|
03 Jun 05 - 05:34 PM (#1499597) Subject: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Susu's Hubby Where President Bush Got His Marching Orders for Iraq! "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again , as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Ma deline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons througho ut his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 All I have to say is that if Bush lied then he sure had quite a few people to learn from. Hubby |
|
03 Jun 05 - 05:36 PM (#1499599) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace What's your point? |
|
03 Jun 05 - 05:38 PM (#1499602) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Once Famous Nice post hubby. brucie, the point I see is obvious. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 05:38 PM (#1499604) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce Sorry, Hubby. Since the quotes you give do not support the viewpoint of the people who argue with you, they are invalid, and of no significance. ONLY quotes that support them are permitted in this so-called open forum. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 05:39 PM (#1499605) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad But Bush started the war. Over 1600 Anearicans dead. Hard to say how many others. That's the point. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 05:41 PM (#1499607) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace SSDD. Bush did go to Irag--well, he sent the military--and overthrew the Saddam Hussein gang. That's good. Hussein is now captured and jailed. SO, when's it time to go home? |
|
03 Jun 05 - 05:41 PM (#1499608) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce Well, to be precise, Saddam started the war by his non-comnpliance with the UN resolution. And his violation of the cease-fire agreements. And his illegal use of Oil for Food funds. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 05:42 PM (#1499609) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad When we have all of the oil ? |
|
03 Jun 05 - 05:44 PM (#1499612) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce Show me where we have any of the oil. What I see in the facts is that we are buying oil FOR the Iraqis and selling it at below our cost. The statement we are there for the oil has never been shown to be anything other than the imagination of a number of liberals. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 05:45 PM (#1499613) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace So, when is the American military going to get out of the country they have freed? |
|
03 Jun 05 - 05:45 PM (#1499614) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Susu's Hubby Thanks for clearing that up beardedbruce. I thought that I was among "reasonable" people. Hubby |
|
03 Jun 05 - 05:46 PM (#1499615) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Once Famous so what. We'll pay them for their oil. Sleepless Dad, I hear you drive a big SUV anyway. Nice responses beardedbruce. a lot of common sense. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 05:48 PM (#1499617) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace Incidentally, I didn't say that Bush lied. He is a liar over many issues--no doubt due to fabricated or poorly interpreted information he receives from other liars--but I don't think of him as a liar. Simply a thoroughly incompetent guy who should not be leading what used to be the best country in the world. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 05:50 PM (#1499619) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: jimmyt I do not think we want ALL the oil. It would be nice if we had a good supply of the Extra Virgin type but in my experience, if you try to horde it, it becomes rancid so I don not buy it in bulk. And as far as oil for food, well, if you have some bread to dip in the oil, and a bit of grated Parmesian, you are all set. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 05:51 PM (#1499621) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: CarolC While I agree that there is enough blame to go around, Hubster (on both sides of the isle), I suspect that you would not be trying to shift blame away from the current administration if the situation in Iraq was going well. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 05:56 PM (#1499624) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: George Papavgeris bb, illegal use of Oil for Food funds is no reason for war. The UN was asying the day before the war began that Iraq was complying and cooperating fully - we all saw the announcement on the TV. Not sure which ceae-fire agreements you are referring to here. There are two bodies of opinion here, and neither of us is going to persuade the other. That's OK - but do not insult the readers of your posts by using "after the fact" logic as if we were children. Let's not throw slogans at each other. Did Bush lie or not? You thik he did not. I think he did. We'll both go to our graves with our own opinion. You feel the thousands of deaths in both camps were a price worth paying; I think it is not. I think of the US Government as the next Nazi threat; you think they are the saviours of America and the world. I can live with that. Why can't you, and hubby too? why do you have to persuade me of your version of the truth? I am not trying to persuade you. I see facts and interpret them my way - you interpret them your way. And, to be honest, I cannot be bothered to convert you to my way of thinking. Live and die with your perception of the world, as I will with mine. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 06:03 PM (#1499639) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: DougR True, El Greko, there are definintely two points of view and neither will convince the other that they are wrong. Thank you for posting this, though, hubby, it might still some voices here who still cry out in the night that no one other than Bush thought Saddam had WMD. brucie: the U. S. will pull out it's troops (and the other coalition forces will also leave) when the Iraqis can defend themselves. Surely you are not suggesting that they are there yet? DougR |
|
03 Jun 05 - 06:07 PM (#1499643) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Susu's Hubby "While I agree that there is enough blame to go around, Hubster (on both sides of the isle), I suspect that you would not be trying to shift blame away from the current administration if the situation in Iraq was going well." CarolC, As usual, I will explain my point to you as you have clearly missed it AGAIN. The issue is NOT whether or not the situation is going well or not going well. (In my opinion, as long as the terror attacks keep happening, then we must be doing something right to keep them exposing themselves.) The issue is NOT whether or not there is blame on both sides of the aisle. The issue is watching all of you lefties backpedal from trying to paint our president as a horrible leader whenever the cornerstones of the left, at one time, were saying the same thing. The right has been forever constant on the issue. It's the left who is, continually, changing their philosophy to try and fit what they think the majority of Americans want to hear. So far, for at least the last five years, the left has, continuously, thought wrong. Hubby |
|
03 Jun 05 - 06:18 PM (#1499653) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace Oh, say can you see . . . . Don't be so flighty, Susu's Hubby. Fer the sake of the good Laird Jaysus. YOU keep pretending that Bush is competent. Many of the people who thought that about Saddam Hussein were right. Absolutely. Personally, I think the sonuvabitch should have received 150 grains of lead just above the bridge of the nose--fifteen years ago. However, he has been 'taken down' and there were no WMDs. Another ardent supporter of Bush said many months back that the US would be OUT of Iraq by Christmas, the one that just passed. So you tell me this: when will you be out of Iraq? The job is done. Time to go home. I mean, how long will you stretch the war out? Until when? Screw WHY Bush sent troops into Iraq--we've heard everything from he was avenging the Twin Towers to Saddam had WMDs. Just tell me when you'll leave? Is there a timeline in place that you know of, or just some vague 'we'll go when they can rule themselves' kinda plan? I'd like to know. But then, I suppose you'd like to know, also. Must be a comfortable feeling to live in a country where the war you're fighting seems to have no PLAN to it, huh? As to the people on your list, choose more carefully in future. '"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again , as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998' Wasn't Saddam an American ally in the 1980s? My, my, how times change. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 06:25 PM (#1499658) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: CarolC Well, I haven't been doing that. I've been saying they're all liars right from the start. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 06:28 PM (#1499661) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: CarolC And of course, your blanket generalizations about what people you dissagree with have and have not been doing and/or saying is completely fallacious and self-serving, as always (as well as being a lie). You're surprisingly dishonest for a Christian, Hubster. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 06:34 PM (#1499668) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Ebbie I have a somewhat different take on this. NOTE: From 2001 on, the legislators were taking the word of the administration on the threat from Saddam. NOTE: Previous to that, when Clinton was president and his administration had that same view, that is why and -and when - they instated sanctions and installed overflights. There was not a lot going in Iraq that the West didn't know. And SH, we all know how much credence the bush administration has given the Clinton administration... To the point that they ignored the warnings on terrorism they were given by the outgoing administration. And Americans paid the price for their arrogant indifference. Worse yet, the very people who ignored the warnings and allowed 9/11 to happen are the same people who, instead of having to retire in disgrace, HAVE BEEN PROMOTED TO POSITIONS OF EQUAL OR GREATER SENSITIVITY. (The Japanese from time immemorial, conversely, would have fallen on their swords in contrition.) When I listen to you guys, I despair- because I think you really do believe in something that I, on the other hand, consider the world's most dangerous government, a government with the potential of doing the most injury to us and to the world in generations, perhaps ever. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 06:34 PM (#1499669) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: gnu No WMD's? Jaysus! (Sorry, Martin.) The WMD were spirited out of the country so the US and Britain, who MADE them, couldn't find them. If they had found them, they would have had to destroy them. Much too costly. Better to hide them for another day. Can you say, "Syria"? Why do you think Lebannon is now free from Syrian control? Payoff? More spin and smoke and mirrors? Why did we see Tony and Mumar (spg?) snuggling right after the 'freeing' of Iraq? They never used to spoon. I WAS a semi-supporter of the 'pre-emptive strikJe'. I was even supportive of the fact that Saddam should be punished for his part in the assasination attempt on Daddy Bush - and I know how atrocious that sounds, seriously, I do. But, the bullshit gets pretty hard to wade through. Seems like the rich and powerful can't be trusted. I am ashamed for trusting them to do the right thing. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 06:39 PM (#1499675) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace I'm in the same boat as you, Gnu. Thought it was a good idea to nail Iraq. Overdue. However, I no longer think this is really about Hussein and WMDs. Nor it seems does anyone else on this thread. Very curious. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 07:06 PM (#1499709) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Amos I don't think anyone has said that Bush was the only one who believed in the existence of WMD's, Hub-me-lad. You're waving your arms and frothing just a little bit there. The point about Bush's lies is that they come up on almost every important issue he talks about; he is an expert at disassembling the truth. And his assertions about WMDs were made full in the face of contrary information, unlike some of those you quote. A |
|
03 Jun 05 - 07:14 PM (#1499725) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce "The UN was asying the day before the war began that Iraq was complying and cooperating fully - we all saw the announcement on the TV." Actually, the UN stated in December that the Iraqi response to the FINAL RESOLUTION ( Last chance ) was NON-COMPLIANT with the resolution. At that point, the UN stated that Iraq had not fulfilled it's required actions for the cease-fire ending the fighting of the Kuwait war. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 07:23 PM (#1499735) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: CarolC Please provide documentation to support that assertion in your 03 Jun 05 - 07:14 PM post, beardedbruce. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 07:29 PM (#1499739) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441 "In early December, 2002, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The UN and the US said that this failed to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents. Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441. On January 30, 2003 Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, and the report was taken broadly negatively" |
|
03 Jun 05 - 07:30 PM (#1499740) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce Specific areas of noncompliance stated in this speech include: "In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq." U.N. Commission on Human Rights found "extremely grave" human rights violations in 2001. Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions. Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people. Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether. " |
|
03 Jun 05 - 07:31 PM (#1499742) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce On November 8, 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences". The resolution passed with a 15 to 0 vote, supported by Russia, China and France, and Arab countries like Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1992 Gulf War resolution. Although the Iraqi parliament voted against honoring the UN resolution, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein agreed to honor it. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 07:50 PM (#1499754) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: CarolC Actually, the UN stated in December that the Iraqi response to the FINAL RESOLUTION ( Last chance ) was NON-COMPLIANT with the resolution. At that point, the UN stated that Iraq had not fulfilled it's required actions for the cease-fire ending the fighting of the Kuwait war. Based on the documentation provided by you, beardedbruce, this statement is incorrect. The last chance to accept the resolution was November 15. Iraq accepted the resolution on November 13. I do not see any specific deadline in either of your links for full compliance with all of the details of the agreement. The report from Hans Blix dated March 7 (after the report you cite from December) was "seen as broadly positive", and Blix requested more time ("months rather than weeks or days") to complete the disarmament and verification process. So prior to the war, the UN, through its representative, Hans Blix, was unequivocally stating that it wanted the inspections to continue and that it did not approve of any unilateral invasions of Iraq by any countries, either individually or collectively, outside of the authority of the UN. The UN was very consistant in the language of its resolutions. Excerpted from the second of your two links: 10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA; 14. Decides to remain seized of the matter. By invading Iraq, the US violated number 10 of that particular resolution, because the US invasion caused the inspectors to have to leave Iraq before they finished doing the job that they were mandated to do by the UN. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 07:53 PM (#1499756) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST Yawn....... Now was all this before or after Colin Powell showed the photographic evidence of WMD's to the UN or after that! ..and considering that Bush went ahead and gave the green light to invade Iraq without the backing of the UN, why would anyone who supports Bush now need to use the UN's transcripts as a justification. Talk about beating a dead horse with a stick. Have fun searching for links in an attempt to backpedal on the truth. No matter how it's spun though... The Bush administration did Lie and are still. Carry on though with the blue clickys and copy/paste game. It would appear your having fun and far be it for anyone to deny you that pleasure. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 08:05 PM (#1499763) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council; 3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material; 4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below; 5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter; ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Please look at paragraphs 3 and 4 above. Your statement "Based on the documentation provided by you, beardedbruce, this statement is incorrect" is false. "Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations" |
|
03 Jun 05 - 08:12 PM (#1499769) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace So, uh, SH, all THAT aside for a minute, when IS the US leaving Iraq? What's the PLAN? |
|
03 Jun 05 - 08:16 PM (#1499771) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce Under the UN rules, the US cannot leave until the civilian government is secure. Thus, as long as the terrorists are blowing up the Iraqi population, the US is required by the UN to stay as an occupying power. I think we should just pull out and let them kill each other- but many out there would blame Bush for that, too. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 08:18 PM (#1499773) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace Bullshit. The US didn't listen to the UN in the first place. Like, they want to listen now? Yeah, right! |
|
03 Jun 05 - 08:25 PM (#1499777) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace "Republicans Who Voted Against Iraq Resolution Tell Why Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com Saturday, Oct. 12, 2002 In the U.S. House of Representatives six Republicans broke ranks and voted nay on the Iraq resolution. They were: Ron Paul of Texas, James A. Leach of Iowa, John N. Hostettler of Indiana, Constance A. Morella of Maryland, Amo Houghton of New York, and John J. Duncan of Tennessee." Read why, here! Of course, SH you won't. But hey, I expect you won't. You ain't too much interested in anyone's views but y'own, and those of the Bush admin. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 08:27 PM (#1499780) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce So, since they were wrong in not listening in the first place, they would be right in ignoring the UN now? Or were they right in ignoring the UN to begin with, and you agree the US should have invaded Iraq? Bullshit back at you! As I said, *I* would prefer that the US pull out right now, and leave the Iraqis to the regional powers to deal with. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 08:33 PM (#1499782) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace Fuck off, bb. You are slingin' the same old shit. As usual. You like to pick and choose which of the UN's rules and regs your country follows. You sound like a bad used-car salesman. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 08:35 PM (#1499787) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce from "Republicans Who Voted Against Iraq Resolution Tell Why" Rep. James A. Leach: "When a cornered tyrant is confronted with the use or lose option with his weapons of mass destruction and is isolated in the Arab world unless he launches a jihad against Israel, it is not hard to imagine what he will choose … "Israel has never faced a graver challenge to its survival. The likelihood is that weapons of mass destruction, including biological agents, will be immediately unleashed in the event of Western intervention in Iraq. In the Gulf War, Saddam launched some 40 Scud missiles against Israel, none with biological agents. Today, he has mobile labs, tons of such agents and an assortment of means to deliver them … " -------note that the reason he decided to vote against the war was that Iraq HAD all those WMD. Rep. John J. Duncan: "Ever since the Gulf War ended in 1991, the U.S. has been spending about $4 million a day enforcing a no-fly zone in Iraq, $4 million a day. This has been a tremendous waste of money and manpower. "I believe almost all Americans would have preferred that this $12 or $13 billion that has been spent over these years would have been spent in almost any other good way. Most Americans have not even noticed that we have been dropping bombs and still shooting at missile sites all these years in Iraq." ---note combat had NOT ceased from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 08:36 PM (#1499789) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace Republicans Against War in Iraq. http://archive.democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=rawi |
|
03 Jun 05 - 08:36 PM (#1499790) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace Didn't even read that. Have a NICE day. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 08:43 PM (#1499794) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace TAL AFAR, Iraq - U.S. Army officers in the badland deserts of northwest Iraq, near the Syrian border, say they don't have enough troops to hold the ground they take from insurgents in this transit point for weapons, money and foreign fighters. From last October to the end of April, there were about 400 soldiers from the 25th Infantry Division patrolling the northwest region, which covers about 10,000 square miles. "Resources are everything in combat . . . there's no way 400 people can cover that much ground," said Maj. John Wilwerding, of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is responsible for the northwest tract that includes Tal Afar. Rest of story here! |
|
03 Jun 05 - 08:49 PM (#1499797) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace Favored Government Contracts Vice President Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton got a contract for $7 billion for Iraq war repairs before the war began and without any bid. There is lots more that could be said about this but this one simple case is enough. The UN Vote We created the United Nations to be a democratic organization to help resolve disputes. We, the champions of democracy, went against a democratic vote of an organization we created and violated what the security council lawfully voted on. Whether we like it or not, we are players in an International community. We would not accept any other member of the UN or the world invading another country because they "felt threatened" when the world voted against it. This is an extremely dangerous precedent to set and one of the most compelling reasons that President George W. Bush's actions should not be supported by the American people. Violation of UN Regulations It has been pointed out by the administration that Iraq was in violations of UN Regulations. First of all, you can't have it both ways: either you support the UN or you do not you cannot go against their lawful vote yet use them as an excuse to wage war, the UN didn't support this war. Secondly, violation of UN regulations and reason to go to war are two entirely different things. Israel for example, a long time ally of the US, has violated UN regulations, this does not give the US or any other country the right to attack Israel. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 08:51 PM (#1499798) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace The Washington Jugglers. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 08:55 PM (#1499800) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace 1) Do you still believe Bush's claim that Iraq was a "direct threat" to America? Y / N 2) Before Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, did you ever say, "You know, honey, we really need to free those poor people in Iraq?" Y / N 3) With anti-Saddam Shi'ites now joining Sunnis in fighting U.S.-led occupation forces, do you still believe Bush when he says "terrorists" and "Saddam loyalists" are behind the resistance, and not nationalists? Y / N 4) With Iraqis now attacking Americans at a rate of 60 ambushes a day, do you still buy Bush's argument that Americans have to stay in Iraq to protect Iraqis, that we're the answer to the security problem and not the source of it? Y / N 5) Were any "terrorists" killing Americans in Iraq before Bush invaded Iraq? Y / N 6) Was capturing Saddam more urgent to the war on terrorism than capturing Osama bin Laden, as the president sold it? Y / N If you answered Yes to all of the above, you support the war simply to support Bush. From http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=2689 |
|
03 Jun 05 - 08:58 PM (#1499802) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: brucie - PM Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:49 PM That post is also from the www. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 09:03 PM (#1499806) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Metchosin Not only do they not seem to have enough resources on the ground in Iraq, they are putting an unwarranted burden upon Canada regarding their "terrorist threat" in the US. Today a regular flight from the UK? to New York had a terrorist alert warning go off in flight, just before it got to the US. The US closed their airspace to the commercial airliner and it was forced to land in Canada instead. I can just imagine the senario....ooh! ooh, get 'em away from us! Go land the plane in Canada and let it blow up up their airports instead! This was an American problem and the Canadians were left to deal with it in order to rescue the passengers and crew. Fortunately it turned out to be a false alarm and the Canadian team that borded the plane came to no harm either. Can you imagine what would have happened if this flight had been bound for Canada and Canada had closed its airspace and sent the flight to the US instead? Yeah....right. LOL |
|
03 Jun 05 - 09:08 PM (#1499808) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: CarolC beardedbruce, please show me the language that specifically authorizes anyone other than the UN to take any action whatever, in particular, to invade Iraq, in order to remedy the situation. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 09:12 PM (#1499812) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Metchosin and they didn't land this thing way off in the toolies either.....nope....Halifax. Maybe they figured that since Halifax had already gone through the largest pre-nuclear man-made explosion in the world, what's the problem with another little "boom". |
|
03 Jun 05 - 09:13 PM (#1499814) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace Talk to one of these instead. It will be just as useful. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 09:13 PM (#1499815) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace Above post for CarolC. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 09:16 PM (#1499817) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace In three months the assholes in Washington will be telling us we harboured a potential terrorist threat. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 09:20 PM (#1499820) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: kendall What should we do if North Korea pulls a pre emptive strike against South Korea, or any other country? We did it, the Japanes did it in 1941, why shouldn't some other country do it? Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He used them. However, when we invaded Iraq he no longer had them, and I believe Bush knew that. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 09:36 PM (#1499832) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,observer Susu's hubby: Typical ignorant post from a die hard republican. Please notice that none of those ypu quote caused the death of anyone. Bush has caused the death of tens of thousands so he and his gang can get rich. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 09:38 PM (#1499834) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce brucie, As usual, you insist on making ad hominim attacks. Perhaps you would care to tell me why, if you do not read my comments, you feel capable of passing judgement on them? Did you just climb off the cross? If you don't want to know my views, that is fine- but I have as much right as you do to comment here. If you want to comment on MY statements, that is fine- but try at least reading what I say before making declarations about them. Or are you one of Bobert's ubermench that need not find out other's views to pass judgement upon them? |
|
03 Jun 05 - 09:57 PM (#1499840) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Susu's Hubby Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: brucie - PM Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:48 PM "Incidentally, I didn't say that Bush lied. He is a liar over many issues--no doubt due to fabricated or poorly interpreted information he receives from other liars--but I don't think of him as a liar." So....he is a liar....but I don't think of him as a liar. Huh??? I guess this is brucie trying, like Amos, to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Hubby |
|
03 Jun 05 - 10:04 PM (#1499844) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Ebbie bb, I got the idea that brucie kind of gave up on you when it became evident you were not reading his links. I don't see how you expect to make points when you don't answer his. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 10:16 PM (#1499855) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Bobert Oh here we go again, bb... You wanta go another round, Big Guy? Well, first of all, I would just like to reiterate what Ebbie said. I find it real intersting that now that Iraq is going very poorly for Bush that folks wanta blame Clinton and blame_________ and blame__________, when we all watched as THIS ADMINSRATION, not Bill Clinton's decided to invade Iraq... And on bogus charges... I don't think there is any disputin' these facts.... Now, one one hand they wanta have folks believe that if was okay to attack Iraq because Clinton said it was but on the other hand when Clinton warned them of the dangers of Al Quida, they turned a deft ear on him... This is typical of the Bush administartion. Scrw up and blame others. Promote the screw-ups to higher positions... Man if I had run my business like that I never would have gotten to where I am today... But Bush has a history of screwing up businesses.... Might of fact, one would be hard pressed to find anything the guy has *Attempted* to do where he was successful. Baseball, oil, Air National Guard... You pick it and he had been a failure... But he's allways had folks to clean up after him or buy or scare off the folks who might land a solid punch on him... Well, the troubvle with history is that it usually gets sorted out and that's why I am so glad that so many of the Bushites here in Mydville have the 10 or 20 years left on the planet for Bush to get what he deserves which is to been seen as the incompitent, arrogant loser that a lot of us here already clearly see... Bobert |
|
03 Jun 05 - 10:39 PM (#1499865) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: dianavan Bush lied because he is the one who decided to invade Iraq almost a year before 911. He used the combination of WMD's and terrorism to justify his aggression. He has tried many excuses, including the 'Oil for Food' scandal which was sanctioned by the U.S. He has lied and distorted the truth for the sake of money and power. Now he is as bad as Saddam and has dragged other nations into the turmoil he has created. Bush wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the ass. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat but it was the Republicans who actually invaded unilaterally, not the Democrats. Its the Republicans who continue to erode American democracy, not Democrats. Its the Republicans who endorse the liar named George Bush, not the Democrats. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 10:41 PM (#1499866) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Bee-dubya-ell Every statement SH quoted was made within the context of a larger policy statement of some sort. Any one of them may have been made as an argument for more U.N. inspections, more funding for flyovers in what was called the "no-fly zone", or more iraq-specific intelligence funding, just to name a few. None of them were made with the aim of justifying launching an invasion of another country without the backing of the larger world community. Period. Anyone can pull statements out of context and make it appear that two speakers with opposing viewpoints were in full agreement on any issue. It's a cheap trick. If I felt the inclination, I could go through George W. Bush's public statements and pull out enough instances where he's expressed regrets about the casualties of the war he started to make him sound like a total pacifist. I repeat, it's a cheap trick. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 10:48 PM (#1499868) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Once Famous Great post, Hubby. You've got most of them howling and throwing everything you can. I'm sure glad that Bush treats the enemy as the enemy. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 10:51 PM (#1499871) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Ebbie You're over your head, Marvin. Take your meds. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 10:55 PM (#1499875) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce Ebbie, I do look at his posts- and answer them. But where are HIS answers to my 03 Jun 05 - 08:27 PM? Or will you just look at me, and ignore brucie's lack of response? Bobert, By YOUR definition, I am no more a bushite than you are a democrap. Try looking at what I post instead of what you would like to think I have posted. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 11:17 PM (#1499885) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace bb, I do not answer you. You are fulla shit. Hell, I seldom read your posts. If I want Neocon crap, I won't turn to you for their official policy. Wrong end of the horse. One time I did answer you--after reading your posts, because one time you were actually not so wrapped up in the Bush doctrine. Now, who knows. I don't, and I don't care anymore. That's why I simply say eff off. You and Susu's other half--not the smart half obviously--have your friggin' heads so bent outta shape over justifying the invasion of Iraq that you've forgot you are human and he's forgot he's supposed to be a Christian. Hence the fuck off--to both of you. |
|
03 Jun 05 - 11:45 PM (#1499893) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Bobert bb, I reread it and still don't have a clue what you are trying to say but if I had to guess it's like yer accusin' me of not reading yer posts???? 'Er somethin like that??? Well, like brucie, sometimes I don't have to get to far into them to arrive at Brucie's conclusion... I'm not sure if you were around here during the Teribus days but Teribus could write reems and reems of pro-Bush stuff and say absolutely nuthin'... Some of yer posts seem to be thick in jargon and thin in ideas... Hey, I mean no offense seein' as we' ain't been locked into no head-butt thing fir quite awile but when I ain't even popsted to a thread and see where you using' my name to argue some point, hey, gets my attention... No if you want continue the truce, fine, but like, ahhhhhhh, using me in one of yer posts when yer arguing with other folks, sho nuff ain't gonna help much... And, fir the record, Bush did and continues to lie about just anything one can think of... Bobert |
|
03 Jun 05 - 11:52 PM (#1499894) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,From Tom Paxtons Pen What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine I learned that Washington never told a lie I learned that soldiers seldom die I learned that everybody's free That's what the teacher said to me And that's what I learned in school today That's what I learned in school What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine I learned that policemen are my friends I learned that justice never ends I learned that murderers die for their crimes Even if we make a mistake sometimes And that's what I learned in school today That's what I learned in school What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine I learned that war is not so bad I learned about the great ones we have had We fought in Germany and in France And someday I might get my chance And that's what I learned in school today That's what I learned in school What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine I learned that our government must be strong It's always right and never wrong Our leaders are the finest men So we elect them again and again And that's what I learned in school today That's what I learned in school |
|
04 Jun 05 - 12:01 AM (#1499895) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Bobert Well, looks like another one got "left behind".... No Child Left Unrecruited.... And the beat goes on.... Bobert |
|
04 Jun 05 - 12:24 AM (#1499898) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace Gee, wonder what THIS is? No liars here! |
|
04 Jun 05 - 01:32 AM (#1499910) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: DougR brucie: I have read your multiple posts stating your position that the coalition forces should withdraw from Iraq immediately. Do you REALLY believe that? And you, who is so adamant about saving, not destroying human life? What do you think would be the result if your wish were to come true? Do you think the Iraqi people would be better off? Do you give a crap? DougR |
|
04 Jun 05 - 02:18 AM (#1499921) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: heric Susu's Hubby: Would you kindly review and comment upon this article from the International Herald Tribune , perhaps stating whether it does or does not affect any of the opinions you have expressed to date on U.S. conduct in Afghanistan or Iraq, or on the continued isolation of Guantanamo Bay from international inspectors? Whatever you'd like. Of course I will not view anything you say as an indication that you may have "Liberal" tendencies, so speak freely. I will only be thinking of your response as one from a Southern Protestant churchgoer. Please feel free to make snide evasive insults or jokes if that is your preference. Thanks, Dan |
|
04 Jun 05 - 03:10 AM (#1499930) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Boab Who ever said that Bush is the only liar in America? A charitable thought---some of the quotes are from those who were a) Liars, pure and simple and b) plain gullible or stupid. Bush comes across as a bit of both. I find it quite incredible that there are those---and not only on humble mudcat---who still pretend to find justification for the instigation of the slaughter in Iraq. I find it sickening--as many another does, I'll bet---that any death or injury to a child due to the actions of Iraqi resistance or internecine strife is siezed upon as a kind of propaganda-op by the Bush-support media. How many kids' deaths and mutilations did they sieze upon during the blind slaughter in Fallujah? A friend in the States has just sent me a car sticker [ not inclined to flaunt these, no matter how pertinent]which is "in your face, Mr Bush"; it reads "How Many kids would Jesus have bombed today"? Saddam was a bad Bastard. That was NOT the reason for the attack on Iraq. Some always knew that. Some 'my-country-right-or wrong"types knew, but didn't care. Some now want to believe it, in order to salve a pricking conscience. There is proof, every day, that the whole mess is the result of greed and a ghastly misjudgement of the reaction of a people to being attacked by materially superior forces. Only a realisation by the American people about how badly they are being led will prevent similar tragedy from occurring again and again, and avoid an almost inevitable confrontation involving Russia, China and consequently most of the world. |
|
04 Jun 05 - 03:22 AM (#1499935) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce CarolC, As before, I have stated that the failure of Saddam to comply with the cease-fire conditions is sufficient to allow the use of force. "The UN again authorized a peace enforcement mission in 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. After Iraq refused to comply with UN demands to withdraw, the UN launched a military operation to expel Iraq from Kuwait. This operation was again led by the United States, and it included a vast coalition of forces from many UN member countries (see Persian Gulf War). UN-sponsored peace enforcement operations remain rare, however, because of the difficulty of getting all five of the veto-wielding great powers to agree to military action." His non-compliance requires the original UN resolution authorizing force to be in effect. EVERY time he fired on US planes in the no-fly zone, he was committing an act of war against the UN/US forces. |
|
04 Jun 05 - 06:01 AM (#1499996) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Yes Carol, and if they'd finished the job in 1990, two things would have happened. 1. Saddam would have been removed, and his removal would have been clearly, and unequivocally justified. The whole world would have backed THAT. 2. The thousands of Iraqi citizens, who were primed to rise up in support of the Coalition, would have formed a cadre of western support, and the foundation of a democratic Iraqi government. In other words JOB DONE to the satisfaction of all concerned except Saddam and his cronies. What actually happened? They wimped out, hung the Iraqi resistance out to dry, and went home! Then they went back, on the flimsiest of trumped up excuses, and were SURPRISED that the Iraqis didn't want them there. The few of the resistance fortunate enough not to have been murdered by Saddam after 1990 don't have any faith in the Coalition. Small wonder! When it comes to winning hearts and minds, Bush and Blair make Attila the Hun look like a philanthropist. BTW, I have to add that our Mr. B. is a worse liar than yours, having seen a memo that showed that, as early as 2002, he knew Bush planned war, and was fixing the facts about WMDs to justify it. So there's no way our lying b*****d can claim to have been misled by faulty intelligence. Thinking about it, neither can yours claim to have based his final decision on intelligence at all. We let them have these powers, either by choice or inaction, so I guess we carry the shame also. Don T. |
|
04 Jun 05 - 08:50 AM (#1500039) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Greg F. Yup, that was the OTHER George Bush. It's a congenital defect..... |
|
04 Jun 05 - 10:59 AM (#1500093) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Amos From the Tribune article linked upthread: "...Like a narrative counterpart to the digital images from Abu Ghraib, the Bagram file depicts young, poorly trained soldiers repeatedly abusing prisoners. The harsh treatment, which has resulted in criminal charges against seven soldiers, went well beyond the two deaths. In some instances, testimony shows, it was directed or carried out by interrogators to extract information. In others, it was punishment meted out by military police guards. Sometimes, the torment seems to have been driven by little more than boredom or cruelty, or both. In sworn statements to army investigators, soldiers describe one female interrogator with a taste for humiliation stepping on the neck of one prostrate detainee and kicking another in the genitals. They tell of a shackled prisoner being forced to roll back and forth on the floor of a cell, kissing the boots of his two interrogators as he went. Yet another prisoner was made to pick plastic bottle caps out of a drum mixed with excrement and water as part of a strategy to soften him up for questioning. The Times obtained a copy of the file from a person involved in the investigation who was critical of both the methods used at Bagram and the military's response to the deaths. Although incidents of prisoner abuse at Bagram in 2002, including some details of the two men's deaths, have been previously reported, American officials have characterized them as isolated problems that were thoroughly investigated. And many of the officers and soldiers interviewed in the Dilawar investigation said the large majority of detainees at Bagram were compliant and reasonably well treated. Yet the Bagram file includes ample testimony that harsh treatment by some interrogators was routine and that guards could strike shackled detainees with virtual impunity. Even though military investigators learned soon after Dilawar's death that he had been abused by at least two interrogators, the army's criminal inquiry moved slowly. Meanwhile, many of the Bagram interrogators, led by Captain Carolyn Wood, were redeployed to Iraq and in July 2003 took charge of interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison. According to a high-level army inquiry last year, Wood instituted harsh techniques there, including stripping prisoners, depriving them of sleep and using dogs to frighten them, that were "remarkably similar" to those used at Bagram. Last October, the army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case, ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case. So far, only seven soldiers have been charged, including four last week. No one has been convicted in either death. Two army interrogators were also reprimanded, a military spokesman said. Most of those who could still face legal action have denied wrongdoing, either in statements to investigators or in comments to a reporter. With most of the legal action pending, the story of abuses at Bagram remains incomplete. But documents and interviews reveal a striking disparity between the findings of army investigators and what senior military officials said after the deaths. Military spokesmen maintained that both men had died of natural causes, even after military coroners had ruled the deaths homicides. The Bagram Collection Point was a clearinghouse for prisoners captured in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. It typically held between 40 and 80 detainees while they were interrogated and screened for possible shipment to the Pentagon's longer-term detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. A new interrogation unit arrived in July 2002. Only two of its members had ever questioned prisoners. "There was nothing that prepared us for running an interrogation operation" like the one at Bagram, the noncommissioned officer in charge of the interrogators, Staff Sergeant Steven Loring, later told investigators. The detainee known as Person Under Control No. 412 was a portly, well-groomed Afghan named Habibullah. He was identified at Bagram as an important prisoner and an unusually sharp-tongued and insubordinate one. One of the guards, Sergeant Alan Driver Jr., told investigators that Habibullah had risen after a rectal examination and kneed him in the groin. On his second day, Dec. 1, the prisoner was "uncooperative" again, this time with Specialist Willie Brand. The guard, who has since been charged with assault and other crimes, told investigators he had delivered three peroneal strikes, potentially disabling blows to the side of the leg, just above the knee, in response. By Dec. 3, Habibullah's reputation for defiance seemed to make him an open target. One guard said he had given him five peroneal strikes for being "noncompliant and combative." Another gave him three or four more for being "combative and noncompliant." Some guards later asserted that he had been hurt trying to escape. When Sergeant James Boland saw Habibullah on Dec. 3, the prisoner was in one of the isolation cells, tethered to the ceiling by two sets of handcuffs and a chain around his waist. His body was slumped forward, held up by the chains. When Boland returned to the cell about 20 minutes later, he said, Habibullah was not moving and had no pulse. Finally, the prisoner was unchained and laid out on the floor of his cell. Habibullah died on Dec. 3. His autopsy showed bruises or scrapes on his chest, arms, head and neck. There were deep bruises on his calves, knees and thighs. His left calf had been marked by what appeared to have been the sole of a boot. His death was attributed to a blood clot, probably caused by the severe injuries to his legs, which traveled to his heart and blocked the blood flow to his lungs. On Dec. 5, Dilawar arrived at Bagram. Four days before, on the eve of the Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr, Dilawar set out from his tiny village of Yakubi in a prized new possession, a used Toyota sedan that his family bought for him a few weeks earlier to drive as a taxi. After picking up three passengers, he passed a base used by American troops, Camp Salerno, which had been the target of a rocket attack that morning. Militiamen loyal to the guerrilla commander guarding the base, Jan Baz Khan, stopped the Toyota at a checkpoint. Dilawar and his passengers were detained and turned over to American soldiers at the base as suspects in the attack. The three passengers were eventually flown to Guantánamo and held for more than a year before being sent home without charge. At Bagram, Dilawar was quickly labeled "noncompliant." One of the guards, Specialist Corey Jones, said the prisoner spat in his face and started kicking him. Jones responded, he said, with a couple of knee strikes to the leg of the shackled man. "He screamed out, 'Allah! Allah! Allah!' and my first reaction was that he was crying out to his god," Jones said to investigators. "Everybody heard him cry out and thought it was funny." "It became a kind of running joke, and people kept showing up to give this detainee a common peroneal strike just to hear him scream out 'Allah,"' he said. "It went on over a 24-hour period, and I would think that it was over 100 strikes." On Dec. 8, Dilawar was taken for his fourth interrogation. It quickly turned hostile. The interpreter who was present, Ahmad Ahmadzai, recalled the encounter. "About the first 10 minutes, I think, they were actually questioning him; after that it was pushing, shoving, kicking and shouting at him," Ahmadzai said. "There was no interrogation going on." The military policemen were instructed to keep Dilawar chained to the ceiling until the next shift came on. By the time Dilawar was brought in for his final interrogation in the first hours of Dec. 10, he appeared exhausted and was babbling that his wife had died. He also told the interrogators that he had been beaten by the guards. When Dilawar was unable to kneel, said the interpreter, Ali Baryalai, the interrogators pulled him to his feet and pushed him against the wall. "It looked to me like Dilawar was trying to cooperate, but he couldn't physically perform the tasks," Baryalai said. Soon afterward he was dead. The findings of Dilawar's autopsy were succinct. He had had some coronary artery disease, the medical examiner reported, but what killed him was the same sort of "blunt force trauma to the lower extremities" that had led to Habibullah's death. One of the coroners later translated the assessment at a pretrial hearing for Brand, saying the tissue in the young man's legs "had basically been pulpified." "I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus," the coroner, Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth Rouse, added. After the second death, several of the army interrogators were temporarily removed from their posts. On orders from the Bagram intelligence chief, interrogators were prohibited from any physical contact with the detainees. Chaining prisoners to any fixed object was also banned, and the use of stress positions was curtailed. In February, a U.S. military official disclosed that the Afghan guerrilla commander whose men had arrested Dilawar and his passengers had been detained. The commander was suspected of attacking Camp Salerno and then turning over innocent "suspects" to the Americans in a ploy to win their trust, the military official said. The three passengers in Dilawar's taxi were sent home from Guantánamo in March 2004, 15 months after their capture, with letters saying they posed "no threat" to American forces.."... If that ain't disassembling, man, I just dunno. |
|
04 Jun 05 - 11:16 AM (#1500107) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Susu's Hubby heric, I read your linked story and it hurts my heart to think that those possibly innocent people died in a manner so horrible. But from what I read in the story, those responsible were arrested and are being tried. That's the way it should be and the way it is being done. But the point that I'm making in this thread is that some of us have remained constant and consistent in the task at hand. We have supported the gov't in the big picture. As in every war, you're going to have the exceptions that will be trumped up in some publications and put off as possibly being the norm instead of the exception. So, let me ask you this. Do you believe the article in that the abuses that took place were correct but discount what the article says about the ones that are being held accountable for those same abuses? If that's the case and you refuse to acknowledge part of the article if it doesn't support your cause then you, my friend, are seriously undermining your own ability to put forth an effective argument. I just ask for consistency. That's it. Why do you refuse to show any in your unsuccessful quest in trying to discredit the current administration? Hubby |
|
04 Jun 05 - 11:53 AM (#1500125) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: heric Thanks SH! I agree that the documentation and accountability is a wonderful thing. It warms my heart that you actually care. I had actually expected to be called a liberal expletive, so that the actual merits and SERIOUS issues would be drowned out, as usually happens around here. However, I wish the accountability was taken more seriously, and it can be. Foot dragging and attempts at cover ups have occurred (and have been documented), while one of the worst types of crimes on Earth was allowed to persist. If all of this was predictable, then so is the plain fact that more accountability and independent review will lessen these crimes. I've been called a Bushite around here several times, btw. |
|
04 Jun 05 - 11:56 AM (#1500127) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: CarolC As before, I have stated that the failure of Saddam to comply with the cease-fire conditions is sufficient to allow the use of force. Yes, in other words, there is no specific language that authorizes the US or any body other than the UN to instigate force or to take any action other than providing full support to the inspectors who were doing the job that the UN gave them to do. And furthermore, the most recent evaluations by Hans Blix show that Saddam was complying with the cease-fire conditions. Only in your mind does what you consider to be a failure on the part of Saddam to comply, justify the US/Britain led invasion. But your fantasies about international laws and treaties, and the actual laws and treaties themselves are two entirely different things. According to international law and the treaties signed by the US, the US is in violation of the UN resolutions that prohibit any country from invading Iraq while the UN inspections process was still underway, as stated in the resolution that you, yourself, provided a link to in this thread. |
|
04 Jun 05 - 11:59 AM (#1500128) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: heric (And I think the INDEPENEDENT review is mandatory. I don't think there is any way that these are isolated to a few rogue sadists. Many of these sick people were sent from Afghanistan to Guantanamo at Rumsfeld's specific directive precisely because he felt they got better results. I do not want this to be the American way.) |
|
04 Jun 05 - 12:25 PM (#1500141) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Amos The current administration discredits itself repeatedly by being exposed in lies. Consistency? Let's see -- "We should invade Iraq because they are threatening us with WMD....buying uranium in Africa...building long-range missiles....whoops...no, I meant because they were rude about ignoring the UN...no, wait...we should invade them because they are cruel dictators who abuse people in prisons... no...wait.... regime change, maybe....no....freedom, that's it. We will invade a foreign nation to bring them freedom!! There ya go. Spin it, George. You da MAN!" The current administration has only the vaguest idea what their task IS, pal -- they didn't plan for it, they were totally off the wall in their estimations of the consequences of their actions, and in consequence they have dragged us into a colonial exercise of a kind not seen since the days of EM-pahr. You who insist this sandbox was inevitable and necessary in the war against terrorism are just buffooning around. The number of civilians killed in Iraq has risen from around 25 a month to 600; the number of foreigners in the ranks of insurgents in-country has risen from 100 in May 03 to over a thousand today, estimated. In the same time frame the number of Iraqi insurgents has risen from 3,000 to 16,000 estimated, while the attacks against US forces has risen from 10 to 70 daily. All of this is adding up to a really ugly piece of work to complete the task at hand. IF we can figger out what the hell that is. I happen to agree with you that we do have to finish it, but I doubt your fur-topped leader could tell you what the completion of it would look like. At a guess I would say what he'd LIKE to do is clean out the furriners from the ranks of the insurgents, suppress the insurgent operations by stompin' them out like so many roach hotels, and then man up civilian security forces in order to give the gummint some muscle, and leave them tot heir own devices with a notional government and some notional power to implement it with. Given that we have created an ungodly dog's breakfast of this nation in the first place, yeah, we have to clean it up, and perhaps in the final analysis after the dead are all buried and the widows have run out of tears and the orphans -- still too young to buy their own Kalashnikovs just yet, but keep your eyes open....have been sent to bed...maybe in some important respects the place will be better than it was before we began, if a little shorter on personnel. . But this operation has been one of the thick-head foot-in-mouth assholeries of all time. A |
|
04 Jun 05 - 12:28 PM (#1500145) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,Since you asked Of course he lied. Read the links posted HERE. |
|
04 Jun 05 - 03:47 PM (#1500237) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST "Since you ask", Thank you for bringing this thread back to the original point. YES, HE LIED.........HE IS STILL LYING..........HE WILL CONTINUE TO LIE! As long as the truth does not serve his purpose he will disregard, ignore, and spin it to what he needs it to be. This is the truth about the man you have re-elected to continue to head the world's (former) leading democracy. And we in the UK have done the same for his partner in untruth. As Del boy would say "What a bunch of plonkers we really are". Don T. |
|
04 Jun 05 - 06:39 PM (#1500284) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace "Do you REALLY believe that? And you, who is so adamant about saving, not destroying human life?" Doug, let's you and I cut the shit. I have asked when your force of invasion--which has become a force of occupation--will be leaving Iraq. All I have heard from the 'element of the right' is that you won't leave until--WHEN? Define what you mean by a functioning government in Iraq. Do you mean a government with which the people of Iraq are happy or a government with which the American government is happy? And until you answer that for me, Doug, stop already with the bullshit about what an uncaring individual I am. I have told you before--and I will again in case you forgot--I think Hussein should have been disposed of decades ago. He wasn't because he served the geopolitical purposes of various American administrations, and you know that to be true. George Bush has continued a policy of disrupting governments that do not serve its purpose. In this case, I think two agendas are at work. 1) The serious intent to 'stabilize' the Middle East 2) The serious intent to secure vast supplies of oil. As to my feelings for the people getting killed in Iraq: I ain't there pulling triggers or dropping bombs. Soldiers of YOUR country are, WITHOUT UN sanction. Get that straight. And get straight also that MY country refused to participate this time 'round because the UN did NOT sanction what has be a few years of warfare. I suppose you are proud. Frankly, I am more proud of Canada's decision, despite the fact I thought we were wrong initially. So if all you have is shit to throw at me personally, say so. Otherwise, KMA. Bruce Murdoch PS I missed you on the BNP threads. But then I don't suppose your support of democratic principles extends to being anti-Nazi. Just pro-USA, right? BM |
|
04 Jun 05 - 08:39 PM (#1500319) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,CarolC He posted to it, brucie. Unless someone else was pretending to be him. It was posted with an anonymous guest heading, but he signed his name to the bottom of it. Do a "control f" search on DougR and you'll find it. |
|
05 Jun 05 - 12:14 AM (#1500357) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,brucie My apologies for that then, Doug. Thank you CarolC. You say it's there then it's there. Sorry again, Doug. Bruce M |
|
05 Jun 05 - 02:38 PM (#1500622) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace On second thought, Doug, maybe hold that apology up for a bit. "Subject: RE: BS: British Nazi Party ((BNP)) From: GUEST Date: 02 Jun 05 - 12:47 AM Am I correct that those who refer to the British Nationalist Party as the British Nazi Party in Great Britian reflect the same attitude as those in the U. S. who who refer to Conservatives as Neo-Cons? DougR" Tell me, Doug, are you afraid to step on their toes? (I won't say anymore about it if you are--probably wise. However, you seem to be lots less than clear as to where you stand and exactly what you will tolerate from gorups AS LONG AS THEY ARE RIGHT WING.) Clarify this for me if you will. BM |
|
05 Jun 05 - 02:44 PM (#1500625) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Ron Davies It's immaterial whether he lied or not. What did he was decide in advance what he wanted to do in Iraq, rejected any fact that contradicted his decision, grasped desperately at any rumor that supported his decision, and, in the grand tradition of other demogogues, tried to stoke hate and fear in the US public as much as he could--with marvelous success. Even anybody who read the Wall St. Journal would have known that the ties between Al Queda and Saddam were tenuous at best. It is also obvious to all thinking individuals (which seems to exclude a few on this thread) that the UN never authorized the invasion of Iraq. So it would be appreciated if the towering intellects who still want to employ that argument would go bark up another tree. Very few people here deny that in 2002 and early 2003 there was a widespread conviction, including most politicians and a good portion of the US public, that Saddam had WMD's. The main question was how to deal with it. Invasion of Iraq was not the preferred solution for most of the US public--until Bush's propaganda campaign. OK--so you say that many presidents have made the facts fit their theory. Fine--but I'd prefer somebody who wants to starts a war to have a modicum of intellectual honesty, (admittedly intellect at all is perhaps not a reasonable request for our current "leader".) Don't bother to cite FDR--the Japanese played right into his hands by giving him the justification he needed. And Hitler obligingly declared war on the US, as he had agreed with the Japanese he would do. Saddam never gave Bush the excuse he needed, so he fabricated one. Therefore every death direct or indirect, caused by the war, can be laid at Bush's door. That's not the kind of leadership a person with any sense of morality would want. |
|
05 Jun 05 - 02:48 PM (#1500628) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: dianavan dougR - Thats the problem. The U.S. will now have to maintain a presence in Iraq indefinitely. Nobody thinks Saddam was a good man but by going into Iraq based on lies and by "going it alone", the U.S. has dug their own economic grave. Not only that, they have destroyed so much of Iraq and its infrastructure, the people of Iraq are worse off than before the invasion. The rate of starvation has actually increased. It also appears that the U.S. has had to resort to the same type of torture that Saddam used to maintain power. Whats the difference between George and Saddam? If you ask me, the only difference is that George calls himself a Christian. |
|
05 Jun 05 - 02:52 PM (#1500632) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Ron Davies Also, anybody who wants to cite the torture of Iraqis and death of Kurds as justification for the Iraq invasion is invited to tell us just how many of the dead killed by Saddam have been brought back to life by the Iraq invasion--and perhaps to compare the numbers of dead killed by Saddam in Iraq with the numbers killed since the invasion. |
|
05 Jun 05 - 03:10 PM (#1500649) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Ron Davies Obviously, the numbers to be compared are the numbers killed by Saddam in Iraq versus the number killed by either the "Coalitiion" or any other group in Iraq since the start of the invasion. |
|
05 Jun 05 - 03:59 PM (#1500680) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: DougR cool down, brucie, I lost my cookie when I posted the message about the "British Nazi Party" and did not realize it at the time. That's why it was posted as a Guest I suppose. As to the statement, I think it is a fair question. What's wrong with it? On when will U. S. (and other coalition troops)leave Iraq I thought I had made that quite clear. They will leave when the Iraqis can defend themselves. Were they to leave now, as you seem to favor, Bush would be leaving the Iraqi people to the mercy of the Terorists. It would be ridiculous to say the Terrorists are only intent on killing the "infidels" occupying Iraq at the present time don't you agree? What then would explain their attacks on the Iraqi civilian population? Even many of the most liberal politicians in the U. S. believe that withdrawal of the troops now would be a disaster. Of course if Bush did withdraw them, and there were mass killings of the population after the troops are gone, folks could say Bush is responsible for it because he withdrew the troops and abandonded the Iraqi people. Right? DougR |
|
05 Jun 05 - 06:56 PM (#1500768) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: dianavan Thats the problem. Doug. He shouldn't have gone in there in the first place. Then he wouldn't be in this mess. He lied to justify the invasion and then went in unilaterally without a plan. If any other country did that we would call it unjustified aggression against another nation. We would also call it stupid. He is responsible for the mess he created and that includes restoration of the infrastructure. |
|
05 Jun 05 - 08:23 PM (#1500809) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Once Famous Of course Zarqawi is answereing to Osama bin Laden and it looks more and more we are fighting Al Qaida in Iraq now. Ron Davies and a few others here seem seem oblivious to that. Remember Al Qaida Ron and dianavan? |
|
05 Jun 05 - 08:43 PM (#1500821) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace For time 97 or something like that: What is America's plan for Iraq? Does it have anything as inconvenient as a timeline? A departure date? Are y'all gonna stay there for a few more years? Cut the crap, Doug, and give us an answer, will ya? |
|
06 Jun 05 - 01:00 AM (#1500910) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST "(In my opinion, as long as the terror attacks keep happening, then we must be doing something right to keep them exposing themselves.)" - 03 Jun 05 - 06:07 PM Wow, what spin. I'm so dizzy now. So...we're winning the War on Terrorism because the terrorist attacks continue to occur? I don't think even Bush has thought of that one. You'd better fire that one off to him straightaway. He'd much appreciate it. ...As to your initial post: all that proves is Democrats like abundant - for now - supplies of cheap oil for their SUVs too. |
|
06 Jun 05 - 07:56 AM (#1501035) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Oh yes he did guest, Quote:- "We are defeating the insurgents. That's why they keep on fighting". In response to a journalist asking if he thought the insurgents could really be defeated. Don T. |
|
06 Jun 05 - 08:04 AM (#1501040) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST Amazing. |
|
06 Jun 05 - 09:00 AM (#1501082) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Susu's Hubby Let's just sum this thread up. Did Bush lie? No, I don't think so. After years and years of listening to people on both sides of the aisle talk and fret about the WMD threat, Bush is the one who decided to do something about it. At the same time, a brutal dictator was forced out of power and the documented rape and torture rooms were closed down. 25 million Iraqi's lives were returned to them to live as free citizens so that they could start to make their own decisions and live their lives as they see fit. Sounds like a good start to me. In the meantime, al qaeda, in the effort to fight American troops, have descended upon Iraq. This was possibly the worst decision that they could have made. Why in the world would you focus all of your resources against the world's strongest military in a place where the men and equipment are dug in? Doesn't sound too smart to me. But if that is where they want to have the party then let them all come to Iraq. Brucie, you keep asking when are we leaving. The answer that I know you're looking for is (and I'll say it) "I don't know." But we have maintained a presence in Japan after WW II. We have maintained a presence in Europe after WW II. We have maintained a presence in South Korea after the Korean war. Why would we NOT maintain a presence in Iraq after the current conflict there? The only place where we haven't maintained a military presence after a conflict is in Vietnam and the last time I checked, their government was communist. Coincedence, I think not. Brucie, pull your head out of the clouds and put your self-righteousness to rest and stop being so apologetic for the shortcomings of the UN. It impresses nobody here (except for maybe the few wacko's that have continuosly have made their point known that they do not want what's best for America). So now that we have determined that Bush did not "lie" about the reasons for going to war (and if you continue to argue that he did, it just shows your ignorance and exposes your hateful attitude toward what's right and decent) let's go on to the next subject. Like I've told you before, you better back up your positions with hard proof if you want to convince me otherwise. I hope everybody has a good week and may God continue to bless America. Hubby |
|
06 Jun 05 - 09:02 AM (#1501087) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Susu's Hubby and by the way................100. |
|
06 Jun 05 - 09:38 AM (#1501118) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,brucie It ain't America that needs the blessing. It's the rest of the world. Something along the lines of, "Dear Lord, please keep us safe from those who would save us." |
|
06 Jun 05 - 10:22 AM (#1501148) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST There are none so Blind than those who will not see. I am tempted to say that all you do here is flame but I will give you the benefit of the doubt there. I have yet to read anything you post here and actually finish it with the thought 'good point, I will think about that because it makes sense' and before what I have just said gets twisted, I would truly like to see something in your posts that would help me to do that but to date that has not happened. God Save and help Amercia for a lot of Americans know not what they do by their continual support for Lies and Spin that help to accomodate the wrongs this administration are commiting. These People are lying and will not stop, cannot stop now really, for one lie only leads to another lie to cover the first lie and then another lie to cover the first and second one and so on and so on. Does an American want to have to say that! No. They don't but they are. Some of the people that voted this Administration back in are really questioning that decison now in light of the overwhelming evidence that something is very wrong in this Country but there still remains people that are unwilling to accept what is apparent to an ever growing majority of people. Not all of them Democrats SH, not all of them. As many have said before me and I agree with them, Bush Lied, Rumsfeld lied, Rice Lied, Powell lied, and many more Lied and they will all continue to Lie because people like you prefer those lies to the truth and therefor let them. There lies the shame of it all. Right at the door of the people that endorse it and allow it to continue. I am of the opinion that this may 'one' of the worst periods in the History of this Country. As what is going on is so transparent and yet is allowed to continue. I love this Country and can only pray that we will at some point in the future be able to earn back some the respect and admiration we had before this Administration took over. That will be difficult but my hope is strong that we can, if we apply ourselves to the task. I hope that this week brings an awakening to the reality around those that are unable to see this Administration for what it truly is. God help and save America. |
|
06 Jun 05 - 10:25 AM (#1501150) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace GUEST: I love the people of the US. It's the government I have no use for. BM |
|
06 Jun 05 - 12:47 PM (#1501173) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Amos From today's NY Times: "President Bush said during the third election debate last October that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most - 53 percent - will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers." A lie? Or just a disassembly of misunderestimation? A |
|
06 Jun 05 - 01:33 PM (#1501208) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T SH, If the insurgents ARE Al Qaeda, rather than just Iraqis who object to being occupied, then it is the actions of Bush & Blair that have brought them to Iraq, where they are killing more Iraqi civilians than soldiers. Hammer that into your head, and then try to justify it. You will, of course, because you are more concerned with whitewashing you favourite clown than with the truth of the situation. I have the greatest admiration for the American people, and for American democracy, but what you are supporting does credit to neither. Don T. |
|
06 Jun 05 - 02:12 PM (#1501232) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Susu's Hubby Come on Don, That post did nothing but show your pure hatred and seething rage towards anything that Bush or Blair has done to make the world a better place. Let me quote you, if I may: "If the insurgents ARE Al Qaeda, rather than just Iraqis who object to being occupied, then it is the actions of Bush & Blair that have brought them to Iraq, where they are killing more Iraqi civilians than soldiers." The actions of Bush and Blair were to oust a brutal dictator who was torturing and murdering thousands of his own people. His minority regime was, for all intents and purposes, conducting their own form of Iraqi genocide against the majority tribes. NOT to mention that all evidence supported the fact that there were WMD's present and unaccounted for. All involved Gov't's (30 or so as to not have the US do anything "unilaterally") had the same evidence and were basing their decisions together and not just following the lead of the US. So by your argument of saying that our actions of stopping a mad man from killing his own people and to rid him of WMD's and the technology to make additional WMD's brought us the chance of capturing or killing people that belonged to an organization that proved their hatred of Americans by killing 3000 INTERNATIONAL people on American soil then, by all means, I'm glad the actions of Bush and Blair made that happen. You should be also. Once again, be consistent in your argument. If you're going to be against genocide in Africa and criticize gov't's for not intervening in those situations then at least be consistent and give Bush and Blair the credit for doing so in Iraq. You're clearly making the argument that somehow, Bush and Blair should be in someway, held responsible and punished for causing the bad guys to come and find them. You're half right in saying that they're responsible for what happened. But you and I part ways because I believe that they deserve the credit and a pat on the back for making it happen the way it happened. I think it was pure genius. But maybe that's why you can't see things clearly enough to understand what's going on. Hubby |
|
06 Jun 05 - 02:15 PM (#1501235) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,10.22am BM I hope you know my response was to SH's post and not yours. Your first post was a post that made me think "Good Point" that is not something the SH has managed to accomplish. I too love the People of this Country. I can love them all but still dislike the actions and the opinions of some. "I love the people of the US. It's the government I have no use for" I agree with you and I wish I could defend our Goverment but sadly that is not the case as there is no appropriate defense. RH |
|
06 Jun 05 - 02:43 PM (#1501247) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace I understood where you were coming from, GUEST. No problems between us. Don't think there ever has been. Bruce M PS I should have made myself clearer as to who was being addressed. Sorry 'bout that. BM |
|
06 Jun 05 - 02:52 PM (#1501253) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Peace "You're half right in saying that they're responsible for what happened. But you and I part ways because I believe that they deserve the credit and a pat on the back for making it happen the way it happened. I think it was pure genius." From 'Platoon': "Christians don't go 'round cuttin' off heads an' shit like that." I am having a hard time seeing you as a Christian, SH. |
|
06 Jun 05 - 03:08 PM (#1501261) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Susu's Hubby now come the personal attacks...... You guys are so predictable. Hubby |
|
06 Jun 05 - 03:46 PM (#1501279) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST SH The comment by BM does not appear to be an attack. You have stated your Faith here on the Mudcat several times. Therefore it is now public knowledge what you claim your Religion to be. So it is neither personal, or an attack when someone has an issue with the fact that your Faith and the teachings associated with it versus the opinion you at times express conflict. The response to BM's remark is not only predictable but par course now from some Bush administration supporters. |
|
20 Jun 05 - 05:38 PM (#1505446) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: kendall No matter how you spin it, there is one undeniable truth here in the Iraq invasion: NO ONE DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED. No one ever died from a blow job. |
|
20 Jun 05 - 10:31 PM (#1505624) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: dianavan Save the U.S.A. - Blow Bush |
|
21 Jun 05 - 02:20 PM (#1506148) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: DougR Hmmm. You volunteering dianavan? DougR |
|
21 Jun 05 - 11:34 PM (#1506582) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: dianavan If it led to his impeachment, I would consider it an honour and a duty. |
|
21 Jun 05 - 11:41 PM (#1506585) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: George Papavgeris Without a sperm of a doubt? |
|
22 Jun 06 - 11:16 PM (#1767154) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Susu's Hubby I can't believe I'm saying this but....... Clinton didn't lie. Neither did Madeline Albright. Nor Sandy Berger, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle or John Kerry. For that matter, neither did Nancy Pelosi, Bob Graham, Al Gore, or Ted Kennedy. Robert Byrd, John Rockefeller, Henry Waxman and Hillary Clinton all look like they told the truth also. At least between the years of 1998 and 2003 on the subject of Iraq having WMD's. What do you mean, Bush didn't lie? It really doesn't surprise me that it's almost been a full day and no one has brought this up! I guess that if it doesn't work to advance your agenda, then it can't be true. Hubby |
|
22 Jun 06 - 11:27 PM (#1767163) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Ron Davies Your usual impeccable source--won't you ever learn? "Fair and balanced"--as Colbert says--it sure is--the president's side AND the vice president's side. What more could anybody want? We'll see what other sources say. |
|
22 Jun 06 - 11:34 PM (#1767166) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Susu's Hubby Oh...so I guess the NGIC Report doesn't exist nor did the news conference that was called by the two senators today didn't really happen either. Ron, did you even read the article? Hubby |
|
22 Jun 06 - 11:35 PM (#1767167) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Amos The report you offer is absurd on the face of it. 500 munitions (no specifics) containing "degraded mustard and sarin" (no information as to how much or how old). Everything else in the report is "could be, might, and believed to be maybe so...". When are you going to learn that facts matter? A |
|
22 Jun 06 - 11:37 PM (#1767168) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Bobert Not only did Bush lie but he continues to lie.... But that's the inherent problem with liein': Once ya ' get startin' ya can't stop at just one... Kind like pretzels... (Oh, Bobert, you ain't gonna bring up that episode again, are ya???) Hey, if the boy wants to get rippin' drunk, hey, with what he has screwed uo, he deserves it so... ... get off the boy's back, gol danged it... He deserves a life-times worth of drunks with all he's messed up... Bobert |
|
22 Jun 06 - 11:56 PM (#1767177) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Alba Senator Rick Santorum (R) PA should maybe call The Pentagon cause it seems those Folks don't quite agree with his eh....cough announcement..LOL. |
|
23 Jun 06 - 12:04 AM (#1767181) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,Jon WASHINGTON (AP) - Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and probably are so old they couldn't be used as designed, intelligence officials said Thursday. see here |
|
23 Jun 06 - 12:53 AM (#1767216) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Arne Susu's Hubby, clueless as ever: Oh...so I guess the NGIC Report doesn't exist nor did the news conference that was called by the two senators today didn't really happen either. I assume that would be "Man On Dog" Santorum and Hoekstra's little photo-op (to try and keep Santorum from polling in negative numbers). Clue for you: Hoekstra is a Congressman, not a Senator. But it's a pile'o'crap warmed over. See here and here. Cheers, |
|
23 Jun 06 - 12:58 AM (#1767219) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Arne Also some discussion here and here (amongst other topics). Cheers, |
|
23 Jun 06 - 05:27 PM (#1767667) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,Frank First of all, there is no war. It's an occupation. Second, it is illegal. Third, Bush lied us into it and is over in Europe now trying to raise money for it and invading Iran but it's not working. Fourth, he planned to invade Iraq prior to 911. Husain was a bad guy but he did comply with inspections. Bush is a "cut and run" pseudo-president. He is cutting programs and running from the national debt. He has "cut and run" from his promises to find Osama bin Laden. He could have taken Zaqawi out years ago. He stonewalled that operation so that he could set up a boogeyman to conflate his invasion. He has "cut" education, labor and minimum wage. He has "run" from his military service, Al Quaida, and his responsibilities after Katrina. He has "cut and run" from everything except rich white millionaires. Frank |
|
23 Jun 06 - 07:13 PM (#1767743) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: CarolC Question for you Hubster... If the chemical munitions were still lethal at the time of our invasion of Iraq, why the hell didn't Saddam use them? He certainly didn't show any reluctance to use them during the Iran/Iraq war. |
|
23 Jun 06 - 07:17 PM (#1767744) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: CarolC "The intelligence officials offered a less alarming view. They said the old munitions had been found in groups of one and two, indicating that they'd been discarded, not that they were part of an organized program to stockpile banned weapons. One of the declassified key points says the munitions - apparently dating from Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran - could be sold on the black market. But one intelligence official said there was "no evidence that any element of the insurgency in Iraq is in possession of these kinds of munitions." Duelfer's report said that while the old munitions might be effective as terrorist weapons they didn't pose a "militarily significant threat" and couldn't cause mass casualties. No evidence has surfaced to support the Bush administration's prewar contention that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, said in January 2004 that "we were almost all wrong" in thinking that Iraq had such weapons. Duelfer reported that Saddam was planning to reconstitute his programs once U.N. sanctions were lifted, but hadn't done so." |
|
23 Jun 06 - 09:54 PM (#1767795) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Ron Davies "planning to reconstitute his programs once UN sanctions were lifted"--which is yet another reason why the Bush regime's propaganda campaign to link Saddam and 9-11 was a crock--from Day 1. Saddam did not want anything to stop the loosening of sanctions--and 9-11 put a screeching halt to that loosening. Saddam had everything to lose and nothing to gain by attacking the US directly. And he knew it. |
|
24 Jun 06 - 04:37 PM (#1768248) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff I find it a lot easier to link Bush to 9-11 than Saddam. Please see the video What's The Truth on 911 blogger.org...[com]? Peter |
|
24 Jun 06 - 05:52 PM (#1768278) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton You might want to consider reading "The New Pearl Harbor" by Griffin. It doesn't purport to have all the answers but it asks some very interesting questions. Frank |
|
24 Jun 06 - 06:35 PM (#1768308) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Alba I agree Frank. A very interesting read. Best Wishes, Jude |
|
24 Jun 06 - 06:49 PM (#1768315) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,Another Republican June 23, 2006: The revelation that Coalition forces have discovered about 500 shells containing chemical weapons (mostly sarin nerve gas and mustard gas) since 2003, most of which are pre-1991 Gulf War vintage, leads to the question as to why the U.S. waited so long to reveal this. The U.S. government has taken a beating for supposed failures to find weapons of mass destruction in the press, and from political opponents. There have been some discoveries that have made the news, most notably an incident in May, 2004, when terrorists used a 155-millimeter shell loaded with sarin in an IED. The shell detonated, exposing two soldiers to sarin nerve gas (both of whom survived and recovered). It is this attack that provides one explanation as to why many of the finds have been classified. If the United States were to have announced WMD finds right away, it could have told terrorists (including those from al-Qaeda) where to look to locate chemical weapons. This would have placed troops at risk – for a marginal gain in public relations. A successful al-Qaeda chemical attack would have been a huge boost for their propaganda efforts as well, enabling them to get recruits and support (many people want to back a winner), and it would have caused a decline in American morale in Iraq and on the home front. The other problem is that immediate disclosure could have exposed informants. Protecting informants who provide the location of caches is vital. Not only do dead informants tell no tales, their deaths silence other potential informants – because they want to keep on living. A lack of informants leads to a lack of human intelligence, and the troops don't like being sent out on missions while short on intelligence – it's easy to get killed. This has led to media coverage (particularly around "milestone" deaths) and The biggest danger with intelligence is in its over-use. This might sound odd, but it is the biggest concern many decision-makers in wartime have to make. Protection of an intelligence advantage can be so important that it might require allowing an enemy action to go forward (like the 1940 bombing of Coventry – Churchill allowed that to occur rather than risk exposing the British ability to read German codes), or it might require high-level approval of a mission (like the 1943 operation in which Thomas G. Lanphier shot down the plane carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – the decision to attempt the mission was made by the Secretary of the Navy). In the world of intelligence, decisions are rarely simple, and easily answered. A great deal of consideration goes into the decisions based on the intelligence provided, and when to release the information to the public. – Harold C. Hutchison |
|
24 Jun 06 - 06:51 PM (#1768317) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: CarolC For those who haven't read the New Pearl Harbor book, or who might not read it in the future, here is an interesting discussion with the author... http://democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221 |
|
25 Jun 06 - 04:46 PM (#1768905) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST What an embarassment for Dick Cheney who arranged for Saddam to buy these weapons from the United States prior to the first OIL WAR. Peter |
|
25 Jun 06 - 04:59 PM (#1768913) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,Wesley S Peter - I doubt that Cheney feels any embarrasement at all. After all a profit was made. Now if he's lost money on the deal? That would have been something he would have felt embarrased about. |
|
26 Jun 06 - 10:36 AM (#1769335) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Teribus CarolC - 23 Jun 06 - 07:13 PM "Question for you Hubster... If the chemical munitions were still lethal at the time of our invasion of Iraq, why the hell didn't Saddam use them? He certainly didn't show any reluctance to use them during the Iran/Iraq war." The answer to that would be the same reason he did not use them in 1991. The Soviet Union and it's Warsaw Pact Allies all developed and possessed Chemical and Biological Weapons, their military doctrine believes them to be effective against "human wave" attacks. NATO basically renounced the use of these weapons in the 1950's, and developed Tactical Nuclear weapons as a counter to either the Soviet Union or any Warsaw Pact country's use of Chemical or biological weapons. Saddam was quite aware of this possibility and knew that if he did use his WMD the outcome would not be good, also one of the reasons that in both conflicts use of nuclear weapons as an option is never taken off the table. Saddam did use WMD against Irananian human wave attacks during the Iran/Iraq War. |
|
26 Jun 06 - 12:56 PM (#1769434) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton "Saddam did use WMD against Irananian human wave attacks during the Iran/Iraq War." which he received compliments of the first Bush Adminstration. The question still remains, were they destroyed during the UN inspections? i think the answer is yes. The Bush the First thought that supplying WMD's to Iraq would deter Iran as analogous to the support for Hitler against Stalin in the late 1930's. This explains why Bush and Reagan supported Saddam and gave him WMD's. The recent so-called discoveries of WMD's were outmoded weaponry that had degraded since 2003 and are of no potent use. It's a red-herring. Frank |
|
26 Jun 06 - 08:11 PM (#1769758) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: DougR Hubby: thanks for posting the information in your first post. Too many people forget that the Clinton gang also believed that Saddam had WMD. Or perhaps they just don't want to remember. Of course the recent discovery of over 500 "degraded" chemical weapons of no import. Even though critical experts of the Bush administration have stated that those found could be very dangerous should they fall into terrorist's hands. I understand the U. S. government is looking for a place to dump these "degraded" WMD. Any volunteers for storing them in their back yard? DougR |
|
26 Jun 06 - 11:21 PM (#1769905) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Arne DougR: Even though critical experts of the Bush administration have stated that those found could be very dangerous should they fall into terrorist's hands. Yeah ... well, maybe, ... if they used them to cook their kofte kebabs in. Read my links above. This is all old news, covered by the Duelfer report itself, and just Republican politicking and fear-mongering for partisan advantage (they hope). Nothing new there either. Cheers, |
|
26 Jun 06 - 11:37 PM (#1769914) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: tarheel this is a CUT AND PASTE thingy...i know because someone sent one to me by email and i deleted it so as not to be tempted to PASTE it here and then listen to all of you give me HECK,because it was not my own little thingy!!! tar,,, |
|
27 Jun 06 - 12:53 AM (#1769923) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Teribus "Saddam did use WMD against Irananian human wave attacks during the Iran/Iraq War." which he received compliments of the first Bush Adminstration." Wrong Frank, Saddam received no Chemical or Biological weapons from the first Bush Administration or any other. Dual use equipment or material was sent to Iraq, how it was ultimately used was outwith the control of those sending it, but weapons were not sent - NATO has not had any Chemical or Biological Weapons in it's inventory since the mid-1950's (Fifty Years ago Frank - so if the weapons found in Iraq were all totally degraded having been manufactured prior to 1991 what does that mean for any NATO had that predated 1956?) Because of the actions and attitude of the Iraqi Government under Saddam Hussein in the period 1991 to 1998. In 2002 the world and it's dog totally believed that Iraq possessed WMD, totally believed that the programmes required to further develop and manufacture them were in existance. These widely held beliefs were based upon assessments and reports from IAEA and UNSCOM not on any "lie" told by Bush or by Blair. |
|
27 Jun 06 - 01:02 AM (#1769924) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Teribus On the subject of Chemical and Biological Weapons, I forgot to mention the US acts as a centre for controlled destruction of these weapons. The Pentagon has a firm and binding commitment to have all such stocks of weapons and agents destroyed by the summer of next year. I have in the past asked ex-military 'catters' to tell me what the colour code was for US/NATO Chemical/Biological Weapons, because people like Frank and others continue to insist that the US supplied Saddam with such weapons - Noone ever came back and gave me any answer, they couldn't because NATO from the 1950's did not possess such weapons. Only recently does a colour code appear for such weapons, it's Gray, and the reason it has appeared is down to the fact that there are now countries who are members of NATO that were formerly part of the Warsaw Pact. The weapons are being withdrawn and destroyed. |
|
27 Jun 06 - 12:03 PM (#1770269) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Greg F. Dual use equipment or material was sent to Iraq, how it was ultimately used was outwith[sic- assume out of?] the control of those sending it... ROFLMAO! "dual use equipment" !! Bwa-Ha-Ha-Hoo-Ha ya gotta love the weaselly-ass bullshit some folks can come up with. |
|
27 Jun 06 - 03:43 PM (#1770481) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: CarolC Well, Teribus, if we already had an effective deterrent against Saddam ever using WMD against "the West" (in any scenario other than as a defence against a "human wave" invasion of Iraq by another country), as you say we did, then the premise that we needed to invade Iraq and unseat Saddam because of WMD is a false one. |
|
27 Jun 06 - 03:48 PM (#1770490) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce " if we already had an effective deterrent against Saddam ever using WMD against "the West" (in any scenario other than as a defence against a "human wave" invasion of Iraq by another country), as you say we did, then the premise that we needed to invade Iraq and unseat Saddam because of WMD is a false one." Wrong, CarolC, unless you consider human lives other than US troops to be worthless- which I know you do not. Chemical weapons are very effective against a civilian population, such as the Kurds of Kuwait. The truce terms specified that Saddam would NOT have those weapons, and even 14 years AFTER that he still had them. |
|
27 Jun 06 - 04:01 PM (#1770506) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce "380 SA-2 missile engines" http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf "The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003." http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html |
|
27 Jun 06 - 04:02 PM (#1770508) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: beardedbruce sorry- " the Kurds OR Kuwait" |
|
27 Jun 06 - 08:25 PM (#1770705) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: CarolC Wrong, CarolC, unless you consider human lives other than US troops to be worthless- which I know you do not. Chemical weapons are very effective against a civilian population, such as the Kurds of Kuwait. In what year did Saddam gas the Kurds of Kuwait, beardedbruce? |
|
27 Jun 06 - 08:29 PM (#1770708) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: CarolC Missed your last one bb. In what years did Saddam gas the Kurds and Kuwait? |
|
27 Jun 06 - 08:42 PM (#1770721) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: GUEST CarolC 27 Jun 06 - 03:43 PM - Completely wrong CarolC for a whole raft of reasons. Greg F. 27 Jun 06 - 12:03 PM "dual use equipment" - some noted examples of such: Would you call a pencil a deadly weapon Greg F - you can certainly kill somebody with one very easily. Most people have lurking under their kitchen sinks sufficient ingredients to blow themselves and their houses to kingdom come. Now none of this stuff is controlled, all in its own right is perfectly harmless, yet when combined with a certain amount of knowledge it is deadly. In another thread quite recently we had the massive catalogue of weapons shipped by the US and UK to prop up their bad-guy of the day, Saddam while he was fighting the Iranians, it amounted to little or no weapons at all, in fact over the period covered it amounted to less than 0.005%. The Russians on the other hand supplied Saddam with 61% of his needs and the French I think something like 18%. So please don't go banging on about how much this or that US administration supported Saddam Hussein with arms and weapons - the plain fact of the matter is that they didn't others did. |
|
27 Jun 06 - 08:59 PM (#1770742) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: CarolC CarolC 27 Jun 06 - 03:43 PM - Completely wrong CarolC for a whole raft of reasons. No support for your position, Guest, 27 Jun 06 - 08:42 PM? You want us to take your word for it just because you say so? I don't think so. |
|
28 Jun 06 - 02:43 AM (#1770873) Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied? From: Arne BeardedBruce: "380 SA-2 missile engines" http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf "[F]ollowing a visit of IAEA to a scrapyard in Rotterdam to investigate increased radiation readings, it was discovered, through photographs taken at the time, that engines of SA-2 surface-to-air missiles were among the scrap. They are of a type of engines used in the Al Samoud 2 proscribed missile program." The Al-Samoud were of debatable illegitimacy (but Saddam agreed to scrap them, so as to avoid giving Dubya even the slightest excuse to go in with guns blazing, which he did, with cameras rolling). But these engines were in scrap in Rotterdam (that hot-bed of Terra-ism). Whoopdedoo. I'd also note that selling of scrap is something that the U.S., as an occupation force, should have taken responsibility for (if it was even anything of concern ... unlike, say, the looting of the many weapons depots in the aftermath of the invasion). As for the WoMD, Duelfer already reported this. Pre-GWI weapons, degraded and useless. But BeardedBruce is pushing the same ol' maladministration crapola (this time propagated by proxies, so that when the truth comes out, the maladministration can say "weeeee didn't say that!.....") Cheers, |
