Sorry Fred, I lost your post from about 2 days ago re. where Bush lied and
it's just not worth it to google it back up anyway. So, I'm responding
here, and then I'm pretty much done with the subject.
I asked for a simple instance of proof where Bush lied, and you wrote a
dissertation on everything but that. I look at it another way. Dan Rather,
by any objective standard, leans considerably to the left. This had to be a
factor in his problems with the Bush TANG debacle. Now, don't you think if
there were any evidence that the President of the US LIED about intelligence
or anything else to justify going to war that this would be big news?
Which has more impact:
"This is Dan Rather...stunning new information reveals that President Bush
lied to the American people when he said such and such facility was a WMD
facility when he in fact KNEW that it was nothing of the sort. We have the
secret tapes to prove this deception."
"This is Dan Rather...stunning new information reveals that President Bush
did not take a required physical while on inactive duty in the 6th year in
his ANG service thirty years ago."
Now apparently you know something CBS, NBC, ABC, all cable stations and all
newspapers seemed to have missed. If you help them out a little then maybe
they don't have to rely on forged documents to fabricate a case against the
I believe most reasonable people without a visceral hatred of this President
can see the reality of things rather than revisionist history. I think the
National Intelligence Council sums it up quite well. Of course you'll
probably discredit this source as it is an American governmental agency,
unlike UNSCOM which seems to have some strange svengali stranglehold over
It is an interesting read. One of the important points is:
"Let me be clear: The NIE judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical
and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150
km limit imposed by the UN Security Council, and with moderate confidence
that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. These judgments were essentially the
same conclusions reached by the United Nations and by a wide array of
intelligence services-friendly and unfriendly alike. The only government in
the world that claimed that Iraq was not working on, and did not have,
biological and chemical weapons or prohibited missile systems was in
Baghdad. Moreover, in those cases where US intelligence agencies disagreed,
particularly regarding whether Iraq was reconstituting a uranium enrichment
effort for its nuclear weapons program, the alternative views were spelled
out in detail. Despite all of this, ten myths have been confused with facts
in the current media frenzy. A hard look at the facts of the NIE should
dispel some popular myths making the media circuit. [end]
I also think you've got one of the strangest criteria for calling someone,
including me, a liar. The threshhold of proof should be pretty high to call
someone a liar, but you have a pretty liberal one. I think this is an
artifact of your aim to call the President a liar at all costs. As evidence
to the contrary is thrown up at you, you are forced to refine your
definition of what a liar is to justify continuing to call him one.
Eventually you get into a situation like Clinton talking about the
definition of "is." Is that the company you really want to keep?
I'm very comfortable with the decision to take out Saddam. He was by all
means a gathering threat, which is what the President called him, not an
imminent threat. A very likely cocktail of WMD and terrorists was brewing
in Iraq. Damn good thing something was done about it, not to mention the
genocide and other insanity going on there.
Simple. Every time he says that Kerry flip-flopped on Iraq, he lies.
The real shame is that Bush supporters take every word he speaks as
gospel and don't actually think for themselves.
See the SF Chronicle newspaper article from their washington bureau chief:
Not true. Are you actually denying that Kerry didn't change his position on
Iraq because of Howard Dean's success? Have you seen the 11 minute video on
the internet that documents these flip flops? Kerry is too wishy-washy on
the issue of fighting terrorism IMO. Worse yet, he changes his position to
whatever it needs to be to get him elected president. No character...he's
just another Al Gore who did the same thing with the first gulf war.
:> The real shame is that Bush supporters take every word he speaks as:> gospel and don't actually think for themselves.
: Kerry just wants to be president and he is riding this pony for all it is
: worth. He will be gone soon enough and then Bush can get back to business.
That would be, what? The business of ruining the American economy?
Of undermining the military? Of continuing to increase the US isolation
in international democracy? Or decreasing your rights as a private
Yeah, that will be really great.
-- Andy Barss
They're both idiots. Kerry may not ruin the economy, undermine the
military, increase the US isolation in "international democracy" (whatever
the Hell _that_ means) and decrease your rights as a private citizen in the
same manner as Bush, but I can't see how things are improved just because
he finds a different manner to go about it. Better the idiot we know than
the idiot we don't if the choice is between two idiots.
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
can't let this one go...
"The business of ruining the American economy?" You mean the effects of an
overheated economy that just happened to take a "time-out" that began a few
years before the actual effects like they always do, not unlike rebound that
began in the Bush Sr. era but didn't show until Clinton was seated? Or do
you mean no-brain jobs moving overseas because taxes and unions make it
cheaper to do the work elsewhere?
"Of undermining the military?" Never heard that as an accusation towards a
"hawk". Only explanation I can think of is that he has one hand tied behind
his back trying to appease the snakes in western Europe while at the same
time trying to do what has to be done.
"Of continuing to increase the US isolation in international democracy?"
Guess you're talking about Iraq...thought GWB pretty much cleared that up a
few days ago...we are not going it alone. The noticably absent ones are the
ones "sleeping with the dog" for money and/or oil. If you aspire to the
German or French way of doing things (socialist), then suggest you move to
Germany or France.
"Or decreasing your rights as a private citizen?" Howard is moving to
satellite so take a breath. Our other rights are perhaps compromised
somewhat in the interest of security but I haven't encountered too many
people that are mad about a few more minutes in the airport. BTW I
travelled to Germany too many times to recall and they always did the full
body search in the airport (read the above and maybe pick France...travelled
alot there also and they didn't seem to care).
The other half is aware of all the lies, deciet, and outright unlawful
crap and even assist with it with great joy. This half is more accurately
known as DemoCROOKS. Both of them continuously accuse the
Republicans of the very things that they do constantly.
You need another hobby. Your name invention talents are minimal.
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them." George Orwell
I don't believe you are sorry at all. Not looking up my article
saves you the trouble of addressing the examples of Bush lying
that I actually presented and perhaps in your mind at least allows
you the latitude to attribute claimes ot myself that I did not post.
I gave you two examples in this thread. One was the lie frequently
made by Bush, that those who opposed the invasion thought Saddam
Hussein could be trusted. You offered two defenses:
1) That you didn't remember Bush saying that.
2) Deliberate and malicious misrepresentation of another person's
point of view was not lying, it was the expression of an opinon.
I then went on to explain that it was my opinion that deliberate
misrepresentation of another person's point of view was lying.
ISTR you argued that misrepresentation is a synonym for lying.
The second example of Bush lying was an instance in which he claimed
to have previously made a statement that he had not. The statement
in question was in fact a paraphrasal of a statement frequently made
by Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. Had Bush said "I always believed
that ...." then one could possibly argue that he had secretly always
agreed with the Gore statement, even though it had never passed his lips
in public. But that is not what he said. What he said was "I always
said that...' when in fact he NEVER said it. That's a lie.
Your defense of Bush, as I recall, was an obfuscating paragraph
about deficits. Not very honest on your part, eh?
In another thread I referred you to an instance in which Bush claimed
that the IAEA stated a conclusion in a report which the IAEA had
not. You never addressed that false attribution on Bush's part.
Maybe you do not consider a false statement about what an organization
has reported to be lying, I do.
I also cited the false statement that Bush made about the Medusa
missle tubes. You ignored that.
I also cited a false statement Bush made about a report on quantities
of unacounted for growth media in January, 2003. You ignored that.
Of course I already covered this ground in the earlier article you
didn't bother to review befor writing your reply.
I look at your introduction of Dan Rather into this, er, discussion
to be obfuscation. If you want to discuss examples I gave of Bush
lying then why not discuss examples I gave of Bush lying?
More obfuscation. 'Impact' is not a relevant consideration. Truth
Here I'll snip out much of your article dedicated to issues about,
Iraqi WMDS, since the issue we were discussing was the examples I
gave of Bush lying.
If I say that the Warren Comission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald
acted in concert with others I would be lying becuase that is NOT
what the Warren Comission said. Similarly, when Bush claimed that
the IAEA or UNMOVIC reported something they did not report, Bush lied
regardless of whether or not the report itself was true.
Do you get it yet? The issue of Bush lying is separate from the
issue of WMDs in Iraq.
However, the observation that all of the falsifieable statements
made by the Bush/Blair administration IRT Iraqi WMDs have been
falsified does little to inspire confidence in their honesty,
I disagree. Deliberate misrepresentaion of another person's point of
view is lying.
Claiming to have said something that one did not, is lying.
Claiming that an arganization reported something that the organization
is question did not report is lying.
I submit that if you do NOT consider those things to be lying you
have a very weak grasp of the truth.
But as Heinlein noted, there are degrees of incompetence so extreme
as to be indistinguishible from malice.
When you fist cited the page from the New Republic Bulletin board I
was willing to accept that you were easily fooled. But then when
I pointed out to you the dishonesty of the author, you replied
that you couldn't be bothered to check it out.
Evidently you can be bothered to post ad hominems and false statements
about my opinions and the motives behind them, but STILL cannot be
bothered to check out the basis for that _World Tribune_ article.
I think you're either one of the laziest people to ever post on
the internet or patently dishonest. You have never once in this
discussion shown any dilligence yourself, you just jump straight
to accusations against me.
Returning to the very first example I gave, that of Bush saying that
those who opposed the invasion of Iraq thought Saddam Hussein could
be trusted, have you yet tried to ascertain if he said that or not?
Clinton and Bush, no I do not care to hang out with them.
Nor you, it would seem.
No it really just means that I don't have a lot of free time on my hands to
dig it up. It's not easy starting a new business and all. I did check
google but couldn't find that post for some reason. No matter though, I
will address your issues.
I never said that. You are confusing me with someone else.
Again, I never said that. You are the one saying it is "deliberate and
malicious." Whether it is so is debatable. I said, if I recall correctly
(it was a while ago), that what you are calling lies are, IMO, matters of
opinion. If I deliberately and maliciously misrepresent your statements
then they are lies.
Well, yes I accused you of calling Bush a liar. You denied that and after
about 3 posts finally came around and agreed. Now you can't stop calling
him one. How funny is that?
I recall perfectly well when Bush said that people who wanted to leave
Saddam in power were putting their trust in a madman. It is pretty clear he
said that. I believe there are plenty of people who (1) thought Saddam was
cooperating with the UN well enough if not perfectly and wasn't really a
threat (those people clearly fit Bush's description). There were others,
like maybe yourself, who (2) did not trust Saddam as far as you could throw
him, yet were against invasion. Those types put more trust in the UN
resolutions and weapons inspectors to keep him in a box. I believe Bush's
point is that no matter what camp you are in, you really do have to put some
amount of trust in Saddam eventually even if you don't realize you are doing
so. Look at just the inspection programs. You can't have an effective
inspection if Saddam isn't cooperating with them and is undermining the
process at every turn, can you? Are you sure you aren't putting some trust
in Saddam to cooperate when you push for more inspections? Let's say you
counter that point by saying that you're not trusting Saddam, and even
though he doesn't cooperate, the inspections take time and effort for Saddam
to counteract. Is that really the most effective policy? You could take
that position, that pushing for more inspections does not require trust in
Saddam, but I think this is a very nuanced point and not one most people,
other than you, might take.
The reality is that Saddam did everything but cooperate with inspectors and
the UN in general. Leaving Saddam in power would amount to trusting that he
no longer help train and pay reward for terrorists, continue to develop WMDs
and so on. You just can't prevent him from doing all the bad stuff that he
wanted to do. Bush said that people who want to leave Saddam in power are
relying on a madman to keep his word. The fact that some of those "anti
war" people don't realize that they are, in effect, going to have to trust
Saddam at some point doesn't make his statement false.
But let's say you disagree with everything I just said, which I'm pretty
sure is the case. This is a far cry from a lie. It is his position (imo)
that people who want to leave the man in power are, in effect, trusting that
he do the right thing whether they realize it or not. That just isn't a
lie. It is an opinion. Isn't it pretty plain and simple to see that it is
his opinion? I mean, did Bush ever profess to have proof that everybody on
Earth who opposed invasion trusted the man?
Kerry says, "It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."
Well, a lot of people thing it was the right war in the right place at the
right time. Does that make Kerry a liar? I think it does ONLY if Kerry
really, truly believes it was the right thing to do but is just saying that
to get elected. There's no reason to think Bush believed anything other
than what he was saying about defeating Saddam.
I just don't see a lie on this one, and neither did Dan Rather.
Like I said before, I'm not so quick to believe one reporter's review of
everything that was said during an entire political campaign. I don't know
if Bush was taken out of context which happens so frequently. Did Bush say
that he said that during campaign speeches? I'll give you one and say that
maybe Bush did lie about this. The jury is open and certainly not proven.
You don't take one reporter's word on anything. Dan Rather taught that
Don't remember it. Maybe someone else said that like the other stuff you
attributed to me.
I know nothing about it. My instinct again is that there is more to the
story. You don't seem to understand that people can say things that are not
true, yet not be lying. He has a staff, he has intelligence reports and on
and on. Do you consider yourself to be lying everytime you say something
that turns out not to be true?
You apparently didn't understand anything I said earlier about lying. You
aren't showing me any proof of lying. I'll take you at your word (for the
sake of argument) that he said things that were not backed up by the
reports. Now prove to me he was lying. You can't, and Dan Rather can't.
If you tried to sue the President for lying, what would your evidence be?
Give me a secret Oval Office tape recording where Bush says, "Now we're
gonna take this here IAEA report as evidence and throw in a few of our own
conclusions...nobody, not even Dan Rather, is going to notice."
The fact that you say Rather is obfuscation shows me that you are more
interested in defending your turf than you are in actually understanding
what I am saying. I'm really not trying to attack you, I'm just trying to
get you to realize that you have already convicted Bush of being a liar, and
are using these different examples of what appears, at worst, to be
intelligence or communication errors, or errors in the media reports you are
reading (ie, out of context reporting). You've got it backwards. Go find
some real lies and then you can think poorly of his character.
Of course, and how stupid would Bush have to be to stand in front of
reporters at a press conference and have to defend the indefensible? I
don't believe it was that simple, sorry. Unlike you, I come from the
standpoint of giving him the benefit of the doubt. The whole point about
Dan Rather is a metaphor for the mainstream media at large. If there were
clear lies, LIES, NOT OPINIONS, don't you think we'd be having nightly
newscasts about how it is now "DAY 43" in the president's refusal to answer
charges of lying to the American people? The fact that they had to go back
to some stupid forged documents (which they STILL do not admit were forged)
about an inconsequential subject proves to me that there's nothing to this
Uh, I never said the two were linked...must've been that other guy.
Not really. You have just indicted every politician in every nation for the
last decade, all of whom were convinced that Saddam had lots of bad stuff.
I'm perfectly content in saying this was a non-partisan screw up, even
though it hasn't been proven that he weapons weren't moved out of country,
or aren't still there. I'll agree that there wasn't much in the way of
nuclear stuff yet, but there was plenty in the works after the sanctions
were lifted. That's proven. That and the tons of uranium that were removed
I think you have a very thin skin if you believe I've been throwing ad
hominems at you. In fact, I'm the one who admitted that you know more about
UNMOVIC details than I did, and what did I get in return? -- a barrage of
The only thing I've accused you of is calling the president a liar, which
you eventually proved me right on, and misunderstanding what proof of a lie
constitues. I'm sorry if you somehow see that as an attack.
Again, I didn't say that, and if I did say anything remotely like that it
was in a completely different context. I clearly remember him saying that,
but I recall the word "madman" in there as well.
Try not to take things so personally. Maybe your defensiveness keeps you
from understanding my side of the discussion. I completely understand
yours, but it is clear to me that you have indicted the man based on a
misunderstanding of his motives.
A more important point is that the author of that editorial is
to _The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)_
Please note the date OCTOBER 2002. That is FIVE months before the
Based in part on the information in that report Bush went to the UN
together the US and the UN demanded a return of the inspectors to
Here are the results of that inspection process as of the eve of the
Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program, no evidence of stockpiles
of chemical or biological weapons were found. No manufacturing
were found. Up to that point and Iraq was cooperating with the
weapons inspectors. The missles that were found by UNMOVIC to exceed
range did so only marginally in a zero-payload test. Whether that was
a substative violation or not may be debated, but what is not
is that the missle were declared and made available to UNMOVIC for
It was perfectly reasonable to accept the October 2002 report as
the best assessment of the situation in October 2002. But, and
cannot be emphasized enough, when better data became available from
people on the ground in Iraq what excuse did Bush have for ignoring
it? What excuse did you have? As far as I can tell, NONE.
I do not understand why it is so hard for you to grasp the concept
that the October 2002 report was not the final word on the issue.
Besides, here is what teh uS Senate concluded about it:
Conclusion 1. Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence
Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE),
Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction,
either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying
Did you compare the editorial you reference with the October 2002
document about which Mr Cohen was writing? This caught my eye:
we included the Niger issue with appropriate caveats,
for the sake of completeness.
This refers to the forged Iraq-Niger correspondence obtained by the
Italians, turned over to the UK who in turn turned it over to us
who in turn turned it over to the IAEA. These were clumsy and
obvious forgeries including correspondence from the 1980s, when
Iraq DID buy yellowcake from Niger but with the dates changed to
make them appear mor recent. Notably, in regard to those date
changes the day of the month no longer matched the day of the week
in several places (as reported in 2003 by the Washington Post).
Here is what it says in the October 2002 report:
A foreign government service reported that as of early
2001, Niger planned to send several tons of ``pure uranium''
(probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and
Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this
deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do
not know the status of this arrangement.
Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from
Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring
uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources.
Evidently Mr Cohen feels that "We cannot confirm..." is an appropriate
caveat. IMHO that is hardly sufficient when the evidence supplied by
the "foreign government service " was an obvious, clumsy forgery.
Now, some British and American sources claim that there was other
evidence independent of the forged documents. I have thwo things to
day about that. One, the forged documents are STILL forged and US
and UK submitted them to the IAEA as if they were genuine. Two, to
accept that other independent evidence we have to accept the word
of the same people who foisted the forged documents on us.
Fool us once, shame on him, and we won't be fooled again.
Just today (now yesterday) I caught bush in yet another bald-faced
Kerry has been repeating his criticism that when bin Laden was
cornered in Tora Bora he got away because Bush 'outsourced' the
job to warlords who only a week before had been fighting for the other
side instead of using the best trained, best equipped and dedicated
troops in the world, American troops eager to avenge the attacks of
Bush's response was to acccuse Kerry of criticising the US military
for failing to capture Bin Laden in Tora Bora.
That's Bush showing his ass, er character for you.
But don't trust me to paraphrase them correctly, look up what
they each said for yourself.
As to the argument that the fact that there has not been a foreign
based attack on American soil since September 11, 2001 I point out
that the previous bin Laden attacks on US soil were 8 years apart
with major attacks overseas at 2 - 4 year intervals.
That first attack on the WTC was in February, 1993 less than
a month after Clinton took office. It was plotted and carried out
by men who enterred the country when GH Bush was president. Clinton
kept us safe from foreign attack at home for the rest of his two
terms, remember the millenium bombing?
At least half the men involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks
entered the US after GW Bush took office. One was picked up on
an immigration violation although most did enter illegally. Two
were issued automatic visa renewals by the INS in the late Fall
2001, months after they had died in the attacks.
Remember the 1200 Middle Easterners Ashcroft disappeared into our
Gulag? Some idiots probably think that made us safer. I think
now Arab-Americans are rightfully afraid to come forward and
volunteer any information they might have. Other Arabs or Arab
Americans have been convicted of serious crimes for shooting vedoes
whil on vacation and playing paintball. I don't think that
makes us safe.
Sweden, France, and the UK have protested our mistreatment of
their nationals at Guantanamo Bay, including our rejection of
the Geneva Conventions. While a competent court or tribunal
might find that the Geneva conventions were not applicable to
some individuals incarcerated there, no such court or tribunal
has ever considered the issue. And the Geneva conventions
require that they be extended to prisoner during the time
that their eligibility is in dispute. Additionally the Geneva
conventions prohibit blanket judgement or mass punishments. It
is strictly forbidden ot simple declare that all captives of
some ilk do not qualify for the protections. That judgement
has to be made on a case by case basis for each individual
And so it goes. Is it any wonder that Vladimir Putin, the current
dictator of Russia, has endorsed the reelection of George W Bush?
Clinton, Carter, even Reagan took an active interest in protecting
the civil rights of the Russian people. Putin doesn't have
that problem with Bush.
Character my ass.
First of all anyone who puts in his report a quote from Cheney saying "We
will not hesitate to discredit you" as some sort of insinuation that the
admin was out to lie about the inspections is being reckless. I don't
dispute everything the article says, I just don't think it is the last word
and even the author wasn't against force. He says "The lesson here is not
that force should never have been used. David Kay's picture of Iraq-an
irrational, dysfunctional kleptocracy with a nasty history of WMD-was a
danger and would have required action at some point."
I don't believe it. Iraq was not cooperating with anybody to any real level
of acceptability. Bush never called Iraq an imminent threat -- those are
words put in his mouth by others. You say he had no nuclear program? When
you have your top nuclear scientist bury nuclear weapons plans in his back
yard under penalty of death I consider that part of a nuclear program. Let
the UN in to look around some and when they leave start everything back up
You're acting like Saddam had no options to change his game plan in 5 months
before he allowed inspectors back in. He did kick them out originally.
I'm fine with that.
That was interesting and I had not read it. It shows up a lot of problems
with the intelligence but then we already knew some things were wrong. Lay
a lot of the blame on Saddam. He is the one who caused all of the
confusion, not us. This report is a mixed bad, too, and of course this
isn't the last word, either.
That same report said, "The Committee found no evidence that the IC's
mischaracterization or exaggeration of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) capabilities was the result of political pressure."
snip yellowcake stuff
Yes, it's kind of like believing the UN is an unbiased entity capable of
providing good information on Iraq while pilfering billions from Iraq at the
same time. You give more credibility to the UN than you do to our own
government. I do not. They have proven themselves corrupt time after time.
But then again we know you have an incredibly low threshhold for what
constitutes a lie.
Uhh, that's exactly what Kerry did. It wasn't Bush's strategy, it was Tommy
Franks'. The president makes the ultimate decision for war but he isn't the
strategist for every battle. So, yes, Kerry as is his custom, was
criticising the military. The other point that you have missed is that
Franks himself said that Kerry's comments show that he has absolutely no
idea of the real facts.
snip stuff on detainees
My God Fred, if this stuff concerns you then I can only imagine how many
blood vessels you would have popped had you lived back during WW2. There is
a war going on, ya know?
You want to compare Bush to communists? Let's compare Kerry to Saddam.
Both men said a lot of things that they refused to back up. Kerry said he
was a war hero yet won't release his records by signing F180. Saddam said
he was a peaceful benefactor yet continued to protect and hide and
intimidate and play the shell game. I don't trust either of 'em.
My last word on this is that Iraq was a dangerous place with terrorist
organizations running through it, ruled by a guy who was biding his time
before he could reconstitute his programs. I believe this 100% and so does
his top nuclear scientist. We were wasting a lot of time and energy trying
to keep him in a bottle, and were operating on the pre 9/11 mentality. The
war on terror is bigger than Afganistan and Iraq, and it will be waging for
a lot more years if we are lucky enough to have leadership that takes this
stuff seriously. We now have a foot hold in the middle east where democracy
has a chance to spread.
The people who believe Bush was lying about everything in Iraq have yet to
present a reasonable explanation as to WHY Bush went into Iraq even though
he KNEW they posed no threat. Why did he do it? What is the motivation?
Please don't put any of the words "Bush's daddy," "Saudis," or "Halliburton"
in your reply.
Even Cheney is capable of greater sublety than a simple F--- You.
You keep saying that yet it is contradicted by the clear unambiguous
statements of all the people he was supposed to be cooperating with.
Buried parts are not being used for anyting. That is not a program.
Where did that pain of death business come from?
The UN was never going to leave. The inspections were open-ended.
That's another point that is lost on people who don't pay attention.
You seem to think that the IAEA was never going to visit Iraq again.
Nonsense. They wisely left when Clinton notified them of impending
military action against Iraq. Saddam Hussein did not let them back
in until 2002, but it is just plain dishonest to say he kicked them
Note I'm not defending Saddam Hussein or criticizing BJC.
I'm defending truth and criticizing those who distort it.
You're fine with standing by the October 2002 report in the face of
better subsequent information?
Our own government was caught foisting forged documents on the UN
Not vice versa.
You've never presented any evidence of corruption of the IAEA or
You made some vague references to a Global Warming report, I tried to
find it using search terms suggested by what you wrote but to no
Aside from which, that's hardly a related topic.
Is there any evidence to support your claim in the Duelfer report?
If so, what pages?
Tommy Franks is not the troops. If Bush wants to blame it on Franks
then he can go ahead and do that. Kerry made it clear that he blames
Bush. Kerry named Bush as the man at fault and had nothing but
praise for the US military.
The point is that when Kerry criticizes Bush that pucilineous wimp
doesn't even have the balls to stand up and defend himself. Instead
he claims Kerry was really criticizing the troops Kerry was praising.
Bush will say anything to pass the buck. He says he prays to God
for guidance. Does that mean that if he runs out of people to blame
he'll blame God? (Maybe God really is guiding Bush, I guess that
implies that God hates us.)
Got any idea how many American GIs were prosecuted for violating the
Laws of War in WWII? Our leaders back then were serious about moral
responsibility and did not so easily abandon the rule of law.
No. How bizarre that you would suggest doing so.
In an earlier thread I answerred that. You yourself have argued
that WMDs were not the only nor (I think) the best reason for the
invasion while still arguing that the invasion was justified. So
why do you suppose Bush could not be in agreement with you on
From the guy who was hiding it. He has a book out about it called The Bomb
in My Garden.
I'm not rehashing this again.
Let's say your intelligence shows a bomb is in Saddam's palace. Five months
later Saddam lets inspectors in and the bomb is gone. Is the original intel
bad or did Saddam just move the bomb in those five months? I don't know one
way or the other, but AGAIN that is the point. When you have a dictator who
is not cooperating with you, it is the wrong policy to depend on UN
inspections for the forseeable future where we all know that sanctions had
been weakened over the years, not to mention the corruption. You can't stop
a bad guy from doing bad things like supporting suicide bombers, training
terrorists and on and on. We don't have to live like that post 9/11. Iraq
had the 12 year track record and was a monster to boot. I'd do it all over
again in a heartbeat, but of course with hindsight there are things they
could have done better...but that's war.
Ya know, that's what I've heard and if it is wrong then fine, but a 10
second google finds this from Salon, hardly right wing:
This sounds like it is much closer to the truth. Do you agree with this
article? If so then how can you go around giving the impression that Uncle
Saddam was cooperating until the big bad US made them run away?
You are putting words in my mouth. I'm fine with the fact that better
evidence can come along as time passes and you have to adjust your
That's the whole issue of our debate in a nutshell. I believe our own
government is looking out for our interests more than the UN, and you seem
to believe that our government is lying to its people while the UN is this
bastion of truth when the evidence of UN corruption points to the opposite.
There was some when it came to French inspectors but I do not remember what
year that was going on. I am pretty sure it was in the 90's when Ritter was
there. It isn't completely a matter of corruption of the inspectors, moreso
one of ineffectiveness in the long run against a regime that doesn't want to
I highly suggest you don't bother. The whole subject is a snakepit. It is
interesting, but you will find yourself spending hours reading stuff, and
then realize you could be doing a lot of better things. The report is here
but it is just the summary. The actual report is hundreds of pages long and
last I knew you couldn't get a copy online:
Not sure what you are referring to here.
Right or wrong, I believe Franks and his chain of command to be a member of
the troops. Kerry had "nothing but praise for the US military"... how
ironic. How 'bout you go ask those troops who they think supports them
more, Bush or Kerry? I don't care what anybody other than the troops think.
The reason we support them is so that they have a better morale and a better
chance at victory. Our opinions don't matter as much. Kerry, I assure you,
is not their man.
But if you lived back then you'd be calling FDR a liar and war criminal.
Not so bizarre if you realized you just made Bush and Putin out to be
buddies. Didn't you know Putin wasa KGB official and most of his
adminstration was also? These were communists?.
What's the answer in say 3 lines or less. Just an overview snapshot. It's
been so long I don't remember.
(yes I know you dispute that evidence) the WMD probably seemed like the best
way to argue the case for invasion.
Ok, I was unclear on whether he was acting on orders or on his own
initiative. But it remeian true that buried parts are not a
Crimony, don't you know how to use a calender! The Inpectors were back
in Iraq one month after the October 2002 report was issued. We waited
to invade until we had accumulated FOUR more MONTHS of intel that flatly
contradicted the October 2002 report.
Your Straw man fails because the claims were not of a bomb in his palace.
The claims included reconstruction and rebuilding of facilites that,
when inspections resumed, were still in the same state of destruction
and disrepair as when last inspected in 1998.
Fresh intel supplied to UNMOVIC in February and March 2002 proved
just as wrong. Weren't you paying attention?
From the article you cite:
Scott Ritter, head of the UNSCOM team at the time,
states that they were ordered out by the U.S. government
as it prepared to bomb locations -- based on data from
U.S. intelligence officers that were part of the inspection
team. (Ritter says so in a recent interview.)
Which is exactly what I wrote. I agree that Iraq was not cooperating
at that time (1998) which is why Clinton bombed the suspect facilities.
A major issue in our debate is that I do not believe you are
authorized to represent my views. Thus I frequently need to correct
For example, I believe UNMOVIC and IAEA because they have a demonstrated
history of impartiality and their reports and statements are consistent
with reality. The Bush administration has been caught in half-truths,
half lies and lies as has the Blair admin. Remember that report they
released in Word For Windows format that included plagiarization from
a 1980's report with the the dates updated to make the information appear
Honest people don't do things like that.
UNMOVIC was created in 1999.
The Duelfer report is the offical report of the United States
Iraq Survey group released this Fall. You really do not pay attention
Again, I have not authorized you to represent my views.
Does that mean if I had written that Ronald Reagan endorsed Bush
from his grave I would be comparing Bush to Democrats. After all,
Ronald Reagan was a Democrat.
Google is your freind.
It was the best way to convince the Congress, yes. Bush also made
it clear that Iraq could avoid a military conflict through declaration,
inspection and disarmament. According the people responsible for
that, Iraq complied.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.