of MD.

(deep breaths, deep breaths)

And I am very sorry for the caps, I am, in fact, on the verge of yelling.

Apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:17 PM

beardedbruce:

Arne,

Your statements of Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:11 PM are both unsupported and false. If you have any evidence to present, please do so: I have previously ( in other threads) posted the quotes from the U.N. reports that prove you wrong.

Huh? Since when? If you think that specific statements of mine are false, say which ones, and explain why they're false.

We've been through this before, but as I pointed out, the fact that Saddam did let the inspectors in is pretty much uncontested by any sentient organism, and my claims that your 'objections' were irrelevant are quite demonstrably and obviously true.

It is also true that the Whitehouse has used the phrase "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities". (Mea culpa on my initial word transposition of that neologistic gobbledygook). Keep in mind that this Whitehouse statement was after the invasion (and subsequent weapons search).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:37 PM

beardedbruce emits this tripe:

Another Ignored Discovery
The American Spectator ^ | 6/16/2004 | Steven Martinovich
Posted on 06/15/2004 9:55:18 PM PDT by elhombrelibre
With the media's focus on chronicling every attack on coalition forces or terrorist attack against Iraqi civilians in Iraq, they might be forgiven for missing other stories occasionally. Reporting democracy at the local level or the opening of a new school isn't sexy work for the most part. It's the equivalent of traveling halfway across the world to cover stories that local beat reporters write every day in your local paper. That focus on Iraqi insurgents, however, seems to have blinded almost everyone to a major story that surfaced last week since it was largely ignored by the media with the exception of the World Tribune and some smaller newspapers.
On June 9, Demetrius Perricos announced that before, during and after the war in Iraq, Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction and medium-range ballistic missiles to countries in Europe and the Middle East. Entire factories were dismantled and shipped as scrap metal to Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey, among others, at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. As an example of speed by which these facilities were dismantled, Perricos displayed two photographs of a ballistic missile site near Baghdad, one taken in May 2003 with an active facility, the other in February 2004 that showed it had simply disappeared.
What passed for scrap metal and has since been discovered as otherwise is amazing. Inspectors have found Iraqi SA-2 surface-to-air missiles in Rotterdam -- complete with U.N. inspection tags -- and 20 SA-2 engines in Jordan, along with components for solid-fuel for missiles. Short-range Al Samoud surface-to-surface missiles were shipped abroad by agents of the regime. That missing ballistic missile site contained missile components, a reactor vessel and fermenters -- the latter used for the production of chemical and biological warheads.
"The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through these yards and other yards elsewhere," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "We can't really assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors."
Perricos isn't an American shill defending the Bush administration, but rather the acting executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and his report was made to the Security Council. Yet his report didn't seem to be of much interest to a media which has used the lack of significant discoveries to question the rationale for the war. After over a year of searching, experts have managed to find little in the way of the biological and chemical weapons that every major intelligence service -- including those of Germany and France -- maintained existed. We still haven't, but Perricos' report brings us one step closer....

Yeah, we all just suck up American Spectator/Freeperville effluvia like it was ambrisia from the gods....

Notice an actual lack of cites to original materials there? You know, something approaching an actual news (or other reliable source) statement reporting the alleged claims by Mr. Perricos? You know, maybe somthing like this????:

UNITED NATIONS — Demetrius Perricos, acting head of the United Nations weapons inspection program, can't disguise his satisfaction that almost a year after the invasion of Iraq, U.S. inspectors have found the same thing that their much-maligned U.N. counterparts did before the war: no banned weapons.

In his first interview since former chief U.S. inspector David Kay announced his conclusion that Iraq had no banned weapons before the war, Perricos said Kay's findings undercut complaints from the Bush administration that the U.N. teams were not aggressive enough to find chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.

Just to clue the brainless here, from beardedbruce's quote: "Perricos displayed two photographs of a ballistic missile site near Baghdad, one taken in May 2003 with an active facility, the other in February 2004 that showed it had simply disappeared."

May 2003?!?!? February 2004?!?!? No one claims that the U.S., during its invasion and occupation, didn't allow the looting of all kinds of stuff, some of which ended up on the black market, and some of which (explosives, etc) sadly enough ended up in the hands of insurgents and are now killing U.S. troops.

But surface-to-air missiles aren't WoMD. And the al Samoud missiles were arguably permissible, but Hussein agreed to destroy them (and Blix was watchng them be destroyed) just to keep the U.S. from getting all frisky for an unjustified and useless war. If Saddam didn't manage to destroy them all before the invasion, that's hardly his fault.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:48 PM

beardedbruce:

"the killing of over a half million people"

As has been proven multiple times before, YOUR numbers are false, fraudulent and lies of the first order.

Oh. I thought I'd beat you to a pulp on that nonsense last time around. Here we go again. Where's the "fals[ities], fraud[], and lies of the first order"? Be specific.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:15 PM

Fact is folks, there are NO definitive 'numbers' for deaths of Iraqi civilians. Many organizatiuons have given their best guess, and depending on who ya listen to, there is a spread of a several hundred thousand. Anyway, what does it matter on this thread 'how many'? It is separate from whether or not Bush lied.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:41 AM

From a senator who was there, excerpted from today's Times, New York:

...The situation facing the candidates who cast war votes has, to my surprise, often been presented as a binary one — they could either vote for the war, or not. There was no middle ground.

On the contrary. There was indeed a third way, which Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, hailed at the time as "one of the most important votes we will cast in this process." And it was opposed by every single senator at the time who now seeks higher office.

A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States' international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.

Senator Levin's amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not "promptly adopted" or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America's right to defend itself if threatened.

An opponent of the Levin amendment said that the debate was not over objectives, but tactics. And he was right. To a senator, we all had as our objectives the safety of American citizens, the security of our country and the disarming of Saddam Hussein in compliance with United Nations resolutions. But there was a steadfast core of us who believed that the tactics should be diplomacy and multilateralism, not the "go it alone" approach of the Bush doctrine.

Those of us who supported the Levin amendment argued against a rush to war. We asserted that the Iraqi regime, though undeniably heinous, did not constitute an imminent threat to United States security, and that our campaign to renew weapons inspections in Iraq — whether by force or diplomacy — would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states.

We also urged our colleagues to take seriously the admonitions of our allies in the region — Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. As King Abdullah of Jordan warned, "A miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil."

Unfortunately, these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23. It was clear that most senators were immune to persuasion because the two votes were almost mirror images of each other — no to the Levin amendment, aye to war. Their minds were made up.

It was incomprehensible to me at the time that the Levin amendment received only 24 votes. However, there were some heroes, like Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, who even in the midst of a very difficult re-election campaign voted to slow the march to war. And then there was the moving statement by Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in support of the Levin amendment and against the administration-backed resolution: "This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the president's authority under the Constitution of the United States — not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head."

...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 11:26 AM

PC been down - did I miss anything important?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 12:53 PM

"But there was a steadfast core of us who believed that the tactics should be diplomacy and multilateralism, not the "go it alone" approach of the Bush doctrine."

Exactly! The rest of the world would have appreciated it. A little respect goes a long way.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 12:54 PM

Sorry for another long cut and paste, but the prescience of this is spectacular...


US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003

"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 06:48 PM

Sniff...

The worst part about leavin' Wes Ginny was loosin' Senator Bryd as my Senator...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:00 PM

A very good speech TIA, very good indeed.

But from the text of his speech there are a number of things that Senator Byrd (Sniff) must have been aware of:

On the contemplation of war, he says, "Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing."

Could that have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that it was the Joint House Security Committee (i.e. House of Representaives and the Senate) that had identified the threat that Iraq posed? - Matter of record. That this threat had been previously identified almost five years less four days before in a speech made by President Bill Clinton.

He goes on:

"We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world."

Absolutely, this is the war on terror and those who would propagate it. It is a turning point, it is a definitive moment in the history of mankind. It is a moment when a leader said enough is enough, those shadowy organisations and the nations who back them will not dictate through terror the path of mankind. We shall enter this struggle with the full intent to see it through irrespective of the cost, because we believe that we stand for the values of our forefathers and that all of mankind should share in that freedom, if they so chose, but by Christ at least give the people that choice.

"This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine...... -.......The doctrine of pre-emption"

I would like to point out to Senator (Sniff) Byrd, that the doctrine of pre-emption has been a reality since the first successful Soviet Atomic test.

"...that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense."

Senator (Sniff) Byrd does not state how he, or, more correctly those responsible for the safety and security of the United States of America, knows when part 1 of his statement becomes part 2.

"It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter." - Not really. It is up to the government of each country in the world to assess what threatens it, and under the terms of the Charter of the United nations each country is allowed to act in self-defence if it believes that it is threatened without recourse to any other authority. If you don't believe me read the Charter.

"High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq." - This should have come as no great surprise to Senator (Sniff) Byrd. Since when has anybody gone into a potential conflict and assured their opponent what punches they are going to throw? Besides Iraq armed with Chemical & Biological Weapons must have realised that standard NATO doctrine was that such a threat would be answered by the use of Tactical Nuclear weapons. If not, their major trading partners, the Russians would have acquainted them of that fact - that and that alone prevented the use of Chemical and Biological weapons during Desert Storm.

"Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur." - In other words they are being advised to be vigilant - True? But somehow Senator (Sniff) Byrd sees this as threatening?

"Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed." - Alarmist claptrap based upon absolutely nothing at all. The question I would have asked of Senator (Sniff) Byrd would have been, prove it.

"This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal." - Pure politics, nothing more. I would like to hear Senator (Sniff) Byrd's take on the inaction during the final two years of President Bill Clinton's Presidency with regard to a threat that the security services of the United States of America and his own Administration identified - probably least said the better, Eh?

I could go through the speech in detail - Absolutely no point. All I can say is thank Christ that this man (Senator 'Sniff' Byrd) was not President, and was not responsible for the safety and security of the United States of America.

This man had he been in charge would have stood silent and acquiescent guardian to:

- The UN's abandonment of sanctions against Iraq (possibly in 2002/2003)

- The renewal and acceleration of Iraq's WMD programmes including nuclear (No way Saddam would have stood back and let Iran pip Iraq to the post on that score - True?)

- Increased support for international terrorism from Iraq in the light of Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections

Depending on exactly when Saddam would have attacked Iran, you peace loving appeasing shower could possibly have been looking at a nuclear war sometime within the coming four to five years. Well done Sniff.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:27 PM

Teribus:

I would like to point out to Senator (Sniff) Byrd, that the doctrine of pre-emption has been a reality since the first successful Soviet Atomic test.

Say "huh?!?!?!?"

Absolute nonsense. Teribus must be living on a different planet.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:28 PM

Same ol' lies, T...

Saddam didn't = terrorism...

And given the current state of affairs with Bush frothin' at the mouth to invade Iran, but can't now that he has blown all credibility outta the water like who would have cared within the neocons if Iraq did invade Iran???

Donnie Duck???

No, seems that instability and a Muslim civil war is about all the neocons, you included, want in the 1st place... Well, they, an' you, sho nuff have one...

Enjoy...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:29 PM

Teribus:

"It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter." - Not really. It is up to the government of each country in the world to assess what threatens it,...

Oh, goodie, goodie! I want to be the judge at my own bank-rpbbery trial....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:33 PM

Speaking of judging:

Sen. Byrd:      32.641
Teribus             0

Teribus isn't fit to hand Sen. Byrd a roll of toilet paper.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:42 PM

Oh! Dear!!

Arne 09:27; Bobert 09:28; Arne 09:29 & Arne 09:33.

So pleased to note that I rattled your cages. Thread readers please note, in response to my post, not a single thing of any consequence or sense has been added.

Carry on chaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:50 PM

Nothing "of any consequence" is required in response to your latest spinathon. The jury is in and...




Byrd was right





Bobert was right





Teribus was (sniff) wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:54 PM

teribus:

So pleased to note that I rattled your cages. Thread readers please note, in response to my post, not a single thing of any consequence or sense has been added.

Did that upstairs. You ignored it.

But do tell us how "pre-emption" has been the Way Of The World since the first Russian nuke test. How many times did we bomb 'em? I keep fergettin'....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:02 PM

Arne,

Go read something and find out for yourself - for once - it would make a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:54 PM

Nop - didn't miss nuttin'...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 11:59 PM

Its funny how everything that was said before 9/11 has been erased from the minds of the Bush haters.

Iraq and a History of Terrorism

On December 3, 1976, the New York Times reported that radical Palestinians have gathered in Iraq to mount a terrorist campaign against "moderate" arab governments. The group referred to in the article was known as Black June and they were led by the terrorist Abu Nidal. On August 5, 1978, the New York Times reported that this Palestinian group was linked to Iraq's intelligence service. Abu Nidal was a ruthless terrorist who planned the 1973 assault on an American passenger plane in Rome that resulted in 34 deaths and the 1974 bombing of TWA 841 which resulted in 88 deaths.    link   link

On April 24, 1977, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) was reorgainized under the leadership of the terrorist Abu Abbas. According to an October 13, 1985 article in the New York Times, the group was organized with money and help from the Iraqi government.    link

In December 1977, Carlos the Jackal (a.k.a. Ilich Ramirez Sanchez) a "terrorist for hire" met with Saddam Hussein. Carlos was openly supported by the Iraqi government.    link   link

On July 15, 1978, the LA Times reported that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had formally asked the government of Iraq to hand over the terrorist Abu Nidal "so he would get what he deserves." The article reported Iraq had given support to Abu Nidal and even provided him with his own radio station which he called "the voice of the Palestinian revolution." Among other things, the radio station had launched virulent attacks on two Palestinian leaders shortly before they were assassinated earlier that year.    link

In 1979, Congress passed legislation (Export Administration Act of 1979) which required the executive branch to create and maintain a list of countries deemed to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. In December 1979, the Carter Administration declared four countries as state sponsors of terrorism including: Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Southern Yemen.    link   link

On August 30, 1980, the New York Times reported in an article titled "U.S. Forbids Sale of Jetliners to Iraq" that the Carter Administration decided to block the sale of five Boeing jets due to Iraq's involvement in recent terrorist activities. The article reported that, within the previous few months, Iraqi diplomats were involved in attempted bomb attacks in Vienna and West Berlin.    link

On November 9, 1982, the Los Angeles Times reported in an article titled "Top Arab Terrorist Back in Baghdad" that Abu Nidal had recently moved back to Iraq after being expelled from the country four years earlier. His presence in Iraq was confirmed by President Saddam Hussein.    link

Abu Abbas was the mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking. Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Manhattan retiree, was rolled by Abbas's men, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. After holding some 400 passengers hostage for 44 hours, the hijackers surrendered to Egyptian authorities in exchange for safe passage to Tunisia aboard an Egypt Air jet. The airliner, however, was forced by U.S. fighter planes to land at a NATO base in Sicily. Italian officials took the hijackers into custody but Abu Abbas possessed a get-out-of-jail card: an Iraqi diplomatic passport. Seeing that this terrorist traveled as a credentialed Iraqi diplomat, the Italian authorities let Abbas flee to Yugoslavia.    link   link   link

On May 13, 1986, the New York Times reported that the French Interior Ministry had received confessions for three terrorist bombings including the Marks & Spencer department stores in Paris and London. According to reports, the terrorist in custody had received his orders from a "contact in Baghdad". That contact was Abu Ibrahim, the leader of a radical Palestinian organization called the "15 May Faction". This group, which received Iraqi government support, was known for its use of sophisticated explosive devices in the form of plastic explosives and suitcase bombs. Among other crimes by this terrorist group, the 15 May Organization was responsible for five attacks on American and Israeli airliners between 1982 and 1983 including the August 11, 1982 bombing of Pan Am flight 830 over Honolulu which killed one teenager and injured 15 other passengers. They were also responsible for the April 2, 1986 bombing of TWA flight 840 which killed four people. The Los Angeles Times reported in a January 9, 1992 article that this group had close ties to Iraq.    link   link   link

During the first Gulf War, on February 4, 1991, the Washington Times wrote an article titled "Terrorist Camps Deserted in Iraq." The article reported that several terrorist camps inside Iraq were abandoned shortly after the start of the allied bombing campaign. One camp in the western desert was operated by the terrorist Abu Nidal for weapons and explosives training. A terrorist camp near Bagdad was operated by Abu Ibrahim, leader of the Arab Organization May 15. And another terrorist camp near Bagdad was occupied by terrorists of unknown affiliation. Later, after the war, the Washington Times wrote another article dated November 24, 1992 reporting that terrorists were once again training at a camp near Bagdad in violation of the cease-fire terms that ended the Gulf War.    link   link

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Al Gore criticized the first Bush administration for its "blatant disregard" of Iraq's ties to terrorism. On September 29, 1992 Al Gore said, "The Reagan/Bush Administration was also prepared to overlook the fact that the terrorist who masterminded the attack on the Achille Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer fled with Iraqi assistance. Nor did it matter that the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came from Baghdad with suitcase bombs." Al Gore went on to say, "There might have been a moment's pause for reflection when Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May 1987, killing 37 sailors -- but the [Reagan/Bush] Administration smoothed it over very fast."    link

Former President George H.W. Bush visited Kuwait between April 14 and April 16, 1993, to commemorate the allied victory in the Persian Gulf War. In late-April 1993, the United States learned that terrorists had attempted to assassinate Bush during his visit to Kuwait and evidence indicated that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) was behind the assassination attempt. The Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. On June 26, 1993, the United States launched a cruise missile attack against a building housing the Iraqi Intelligence Service in Baghdad in retaliation for the assassination attempt on former President Bush.    link

On June 27, 1994 ABC News reported that Abdul Rahman Yasin (indicted for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) was known to be living in Iraq. A reporter working for ABC News and Newsweek spotted Abdul Yasin at his father's house in Baghdad. Newsweek reported that, according to neighbors, Yasin was "working for the Iraqi government." At the time, the U.S. government was offering a $2 million reward for information leading to his capture. Yasin was never brought to justice and still remains at large today. The reward for his capture has since increased to $5 million.    link   link

After the Gulf War in 1991, no-fly zones were established in northern and southern Iraq to protect the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites from Saddam's forces. The U.S. military enforced these no-fly zones up until the second Iraq war in March 2003. Iraq considered this an affront to its sovereignty and in December 1998 began shooting at American aircraft patrolling these zones. On March 28, 2001, General Tommy Franks reported to the House Armed Services Committee that during the prior year alone, coalition forces had flown nearly 10,000 sorties inside Iraqi airspace and those aircraft were engaged by surface-to-air missiles or anti-aircraft fire more than 500 times. Franks reported that during the prior year, naval forces had intercepted 610 ships while enforcing U.N. sanctions designed to limit Saddam Hussein's ability to smuggle oil out of Iraq. On any given day, U.S. Central Command operated in the region with some 30 naval vessels, 175-200 military aircraft, and between 18,000 and 25,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines.    video   video   link   link

On January 27, 1999 an article in the New York Times titled "A Much-Shunned Terrorist Is Said to Find Haven in Iraq" stated that "Abu Nidal, one of the world's most infamous terrorists, moved to Baghdad late last year and obtained the protection of President Saddam Hussein, according to intelligence reports received by United States and Middle Eastern government officials." The article quoted a counterterrorism expert who said that, regarding Abu Nidal, "Osama bin Laden is a student by comparison."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:02 AM

I missed some:

Before the rise of Usama bin Laden, Abu Nidal was widely regarded as the world's most ruthless terrorist. The Associated Press reported on August 22, 2002 that Nidal entered Iraq during the late 1990's "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities." He lived there until August, 2002 when he died of between one and four gunshot wounds. It is believed by many that Abu Nidal was killed on the orders of Saddam Hussein although the Iraqi government claimed that Nidal had committed suicide.

On October 14, 2001, a former Iraqi army captain named Sabah Khodada granted an interview to the PBS television program "Frontline" in which he talked about a terrorist training camp in Iraq called Salman Pak. During this interview Khodada stated, "This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world."

Saddam Hussein paid $25,000 bonuses to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. "President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000," Iraq's deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz declared on March 11, 2002. Mahmoud Besharat, who dispensed these funds across the West Bank, gratefully said: "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."   

On February 13, 2003, the Philippine government expelled Iraqi diplomat Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary at Iraq's Manila embassy. Cell phone records indicated that the Iraqi diplomat had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, just before and just after this Al-Qaeda allied Islamic militant group conducted an attack in Zamboanga City. Abu Sayyaf's nail filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos plus killing U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age 40.    link   link   link

After the fall of Saddam's government, coalition forces found and destroyed a terrorist training camp located near Baghdad called Salman Pak. This terrorist training camp featured an airplane fuselage where Iraqi defectors had earlier reported foreign terrorists were being trained in hijacking aircraft.   

On April 14, 2003, Abu Abbas was captured by U.S. Special Forces during a raid near Baghdad. Abbas had lived in Baghdad since 1994, where he was living under protection of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.   

Khala Khadr al-Salahat, accused of designing the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 (259 killed on board, 11 dead on the ground), also lived in Iraq. He surrendered to U.S. Marines in Baghdad on April 18, 2003.

On September 18, 2003, USA Today ran an article with the headline "U.S. says Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack." The article reported that U.S. authorities have evidence Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Military, intelligence and law enforcement officials reported finding a large cache of Arabic-language documents in Tikrit, Saddam's political stronghold. Some analysts have concluded that the documents show Saddam's government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin.   

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on June 18, 2004, "I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:14 AM

Dickey - Its redundant to provide a link and then cut and paste the whole article. You are very boring and your source leaves out alot of pertinent information.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 04:02 AM

Dickey dearie, links to websites run by freerepublic.com have about as much credibility as the ravings of Melanie Philips. Have you actually looked at the stuff before cutting and pasting it? Much of it has been knocked down (with citations and context) in this very thread.

As one who is now adopting a more detached view of this interminable and ultimately pointless debate, I would nevertheless urge you to try to be a little more original in your arguments rather than relying on tired propaganda from neo-cons.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:13 AM

I see that the use of the SRS Rule is popular here.

" I will only accept information that

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


Given the lack of willingness to even consider that the infoirmation presented might be correct, and look at what the UN reports SAID, it becomes obvious that the only proof that some here MIGHT accept is a nuclear explosion, provided it is within a few miles of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:38 AM

There you go with that "SRS rule" crap again. I was there, I read the whole thing. You were wrong then, and continue to be so.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:09 PM

TIA - I was told to stop arguing with a madman because by the very nature of his madness, he was incapable of logic and reason.

I keep reminding myself of that.

Its pointless and a waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:17 PM

Well, yeah, like what's wrong with the SRS rule???

With as much $$$ as is being pumped into Boss Hog blogs these days I think that's it's only fair for the Bushites here to at least make some attempt to siftr thru the factual basis of the cut ' posts they throw into discussions...

Actually, it's not a discussion at all if that's about all these various lazy Bushites can come up with... It's a proxy discussion with $$$ Bushite/RulingClass blogs...

Real friggin' intellectual...

Not...

How 'bout some of spokesfolks of the ruling class come out from behind BossHog.com and speak for yerselves???

Askin' too much???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM

Bobert, TIA, et al,

I remeber as well, and the conclusion was that the evidence was NOT even looked at. Why is it so difficult to get people here to actually look at the UN reports, on the UN sites, and READ what they say instead of taking a summary by a reporter from some newspaper that has a bias?

Bobert,

YOU have never dealt with any of the facts I have presented, nor presented any evidence that what YOU claim is valid. Sorry, but that is what I see.

Any expression of OPINION is valid- AS OPINION. Your belief that something is a fact is only as valid as the evidence you present. I have quoted the UN Reports- HOW can you state that the UN has NOT said what I have stated, when I give the UN webpage that has the section on it?

I have tried to give the context, as well, and get nasty comments from dianavan that I should summarize it. THEN the statement is made that I am not reporting what was said.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:09 PM

Bobert's Corollary to the SRS Rule:

Attack the source, ignore the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:11 PM

TIA's Axiom:

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



NOW I understand!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 05:18 PM

No, not really, bb...

You think nuthin' of postin' from Bushite blogs which are financed by rich people who want to stay that way... But do you actually try to verify what these blogs say??? I doubt it... Some of them are so long that I doubt if you even read them...

Is that an opinion??? Well, yeah but I don't think you'd pass a poligraph if you were asked if you made any attempts to verify the stuff you are willing to take from blogs and offer up as facts...

I don't do blogs because they are partisan and have axes to grind but I do read the heck outta the Washington Post every day, the New York Times on Sundays and between the two of them one can keep a purdy good perspctive of what is going down... Page A-1, tho, ain't where the meat and taters is... Ya gotta be willin' to do some huntin'...

But no blogs... Can't rely on 'um 'cause they are all biased one way or another...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 01:36 AM

Tia: I am sorry about that. Whatever is missing I am sure you know alreaedy. Otherwise you wouldn't know it was missing.

Is it this information?

On August 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against a chemical weapons factory in Sudan. The cruise missle strike was in retaliation for the August 7, 1998 truck bomb attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya which killed more than 200 people and wounded more than 5,000 others. The chemical weapons factory in Sudan was funded, in part, by Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the embassy bombings. Richard Clarke, a national security advisor to President Clinton, told the Washington Post in a January 23, 1999 article that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts had produced a powdered substance at that plant for use in making VX nerve gas.

On November 5, 1998 a Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment charging Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad. The grand jury indictment also charged that Al-Qaeda had reached an arrangement with President Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq whereby the group said that it would not work against Iraq, and that the two parties agreed to cooperate in the development of weapons.

On January 11, 1999, Newsweek magazine ran the headline "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The subheadline declared, "It would be a marriage made in hell. And America's two enemies are courting." The article points out that Saddam has a long history of supporting terrorism. The article also mentions that, in the prior week, several surface-to-air missles were fired at U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones and that Saddam is now fighting for his life now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective.

On January 14, 1999, ABC News reported, "Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the most notorious terrorists of their era, all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad. Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

On February 13, 1999, CNN reported, "Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday. Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known....." The article reports, "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden....."

On February 18, 1999, National Public Radio (NPR) reported, "There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi, sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq." NPR reported that Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when Farouk Hijazi met with bin Laden when he lived in Sudan.

On February 14, 1999, an article appeared in the San Jose Mercury News claiming that U.S. intelligence officials are worried about an alliance between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The article states that bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan in late December 1998 and that "there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world." According to this article, Saddam has offered asylum to bin Laden in Iraq. The article said that in addition to Abu Nidal, another Palestinian terrorist by the name of Mohammed Amri (a.k.a. Abu Ibrahim) is also believed to be in Iraq.

On February 28, 1999, an article was written in The Kansas City Star which said, "He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States....."

On December 28, 1999, an article appeared in The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) titled, "Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West." The article starts, "The world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq....." The article quotes a U.S. counter-terrorism source who said, "Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying." Source

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:38 AM

I am reminded of when the neo-cons (Bushites supporters) put out a report some years ago which stated that Russia had more nuclear weapons than the USA - justifying the spending of even more billions on the arms race - it drew heavily on reports from newspapers outside the USA.

The CIA found difficulty in accepting these reports as fact, because it had in fact itself planted these false stories as part of their own 'black ops'....

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 10:44 AM

Dickey's credulity is legendary. Iguess it takes a certain nose for truth to be able to sort out the blather and smoke from statements of fact.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 12:03 PM

But I'd like to state clearly right now that Dickey is not an amazingly credulous right-wing fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 12:47 PM

That feels right.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 02:38 PM

Wise counsel accepted Dianavan.
Besides, BB has resumed his habit of putting words in people's mouths, so I believe he can carry on the "conversation" alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,RFW
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 06:10 PM

Quote from Foolestroupe:

"I am reminded of when the neo-cons (Bushites supporters) put out a report some years ago which stated that Russia had more nuclear weapons than the USA - justifying the spending of even more billions on the arms race..."

Reply:

Do a Google search for "John Kennedy missile gap".

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

Hey Foolstroupe:

Declared nuclear weapons states:
Country - Warheads active/total* - Year of first test

United States - 5,735/9,960 - 1945 ("Trinity")

Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) - 7,200/16,000 - 1949 ("RDS-1")

United Kingdom - <200 - 1952 ("Hurricane")

France - 350 - 1960 ("Gerboise Bleue")

People's Republic of China - 400 - 1964 ("596")

India - 40-50 - 1974 ("Smiling Buddha")

Pakistan - 24-48 - 1998 ("Chagai-I")

North Korea - 0-10 - none

*All numbers are estimates from the Natural Resources Defense Council, published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, unless other references are given. If differences between active and total stockpile are known, they are given as two figures separated by a forward slash. If no specifics are known, only one figure is given. Stockpile number may not contain all intact warheads if a substantial amount of warheads are scheduled for but have not yet gone through dismantlement; not all "active" warheads are deployed at any given time. When a spread of weapons is given (e.g., 0-10), it generally indicates that the estimate is being made on the amount of fissile material which has likely been produced, and the amount of fissile material needed per warhead depends on estimates of a country's proficiency at nuclear weapon design.

Now what was the number of Russian warheads compared to US warheads again? Invention of the CIA "Black Ops" - Do me a favour, investigate the truth for once, before you open your trap.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:43 PM

Danged, TIA, I musta missed the bb relapse...

I really thought the boy was gonna beat it after the last 2 week stint at the Betty Ford Clininc so this is really hard to take...

Well, so far he hasn't pulled one on me but if he does I'll pull some strings with the Betty Ford folks an' see if we can get the boy's readmittence expidited...

BTW, Google searches are like menu's... Yeah, one can find out a lot about alot of stuff but can also find a bunch of knothead bloggers with axes to grind...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:11 PM

"Invention of the CIA "Black Ops" - Do me a favour, investigate the truth for once, before you open your trap. "

Mind like a steel trap, Mr T - closed...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 11:55 PM

From The Washington Post

Sunday, November 25, 2001

"Iraq's unsuccessful attempt to secure the Ames bacteria from Britain represented a minor setback in its largely successful campaign in the mid-1980s to acquire ingredients for a massive covert biological weapons program.

Iraq sought materials from government and commercial labs in the United States, Europe and Africa.

"The Iraqis had set up this very secret and very sophisticated procurement system so that there would be no chance that outsiders could figure out what they were doing," said Raymond Zalinskas,a former U.N. inspector who is now senior scientist in residence at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

In 1988, Iraqi scientists obtained from a private British business, Oxoid Ltd., and other suppliers, nearly 40 tons of medium to grow anthrax and botulinum bacterium for its biological weapons, according to former U.N. officials and a 1999 U.N. report.

Iraq also acquired at least two other forms of anthrax, the Sterne strain, commonly used in an animal vaccine, and the A-3 strain derived from Spanish sheep, from France's Institut Pasteur.

"There was absolutely no reason to refuse an order from Iraq in the 1980s," said Michael Haynes, a spokesman for Unilever, the Anglo-Dutch consumer goods giant that owned Oxoid until 1997. Haynes noted that Iraq at that time was not considered hostile to the West and was under no economic sanctions. "As far as we knew the growth medium would be used for genuine medical, humanitarian purposes," he said.

U.N. inspectors got their first glimpse at Iraq's offensive biological weapons program during an August 1991 U.N. inspection of Salman Pak, one of Iraq's premier biological weapons facilities.

Rihab Taha,the head of Iraq's germ warfare program, provided a team of U.N. biologists with several sealed glass vials containing freeze-dried anthrax spores. The vials included two variants of the Vollumstrain, which had been used in U.S. and British biological weapons programs.

The Iraqi scientist initially claimed that some of the anthrax spores were used in research but had never been weaponized. Baghdad also acknowledged that it had received the two Vollum strains and five other strains of anthrax bacterium from the American Type Culture Collection, a commercial germ bank now located near Manassas, Va.

Iraqi documents later obtained by the United Nations indicated that Baghdad subsequently filled more than 50 bombs and missile warheads with a liquid form of Vollum anthrax."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 12:06 AM

Document 61: United States District Court (Florida: Southern District) Affidavit. "United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Cardoen [et al.]" [Charge that Teledyne Wah Chang Albany Illegally Provided a Proscribed Substance, Zirconium, to Cardoen Industries and to Iraq], January 31, 1995.

Former Reagan administration National Security Council staff member Howard Teicher says that after Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the U.S. to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq's defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.

This affidavit was submitted in the course of one of a number of prosecutions, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, of U.S. companies charged with illegally delivering military, dual-use, or nuclear-related items to Iraq. (In this case, a Teledyne affiliate was charged will illegally selling zirconium, used in the manufacture of explosives, to the Chilean arms manufacturer Carlos Industries, which used the material to manufacture cluster bombs sold to Iraq.) Many of these firms tried to defend themselves by establishing that providing military materiel to Iraq had been the actual, if covert, policy of the U.S. government. This was a difficult case to make, especially considering the rules of evidence governing investigations involving national security matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 12:07 AM

Document 59: Department of State, Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs Briefing Paper. "Iraqi Illegal Use of Chemical Weapons," November 16, 1984.

Indicates that the U.S. concluded some time ago that Iraq had used "domestically produced lethal CW" in the Iran-Iraq war, developed in part through "the unwitting and, in some cases, we believe witting assistance" of numerous Western firms. The State Department's Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs thinks that Iraq stopped using chemical weapons in response to a U.S. demarche in November 1983, and resumed their use in February 1984.

Source: Declassified through Congressional investigation


Document 60: Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to the United States Embassy in Iraq. "Memcon [Memorandum of Conversation]: Secretary's Meeting with Iraqi DepPrimMin [Deputy Prime Minister] Tariq Aziz, November 26, 1984, 10:00 a.m.," November 29, 1984.

Following the restoration of formal diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iraq, George Shultz meets with Tariq Aziz and emphasizes "the U.S. desire to base these relations on the presumption of equality, mutual respect, and reciprocity." After Aziz says that Iraq's advantage in weaponry was enabling it to defend itself against Iran, Secretary Shultz comments "that superior intelligence also must be an important factor in Iraq's defense. Aziz acknowledged that this may be true." (The U.S. had been secretly providing Iraq with extensive intelligence support for several years.) Secretary Shultz concludes by welcoming the candor of the ongoing U.S.-Iraq dialogue, and remarks that "Iraq can expect the U.S. to maintain its opposition to both the use and production of chemical weapons. This position is not directed specifically at Iraq . . . "

Source: Declassified under the Freedom of Information Act

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:38 AM

So Foolestroupe the Natural Resources Defense Council are a bunch of "neo-cons (Bushites supporters)" who put out a report some years ago which stated that Russia had more nuclear weapons than the USA. I think that you'll have to work damn hard to show proof of that.

Quite a number of years ago F, more than twenty. And in this arms race that you allude to over 65% of the nuclear weapons in existence were decommissioned - Matter of record and treaty obligations (SALT & START). The thing that brought all this to a halt was the emergence of India and Pakistan as nuclear powers.

The UK by the way, as much as CND protesters, MGOH, the BBC, etc bang on about it, are not developing a new generation of Trident missiles. What the current Labour Government are planning to do is replace the submarines that carry the existing missiles. In the process Britain will reduce the number of warheads from around 200 to about 150.

Question for you. Do you believe that Iran's nuclear programme is entirely peaceful? A simple Yes or No will suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 06:21 AM

"Natural Resources Defense Council are a bunch of "neo-cons""


Bzzzt! wrong answer - keep looking - it'll keep ya off the streets... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 06:53 AM

These are the people that Foolestroupe believes are a bunch of "neo-cons (Bushites supporters)" who put out a report some years ago which stated that Russia had more nuclear weapons than the USA.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is a New York City-based, non-profit, non-partisan environmental advocacy group, with offices in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Founded in 1970, NRDC today has 1.2 million members and online activists nationwide, and a staff of more than 250 scientists, attorneys, and other specialists. Along with Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, World Resources Institute, and Earthjustice, NRDC is widely considered to be one of the leading environmental groups.

The NRDC has published a number of studies on nuclear weapon stockpiles around the world, both as monographs and as individual studies in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

According to the NRDC:

Country - Warheads active/total* - Year of first test

United States - 5,735/9,960 - 1945 ("Trinity")

Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) - 7,200/16,000 - 1949 ("RDS-1")

Still reckon that the above figures result from CIA "Black Ops" Foolestroupe?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:02 AM

Teribus--

Hope you noticed this. It seems I'm not the only one to remark a change in the Bush regime's attitude towards Iraq: "Perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

And when did this happen? Clue: quote is from the Downing St. memo of 23 July 2002. That is, summer 2002.

Sound familiar? It should.--start of the propaganda campaign by the Bush regime against Iraq--as I have cited more than once, you may note.

And exactly the connection I have mentioned before--"conjunction of terrorism and WMD". Specifically, the implication--or blunt prediction-- that the next 9-11 style attack on the US would be supplied by Saddam--with his WMD's.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:38 AM

Summer 2002 - if you are looking at conjunction of terrorism and WMD in 2002, Ron, you need go no further into that year than 29th January and the State of the Union Address.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:46 AM

State of the Union address January 2003--part of the propaganda campaign--as I have said before--and you have denied.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:48 AM

Well, well, well...

When I saw the BIG "Washington Post" I figured that we were going to be provided with something that has to do with the "here 'n now" but was disappointed to find it was from 2001 talkin' about stuff that happened 2 decades ago... And not even written by a "Washigton Post" reporter, for that matter...

So, "Exhibit Q" that some folks have their noses so far in the rear view mirror that they are not capible of dealin' with here and now problems, such aas the appropriate question taht T-zer has brought up which asks:

"So you believe that Irans nuclear program is entirely peaceful?"

This is a dir question and it is my opinion that it is ***not*** entirely peacefull...

Heck, If I'm the president of a country and another country puts me in an "axis of evil" category and then wacks one of the other 3 countries in that category, then it would be irresponsible for me to not do everything I could to protect my people and mu countries assests... This is a no brainer...

So where does this leave us??? Buyin' yet another boatload of manure from Goerge Bush...

No thanks... He has no credibility whats so ever...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:56 AM

If nothing else, the mentions of Iraq in the Jan 2002 State of the Union address start to lay the groundwork for the propaganda campaign later that year--but do not compare with sentences like " Before September 11, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained." (from Jan 2003 SOU).

How many mentions of Saddam by name are in 2002 SOU--vs 2003?

And regardless, neither speech helps your contention that there was never a propaganda campaign by the Bush regime against Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 12:32 PM

Embassy Attacks Thwarted, U.S. Says

Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden
Clinton Seeks $10 Billion to Fight Terrorism

The Washington Post
by Vernon Loeb
Jan 23, 1999


U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies have prevented Osama bin Laden's extremist network from carrying out truck-bomb attacks against at least two American embassies since the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania more than five months ago, the Clinton administration's senior counterterrorism official said yesterday.

Richard A. Clarke, who occupies the recently created post of national coordinator of counterterrorism and computer security programs, also said U.S. officials do not believe that bin Laden, a Saudi millionaire now living in the mountains of Afghanistan, has acquired chemical or biological weapons despite his contacts with experts in the production of nerve gas and biological toxins.

"I think we've made life extraordinarily difficult for {bin Laden}, but he's still there," Clarke said. "I think it is very difficult for him and his lieutenants to travel. I think it's very difficult for them to raise money or move money or move explosives."

Clarke's assessment came as President Clinton unveiled a $10 billion budget proposal for fighting terrorism and protecting the nation's computer infrastructure from attack. "The fight against terrorism is far from over, and now terrorists seek new tools of destruction," Clinton said.

In a speech at the National Academy of Sciences, Clinton said his fiscal 2000 budget proposal includes $1.4 billion for enhancing domestic readiness in the event of a chemical or biological terrorist attack, an increase of more than 50 percent since fiscal 1998, and $1.46 billion for protecting the nation's computer systems.

Clinton proposed an array of initiatives in both areas, from new vaccine research to creation of a "Cybercorps" of government computer experts. He said those programs would come on top of $7 billion in counterterrorism spending on intelligence, diplomatic security, military readiness and law enforcement, including a tripling of FBI resources since 1993.

"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, who took office one month before the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, has since issued three high-level directives making counterterrorism the nation's No. 1 priority.

The president's proposals drew immediate praise on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have voted for large increases in spending on counterterrorism in response to the World Trade Center bombing, a sarin gas attack by the Japanese religious cult Aum Shinrikyo in 1995 and the bombing of the federal office building in Oklahoma City later that year.

Rep. Thomas J. Bliley Jr. (R-Va.), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, pledged his "full cooperation" but said that, if anything, Clinton's counterterrorism strategy does not go far enough, leaving "huge gaps in federal laws and regulations governing the possession, use and transfer of biological and chemical agents such as anthrax and sarin gas."

Clarke declined to go into detail on U.S. counterterrorism operations that he believes preempted the planned truck bombings at embassies in Africa and the Middle East. He would not say which embassies had been targeted, although U.S. officials previously disclosed that they had foiled an alleged attempt by bin Laden associates to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Uganda.

Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if he didn't blow up the facility."

Clarke said the U.S. does not believe that bin Laden has been able to acquire chemical agents, biological toxins or nuclear weapons. If evidence of such an acquisition existed, he said, "we would be in the process of doing something."

Assessing U.S. counterterrorism policy to date, Clarke said it's no accident that there have been so few terrorist attacks on American soil.

"The fact that we got seven out of the eight people from the World Trade Center {bombing}, and we found them in five countries around the world and brought them back here, the fact we can demonstrate repeatedly that the slogan, `There's nowhere to hide,' is more than a slogan, the fact that we don't forget, we're persistent — we get them — has deterred terrorism," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 01:13 PM

Now yer going even further backward, Dickey... What next???... Thomas Payne???

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:08 PM

OK Dickey--time for your two-question PSAT (don't know if you can manage the SAT)

Who invaded Iraq with "shock and awe"?

1) G W Bush
2) W Clinton

Who accused Clinton of "Wag the Dog" when he did attack Osama?

1) Republicans
2) Democrats

If you don't know what "Wag the Dog" is, ask your master, Teribus.

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

Master of what??? Baitin'???

Nevermind...

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 - 07:25 PM

More revisionism...

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 09:51 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 - 09:53 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:55 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:48 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: 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: 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 - 12:34 PM

More than you wanted to know about it.

A

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: 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: 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 - 02:24 PM

Awwwck, Bush's Fault, aaawwck!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:33 PM

The point that is being avoided adroitly in all this banter back and forth is this: Had the CEO of a major corporation not been aware of what his employees were doing and his employees ended up costing the organization billions of dollars and thousands of lives, that CEO would have been out on his ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 03:33 PM

Aawwck, who's in charge right now?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 04:05 PM

You are comparing apples to oranges Peace and you know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 04:09 PM

Maybe. However, you have to admit that the President SHOULD know what folks who advise him are doing, no? Personally, I don't know so much that Bush lied as he is incapable of thinking beyond the script. Hell, even those of you who are defending the man--and doing a good job of it I agree--have to know that he just isn't very bright.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 04:17 PM

Preponderance of evidence is what we have. If that is too little for you, then you have a very sticky coat of whitewash on indeed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:19 PM

well the one indisputable link between the Iraq war and Alqaeda
is that it got them a whole lot of recruits.

it was a christmas present for OBL.

seems to me when bush says 'the reason I keep insisting there was a relationship between Iraq Saddam and Al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda' its pretty clear he should provide evidence - and he never did unless he meant to say the relationship is one of sworn enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:26 PM

Yeah, Dickey, Clinton did... There is evidence that Clinton's transition team was concerned about and passed their thoughts onto the incoming Bush people his concerns about terrorism and the Isreali/Palestinian issue...

Richard Clark, for one, has testified before the 9/11 Commission on the latter and if you like to make a deal that you will admit you are wrong I will give you my source on the Isreali/Palestinain issue as well...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:27 PM

After all this wheezing and whining and cussing and discussing, what it all boils down to is this:

Bush probably didn't lie per se.   He did what his advisors told him to do and said what his advisors told him to say. He may very well have believed most of it. But when he wasn't really sure, he accepted it. After all, he was doing God's Work. And that justifies anything. Even—well—lying, if need be.

Anybody see the 1972 movie, "The Candidate?" At the very end of the movie [Spoiler Alert], when, after a hard campaign, Bill McKay (Robert Redford) learns that he has won, he stands there among his advisors, looking like a deer caught in the headlights, and says

"What do we do now?"

The man is incompetent. Always has been. Always will be.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:28 PM

Peace: You mean a CEO like warren Anderson?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:11 PM

Try this guy on for size. Clément Godbout: he heads the Chrysotile Institute. Our government spends lotsa dollars telling everyone how safe asbestos is. Of course, we don't want that shit used in Canada--but it's good enough for developing countries. Oh, we do have our winners here. Makes a guy sick.

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

My late father-in-law was a lobbiest for the American Peterolium Institute and he didn't know squat about squat... He was called to testify before Congress on the Valdez oil spill in Alaska and his standard answer was purdy much, "Don't worry, be happy, nature has a way of taking care of these things..."

Like I said, he didn't know squat from squat... I disagree, Peace... Bush ain't as stupid as he seems... I think he knew squat from squat but that is givin' him ther benefit of the doubt...

Then agian, you might be right in that he was and still is a moron...

Kinda a coin-flip...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:23 PM

Bobert:

That is a very definitive statement. It illustrate your clear headed thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:26 PM

Well, Dickey... You make the call... Was Bush a dupe or a liar???

Dupe ________

Liar ________

Have at it...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:30 PM

Sorry Teribus--

No pun intended--(perish the thought).

Context counts. Why, pray tell, did you leave out (yet again) the rest of the story--the rest of Cheney's reply to the question? You know, the part that deals with Atta, Iraqi intelligence, Prague, etc. And therefore pollutes your supposed clear "no"--beyond hope. Just can't understand why you did that. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that it destroys your argument.

It pains me beyond measure--I'm sure you know-- to have to tell you that, just as Franco is still dead, your ship is still sunk. And somehow, I think you know it.

If you can't do any better than the Cheney 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press--totally worthless for your argument--you lose. You tried that gambit with Cheney over a year ago--it was pathetic then, and, sorry to say, it hasn't improved.

In other words, General Custer, if you have no further ammunition, I'm afraid you have a problem.


Too bad about your ego. Really sorry about that.

But keep squirming. It's fitfully amusing to watch you.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:32 AM

Bobert:

None of the above.

What is your final answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:43 AM

Ron,

The only thing that is pathetic, is your lack of comprehension of written english. No bloody wonder, you have to rely on others to report on things before you can form an opinion on anything.

By the bye, Ron, have you noticed that you seem to be the only person who didn't catch what Dick Cheney said in that interview. As I said Ron, what part of "No" do you not understand?

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

"One of the most senior officials in the White House, Lewis Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, was caught lying to the F.B.I. He appears to have been trying to cover up a smear campaign that was orchestrated by his boss against the first person to unmask one of the many untruths that President Bush used to justify invading Iraq. He was charged with those crimes, defended by the best lawyers he could get, tried in an open courtroom and convicted of serious felonies. Mr. Libby walked freely out of the court, had his say in public and will be allowed to appeal.

It was another reminder of how precious the American judicial system is, at a time when it is under serious attack from the same administration Mr. Libby served. That administration is systematically denying the right of counsel, the right to evidence and even the right to be tried to scores of prisoners who may have committed no crimes at all.

And although we still do not know the answer to the original mystery, the case provided a look at the methodical way that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Libby, Karl Rove and others in the Bush inner circle set out to discredit Ms. Wilson's husband, Joseph Wilson IV. Mr. Wilson, a career diplomat, was sent by the State Department in 2002 to check out a British intelligence report that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the government of Niger for a secret nuclear weapons program. In his 2003 State of the Union address, Mr. Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

In July 2003, Mr. Wilson wrote in an Op-Ed article in The Times that what he had found did not support that claim. The specter of a nuclear-armed Iraq was central to Mr. Bush's case for rushing to war. So, the trial testimony showed, Mr. Cheney orchestrated an assault on Mr. Wilson's credibility with the help of Mr. Libby and others. They whispered to journalists that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A. and that nepotism was the reason he had been chosen for the trip.

That is what we know from the Libby trial, and it is some of the clearest evidence yet that this administration did not get duped by faulty intelligence; at the very least, it cherry-picked and hyped intelligence to justify the war. What Mr. Wilson found, and subsequent investigations confirmed, was that there was one trip in 1999 — not "recently," but four years before Mr. Bush's statement — by an Iraqi official to Niger and that during that trip, uranium was never discussed. "

---

I think the pattern is painfully obvious. You guys backed a putz.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:07 AM

Amos:

"They whispered to journalists that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A. and that nepotism was the reason he had been chosen for the trip."

If Armitage did the whispering as he admits and as Novak admits, Why is Libby or anybody else at fault?

And was nepotism the reason he was chosen?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:15 AM

Because Libby lied to investigators about when and where and who RE the whispering. And, why would Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff lie if the Bush Administration was being totally honest and straightforward? By all means let's get the answer to your question above about Armitage (and mine about Libby's motive) and all the others. Let's continue the investigation until we find out.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:21 AM

Dickey:

In the Wonderland of importances gone head-over-tea-kettle, you missed the actual importance. An act of nepotism, even a dubious hypothetical one, is far less weighty in terms of consequences than this little underscore: it is some of the clearest evidence yet that this administration did not get duped by faulty intelligence; at the very least, it cherry-picked and hyped intelligence to justify the war. What Mr. Wilson found, and subsequent investigations confirmed, was that there was one trip in 1999 — not "recently," but four years before Mr. Bush's statement — by an Iraqi official to Niger and that during that trip, uranium was never discussed.

Proof that Bush lied. Possibly, even probably.

But more important even than a fork-tongued President, is the question of consequences of actions taken.

What consequences?

Children screaming as their arms are blown off. Parents trying to protect their young from helicopter-launched rockers, only to see their home, their children, and all they have go up in violent, mistaken flames. Torture and mayhem. Madness in the eyes of veterans who have seen too much, and caused too much loss and pain. Dead men in the streets, scores of them. Dead women, babies and men lining thehalls of morgues, smoke-stained and scorched in the flesh, stinking like a charnel house. Lives ruined, families broken and destroyed. Widows and deprived mothers keening in the night in Baghdad and in Oshkosh and Madison and New York.

Individual responsibility for such mayhem cannot be borne easily -- the mind can't support it. The usual defense against such overburden is a criminal numbness, layered with justifications and rationalizations. To come face to face with this sort of guilt would drive a strong man mad.

But then, perhaps it has.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:17 PM

BeardedBruse:

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".

The Lancet authors described their methodology, and refuted the "main street bias" accusation (one made without any factual basis). If Professor Spagat thinks there was indeed "main street bias", he should publish a (peer-reviewed) paper that demonstrates this. Not only that, but as I pointed out in a prior incarnation of this "debate", while Prof. Spagat suggests that there was such a bias, and while he claims that such a bias would over-report deaths, he provides no facts for either assertion.

Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of mortality figures suggested by other organisations, ...

Where? But FWIW, their numbers didn't come from "mortality figures suggested by other organisations".

an inaccurate graph, ...

Where? And?!?!?

... the use of the word "casualties" to mean deaths rather than deaths plus injuries, ...

Assuming arguendo this is true, how does this change their results?

... and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen....

Ummmm, science is reporting what you find, not what you think you should have found.

... 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.

And Prof. Spagat's evidence for this "rule"?

"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....

No. They discuss the other estimates. Their numbers are based on their data and their methodology.

... "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."...

Prof. Spagat's evidence for this is _________?!?!?

... The paper had "no scientific standing"....

.... says Prof. Spagat. SFW? If Prof. Spagat has better data and better numbers, ho ought to publish them.

... Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? "No."

Does he have any evidence for fraud?!?!? No. "I'm not saying you're a communist, but....."

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:26 PM

BeardedBruce:

"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....

Which obviously misses some deaths. That is to say, it is most assuredly an undercount.

Don Firth:

Bush probably didn't lie per se.

Yes, he did (repeatedly). See my quote and link in my first post above.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 06:23 PM

Problem comes when people quote the figures as fact.

Bobert and others wave this figure of 650,000 around like a flag. The study itself is more careful in its language the phrase "may have died" is used as opposed to the blunt statement "have died". Bobert and others ignore the range that the study details, lowest just over 392,000 compared to a highest of just over 942,500, both figures the study claims are just estimated numbers of people who may have died. From this the median figure of 650,000 is derived.

Iraq Body Count also provides a range of lowest and highest. The lowest are deaths confirmed independently by two sources, the highest are deaths that are only confirmed by one source. Their figures are undoubtedly understated, but never to the extent that would come within range of the figures arrived at by the "batch sampling" carried out by John Hopkins.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:20 PM

Okay6, T-bird... Your post indicates the lw figure is 392,000... Right??? You okay with that figure???

Last time we were having this discussion you were at 14,000 and change so if even if yer willin' to accept the 392,000 it don't take no rocket surgeon to tell ya' that you were way off... And that was when I was usin' the 100,000 figure???

Yet you want to use me as the poster boy for exaggeration when it come to overstatin' body counts???

Now it don't take the Wes Ginny Slide Rule to tell that you are either sufferin' from a Scotter Libby monment 'er yer full of bull...

Don't much matter to me...

Now yer bud, bb, is prolly still stuck at 14,000 an' change but no one really takes a guy too seriously who thinks that by SCREAMING at folks that makes him right... Might of fact, quite the opposite...

(BTW, T, maybe you could take him unner yer arm and tell him what an assh*le he sounds like when he gose into his vein-poppin'-outta-the-forehead SCREAMING spells 'cause he is hurtin' yer side big time with his poor communication skills...)

I know, you couldn't give a rat's arse about bb... Now, T-zer, that ain't no way to be... Hey, there aren't mnay of you Bushite?blairites left so ya' gotta bring up the rear... It's the least that you could do...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:56 PM

Amos:

Entire famlies, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, murdered because they spoke up against Saddam. People having their tongues cut out. People's children in jail to control their parents. Kids raped in front of their parents. Parents forced to rape their kids.


CNN Refrained From Reporting Atrocities about Saddam Hussein Until After the War in Iraq

New York Times

...Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.

I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely.

In my opinion, even without chem or bio or nuke weapons, the atrocities in Iraq is justification to remove Saddam from power. It was reason enough with Milosovich and no-one complained.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 11:00 PM

The question is more basic than that. True, IMO, that Saddam had to go--and should have been gone long before. But why send an army when a team could have accomplished the same thing: Saddam dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 11:01 PM

Teribus-

As I said, context counts.   Maybe you'll learn that eventually.

You may perhaps not have noticed that other comments came after "no" in the famous (infamous?) Cheney answer (of 8 Sept 2002) you love so much.

I really didn't mean to destroy your ego. But all you had to do was pick a more seaworthy vessel before lashing yourself to the mast. Maybe you'll learn that eventually.

And maybe not.


Or you could even admit that you were wrong. We all make mistakes.

(Yeah, I know--the day after hell freezes over.)

Looking forward to your typically well-reasoned, even-tempered response.

Sorry you're not sleeping well--you really don't have to fire back at 6:53 AM. Take your time.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:03 AM

"Now yer bud, bb, is prolly still stuck at 14,000 an' change but no one really takes a guy too seriously who thinks that by SCREAMING at folks that makes him right... Might of fact, quite the opposite..."

So, you will stop lying if I stop using caps to repeat what I have stated, and provided evidence for, before, only to have its existance ignored?

If you want to say "over 100,000 Iraqis killed, I would agree. If you say 200,000, I will not argue. Now admit that the US and coallition have not killed the majority, by a large amount: The ones you would leave in place, as native Iraqis and other terrorists form the region, who are fighting the coallition, have killed the vast majority. If the US were not there, the best estimate is that far more would be killed then the present number of dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:47 PM

bb - This does not make sense.

"The ones you would leave in place, as native Iraqis and other terrorists form the region, who are fighting the coallition, have killed the vast majority. If the US were not there, the best estimate is that far more would be killed then the present number of dead."

If the US were not there, nobody would be fighting the coalition.

Enough said.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:55 PM

"If the US were not there, nobody would be fighting the coalition."

Straw man argument- I never said the dead Iraqis were because of fighting the coalition. The fact that the large majority of those killed are other Iraqis, most NOT affiliated with the government, shows that they are NOT trying to drive out the US. If you want to accept Bobert's claims ( which I do not) there are 200 Iraqis killed for each US death.

The sectarian violence would be even worse if we were not there. They would still be killing each other. If you think it requires US efforts for groups in the same country to kill each other, think about Rwanda, Sudan, India/Pakistan, Bosnia...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:59 PM

I sure is difficult to have it both way. The game plan was to

1) oust Saddam
2) find WMDs

Saddam is gone and the WMDs aren't there.

The Iraqis were killing themselves quite efficiently at a rate of about 150 per day. That doesn't not include the Kurds who were gassed. The problem now as I see it is one of leaving the place with a stable government and police/military sufficiently balanced and strong enough to keep order until whatever form of government they agree to is in place and functioning. I do not see a plan in place. Years ago I didn't see a plan, and neither did anyone here. (Invasion or 'shock and awe' is NOT a plan.) So, while the 'how many folks have died' is a neat game to play for 100 posts (I didn't count, but it sure feels like at least 10,000 posts by now), it doesn't come close to addressing the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 08:24 PM

I think its pretty much a safe bet that US troops will be there for years (maybe mostly in Kuwait, perhaps some in Tikrit and/or Kurdistan)

since wwII this region has been of strategic importance no matter what US administration is in charge. And it will remain to be even if we switch to renewable energy - because by controlling it you can deny power to others.

like Noam said, if the majority of the worlds oil supply were in the south pacific, and not the middle east and the principal export of Iraq was dates, would the US be in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:08 PM

Peace - 08 Mar 07 - 12:59 PM

"I (am)sure is difficult to have it both way(s). The game plan was to

1) oust Saddam
2) find WMDs

Game Plan? What on earth are you talking about?

1) Oust Saddam - Official US Government Policy since 1998 - True? Please don't argue that is simply a matter of record.

2) Find WMD's - Well not exactly, I actually believe that it was to ensure that they (Iraq) didn't have any, or didn't have the capacity to produce them, weaponise them, deliver them. All of which, according to the UN Security Council Resolution, was to be done with the full, unstinting and pro-active co-operation of the Iraqi Government, which of course UNMOVIC never got - Ref Dr. Hans Blix's reports to the UNSC.

Now then Peace you sign up to that as the common understanding of how things were supposed to be be and ther is a basis for discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:09 AM

If Iraq had WMD, don't you think they would have been used on American troops?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:42 AM

"Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers...

... On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 06:26 AM

They didn't use them in 1991 dianavan, when we knew for certain that they did possess WMD. Propably had something to do with the possible repercussions.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 08:33 AM

Well, T, if the puepose of the invasion was to "insure" that Iraq didn't have any WMDs then why did the Bush/Blaei Wra Machine pull the plug on the inspectors just days after Hans Blix reported to the UN that the Iraqi's were cooperating with the inspectors???

And can you answer this without bring yet another dime-a-dozen UN Resolution into the discussion but just from common sense???

(Probably not, Bobert... Common sense is way out of T comfy zone...)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 08:38 AM

Common sense, Bobert?

Why would Saddam keep the inspectors out until March, if he was NOT hiding WMD programs? Maybe he decided to let them in because he had hidden/removed all the evidence between November and March, and still believed ( because of people like YOU) that he did not have to comply with those "dime-a-dozen UN Resolution(s)".

Maybe, huh? THAT would be common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:53 AM

"Maybe he decided to let them in because he had hidden/removed all the evidence between November and March, and still believed ( because of people like YOU) that he did not have to comply with those "dime-a-dozen UN Resolution(s)". - bb

Common sense tells me that if I were attacked and I had WMD, I would bring them out of hiding and use them on my enemy. You would have us believe that it was more important to hide them than use them. Does that make sense to you?

Fact is, there were no WMD.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:59 AM

"Common sense tells me that if I were attacked and I had WMD, I would bring them out of hiding and use them on my enemy. You would have us believe that it was more important to hide them than use them. Does that make sense to you?

Fact is, there were no WMD. "

1. Straw man argument- The point was prohibited programs of WMD development.

2. So you believe that the entire concept of MAD, which was in effect from 1956 to the present, is invalid?

"Common sense tells me that if I were attacked and I had WMD, I would bring them out of hiding and use them on my enemy."


Good thing you have never been in a responsible position. The USE of WMD would be met by retaliation of kind- and the US has more WMD than anyone except the former Soviet Union.


Fact is, there WERE programs of WMD development, and we don't know what material or devices were actually developed.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush CRIED
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:02 AM

Bush does not cry.

However hundreds of people tried to get a glimpse of him today with tears in their eyes.

The Bush motorcade plowed through clouds of tear gas in San Paolo Brazil today as demonstrators were admonished for getting to close with dozens of tear gas cannisters. Only a hundred or so "specators" were seriously injured.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 01:28 PM

Is it my imagination or is bearded bruce moving beyond being a bush apologist and now seems willing to defend W and Dick policies with his life.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 01:33 PM

Is it my imagination or is donuel moving beyond being a devote liberal and now seems willing to anyone who dares disagree with him?.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:03 PM

I think George W Bush is a disaster as President of the USA. Y'all can do better, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 04:43 PM

Teribus:

Bobert and others wave this figure of 650,000 around like a flag. The study itself is more careful in its language the phrase "may have died" is used as opposed to the blunt statement "have died". Bobert and others ignore the range that the study details, lowest just over 392,000 compared to a highest of just over 942,500, both figures the study claims are just estimated numbers of people who may have died. From this the median figure of 650,000 is derived.

Actually, it's the other way around: The mean is estimated, and then the SEM applied for the confidence intervals.

Iraq Body Count also provides a range of lowest and highest. The lowest are deaths confirmed independently by two sources, the highest are deaths that are only confirmed by one source.

And the "high end" here is obviously missing those that were not confirmed by one "report[] from recognised newsgathering agencies and leading English-language newspapers". IOW, the "high end" is just the "high end" of those reported under those restrictive conditions.

Game Plan? What on earth are you talking about?

1) Oust Saddam - Official US Government Policy since 1998 - True? Please don't argue that is simply a matter of record.

Ummmm, ousting rulers we don't like (even those that are pretty malign, such as Rummy's friend Saddam was) through military invasion is not exactly legal and/or proper. But perhaps some humanitarian countries might get together and relieve us of the Long National Nightmare we're labouring under, using the Iraq invasion as precedent. Say, do you think that Dubya's head would snap off? What a YouTube hit that would be....

BeardedBrucie is having another hallucination:

Why would Saddam keep the inspectors out until March, if he was NOT hiding WMD programs?

He didn't. They were there on the ground Nov. 18th, 2002. You're welcome to your own hallucinations (but titrating the Haldol up a notch might help there), but not your own "facts".

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 07:53 PM

and when the Iraqis started cooperating with the inspectors..
Bush and his crew changed tack and now wanted a Regime Change..

what UN resolution authorized that? and unless the US was willing to put it to the UN to vote - which they didnt -- they withdrew since they knew full well it would get vetoed, dont bother quoting any UN resolutions in favor of invading Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 08:28 PM

Thanks, Arne...

Seems as if there are a few knotheads here who think that, oh horrors, if 650,000 Iraqia had actaully died as a result of Bush/Blair invasion then that might mean that, ahhhhh, maybe the decison was wrong???

I mean, what's that all about???

Hey, what is the bodycount threshold where these folks would say "Hey, you guys were right... This is a dumbass war???"

I mean, hey, I mention 650K and they squeal like stuck pigs...

I mean, what if it was 350,000, 400,000??? Waht is it about these folks that is so humng up on the numbers before they throw up their hands and say, "Okay, we were wrong???"...

Yet they would love nuthin' more than to divert the discussion to one of methodology in the body-count where folks are no longer discussing the morality of the war but some academic discussion about how the dead are counted??? This is some very messed up tinking but I understand it... ****They*** stood by and not only allowed this war to happen but were the cheerleaders...

That is what this is all about... The blood, be it one child or 650,000 women and kids, is on their hands...

They were given alternative sources about the lies behind the justification for this war and they just didn't want to be bothered and now??? Yeah, they want to argue methodology of how the dead are counted???

These are some very sick people and they know who they are and we do to...

...we were right and you folks were ****very***** wrong...

Reducing the absolute horror of a 6 years old who has just witnessed his or her mother's body being blown to pieces to an acadmeic exercize is the sickest of the sick...

Shame on all of you who are unwilling to look at what you have supported and cheerred for... You like yer "Shock 'n Awe" now that it has come down to the reality that, what??? 100,000??? 200,000??? 600,000??? people gettin' blown to pieces so you could get yer jollies with all those "Shock 'n Awe" pictures traversed yer TV screens while you chugged one Budweizer after another in pure entertainment???

That's the way it looks from here 'cause after every friggin' excuse for the war has evaporated like some mirage on a highway you people have bought into the new 'n improved reason to blow up yet another mother, child, old person, college kid...


And TO WIT: Now you wnat us to belive that if we don't kill these kids, mothers and 'ol folks that they will attacking the US???

What absolute stupidity...

Beam me up, Scottie... There are way too many stupid people here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:32 PM

Bobert, wait up....

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:33 PM

If some knot heads could convince other knotheads that 650,000 people died in Iraq, they might be able to convince other that the war is wrong.

How about the 4 million that left Iraq while Saddam was in power? I didn't hear any outcry from the 650,000 killed knothead camp then.

Well, at least that 4 million can return when the terrorists who killed what ever number the knotheads claim are dead, are defeated. That is if the 650,000 killed knothead camp want them to be able to return.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 12:00 AM

The war was wrong, wrong from the beginning, launched on fraud and greed and stpid, blind ambition, with human lives paid for the game. War is always wrong, even when you cannot get out of it. More important, it is extraordinarily more wrong when you don't have to go into it, but choose to do so anyway. All the justifications, rationalization, weighty analyses of who said what, is not going to bring any of those wasted lives back or unspill any of the blood in the sands of Mesopotamia. ANd it was blood that did not have to be spilled. It was spilled because the men of the Bush power circle could not communicate and would not think. So they infected the world with their own, meat-headed bloody-mindedness and dragged nations into the abyss with them.

A