NationStates Jolt Archive

And before you condemn this as a FOX news story, pay close attention to the AP byline.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158470,00.html

Read the story a little more closely--the stuff that's missing was completely legal dual-use equipment, and the rest of the story is full of conditionals, could have, might have, etc. UNMOVIC knew the stuff was there and also said that it wasn't being used for WMD purposes.

Jeez, you righties are touchy about all this--just admit that you got suckered by the administration on this and move forward. You'll feel a whole lot better about it.

i dont see a reason not to quote such a short story


UNITED NATIONS — U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday.

U.N. inspectors have been blocked from returning to Iraq since the U.S.-led war in 2003 so they have been using satellite photos to see what happened to the sites that were subject to U.N. monitoring because their equipment had both civilian and military uses.

In the report to the U.N. Security Council (search), acting chief weapons inspector Demetrius Perricos said he's reached no conclusions about who removed the items or where they went. He said it could have been moved elsewhere in Iraq, sold as scrap, melted down or purchased.

He said the missing material can be used for legitimate purposes. "However, they can also be utilized for prohibited purposes if in a good state of repair."

He said imagery analysts have identified 109 sites that have been emptied of equipment to varying degrees, up from 90 reported in March.

The report also provided much more detail about the percentage of items no longer at the places where U.N. inspectors monitored them.



i dont think they were talking about the stuff we already knew about that we didnt secure once we got control of iraq and then "walked away" while we werent looking,.

Read the story a little more closely--the stuff that's missing was completely legal dual-use equipment, and the rest of the story is full of conditionals, could have, might have, etc. UNMOVIC knew the stuff was there and also said that it wasn't being used for WMD purposes.

Jeez, you righties are touchy about all this--just admit that you got suckered by the administration on this and move forward. You'll feel a whole lot better about it.


Here is the problem i see. The US, French, Germans, Russians all said that this clown had the capabilities. Why? Cause everyone sold him crap that he could build WMD with.

Now Bush shouldnt have jumped off and used it as his main point for invasion. He could have just used human rights violations and everything in my book would have been fine.

Here is the problem i see. The US, French, Germans, Russians all said that this clown had the capabilities. Why? Cause everyone sold him crap that he could build WMD with.

Now Bush shouldnt have jumped off and used it as his main point for invasion. He could have just used human rights violations and everything in my book would have been fine.
well yeah

except that without "the lie" there would have been no support for the war.

Here is the problem i see. The US, French, Germans, Russians all said that this clown had the capabilities. Why? Cause everyone sold him crap that he could build WMD with.

Now Bush shouldnt have jumped off and used it as his main point for invasion. He could have just used human rights violations and everything in my book would have been fine.
Here's the real problem--you can use stuff you can buy from the local pharmacy to make chemical weapons on a limited scale, and pretty much any university biology lab could be a weapons lab, simply because all that equipment is dual-use. So to complain that he has capability--hell, MIT has capability. But the saps don't know that, and so they can scare the saps with "Hussein has WMD capability."

Also, let us never forget that during the leadup to the war, capability wasn't the issue. It was "Saddam has WMD and will it America with them" all the time. It was "Saddam can hit the UK with 45 minutes warning" all over the damn place. It was only after it became painfully obvious to everyone watching that there were no WMD that capability even became an issue.

I have to admit that I would have listened a little harder if Bush had made the human rights argument--ever--but then he would have lost his base, you know, those people who think the Iraqis are nothing but a bunch of camel-fucking ragheads who need a good dose of the righteous Jesus nuke all over their asses, and without them, Bush never would have gotten his war (and never would have gotten re-elected either).

This is so '03....

I don't see why this story is so amazing. I wasn't aware there were idiots denying that he had the capability. The U.S. recovered more than one cache of easily preparable reagents for chemical and biological weaponry, and there were various nonoperational facilities throughout Iraq that could have been booted up on a whim. What is argued is that he didn't have WMD's, not WMD capability. But, I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I really don't give a shit. Bush Sr. never should have left Iraq in the first place, and when he did Clinton should have went right back in, and I'm glad Bush Jr. has finally returned to finish the job. Who cares if Saddam wasn't working with the Taliban directly? He was still in contact with and supportive of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and a hundred other raghead terrorist organizations bent on destruction of the infidel. His son, Uday, was still a sick son of a bitch that had eleven- and twelve-year-old girls delivered to him from schools so that he could have his way with them. Saddam still handed out thousands to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. Saddam had still shown his willingness to use biochemical weaponry on a massive scale before. Who gives a shit if M6, Russian Intel and most of the CIA was wrong about the WMD's? Bush didn't lie, he was mislead, pull your heads out of your asses and look at the facts you conspiracy theory quacks. Saddam should have been removed long ago, and I personally don't care what excuse was used.

Who gives a shit if M6, Russian Intel and most of the CIA was wrong about the WMD's? Bush didn't lie, he was mislead, pull your heads out of your asses and look at the facts you conspiracy theory quacks. Saddam should have been removed long ago, and I personally don't care what excuse was used.

AMEN!

AMEN!
thats the ONLY reply you have to all the responses to your original post?

Partially to be fair to the dirty leftists, and partially to cover my ass before someone gets on here bitching about how there are scummier people than Saddam: although Saddam definately needed removing, we should have gone after Ayatollah Khomeini and Kim Jong-Il, first, since we waiting this fucking long.

Even if every claim by bush about iraq's wmd was correct, it doesnt really matter. North korea was a much more viable target, a dictator who claimed he had nuclear weapons, a communist nation by name, a country where the people were oppressed(and are daily) by the government, a nation we were still technically at war with. But we chose iraq. Either we wanted oil, or didnt want to upset our company interests in china, who could be angered by an invasion under their face. Either way, bush pussied out on actually doing the right thing.

Partially to be fair to the dirty leftists, and partially to cover my ass before someone gets on here bitching about how there are scummier people than Saddam: although Saddam definately needed removing, we should have gone after Ayatollah Khomeini and Kim Jong-Il, first, since we waiting this fucking long.

Agree about jong, but I dont trust the US in iraq... last time in, we put mohammed reza pahlavi in power...or the CIA, anyways.

thats the ONLY reply you have to all the responses to your original post?
What else is he going to say? We've got him dead to rights and he knows it.

Even if every claim by bush about iraq's wmd was correct, it doesnt really matter. North korea was a much more viable target, a dictator who claimed he had nuclear weapons, a communist nation by name, a country where the people were oppressed(and are daily) by the government, a nation we were still technically at war with. But we chose iraq. Either we wanted oil, or didnt want to upset our company interests in china, who could be angered by an invasion under their face. Either way, bush pussied out on actually doing the right thing.
Okay, first of all, I beat you to it in saying that North Korea and Iran needed to be dealt with first. Second of all, according to the intelligence provided by M6 and the Russians, Saddam was actually a much more imminent threat than North Korea, so his "pussying out" was unintentional due to bad intelligence - bad intelligence that, I might add, would not have been so bad if CIA funding hadn't been cut so massively in the 90's.

thats the ONLY reply you have to all the responses to your original post?

Sure. I wanted to get the discussion started and see what people think not to argue with them. I just happened to strongly agree with SOME of what that person posted.

What else is he going to say? We've got him dead to rights and he knows it.
an older gentleman might at least say "my bad"

What else is he going to say? We've got him dead to rights and he knows it.

Dude, I love it how you guys keep bashing Celt with petty comments to push my post beyond notice.

Agree about jong, but I dont trust the US in iraq... last time in, we put mohammed reza pahlavi in power...or the CIA, anyways.

Well, at the time we thought him an ally. They say hindsight's twenty-twenty. I would hope that the same mistake will not be made twice, though perhaps I overestimate politicians.

you conspiracy theory quacksAnd what conspiracy theory would that be? The one about how UNMOVIC wasn't really in Iraq from November 2002 to March 2003? The one about how the US found the weapons of mass destruction but the media never reported it? The one about how Operation Desert Fox didn't involve bombing Iraq's remaining WMD facilities and was just meant to ba a distraction from Monica Lewinsky? The one about UNMOVIC and the US air force creating false reports about Iraq's UAV capabilities? All those conspiracy theories would have to be true in order for George W Bush's claims to be true.

If you're so concerned about brutal dictators, what do you think of George W Bush's wholehearted support for Islam Karimov? Are sick sons of bitches only bad if Bush says they're bad?

Okay, first of all, I beat you to it in saying that North Korea and Iran needed to be dealt with first. Second of all, according to the intelligence provided by M6 and the Russians, Saddam was actually a much more imminent threat than North Korea, so his "pussying out" was unintentional due to bad intelligence - bad intelligence that, I might add, would not have been so bad if CIA funding hadn't been cut so massively in the 90's.
Have you read the Downing Street Memo (http://afterdowningstreet.org), you know, the one that has the Bush administration saying they were fixing the intel around the WMD issue? The one that shows pretty definitively that no one was mislead? The one that neither Blair nor Bush has even attempted to discredit? You might want to check that out before you continue with this defense of the Bush administration--support the action if you must, but don't try playing the "he was mislead" card. It's not true.

...Who cares if Saddam wasn't working with the Taliban directly? He was still in contact with and supportive of Al Qaeda.in contact with AQ is enough to bomb your home?

Even if every claim by bush about iraq's wmd was correct, it doesnt really matter. North korea was a much more viable target, a dictator who claimed he had nuclear weapons, a communist nation by name, a country where the people were oppressed(and are daily) by the government, a nation we were still technically at war with. But we chose iraq. Either we wanted oil, or didnt want to upset our company interests in china, who could be angered by an invasion under their face. Either way, bush pussied out on actually doing the right thing.

Or it could be due to the fact that North Korea had never used WMDs, while Saddam had?

Okay, first of all, I beat you to it in saying that North Korea and Iran needed to be dealt with first. Second of all, according to the intelligence provided by M6 and the Russians, Saddam was actually a much more imminent threat than North Korea, so his "pussying out" was unintentional due to bad intelligence - bad intelligence that, I might add, would not have been so bad if CIA funding hadn't been cut so massively in the 90's.

It is not a proven fact that it was simply bad intelligence. It is in contention and there is evidence that goes either way.

If you're so concerned about brutal dictators, what do you think of George W Bush's wholehearted support for Islam Karimov? Are sick sons of bitches only bad if Bush says they're bad?
I don't fucking agree with everything the man does. I am agreeing with the War in Iraq, here - besides, none of those have to be true for what Bush, most of the CIA, M6, and the Russians said to be true. There are tons of ways that Saddam could have gotten his hands on WMD's... for instance, restarting all his chemical factories.

Have you read the Downing Street Memo (http://afterdowningstreet.org), you know, the one that has the Bush administration saying they were fixing the intel around the WMD issue?

This was and still is unsubstantiated.

Have you read the Downing Street Memo (http://afterdowningstreet.org), you know, the one that has the Bush administration saying they were fixing the intel around the WMD issue? The one that shows pretty definitively that no one was mislead? The one that neither Blair nor Bush has even attempted to discredit? You might want to check that out before you continue with this defense of the Bush administration--support the action if you must, but don't try playing the "he was mislead" card. It's not true.

Jesus, dude, don't tell me you're the type to pull blatantly biased books out of your ass and present them as fact. It is so easy to present completely factual evidence with regards to something and make it seem like it's completely true - by conveniently leaving out all the opposing facts which would completely discredit what you are saying. I could right a four-page paper on why Clinton was most definately involved in the eighty-or-so mysterious deaths he's connected to, using nothing but fact and phrases that lead the reader. That doesn't make it true.

Dude, I love it how you guys keep bashing Celt with petty comments to push my post beyond notice.
no that was because your first post was a "i dont give a damn that it was a lie" post, indicating that you pretty much agreed with our responses but felt there was overriding good for the whole thing

the rest are off topic.

This was and still is unsubstantiated.
Bullshit. It's the minutes of a meeting attended by Matthew Rycroft, and sent to, among other people, Britain's Defence Secretary, Foriegn Secretary and Attorney General. You can read it for yourself here (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1) and I'll quote portions for people too lazy to follow the link. C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action....

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

Just because it blows a hole in your belief system doesn't make it untrue. Just deal with it, Celtlund--you got taken for a ride here. Lots of people did. Don't make yourself look a fool by refusing to acknowledge that now.

Or it could be due to the fact that North Korea had never used WMDs, while Saddam had?

You mean a mustard gas attack in 1989 on a village, which could have been done by the iranians? Or maybe some uses during the iran-iraq war? So he hadnt used WMD in at least 12 years, but we should try him over the country that publically admits its making nuclear weapons?

dp

Jesus, dude, don't tell me you're the type to pull blatantly biased books out of your ass and present them as fact. It is so easy to present completely factual evidence with regards to something and make it seem like it's completely true - by conveniently leaving out all the opposing facts which would completely discredit what you are saying. I could right a four-page paper on why Clinton was most definately involved in the eighty-or-so mysterious deaths he's connected to, using nothing but fact and phrases that lead the reader. That doesn't make it true.
Look at the evidence. Don't talk shit--refute that memo, especially when both Bush and Blair have not challenged the authenticity of it in the slightest. Then come back and talk shit.

This was and still is unsubstantiated.

As is the WMD claim.

He was still in contact with and supportive of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and a hundred other raghead terrorist organizations bent on destruction of the infidel.

Here is a classic example of intolerance and hatred, which nullifies the remainder of the post, and the posters argument. :eek:

This was and still is unsubstantiated.

Main Entry: denial

(1) : refusal to admit the truth or reality (as of a statement or charge) (2) : assertion that an allegation is false b : refusal to acknowledge a person or a thing : DISAVOWAL
3 : the opposing by the defendant of an allegation of the opposite party in a lawsuit
4 : SELF-DENIAL
5 : negation in logic
6 : a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=denial&x=0&y=0

You mean a mustard gas attack in 1989 on a village, which could have been done by the iranians? Or maybe some uses during the iran-iraq war? So he hadnt used WMD in at least 12 years, but we should try him over the country that publically admits its making nuclear weapons?

Actually, they pretty much proved that Iraq did the gassing on that village.

Okay, first of all, I beat you to it in saying that North Korea and Iran needed to be dealt with first. Second of all, according to the intelligence provided by M6 and the Russians, Saddam was actually a much more imminent threat than North Korea, so his "pussying out" was unintentional due to bad intelligence - bad intelligence that, I might add, would not have been so bad if CIA funding hadn't been cut so massively in the 90's.
Saddam's missiles that could travel only 150 kms max (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/03/1046540140750.html?oneclick=true) was an "imminent threat"? That is totally laughable.

Funding cuts = bad intel? I sense a Bush "apologist" in the crowd!!

I don't see why this story is so amazing. I wasn't aware there were idiots denying that he had the capability. The U.S. recovered more than one cache of easily preparable reagents for chemical and biological weaponry, and there were various nonoperational facilities throughout Iraq that could have been booted up on a whim. What is argued is that he didn't have WMD's, not WMD capability. But, I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I really don't give a shit. Bush Sr. never should have left Iraq in the first place, and when he did Clinton should have went right back in, and I'm glad Bush Jr. has finally returned to finish the job. Who cares if Saddam wasn't working with the Taliban directly? He was still in contact with and supportive of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and a hundred other raghead terrorist organizations bent on destruction of the infidel. His son, Uday, was still a sick son of a bitch that had eleven- and twelve-year-old girls delivered to him from schools so that he could have his way with them. Saddam still handed out thousands to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. Saddam had still shown his willingness to use biochemical weaponry on a massive scale before. Who gives a shit if M6, Russian Intel and most of the CIA was wrong about the WMD's? Bush didn't lie, he was mislead, pull your heads out of your asses and look at the facts you conspiracy theory quacks. Saddam should have been removed long ago, and I personally don't care what excuse was used.

So, 100,000+ dead Iraqis and 2,000+ Americans either killed or wounded + 100+ British = 1 Captured Saddam, who actually did not have relations with Al Qeida - They asked him for help and he turned them down.

Alright, Nazz, my friend. Let me give you a quick lesson on persuasive style.

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
Okay, this is leading the reader. You present a few short statements that seem reasonably factual, then you deduce something from said statements that have little or nothing to do with the facts, and the reader makes a connection that doesn't exist.

The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record.
This is stating emotion as fact. You use ultimate words without adverbs when referring to what people thought or how they felt, when, in reality, there is no way you could possibly know for sure. For example, "the NSC had no patience with..." instead of "the NSC showed no patience with..." or, "the NSC seemed to have no patience with..." Another example: "and [had] no enthusiasm for..." instead of "and had little enthusiasm for..." or "seemed to have no enthusiasm for..." or "had no apparent enthusiasm for..." See how that works?

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime.
This is my personal favorite; a quote within a paraphrase or summary. You accurately sum up what something may or may not factually entail, then quote small chunks of it within the summary to make it seem more credible.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.
Again, fact followed by minimally related deduction for the reader, because why let the reader make up his own mind? That can only serve to weaken your case.

But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
This is statement of fact absent opposing fact. No, Saddam was not threatening his neighbors. Yes, Saddam's WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea and Iran. However, this excludes three important things. For one, Saddam was threatening people that were not his neighbors. In Palestine, for instance, intelligence shows that Saddam was an avid supporter of Hezbollah, and also donated thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers there. He also had relatively close ties to Al Qaeda, which performs terrorist activity in many places. Two, North Korea, and Iran have not demonstrated a willingness to use biochemical weapons of mass destruction on large-scale attacks with live targets. Three, according to the (poor) intelligence provided by M6 and the Russians, Saddam actually posed a larger, more imminent threat than those in North Korea and Iran. Hindsight's twenty-twenty.

We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
I'm unclear as to who even said this, or how it is even remotely implied, or whether it's a quote, or the author being sarcastic, or the author being deriding, or poorly written, or simply quoted out of context - which I would hope is the case.

What follows simply leaves out important explanations, which is a simple example of poor researching. Maybe he describes these earlier and the quoting was done poorly, but as far as I can see in what has been posted, the author leaves a few holes:

The first and second could not be the base in this case.
Why not?
Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.
How so?
The situation might of course change.
In what way?

I understand why the author said the things he said in those three sections, however the average reader would not, and would immediately assume them to be utterly true without an ounce of fallacy.

Actually, they pretty much proved that Iraq did the gassing on that village.

"pretty much proved" ?

Is that like a definite maybe, or an I am not really sure so I will say that it is true I think comment?

There are corresponding views:

Report Suppressed: Iran Gassed Kurds, Not Iraq (http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/GaseousLies.htm)

A War Crime or an Act of War? (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/a_war_crime_or_an_act_of_war.htm)

BTW, did this incident stop the US from fullying backing Saddam during the Iran/Iraq War? The answer is a definite NO!!!

Reagan and Bush Sr. partners in crime with a rogue state. Nice!!

... In Palestine, for instance, intelligence shows that Saddam was an avid supporter of Hezbollah, and also donated thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers there.
no wonder Israel/the Jewish-Lobby wanted-so much- this War to happen...

Here is a classic example of intolerance and hatred, which nullifies the remainder of the post, and the posters argument. :eek:

That's an easy way to avoid having to stutter out a reply from that.

"But... but... the corporations... and global warming..."

So, 100,000+ dead Iraqis and 2,000+ Americans either killed or wounded + 100+ British = 1 Captured Saddam, who actually did not have relations with Al Qeida - They asked him for help and he turned them down.

Actually, he did have relations with Al Qaeda... he did not have relations with the Taliban. They're different.

Here is a classic example of intolerance and hatred, which nullifies the remainder of the post, and the posters argument. :eek:
yes, I had a long ass response that totally ripped up that guy's post, but the friggin server crashed when I previewed it and I forgot to copy it in case that happened. Stupid retard server. AGH, it pisses me off more than Republicans sometimes.

That's an easy way to avoid having to stutter out a reply from that.

"But... but... the corporations... and global warming..."

Alright, in reference to my aforementioned post do you want me to rewrite my rebuttal to your reactionary ranting?

Alright, Nazz, my friend. Let me give you a quick lesson on persuasive style.

I understand why the author said the things he said in those three sections, however the average reader would not, and would immediately assume them to be utterly true without an ounce of fallacy.
Let me answer you simply--what I posted was not meant to be persuasive, nor was it meant to be published in a magazine or newspaper. It is not a news report. It is an official report from a member of the British government to other members of the British government about what happened in a particular meeting with the top-level of the US government. The person who wrote this is not supposed to have an agenda--he is supposed to report back to his superiors as accurately as he possibly can so they have all the information necessary to make a decision. In short, it's a different style of writing than that which you are accusing it of being. Want to try again?

So, 100,000+ dead Iraqis and 2,000+ Americans either killed or wounded + 100+ British = 1 Captured Saddam, who actually did not have relations with Al Qeida - They asked him for help and he turned them down.
Your number on US injured/killed (http://www.icasualties.org/oif/) is very low. The totals are 12348 injured and
1670 dead. :(

Let me answer you simply--what I posted was not meant to be persuasive, nor was it meant to be published in a magazine or newspaper. It is not a news report. It is an official report from a member of the British government to other members of the British government about what happened in a particular meeting with the top-level of the US government. The person who wrote this is not supposed to have an agenda--he is supposed to report back to his superiors as accurately as he possibly can so they have all the information necessary to make a decision. In short, it's a different style of writing than that which you are accusing it of being. Want to try again?

Let me answer you simply - everyone has an agenda, whether they're "supposed to" or not. Everyone possesses bias... especially if they have to present something to their superiors. They want them to see it their way. Period. And, if that was an official report, they need to get a new reporter. Whether it was written as a persuasive document or not is irrelevant. The fact is that it followed such a style and inherently was persuasive in tone.

I love all of you "arm chair quarterbacks" making assesments of our national security and judgements on our foreign policy when you are not privy to any of the intelligence ACTED upon by our leaders. All you know is what is told to you by an obviously biased media. ....Just today the Marines found a huge bunker full of weapons just outside of Bahgdad. We've been in Iraq how long?and just now found this bunker?(approx. 170 yds. X 290 yds.) A weapon of mass destruction can fit into a suitcase. You say that the President lied to justify the war, well he ACTED upon trusted intelligence and numerous U.N. sanctions to protect our country and foriegn interests (yes including oil) like it or not, right now we depend on oil so until you come up with a viable alternative shut up about it! :eek:

That's an easy way to avoid having to stutter out a reply from that.

"But... but... the corporations... and global warming..."
Actually, I do not need to "stutter" out a response, and I do think that my reply was an adequate appraisal. You played your hand of intolerance and your credibility meter went to zero. 'Enuff said. :eek:

...shut up about it! not gonna happen

Actually, I do not need to "stutter" out a response, and I do think that my reply was an adequate appraisal. You played your hand of intolerance and your credibility meter went to zero. 'Enuff said. :eek:

"But... but... the corporations... and global warming..."

yes, I had a long ass response that totally ripped up that guy's post, but the friggin server crashed when I previewed it and I forgot to copy it in case that happened. Stupid retard server. AGH, it pisses me off more than Republicans sometimes.
Next time, try hitting your Back Button. That works sometimes and has saved me a lot of aggravation. :)

"But... but... the corporations... and global warming..."
wow

Next time, try hitting your Back Button. That works sometimes and has saved me a lot of aggravation. :)
nope, just left me with his quote. Never left what I typed.

"But... but... the corporations... and global warming..."
Here is a thousand words of response to YOUR posts:

http://smokr.info/smokinbush/_derived/bush_zero_credibility.htm_cmp_copy-of-construction-zone110_vbtn.gif

Let me answer you simply - everyone has an agenda, whether they're "supposed to" or not. Everyone possesses bias... especially if they have to present something to their superiors. They want them to see it their way. Period. And, if that was an official report, they need to get a new reporter. Whether it was written as a persuasive document or not is irrelevant. The fact is that it followed such a style and inherently was persuasive in tone.
You don't rise to the position that Rycroft is in by being inaccurate in your reports. His work was professional, and the fact that neither government involved has challenged any of it, not even the tone, only lends that much more credence to the contents. If this is inaccurate, then why hasn't Bush or even Scott McClellan said so? McClellan has been asked directly, more than once, and he's carefully danced around the question. Again, why? It would be a slam dunk for the administration if they could beat this back, and you can bet that they'd be all over it if they could, but they aren't. Why? Answer me that little question, and then maybe you'll be on the road to convincing me to doubt this memo.

So let me see if I have this correct: [The Prez and George Bush in the Oval Office]

BUSH: Saddam has WMD, so the invasion of Iraq is necessary and justified.

CHENEY (via microphone well-hidden in Bush's suit coat) : Bad intel Mr. Prez, bad intel.

BUSH: Scratch that (thanks, Prez Cheney. I mean, Dick. I mean, Sir. Sorry.)
Saddam had the capability to produce WMD, so the invasion of Iraq was justified?

CHENEY: Good one. And don't forget the whole "September 11th" thing, George.

BUSH: Oh, yeah. Saddam slept with underage girls last September!

CHENEY: No, George. That's Saddam's son. We agreed to leave that one out, remember?

BUSH: Crap.

CHENEY: *Sigh* New York. Twin Towers? Eh?

BUSH: I've seen those! Man, they sure are tall.

CHENEY: Er....remember that movie I showed you last week?

BUSH: I thought I wasn't supposed to talk about that to other people.

CHENEY: NOT THAT ONE! The other one, with the loud bangs....?

BUSH: Oh yeah! I liked that one!

CHENEY: Tell 'em Saddam did it.

BUSH: He did?

CHENEY: *Sigh*

BUSH: OH YEAH! And Saddam bombed those buildings in New York, too! After he slept with those girls!

CHENEY: I'm leaving now. Just read what's on the card, please. The stuff in Crayon.

BUSH: The red or the blue?

CHENEY: Red, of course.

BUSH: Yeah, that's cool. I like red.

CHENEY: JUST READ IT!

BUSH: Ok man....Jeezus! Oh, sorry about that, Rev. Fallwell. My bad.

FALWELL [Exiting the bathroom with a bible and tissue stuck to his shoe] : Don't sweat it, George. I'm just in it for the cash, remember?

BUSH: Oh yeah. Did you leave that thing for me....you know, what we talked about?

FALWELL: SHIT! I mean, Lord Be Praised! [remembering the Nixon Tapes]

BUSH: Huh?

FALWELL: Just read the card, like we practiced earlier.

BUSH: Okie dokie. Ahem. And Saddam was torturing his own people by making them pray to statues of him. And he was gassing them, too, and not like we did in college, either. And he knows alot of Arab people. I mean Islam people. I mean, people who are friends with Islam.

FALWELL [Banging head against desk]

BUSH: I mean, people who follow Islam stuff. And blow up buildings because Islam told 'em to. So were gonna go in there 'n smoke 'em out. And that's why you should support my war.....I mean, the war in Iraq.

Thank You, goodnight, and God Bless the United States of America.

Here's the real problem--you can use stuff you can buy from the local pharmacy to make chemical weapons on a limited scale, and pretty much any university biology lab could be a weapons lab, simply because all that equipment is dual-use. So to complain that he has capability--hell, MIT has capability.
NUKE ALL COLLEGES! THEY HAVE WMDs!

Hey, it would get rid of most of the liberals.

:p

I love all of you "arm chair quarterbacks" making assesments of our national security and judgements on our foreign policy when you are not privy to any of the intelligence ACTED upon by our leaders. All you know is what is told to you by an obviously biased media. ....Just today the Marines found a huge bunker full of weapons just outside of Bahgdad. We've been in Iraq how long?and just now found this bunker?(approx. 170 yds. X 290 yds.) A weapon of mass destruction can fit into a suitcase. You say that the President lied to justify the war, well he ACTED upon trusted intelligence and numerous U.N. sanctions to protect our country and foriegn interests (yes including oil) like it or not, right now we depend on oil so until you come up with a viable alternative shut up about it! :eek:
your president LIED to you to get you to agree to a war with a country that has never done anything to us.

its really hard to get past that part so i guess i wont shut up about it.

Xaniphir really hit the nail on the head, so to speak. The truth is that, when our leaders screw up, they screw up based on information that none of us ever sees, so saying they lied intentionally or saying they're stupid or uninformed is somewhat presumptuous. There's no way that you could know what information they looked at before making their decision, because everything is not released in the name of safety and order, whether they say it is or not.

Let me answer you simply - everyone has an agenda, whether they're "supposed to" or not. Everyone possesses bias...It does not work that way..
It is not all black or white...there is degrees...there is shades of gray.

and If you are like "my party right or wrong" fanatics ...then I truly feel sorry for you.

You don't rise to the position that Rycroft is in by being inaccurate in your reports. His work was professional, and the fact that neither government involved has challenged any of it, not even the tone, only lends that much more credence to the contents. If this is inaccurate, then why hasn't Bush or even Scott McClellan said so? McClellan has been asked directly, more than once, and he's carefully danced around the question. Again, why? It would be a slam dunk for the administration if they could beat this back, and you can bet that they'd be all over it if they could, but they aren't. Why? Answer me that little question, and then maybe you'll be on the road to convincing me to doubt this memo.

Who knows why? Who can say? I'm not one to presume to know what people are thinking. Parties ignore easily refutable claims all the time because they don't find it worthy of their time. Why don't they just type up an official report refuting these claims, instead of leaving internet junkies like you and I to debate them? Who knows? We'll probably never know. Like Xaniphir said, they act on far more information than the individual will ever be privy to.

a hundred other raghead terrorist organizations
up until here, i thought you actually had a valid argument.

Who knows why?why the bushites do not refute the embarrassing memo...because they cant.

"But... but... the corporations... and global warming..." Trey Parker and Matt Stone are rolling in their graves.

up until here, i thought you actually had a valid argument.

No, you didn't. No one is that stupid. No one is stupid enough to completely disbelieve someone's position on the basis that they used a vulgar or derogatory word. Anyone that would chance their opinion of a situation solely on that is a dipshit.

Who knows why? Who can say? I'm not one to presume to know what people are thinking. Parties ignore easily refutable claims all the time because they don't find it worthy of their time. Why don't they just type up an official report refuting these claims, instead of leaving internet junkies like you and I to debate them? Who know? We'll probably never know. Like Xaniphir said, they act on far more information than the individual will ever be privy to.
In other words, you're willing to ignore what available evidence there is because you trust the people in power. Sorry, but I don't trust anyone that much.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone are rolling in their graves.

Hahaha, they'll never die. Ever. They're so brilliant that they'll probably discover the secret to eternal life and provide us with politically incorrect entertainment forever and ever.

your president LIED to you to get you to agree to a war with a country that has never done anything to us.

its really hard to get past that part so i guess i wont shut up about it.
Yes....hang in there and keep up the good work!! :)

your president LIED to you to get you to agree to a war with a country that has never done anything to us.

its really hard to get past that part so i guess i wont shut up about it.

Has never done anything to us? -- you need to get some facts straight. Saddam has been hostile to us and our interests for years (even before the first gulf war) you need a "Cranial Rectumotomy" :eek:

No, you didn't. No one is that stupid. No one is stupid enough to completely disbelieve someone's position on the basis that they used a vulgar or derogatory word. Anyone that would chance their opinion of a situation solely on that is a dipshit.
what the hell? I think it's a combination of your right-wing grandstanding, misspellings, (like "change" not "chance") and your blind generalizaions. Anyway, If I said Bush is a drunken, coked up retard cowboy, I don't think you'd listen to the rest of my arguement either.

In other words, you're willing to ignore what available evidence there is because you trust the people in power. Sorry, but I don't trust anyone that much.

I don't trust anyone, but I find both situations equally believable. To take the memo word-for-word in all of its "trust-me-this-is-what-happened" splendor is just as stupid as to think that the administration ignores it because it's not worth their time.

Has never done anything to us? -- you need to get some facts straight. Saddam has been hostile to us and our interests for years (even before the first gulf war) you need a "Cranial Rectumotomy" :eek:
oh did i MISS him attacking the us at some time? yeah he got very hostile toward us after that whole kicking him out of kuwait thing but..... what did he DO to us?

no wonder Israel/the Jewish-Lobby wanted-so much- this War to happen...
this is new information to you?

what the hell? I think it's a combination of your right-wing grandstanding, misspellings, (like "change" not "chance") and your blind generalizaions. Anyway, If I said Bush is a drunken, coked up retard cowboy, I don't think you'd listen to the rest of my arguement either.

Ahhh, a typo, it's Armageddon come! Besides, I'd still read and dispute (if possible) the rest of your argument if you called Bush a drunken, coked up, retarded cowboy. It's not like you'd be completely wrong. Just like calling people who wear rags (or turbans, as they call them - but, trust me, they're rags) on their heads "ragheads" is not entirely incorrect. Nor is calling a generally hard-working people that get sweaty easily "wetbacks" entirely incorrect. Nor is calling white people "crackers" entirely incorrect - we do share the color of crackers, and Dahmer says we're crunchy. Okay, bad joke.

I don't trust anyone, but I find both situations equally believable. To take the memo word-for-word in all of its "trust-me-this-is-what-happened" splendor is just as stupid as to think that the administration ignores it because it's not worth their time.
Taken in a vacuum, I would tend to agree with you, but when you factor in the proclivities of people like Bolton, Hadley, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others to looking for what's not there in the intelligence community--I'm speaking specifically of Team B during the Reagan administration--then the Downing Street memo takes on far greater significance. Toss in that regime change--regardless of the reason--was a stated desire of the PNAC, of which a number of those mentioned above are members, and it becomes even more likely that there was no deception when it came to the intel on Iraq's nonexistent WMD programs. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the latter rather than the former.

I don't trust anyone, but I find both situations equally believable. To take the memo word-for-word in all of its "trust-me-this-is-what-happened" splendor is just as stupid as to think that the administration ignores it because it's not worth their time.
Well, at least we know you're paranoid. Another thing it seems you forgot is that the the CIA helped Saddam rise to power and the U.S. actively supported the Ba'th party. "According to documents produced during hearings of the Congressional Select Committee on Intelligence headed by Otis G. Pike held in 1975, the young Saddam Hussein was 'among party members colluding with the CIA in 1962 and 1963.' The U.S. thereafter actively supported the Ba'th Party's successful coup of 1963, which led to a slaughter of Iraqi Communist Party members using lists produced by American intelligence sources." (Rashid Khalidi Ressurrecting Empire) We also gave both Iraq and Iran weapons to go kill each other.

Has never done anything to us? -- you need to get some facts straight. Saddam has been hostile to us and our interests for years (even before the first gulf war) you need a "Cranial Rectumotomy" :eek:
interests like supporting oil wealthy dictators.

oh did i MISS him attacking the us at some time? yeah he got very hostile toward us after that whole kicking him out of kuwait thing but..... what did he DO to us?
Actually, one could make the argument that the US double crossed Saddam twice during their buddy/buddy relationship in the 80's:

The Iran-Contra Affair (http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/BOOK3Ch7.html)

APRIL GLASPIE TRANSCRIPT (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html)

Saddam gets double crossed twice and the US adds to the misery by bombing the crap out of Iraq twice. When will the Bush "apologists" wake up and smell the coffee?

oh did i MISS him attacking the us at some time? yeah he got very hostile toward us after that whole kicking him out of kuwait thing but..... what did he DO to us?

Well for starters, Iraq (under Saddam) fired on our military many times, and this was years BEFORE that little "Kuwait thing". I have personally removed unexploded ordanance (fired by Iraq) from civilian craft. Now please get that operation before it's too late! :eek:

And before you condemn this as a FOX news story, pay close attention to the AP byline.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158470,00.html

Where are they, show them instead of heaving parties at Abu "Graib"

Well for starters, Iraq (under Saddam) fired on our military many times, and this was years BEFORE that little "Kuwait thing". :

Source? Facts?Or just bullshiting...hmm must be that.

Source? Facts?Or just bullshiting...hmm must be that.
I was there....nuff said :eek:

Taken in a vacuum, I would tend to agree with you, but when you factor in the proclivities of people like Bolton, Hadley, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others to looking for what's not there in the intelligence community--I'm speaking specifically of Team B during the Reagan administration--then the Downing Street memo takes on far greater significance. Toss in that regime change--regardless of the reason--was a stated desire of the PNAC, of which a number of those mentioned above are members, and it becomes even more likely that there was no deception when it came to the intel on Iraq's nonexistent WMD programs. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the latter rather than the former.

Actually, I am fairly certain that regime change was a position taken by the PNAC when dealing with nations with the potential to become hostile towards the U.S. - not "regardless of the reason." As for the "proclivities of people like Bolton, Hadley, Cheney, Rumsfeld," that's just a matter in which we disagree, and isn't going to be resolved, because I agree with each of those people on many issues.

I was there....nuff said :eek:
and of course, you are the final source on every issue.

... the the CIA helped Saddam rise to power and the U.S. actively supported the Ba'th party. "According to documents produced during hearings of the Congressional Select Committee on Intelligence headed by Otis G. Pike held in 1975, the young Saddam Hussein was 'among party members colluding with the CIA in 1962 and 1963.' The U.S. thereafter actively supported the Ba'th Party's successful coup of 1963, which led to a slaughter of Iraqi Communist Party members using lists produced by American intelligence sources." (Rashid Khalidi Ressurrecting Empire) ...
In my opinion, the CIA support of Iraqi Ba'ath in 1963 was completely justified. The Iraqi regime of Qassem (1958-1963) was quite bloodthirsty, and it started with a massacre of the royal family.

...We also gave both Iraq and Iran weapons to go kill each other.
It seems to me that you're talking about the USSR, not the USA.

I was there....nuff said :eek:
If this were true, then the US would have taken every opportunity to remind Americans and the world of that before invading Iraq. Unless you can post a link, then you are mistaken as to when this might have happened?

Well, at least we know you're paranoid. Another thing it seems you forgot is that the the CIA helped Saddam rise to power and the U.S. actively supported the Ba'th party. "According to documents produced during hearings of the Congressional Select Committee on Intelligence headed by Otis G. Pike held in 1975, the young Saddam Hussein was 'among party members colluding with the CIA in 1962 and 1963.' The U.S. thereafter actively supported the Ba'th Party's successful coup of 1963, which led to a slaughter of Iraqi Communist Party members using lists produced by American intelligence sources." (Rashid Khalidi Ressurrecting Empire) We also gave both Iraq and Iran weapons to go kill each other.

Hmmm, '62 and '63... covering the administration of two of my favorite Presidents. Besides, who says I have to agree with everything that the U.S. does or doesn't do? I'm not a fanatic or anything, it's not like I jump on bandwagons and cling to shit baselessly. It was a different time, and the Ba'th was a fucking improvement. It's not like we haven't fucked up a lot in the past. Presidents fuck up all the time. Shit happens. For the third time: hindsight's twenty-twenty.

Actually, I am fairly certain that regime change was a position taken by the PNAC when dealing with nations with the potential to become hostile towards the U.S. - not "regardless of the reason." As for the "proclivities of people like Bolton, Hadley, Cheney, Rumsfeld," that's just a matter in which we disagree, and isn't going to be resolved, because I agree with each of those people on many issues.
...Because the first resort to any possible threat to the United States is war. Freedom is God's gift to the world and America is gonna deliver that gift whether they want it or not, huh?

Here's some blantant hypocrisy that you can chew on for a while:
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies."--GWB, 2005 State of the Union address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005

"We are in Iraq to achieve a result. A country that is democratic."
--2005 State of the Union address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005

hmm...

Well for starters, Iraq (under Saddam) fired on our military many times, and this was years BEFORE that little "Kuwait thing". I have personally removed unexploded ordanance (fired by Iraq) from civilian craft. Now please get that operation before it's too late! :eek:
You're right. The most grievous case of this happened in May 1987, when an Iraqi Mirage attacked USS Stark with ASM missiles. Thirty-seven sailors were killed.

Actually, I am fairly certain that regime change was a position taken by the PNAC when dealing with nations with the potential to become hostile towards the U.S. - not "regardless of the reason." As for the "proclivities of people like Bolton, Hadley, Cheney, Rumsfeld," that's just a matter in which we disagree, and isn't going to be resolved, because I agree with each of those people on many issues.
I believe the PNAC stated openly that they wanted regime change in Iraq in order to secure a stable oil supply, but it's been a while since I read their statement on forming a global hegemony, so it's very possible they weren't quite as blatant as all that. And when I referred to the proclivities of Rumsfeld et al, i was talking about the fact that they've "misinterpreted" intel before, with specific motives, during the Reagan administration. In other words, they have a history of doing this kind of stuff, which is why I'm arguing that the Downing Street Memo was accurate--it fits with the available evidence and prior conduct of the people involved.

...Because the first resort to any possible threat to the United States is war. Freedom is God's gift to the world and America is gonna deliver that gift whether they want it or not, huh?

Okay, what does them being a threat have to do with us wanting to make them be free? If they're a possible threat, we kick their ass. We don't kick ass to make them free. The only thing close to that would be kicking ass to keep someone free.

Here's some blantant hypocrisy that you can chew on for a while:
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies."--GWB, 2005 State of the Union address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005

"We are in Iraq to achieve a result. A country that is democratic."
--2005 State of the Union address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005

hmm...

Wow, you really managed to quote that shit just right, eh? The thing is that the former quote says we do not go into places like Iraq with the intention of making them be democratic. We go in if we consider them a threat. In the latter quote, we are already there, and so to ensure order and in the hopes that our efforts were not in vain we are putting in a form of government that has been shown to be relatively stable.

If this were true, then the US would have taken every opportunity to remind Americans and the world of that before invading Iraq. Unless you can post a link, then you are mistaken as to when this might have happened?
I don't need to prove anything to you, I base my opinions on my experiences and my OWN deductive reasoning, not what I'm told by the media, besides I could provide a link to a site that supports anything I could ever want to say, so I guess you believe everything you read that supports your way of thinking. :eek:

Okay, what does them being a threat have to do with us wanting to make them be free? If they're a possible threat, we kick their ass. We don't kick ass to make them free. The only thing close to that would be kicking ass to keep someone free.

I'm just reiterating the PNAC agenda, if you don't like it, go complain to them.

If they're a possible threat, we kick their ass.

You don't know how much that enforces my view of a stereotypical Republican. "Kill 'em before they can kill you." haha omg, it's so rediculous! AMERICA KICKS EVERYONE'S ASS WHETHER THEY DID ANYTHING BAD OR NOT! IM PATRIOTIC! EXCEPT NOT BUT I THINK IM PATRIOTIC SO I MUST BE!

Wow, you really managed to quote that shit just right, eh? The thing is that the former quote says we do not go into places like Iraq with the intention of making them be democratic. We go in if we consider them a threat. In the latter quote, we are already there, and so to ensure order and in the hopes that our efforts were not in vain we are putting in a form of government that has been shown to be relatively stable.

Just in case you forgot, the two quotes were said in the same speech so it's not like Bush had any time to change his views and be excused by the passage of time, which it seems like you are implying. It's still hypoctrical no matter how much you pad Bush.

I don't need to prove anything to you, I base my opinions on my experiences and my OWN deductive reasoning, not what I'm told by the media, besides I could provide a link to a site that supports anything I could ever want to say, so I guess you believe everything you read that supports your way of thinking. :eek:
Generally during debate, if one makes an assertion, then one should be prepared to prove or attempt to prove same. Otherwise, your comment would be just that....a comment. Facts speak louder than hollow rhetoric.

Just in case you forgot, the two quotes were said in the same speech so it's not like Bush had any time to change his views and be excused by the passage of time, which it seems like you are implying. It's still hypoctrical no matter how much you pad Bush.
Oooooooooh, burn.

Generally during debate, if one makes an assertion, then one should be prepared to prove or attempt to prove same. Otherwise, your comment would be just that....a comment. Facts speak louder than hollow rhetoric. I suppose you would like to see my military record, would that prove to you that I WAS THERE ! "Neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” :eek:

I suppose you would like to see my military record, would that prove to you that I WAS THERE ! "Neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” :eek:
Ahhh nice comment from Sermon on the Mount. Have you ever read the book by Emmet Fox? Truly an excellent read.

BTW, the whole quote is:

""Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6

Now regarding your comment:

Well for starters, Iraq (under Saddam) fired on our military many times, and this was years BEFORE that little "Kuwait thing".

How many times?

Acts of war or friendly fire?

Or bearing false witness against thy neighbour?

Ahhh nice comment from Sermon on the Mount. Have you ever read the book by Emmet Fox? Truly an excellent read.

BTW, the whole quote is:

""Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6

Now regarding your comment:

Well for starters, Iraq (under Saddam) fired on our military many times, and this was years BEFORE that little "Kuwait thing".

How many times?



Acts of war or friendly fire?

Or bearing false witness against thy neighbour?
are you callin' me a liar?....well we're just gonna have to step outside......or into an AA meeting.

That's an easy way to avoid having to stutter out a reply from that.

"But... but... the corporations... and global warming..."



Actually, he did have relations with Al Qaeda... he did not have relations with the Taliban. They're different.

First, the statement you made was racist and bigoted; thus you had extreme bias. Anything you said after that point is subject to a great deal of personal bias, and cannot be taken at value. See how this works?

Second, refer to the 9/11 Commission, which was created by Bush. "Saddam did not have a working relationship with Al Queda". Does this mean that Saddam didn't ever talk to Al Queda members? No. It says that he didn't support them in any way, especially in the attack upon the World Trade Center.

Ahhh nice comment from Sermon on the Mount. Have you ever read the book by Emmet Fox? Truly an excellent read.

BTW, the whole quote is:

""Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6

Now regarding your comment:

Well for starters, Iraq (under Saddam) fired on our military many times, and this was years BEFORE that little "Kuwait thing".

How many times?



Acts of war or friendly fire?

Or bearing false witness against thy neighbour?
are you callin' me a liar?....well we're just gonna have to step outside......or into an AA meeting. :eek:

are you callin' me a liar?....well we're just gonna have to step outside......or into an AA meeting. :eek:
nice job posting the same thing twice

nice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twice :eek:

nice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twice :eek: it's called a server error genius.

are you callin' me a liar?....well we're just gonna have to step outside......or into an AA meeting. :eek:
I am not calling you a liar, just asking you to verify your statement, and wonder what the purpose of your comment is.

What has an AA meeting got to do with any of that?

nice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twice :eek: it's called a server error genius.If you're really old enough to have served in Gulf War I, then wow. :rolleyes:

You're right. The most grievous case of this happened in May 1987, when an Iraqi Mirage attacked USS Stark with ASM missiles. Thirty-seven sailors were killed.

A. They apologized for this.

B. This was before the 1991 gulf war. Any complaints before that are pretty much gone, we could have gone in further if we felt we were justified. Or wait, the previous bush administration actually realized that occupying the country would lead to a conflict with no real way out.

nice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twicenice job posting the same thing twice :eek:

You know, if you want to prove that you were in Iraq, seeing conflict, you are going to have to prove you were old enough to serve, or at least conduct yourself in a way to give the impression you have maturity.

By this, you have proven that you are one of tow things:

A)You have been shot in the head and have idiocy syndrome.

B)You are a little teenage idiot who tried to prove his point by making a blatant lie.

I'm guessing B). Grow up. Learn to prove a point with evidence, and conduct yourself in a mature way. You'll go far in life.

I am not calling you a liar, just asking you to verify your statement, and wonder what the purpose of your comment is.

What has an AA meeting got to do with any of that? you asked if I've read Emmet Fox--12 steppers quote him alot. on your first point: if you want verification look up; May 1987, USS Stark, Thirty-seven sailors were killed.

You know, if you want to prove that you were in Iraq, seeing conflict, you are going to have to prove you were old enough to serve, or at least conduct yourself in a way to give the impression you have maturity.

By this, you have proven that you are one of tow things:

A)You have been shot in the head and have idiocy syndrome.

B)You are a little teenage idiot who tried to prove his point by making a blatant lie.

I'm guessing B). Grow up. Learn to prove a point with evidence, and conduct yourself in a mature way. You'll go far in life. I'm old enough to be your father, but I know I'm not cause when I did your mother she took it like a man. :eek:

You're right. The most grievous case of this happened in May 1987, when an Iraqi Mirage attacked USS Stark with ASM missiles. Thirty-seven sailors were killed.

A. They apologized for this.

B. This was before the 1991 gulf war. Any complaints before that are pretty much gone, we could have gone in further if we felt we were justified. Or wait, the previous bush administration actually realized that occupying the country would lead to a conflict with no real way out.

I'm old enough to be your father, but I know I'm not cause when I did your mother she took it like a man. :eek:

You have proven my point. I thank you for saving me time and effort at disputing you. You will lose all credibility in 5...4...3...2...1... and gone. Wave bye-bye. It's the last time you'll ever see it on this board ever again.

I'm old enough to be your father, but I know I'm not cause when I did your mother she took it like a man. :eek:
Well, you're not old enough to be my daddy, but you sure know how to be a punk. Go ahead--keep talking smack, big boy. Seangolia's exactly right--you've got the cred of a piece of bread mold now.

you asked if I've read Emmet Fox--12 steppers quote him alot. on your first point: if you want verification look up; May 1987, USS Stark, Thirty-seven sailors were killed.
I found this from Answers.com:

Stark was deployed to the Middle East Force in 1984 and 1987. She is remembered for the incident of May 17, 1987 when she was struck by two Exocet missiles from an Iraqi Mirage fighter during the Iran-Iraq War. The fighter had taken off from Shaibah at 20:00 and had flown south into the Persian Gulf. Shortly after being routinely challenged by the frigate at around 22:10 the fighter fired two Exocet ASM missiles. The frigate did not detect the missile attack and both missiles struck without warning.

What did the "challenge" involve? Did the Stark fire on the Iraqi plane first?

Iraq wasn't in the habit of firing on US military targets, and I certainly doubt it would be on orders from Saddam, who enjoyed diplomatic relations with Washington at that time.

And to back that up, another article:

Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. "We will not be driven from the gulf." He described the attack on the Stark as a "horrible error," and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was quick to apologize for the "unintentional incident." Evidently, the Mirage pilot had mistaken the Stark for an Iranian tanker. Iraq promised to pay compensation to the families of the 37 slain seamen, and reparations for damages to the frigate. Officially the United States was neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict, but the administration had decided that geopolitic considerations required that Iraq not lose the war. In the aftermath of the Stark incident, the rhetoric coming out of Washington was of a forgiving nature where Iraq was concerned, while growing increasingly hostile in reference to Iran.

Hardly an act of war?

Now the other times that Iraq attacked the US, as you stated "BEFORE" the Gulf War were when?

BTW, do you recall that the US shot down an Iranian jetliner killing 290 people during that same war?

interests like supporting oil wealthy dictators.

Naturally the oil was an important reason to invade Iraq and not, for instance, Iran or North Korea. But "going in for the oil" is morally and strategically justifiable - would you like to have an unfriendly dictator controlling something as vital as your.. eeeehm.. I mean the worlds fuelsupply ?

I'm old enough to be your father, but I know I'm not cause when I did your mother she took it like a man. :eek:
Earlier you were talking about "not casting your pearls before swine". Obviously you weren't referring to "pearls of wisdom", or you wouldn't have uttered this crap. You are the second person to obtain zero on the credibility meter. Congratulations. :eek:

I found this from Answers.com:

Stark was deployed to the Middle East Force in 1984 and 1987. She is remembered for the incident of May 17, 1987 when she was struck by two Exocet missiles from an Iraqi Mirage fighter during the Iran-Iraq War. The fighter had taken off from Shaibah at 20:00 and had flown south into the Persian Gulf. Shortly after being routinely challenged by the frigate at around 22:10 the fighter fired two Exocet ASM missiles. The frigate did not detect the missile attack and both missiles struck without warning.

What did the "challenge" involve? Did the Stark fire on the Iraqi plane first?
...

I suppose not - Stark was only asking the Mirage to identify itself.


...

Now the other times that Iraq attacked the US, as you stated "BEFORE" the Gulf War were when?

BTW, do you recall that the US shot down an Iranian jetliner killing 290 people during that same war?

I do not remember the details of the incidents in the air, which took place in 1992-1993 in the Iraqi no-fly zones. Two Iraqi fighters were shot down then.

The downing of Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988 was, IMHO, an unlawful and disgraceful action. Someone on that Aegis cruiser was extremely trigger-happy.

So, 100,000+ dead Iraqis and 2,000+ Americans either killed or wounded + 100+ British = 1 Captured Saddam, who actually did not have relations with Al Qeida - They asked him for help and he turned them down.

Actually, I think the Iranians (if they can be trusted) put the Iraqi death toll at 12,000. Next?

"pretty much proved" ?

Is that like a definite maybe, or an I am not really sure so I will say that it is true I think comment?

There are corresponding views:

Report Suppressed: Iran Gassed Kurds, Not Iraq (http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/GaseousLies.htm)

A War Crime or an Act of War? (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/a_war_crime_or_an_act_of_war.htm)

BTW, did this incident stop the US from fullying backing Saddam during the Iran/Iraq War? The answer is a definite NO!!!

Reagan and Bush Sr. partners in crime with a rogue state. Nice!!

Do you have the actual story from other, more credible news sources?

Every intelligent being on the plant has capability. The war wasn't about capability.

your president LIED to you to get you to agree to a war with a country that has never done anything to us.

its really hard to get past that part so i guess i wont shut up about it.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Quote of the hour!

Oh boy. Another nut that believes the liberals claim that Bush lied. HE WAS LIED TOO BY INTELLIGENCE!!! Big Difference. A leader can only make decisions based off the intel that he was given. If he made a decision on false intel, how is that the president's fault?

I'm still waiting for proof on what he lied about.

You're right. The most grievous case of this happened in May 1987, when an Iraqi Mirage attacked USS Stark with ASM missiles. Thirty-seven sailors were killed.

There's an act of war if I ever saw one. To bad we didn't kick Saddam in the pants at that point.

There's an act of war if I ever saw one. To bad we didn't kick Saddam in the pants at that point.
Well they just needed him,and support his war against iran.This incident could be translated as collateral damage

Do you have the actual story from other, more credible news sources?
Here is the abstract from the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60816FC3D5C0C728FDDA80894DB404482&incamp=archive:search) where the article originated:

ABSTRACT - Op-Ed article by Stephen C Pelletiere, senior CIA political analyst on Iraq during Iran-Iraq war, lays out facts in allegation that Saddam Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds in Halabja in March 1988; says all that is known for certain is that Kurds were hit with poison gas that day, during battle with Iranians; explains that US Defense Intelligence Agency's report found both sides used gas during battle, and blamed Iranians for Kurdish deaths; notes Kurds died of cyanide-based gas that Iran, but not Iraq, had at time; explains that Iran sought control of key dam near Halabja, part of impressive Iraqi waterway system that is most extensive in Mideast; adds that Bush administration owes Americans full facts before going to war.

If you want to pay for the full article, be my guest. I think the abstract covers the basics.

There's an act of war if I ever saw one. To bad we didn't kick Saddam in the pants at that point.
Ummmm he was your Iranian killing ally at that time.

Ummmm he was your Iranian killing ally at that time.

Thank you so much CH! Without your knowledge I wouldn't have known that

I don't care if he was or not. This incident is still an act of war under international law.

And your article is an Op-Ed. Not an actual story.

Actually, I think the Iranians (if they can be trusted) put the Iraqi death toll at 12,000. Next?
*CanuckHeaven* rummages through Corneliu's bag of tricks and pulls out his favourite:

"Proof Please"

Thank you so much CH! Without your knowledge I wouldn't have known that

I don't care if he was or not. This incident is still an act of war under international law.

And your article is an Op-Ed. Not an actual story.
So when that US fighter jet killed 4 Canadians in Afghanistan, that was an act of war? Canada should have retaliated and bombed some Americans?

Your line of reasoning is extremely faulty to say the least.

Besides, you don't seem to support International law and the US won't join the International Criminal Court. You really are grasping at imaginary straws. :eek:

I'm just reiterating the PNAC agenda, if you don't like it, go complain to them.
Well, unless you're mentally retarded, I'm sure you know that isn't PNAC's agenda at all. We don't just go around taking down countries to force them to be free unless they pose a possible threat to our well-being.

You don't know how much that enforces my view of a stereotypical Republican. "Kill 'em before they can kill you." haha omg, it's so rediculous! AMERICA KICKS EVERYONE'S ASS WHETHER THEY DID ANYTHING BAD OR NOT! IM PATRIOTIC! EXCEPT NOT BUT I THINK IM PATRIOTIC SO I MUST BE!
Hell yea, kill them before they kill you. If we did that lots of shit would be avoided. For instance, if JFK followed up on the Bay of Pigs with the air support he promised, a couple thousand cuban rebels wouldn't have been butchered like they were, and the Cuban Missile Crisis never would have happened. Or, to be more current, if Clinton would have stepped up in Afghanistan and kicked the Taliban's ass during or after their coup, they would have been crippled and hard-pressed to get a lot done, and even if they didn't completely break apart, there's a good chance they wouldn't have bothered with 9/11 when they were so weakened by war.

Just in case you forgot, the two quotes were said in the same speech so it's not like Bush had any time to change his views and be excused by the passage of time, which it seems like you are implying. It's still hypoctrical no matter how much you pad Bush.
You don't know how much that enforces my view of a stereotypical Democrat. Unless you're completely illiterate, you'd know that I never denied that they were in the same speech, or implied that Bush was changing his views. I was pointing out that those quotes were different in context and implication and thus not truly hypocritical.

First, the statement you made was racist and bigoted; thus you had extreme bias. Anything you said after that point is subject to a great deal of personal bias, and cannot be taken at value. See how this works?

Second, refer to the 9/11 Commission, which was created by Bush. "Saddam did not have a working relationship with Al Queda". Does this mean that Saddam didn't ever talk to Al Queda members? No. It says that he didn't support them in any way, especially in the attack upon the World Trade Center.

Al Qaeda didn't attack the Twin Towers, you prick. And speaking to Al Qaeda is all that was needed to help them plan shit or voice his support for them, whether he aided them monetarily or not.

[sarcasm]And your article is an Op-Ed. Not an actual story.
Actually it is a story by Stephen C. Pelletiere, and he states his qualifications:

"I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair."

Certainly higher qualifications than a university poli-sci student, such as yourself?

So when that US fighter jet killed 4 Canadians in Afghanistan, that was an act of war? Canada should have retaliated and bombed some Americans?

Nope, Friendly fire. There is a difference. We asked them to Identify themselves and they fired on us. That's it isn't friendly fire.

Your line of reasoning is extremely faulty to say the least.

You need to learn the difference between an act of aggression and friendly fire.

Besides, you don't seem to support International law and the US won't join the International Criminal Court. You really are grasping at imaginary straws. :eek:

I support it. I know it. I'm also taking a class on it this semester. You apparently don't know international law as well as you think you do considering, I kick your butt everytime I.L. comes up. Hmmm.... I wonder why? Oh yea, my father taught me about international law.

ah! what a beautifull world

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/gaffeur/afghani.jpg

or this one


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/gaffeur/bushblitzkrieg.jpg

and i think it was Goebels in order to get people to war you just have to use medias,and let them believe they have ennemies everywhere!( i will come back ehen i found his original quote ;)

Bullshit. It's the minutes of a meeting attended by Matthew Rycroft, and sent to, among other people, Britain's Defence Secretary, Foriegn Secretary and Attorney General. You can read it for yourself here (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1) and I'll quote portions for people too lazy to follow the link.

Just because it blows a hole in your belief system doesn't make it untrue. Just deal with it, Celtlund--you got taken for a ride here. Lots of people did. Don't make yourself look a fool by refusing to acknowledge that now.

I said it is not substanciated. In other words, the document may or may not be true. There is no proof either way, and until there is proof I will not accept it as either valid or invalid.

Actually it is a story by Stephen C. Pelletiere, and he states his qualifications:

"I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair."

Certainly higher qualifications than a university poli-sci student, such as yourself?

Dude, just because he states his qualifications still doesn't make it right. Remember that it is just an op-ed. Now I want the ACTUAL story and not an op-ed.

ah! what a beautifull world

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/gaffeur/afghani.jpg

or this one


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/gaffeur/bushblitzkrieg.jpg

and i think it was Goebels who said in order to get people to war you just have to use medias,and let them believe they have ennemies everywhere!( i will come back when i found his original quote ;)

Here is the abstract from the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60816FC3D5C0C728FDDA80894DB404482&incamp=archive:search) where the article originated:

Aha! The New York Times, that fine, upstanding news company that always conducts itself completely free of bias! Your story has gained so much credibility, now, I think I'm going to switch sides! *sarcasm*

I really hate when people say things like, "Hey, this isn't biased, it was in a Newspaper!"

*deep sigh*

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Quote of the hour!

Oh boy. Another nut that believes the liberals claim that Bush lied. HE WAS LIED TOO BY INTELLIGENCE!!! Big Difference. A leader can only make decisions based off the intel that he was given. If he made a decision on false intel, how is that the president's fault?

I'm still waiting for proof on what he lied about.

i am an adult, i was alive when we went into iraq, i dont need a filter from anyone to know what happened. i can judge it for myself.

first of all he was not lied to by intelligence he CHOSE to believe the intelligence that supported what he already believed and to ignore that which spoke against it.

im going to assume that you too were alive then and have some memory of things that happened. if not, you should probably not post on subjects you know nothing about

do you know what a lie IS? its a lie when you say an outright LIE, something you know is not true. it is a lie when you let someone else lie for you. it is a lie when things you know are untrue are said and you dont correct them. it is a lie when you imply a lie.

george bush had the secretary of state lie to the UN. george bush IMPLIED that saddam hussein was involved in 9/11. george bush said that iraq had ties to alqaeda. george bush let stories about imminent attacks by iraq float around as if they were REAL. there were even stories about drone planes from iraq with weaponized anthrax that could reach the US. george bush told lies in his state of the union address.

he HAD to scare the american public into this war or we never would have agreed to it. it worked big time eh?

You mean a mustard gas attack in 1989 on a village, which could have been done by the iranians? Or maybe some uses during the iran-iraq war? So he hadnt used WMD in at least 12 years, but we should try him over the country that publically admits its making nuclear weapons?

The fact that Saddam did use WMD during the Iran-Iraq war, against the Kurds, and against Israel during Gulf War I is a definite indicator that he would use them again. Although NK admited to making nuclear weapons, there was and still is, no reason to believe they would use them. This made NK less of a threat than Saddam.

I support it. I know it. I'm also taking a class on it this semester. You apparently don't know international law as well as you think you do considering, I kick your butt everytime I.L. comes up. Hmmm.... I wonder why?
Now that is funny.....not true.....but funny.

If you pay attention in class, you just might learn something.

Oh yea, my father taught me about international law.
I wondered how long it would be before you would bring out your my "father knows best" trump card. You really should refine your debating skills by sticking to the "facts". Although I can understand your reluctance to use "facts", because so often, they go against your George W. can do no wrong line of reasoning.

i am an adult, i was alive when we went into iraq, i dont need a filter from anyone to know what happened. i can judge it for myself.

I was alive when we first went into Iraq too dude. My father was over there for the first one AND the second one. I followed this Iraq War from the first Bombs being dropped all the way to Baghdad. I rejoicing when we hit Baghdad and I whooped and Hollared when the Saddam Statue was toppled. I don't need a filter either and I can judge for myself as well. It was still a funny comment.

first of all he was not lied to by intelligence he CHOSE to believe the intelligence that supported what he already believed and to ignore that which spoke against it.

He believed the intelligence because it was intelligence. If I had the same intel that Bush was given, I would've done the same. Even Kerry said that too or are you going to call Kerry a liar too? A leader has to believe the intelligence given to him. I guess you don't know that. Alwell.

im going to assume that you too were alive then and have some memory of things that happened. if not, you should probably not post on subjects you know nothing about

I know more about the 1st Gulf War than most people my age because my father was over there. The only one from his unit to go too. I remember this war because I followed it very closely. I remember that Saddam didn't come clean about his WMD, I remember that he didn't follow not one not two but 17 UN Resolutions and also violated a UN Cease-Fire. I know alot on this subject because I am an amature military historian and a regular historyian too. Heck, its my secondary major.

do you know what a lie IS? its a lie when you say an outright LIE, something you know is not true. it is a lie when you let someone else lie for you. it is a lie when things you know are untrue are said and you dont correct them. it is a lie when you imply a lie.

Follow what you just said dude. Bush didn't lie. He was lied too and that's been proven. Bush wasn't too happy that the intel was wrong and launched an investigation. Now if Bush lied, do you think he would've ordered this investigation? Nope I don't think he would've. No leader likes it when someone lies to him. Why do you think the CIA director got canned? You really need to study the facts some more before you post something about lying.

george bush had the secretary of state lie to the UN. george bush IMPLIED that saddam hussein was involved in 9/11. george bush said that iraq had ties to alqaeda. george bush let stories about imminent attacks by iraq float around as if they were REAL. there were even stories about drone planes from iraq with weaponized anthrax that could reach the US. george bush told lies in his state of the union address.

Saddam did have ties to Al Qaeda. He's had talks with Al Qaeda too and even offered Bin Laden Sanctuary but he turned it down in favor of Afghanistan. As for everything else you said, that was precisely what Intel told him. Gee go figure that he used the intel given to him to make a case to go into Iraq. BTW: did you know that Clinton used the same Intel that Bush used to justify Operation Desert Fox in 1998? Yep that's true! Thanks for playing.

he HAD to scare the american public into this war or we never would have agreed to it. it worked big time eh?

*yawns* False again. If Bush went after the human rights angle...he probably would've had much more support.

As is the WMD claim.

There were many intelligence agencies form many countries that believed Saddam had WMDs. Even the French, who were against invading, believed it. The fact that so many different agencies and governments believed it gave the conclusion that he had the WMD credibility. So yes, it was substantiated.

Why so many were wrong I don't know and will not speculate. However there are no credible sources saying the Downing Street Memo is a valid document. Big difference between the two.

The fact that Us did use WMD agains japan ,or against the Vietnamians, is a definite indicator that they would use them again. Although NK admited to making nuclear weapons, there was and still is, no reason to believe they would use them. This made NK less of a threat than US. i biase your Quote how do you feel now?

first of all he was not lied to by intelligence he CHOSE to believe the intelligence that supported what he already believed and to ignore that which spoke against it.
Oh, perhaps because the intelligence that supported what he already believed was overwhelmingly more prevalent than the intelligence that didn't support it.

im going to assume that you too were alive then and have some memory of things that happened. if not, you should probably not post on subjects you know nothing about
Okay, now you're assuming one thing - age brings intelligence. Wrong. Age brings wisdom, sometimes, but not intelligence. He could know a million times what you know, even if he is younger.

do you know what a lie IS? its a lie when you say an outright LIE, something you know is not true. it is a lie when you let someone else lie for you. it is a lie when things you know are untrue are said and you dont correct them. it is a lie when you imply a lie.

Yeah, but apparently you don't.

Lie
1.) A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2.) Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Right, I remember Bush doing that. Oh, wait. No I don't.

george bush had the secretary of state lie to the UN.
Wrong, wasn't a lie at the time by definition.
george bush IMPLIED that saddam hussein was involved in 9/11.
Wrong, Bush never even loosely implied this, a couple in his administration did.
george bush said that iraq had ties to alqaeda.
And they did, just no ties to the Taliban.
george bush let stories about imminent attacks by iraq float around as if they were REAL.
Because we didn't know better, but even if we did, that's not a lie by definition.
there were even stories about drone planes from iraq with weaponized anthrax that could reach the US. george bush told lies in his state of the union address.
Again, we didn't know better, not a lie.

he HAD to scare the american public into this war or we never would have agreed to it. it worked big time eh?
"Rarr! Da'yim hee'im. That damn blasted mo'fucker. Bush is a lyin' schemin' swindlin' cheapskate of a dirty crook that planned a massive stahwry to support his ass. But he's retarded, too. Retards can plan massive conspiracies, too, you know!"
"Iraq was a happy place before Team America showed up! They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies and rivers made of chocolate where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles!"

I'm not sure which makes for the bigger idiot out of these statements.

I've never thought that "he has WMDs" was in any way a valid cause to go to war. Logically, if it is, we should be invading North Korea. Oh, and Europe.

Even if every claim by bush about iraq's wmd was correct, it doesnt really matter. North korea was a much more viable target, a dictator who claimed he had nuclear weapons, a communist nation by name, a country where the people were oppressed(and are daily) by the government, a nation we were still technically at war with. But we chose iraq. Either we wanted oil, or didnt want to upset our company interests in china, who could be angered by an invasion under their face. Either way, bush pussied out on actually doing the right thing.

Hmm, ten years of UN sactioning and negotioating Iraq vs one North Korean bilateral agreement which was ignored...

So you think we should try war before diplomacy?

Now that is funny.....not true.....but funny.

If you pay attention in class, you just might learn something.


I wondered how long it would be before you would bring out your my "father knows best" trump card. You really should refine your debating skills by sticking to the "facts". Although I can understand your reluctance to use "facts", because so often, they go against your George W. can do no wrong line of reasoning.

I love how, while Nazz is pretty much the only person to reply with some substance on the side of the liberals, here, Canuck keeps chiming in with his two cents as if he has any idea what he's talking about.

I've never thought that "he has WMDs" was in any way a valid cause to go to war. Logically, if it is, we should be invading North Korea. Oh, and Europe.
And russia and the US ;)

Now that is funny.....not true.....but funny.

If you pay attention in class, you just might learn something.

If you listen to all the people on here are have served in the service, you might learn something about International Law. I listen to them and I've read up on the subject. I support International Law even if you don't think I do.

I wondered how long it would be before you would bring out your my "father knows best" trump card. You really should refine your debating skills by sticking to the "facts". Although I can understand your reluctance to use "facts", because so often, they go against your George W. can do no wrong line of reasoning.

I've used facts all the time. Facts are selective. You believe what ever liberal propaganda puts out and I'll just go on believing what the military believes. I atlest listen to what folks are saying about international law. Shall we execute the terrorists when we capture them? That's legal since they are not protected under the Geneva Conventions because they are illegal Combatants. BTW: I'm still waiting on an answer to what treaty we signed to forgo our right to wage war on another country.

I've never thought that "he has WMDs" was in any way a valid cause to go to war. Logically, if it is, we should be invading North Korea. Oh, and Europe.

The difference is, Korea and nations Europe don't kill thousands of their own people with them. Korea uses other methods, European nations simply don't.

And russia and the US ;)
and i forgot those Pakistan/India/Israel

Aha! The New York Times, that fine, upstanding news company that always conducts itself completely free of bias! Your story has gained so much credibility, now, I think I'm going to switch sides! *sarcasm*

I really hate when people say things like, "Hey, this isn't biased, it was in a Newspaper!"

*deep sigh*
And a person, such as yourself, who has expressed so much hatred in their posts, is certainly "unbiased" and more "credible"? I think not.

i biase your Quote how do you feel now?

Yes we did use a WMD against Japan. It was justified, but that's another thread. No we did not use any WMD in Vietnam.

Oh, perhaps because the intelligence that supported what he already believed was overwhelmingly more prevalent than the intelligence that didn't support it.
Okay, now you're assuming one thing - age brings intelligence. Wrong. Age brings wisdom, sometimes, but not intelligence. He could know a million times what you know, even if he is younger.
Yeah, but apparently you don't.

Lie
1.) A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2.) Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Right, I remember Bush doing that. Oh, wait. No I don't.
Wrong, wasn't a lie at the time by definition.
Wrong, Bush never even loosely implied this, a couple in his administration did.
And they did, just no ties to the Taliban.
Because we didn't know better, but even if we did, that's not a lie by definition.
Again, we didn't know better, not a lie.
"Rarr! Da'yim hee'im. That damn blasted mo'fucker. Bush is a lyin' schemin' swindlin' cheapskate of a dirty crook that planned a massive stahwry to support his ass. But he's retarded, too. Retards can plan massive conspiracies, too, you know!"
"Iraq was a happy place before Team America showed up! They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies and rivers made of chocolate where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles!"

I'm not sure which makes for the bigger idiot out of these statements.

so you really DONT know a lie when you hear one. thats just sad.

and i forgot those Pakistan/India/Israel

Does Israel even have them?

The difference is, Korea and Europe don't kill thousands of their own people with them.

This is similar to the difference in thinking between the anti-gun crowd and I.

If the problem is killing your own people, then that's the problem. Not WMDs! WMDs are just the tool. A hypothetical one, at that. And if the problem is people shooting each other, the problem is people shooting each other, not that people own guns. The very fact that Korea and Europe haven't committed genocide with their own WMDs proves that having WMDs doesn't mean a damn thing, you can be dictatorial or peaceful with or without them.

I think people just wanted a cool acronym, and no one made an acronym for genocide, so they harp on "WMD" over and over so the news fucks can give us a nice, handy acronym to fear. And it was always a fear that the USA would be hit by them, NOT that Saddam used gas to kill his citizenry.

The difference is, Korea and nations Europe don't kill thousands of their own people with them. Korea uses other methods, European nations simply don't.
How much people in the US alone,were expose to the tests?
And the French in Sahara,and polynesie.and all the american soldiers in the 2 iraks war...?Man go underground i will come back with a time machine

I love how, while Nazz is pretty much the only person to reply with some substance on the side of the liberals, here, Canuck keeps chiming in with his two cents as if he has any idea what he's talking about.

Neither of them seem to have much maturity. They often sound like a couple of little children arguing over some game.:D

And a person, such as yourself, who has expressed so much hatred in their posts, is certainly "unbiased" and more "credible"? I think not.

Fuck no, I'm not unbiased and credible. I'm just the opposition. I present facts just like the other side does, but I pick ones that support my claims, and ignore ones that don't because they're a hassle to deal with, just like the other side does. I'll admit it. But I never post links to my house as a source of completely credible, one hundred percent factual evidence, either - because it's not.

Does Israel even have them?
No! they just bought it to the french!But hey i didn't told ye that ,ok!

Does Israel even have them?
If you believe the intelligence services of many countries including the US, GB, France and Russia they do. :D

No! they just bought it to the french!But hey i didn't told ye that ,ok!

LOL!! Do you have proof of such a thing? :D

Ok that was just plain bad! I admit it. LOL

Yes we did use a WMD against Japan. It was justified, but that's another thread. No we did not use any WMD in Vietnam.
Are you sure they didn't use Chemical Weapon?

If you believe the intelligence services of many countries including the US, GB, France and Russia they do. :D

Oh I'm sure they do but we haven't seen evidence of such but hey, if it floats ya boat then go ahead and believe it.

I know I do! LOL

so you really DONT know a lie when you hear one. thats just sad.

Jesus titty-fucking Christ, Ashmoria, are you completely retarded? Seriously, are you an idiot? I'm going to feel really bad about saying this to you when you end up having a brain tumor or actually being retarded, but I don't care. You're just so incredibly stupid, I can't even get past it. What's sad is that the best thing you can do to refute something completely factual is quote it all and say something sarcastic and degrading at the end, as if you actually had a legitimate response to it, as opposed to just talking out your ass.

Are you sure they didn't use Chemical Weapon?

I believe your talking about Agent Orange which is a Defoilment.

Are you sure they didn't use Chemical Weapon?

Yes. I was in the military during the Vietnam war.

LOL!! Do you have proof of such a thing? :D

Ok that was just plain bad! I admit it. LOL
If i tell you i will most certainely eind up in Guantanamo,you know ?where everyday is lol....

If i tell you i will most certainely eind up in Guantanamo,you know ?where everyday is lol....

I'm not in Gitmo so that's a false statement! LOL

Actually it is a story by Stephen C. Pelletiere, and he states his qualifications:

"I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair."

Certainly higher qualifications than a university poli-sci student, such as yourself?

Yes, the qualification of Mr Pelletier are high, but his inferences upon the Halabja affair, although interesting, somehow run contrary to the well-known facts of the case.

On 16 and 17 March 1988, the town of Halabja, which was held then by Iranian troops and their Kurdish allies, was subjected to chemical bombardment from military aeroplanes. The Kurds were mostly allies of Iran and, naturally, they began to flee from the gas attack.

And the Kurdish refugees fled to Iran, which granted asylum to the thousands of Kurds.

Can it be that the Halabja affair was nothing less than a vicious Iranian propaganda ploy that included the WMD attack on Iranian allies? Probably.

Is it likely? I think no.

I believe your talking about Agent Orange which is a Defoilment.
Oh i see it's not A WMD but rather a long time Earth/nature weapon of mass destruction.Interressant it is all about interpretation.....mmmmmmmm

Jesus titty-fucking Christ, Ashmoria, are you completely retarded? Seriously, are you an idiot? I'm goning to feel really bad about saying this to you when you end up having a brain tumor or actually being retarded, but I don't care. You're just so incredibly stupid, I can't even get past it. .....

And this does a lot to establish your credibility? Slam person’s ideas not the person. That's what debate is all about. Statements like this only serve to show that you have no credible argument to refute what the other person is saying.

I'm not in Gitmo so that's a false statement! LOL
well i'm sure israel does have such a facility,i only don't write hebreuw...lol

well i'm sure israel does have such a facility,i only don't write hebreuw...lol

Well I think the Israelis treat their prisoners better than the Russians do. I don't right or speak Russian except for Nyet and Da! :D

And this does a lot to establish your credibility? Slam person’s ideas not the person. That's what debate is all about. Statements like this only serve to show that you have no credible argument to refute what the other person is saying.
Okay, Celtlund, I know you're trying to seem nonpartisan here by knocking me, but you fucked up in two major ways. One, you intentionally left off the part where I explain why Ash is a moron. Two, you're jumping in here way out of context. I had a legitimate response, and Ash replied with a moronic two-word blurb meant to chastise me with sarcasm and act as if a legitimate response was posted, because faking a legitimate response is better than stuttering away to a corner, in some people's eyes. I'm not the one who was without "credible argument to refute what the other person is saying."

Oh i see it's not A WMD but rather a long time Earth/nature weapon of mass destruction.Interressant it is all about interpretation.....mmmmmmmm
It was a herbicide which found widespread use in the US in the 50s. The scientists did not know at that time that Agent Orange causes heath disorders.

I doubt that one might say say that some American farmer in 1950s was attacking his own plot of land with weapons of mass destruction. ;)

I believe your talking about Agent Orange which is a Defoilment.
What the heck is a Defoilment?

Oh...I know, you meant defoliant? Be careful using that around the house....it makes plants and trees lose their foliage.

Well I think the Israelis treat their prisoners better than the Russians do. I don't right or speak Russian except for Nyet and Da! :D
You are right(may be) any way i will live this debate here ,because for me war in it's very essence is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction,so see you around folk go for it and enjoy it,it's good to kill.see you (may be) :p

Oh i see it's not A WMD but rather a long time Earth/nature weapon of mass destruction.Interressant it is all about interpretation.....mmmmmmmm

It was a defoliant, which was used to destroy the vegetation of the jungle that the VC and NVA were using for cover. Unfortunately, we did not know what the long-term effects were. If we had, we would not have used it, as it had had some sever effects on people, including many of our own. I don't know what the long term environmental effects, if any, are. The point is it was not developed as or at the time known to be a WMD.

My statement stands, we did not use WMDs in Vietnam.

because for me war in it's very essence is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction,
Probably the most profound statement in this entire thread!! :)

Okay, Celtlund, I know you're trying to seem nonpartisan here by knocking me, but you fucked up in two major ways. One, you intentionally left off the part where I explain why Ash is a moron. Two, you're jumping in here way out of context. I had a legitimate response, and Ash replied with a moronic two-word blurb meant to chastise me with sarcasm and act as if a legitimate response was posted, because faking a legitimate response is better than stuttering away to a corner, in some people's eyes. I'm not the one who was without "credible argument to refute what the other person is saying."

You realy don't understand what I said. :(

Probably the most profound statement in this entire thread!! :)

In this case CanuckHeaven, I agree with you. LOL

What the heck is a Defoilment?

Oh...I know, you meant defoliant? Be careful using that around the house....it makes plants and trees lose their foliage.

And Canuck comes in swingin' with another sarcastic mock reply because he has nothing truly contributive to say in this debate. Congratulations, Canuck. Now go smoke some more pot and play hockey with your socialist pals.

Jesus titty-fucking Christ, Ashmoria, are you completely retarded? Seriously, are you an idiot? I'm going to feel really bad about saying this to you when you end up having a brain tumor or actually being retarded, but I don't care. You're just so incredibly stupid, I can't even get past it. What's sad is that the best thing you can do to refute something completely factual is quote it all and say something sarcastic and degrading at the end, as if you actually had a legitimate response to it, as opposed to just talking out your ass.
gee rogue, i dont consider "thats not a lie" "we didnt know for sure" and "i dont think that letting other people lie for you is lying" to be a refutation.

And Canuck comes in swingin' with another sarcastic mock reply because he has nothing truly contributive to say in this debate. Congratulations, Canuck. Now go smoke some more pot and play hockey with your socialist pals.
I will pray for you. May God bless you.

You realy don't understand what I said. :(
I understand exactly what you said. Perhaps you meant to say something else, but I replied to exactly what you said. If you'd care to rephrase, be my guest.

gee rogue, i dont consider "thats not a lie" "we didnt know for sure" and "i dont think that letting other people lie for you is lying" to be a refutation.
How the fuck so? It's not a lie, by any goddamn definition. The people that were saying things on his side weren't lying either, because they did not intend to be lying. And I never said we didn't know for sure - we didn't know at all. A lie requires fucking intent, kind of like premeditated murder. Learn to speak fucking English.

I will pray for you. May God bless you.

Make sure you play that hockey on very thin ice.

How the fuck so? It's not a lie, by any goddamn definition. The people that were saying things on his side weren't lying either, because they did not intend to be lying. And I never said we didn't know for sure - we didn't know at all. A lie requires fucking intent, kind of like premeditated murder. Learn to speak fucking English.

fine

you dont know what lying is

very interesting

no sense continuing a discussion where one person has no real understanding of the morality of misleading an entire country into war. not that bush was the first prez to lie about war, im sure he wont be the last. that however doesnt make it RIGHT.

Well I think the Israelis treat their prisoners better than the Russians do. I don't right or speak Russian except for Nyet and Da! :D
If you're a prisoner in Russia, knowledge of these words is sufficient for one lengthy conversation with any decent Russian interrogator. In fact, 'da' will be enough. ;)

fine

you dont know what lying is

very interesting

Holy shit... you really are retarded? You don't even know what the definition of a lie is, or what it entails. A three letter word is completely lost on you. At this point I would suggest throwing yourself off of a building to raise the national IQ.

lie, n.
1.) A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2.) Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
lie, v.
1.) To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2.) To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

Did Bush or the Bush administration lie, or were the words they spoke lies, by definition? No, so shut the fuck up.

IOW, Iraq had HAD stuff a long time ago.

Like, DUH

and uhhh, it IS a Faux story

Holy shit... you really are retarded? You don't even know what the definition of a lie is, or what it entails. A three letter word is completely lost on you. At this point I would suggest throwing yourself off of a building to raise the national IQ.

lie, n.
1.) A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2.) Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
lie, v.
1.) To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2.) To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

Did Bush or the Bush administration lie, or were the words they spoke lies, by definition? No, so shut the fuck up.
he met every one of those definitions. plus the extras of having other people lie FOR him.

when the president of the united states whips up hysteria in the population such that they believe that there is going to be an imminent attack by drone planes carrying anthrax. thats a LIE

when more than 50% of the population of the country believes that iraq was responsible for 9/11 because of the things the president and his lap dogs have said and he doestt correct it, ITS A LIE.

when the president of the united states tells a story about "yellowcake" that was believed at one time but now is already known to be false, in his state of the union address ITS A LIE.

and when you have other people lie for you ITS STILL LYING.

what part of THAT dont you understand? im sure it was all crystal clear to you when bill clinton "lied" about his affair with monica lewinsky.

Make sure you play that hockey on very thin ice.
If anyone is sinking, that would be you?

http://www.stone-craft.com/sinking%20troll.JPG

Perhaps you should take a break and enjoy the rest of the day?

he met every one of those definitions. plus the extras of having other people lie FOR him.
Going by your definitions, I could call this a lie, because even though you don't know it's incorrect, it still is.

when the president of the united states whips up hysteria in the population such that they believe that there is going to be an imminent attack by drone planes carrying anthrax. thats a LIE
The president... and the CIA... and M6... and the Russians... But he's supposed to ignore all of the intelligence, right? Because why would a President want to act quickly in times of possible urgency? Pfft, that's just plain stupid.

when more than 50% of the population of the country believes that iraq was responsible for 9/11 because of the things the president and his lap dogs have said and he doestt correct it, ITS A LIE.
They don't. That's more of a lie than Bush has ever said, because you know it's not true.

when the president of the united states tells a story about "yellowcake" that was believed at one time but now is already known to be false, in his state of the union address ITS A LIE.
No, because it was believed it at one time. Intent, moron. I bet you've have our entire legal system do away with second degree offenses, wouldn't you?

and when you have other people lie for you ITS STILL LYING.
Sure it is... of course, they weren't lying, because they were not telling falsehoods intentionally.

what part of THAT dont you understand? im sure it was all crystal clear to you when bill clinton "lied" about his affair with monica lewinsky.
Ahaha, first of all, I love how you put Clinton's lying in quotation marks when that's the only true lie - he did lie with the intent of lying. However, no, I don't give a shit about Clinton's personal life, I hate him for a variety of other reasons.

Partially to be fair to the dirty leftists, and partially to cover my ass before someone gets on here bitching about how there are scummier people than Saddam: although Saddam definately needed removing, we should have gone after Ayatollah Khomeini and Kim Jong-Il, first, since we waiting this fucking long.


=cough= The Ayatolla Khomeni's been dead for about 15 or 20 years now

=cough= The Ayatolla Khomeni's been dead for about 15 or 20 years now

=cough= *punches self in head for massive brainfart* Bah, all their dirty names look the same... that's sarcasm by the way. Meant Khamenei, not Khomeni. Apologies. (I can't believe you even caught that, the difference is like three letters - I am forced to grant you some semblance of respect)

Going by your definitions, I could call this a lie, because even though you don't know it's incorrect, it still is.
*rolling my eyes*


The president... and the CIA... and M6... and the Russians... But he's supposed to ignore all of the intelligence, right? Because why would a President want to act quickly in times of possible urgency? Pfft, that's just plain stupid.
you mean you think the drone plane story was at some time CREDIBLE?


They don't. That's more of a lie than Bush has ever said, because you know it's not true.
not according to polls taken last year. i only said it because it was proven to be true. i dont know about TODAY but as late as the last election more than 50% of americans STILL believed that iraq was responsible for 9/11.


No, because it was believed it at one time. Intent, moron. I bet you've have our entire legal system do away with second degree offenses, wouldn't you?
so if i believed something at one time but know it to be false NOW its ok if i say its true??

Sure it is... of course, they weren't lying, because they were not telling falsehoods intentionally.

im not saying THEY were lying. (although i think they knew it was a lie) im saying that HE was lying by proxy. getting someone else to lie for you does not absolve you from the guilt of the lie.

Ahaha, first of all, I love how you put Clinton's lying in quotation marks when that's the only true lie - he did lie with the intent of lying. However, no, I don't give a shit about Clinton's personal life, I hate him for a variety of other reasons.
i put it in quotes because if we use your technical definitions of lying, bill clinton did not lie when he looked into the camera and said "i did not have sexual relations with that woman". he didnt have "sexual relations" because in the clinton family blow jobs dont count as sexual relations. so its not a "lie". it is however quite obvious to everyone that he was lying. not because he did have "sexual relations" but because he was having an affair with her.

i am utterly sure that you agree that clinton lied about it. if you use the same standards with the man you seem to admire, you will see that he is also a liar.

I hereby declare my WMD capability! If any nation wishes to bomb my kitchennn....errrrrrrrrrrr WMD storage facility, i will defend myself with all my capability, biting your nuts off, and retaliating with amonia bombs, pipe bombs, and i shall pollute your water reserves with used car oil!


This discussion still on? Frigging ridiculous!

Rogue Newbie is making the rest of us Bush defenders look bad :( .

Dude, go do something fun for a couple days, a forum is not an appropriate place to swear and blaspheme every other sentence. You're getting yourself worked up over a political discussion!

=cough= *punches self in head for massive brainfart* Bah, all their dirty names look the same... that's sarcasm by the way. Meant Khamenei, not Khomeni. Apologies. (I can't believe you even caught that, the difference is like three letters - I am forced to grant you some semblance of respect)
the same difference between bush and bush,
i was back :rolleyes:

you mean you think the drone plane story was at some time CREDIBLE?
At the time it sure wasn't incredible.

not according to polls taken last year. i only said it because it was proven to be true. i dont know about TODAY but as late as the last election more than 50% of americans STILL believed that iraq was responsible for 9/11.
Okay, I've got three things to say about this. A: Never was a poll taken that asked, "Was Saddam Hussein responsible for the attacks on September, 11th?" B: If in some obscure poll you could prove that, I could find ten other more credible polls to disprove it. C: There's an old saying that, while normally inaccurate, is completely true when talking about polls. I believe it was Churchill that first said it, but I might be wrong... "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Polling is very easy to skew... take the exit polls for the 2004 Presidential Election: they were completely different than all polling that had been done up to that point, curved drastically in Kerry's favor, and they were completely wrong. Polls do not equal proof.

so if i believed something at one time but know it to be false NOW its ok if i say its true??
Only if you don't present it as a fact, which Bush didn't.

im not saying THEY were lying. (although i think they knew it was a lie) im saying that HE was lying by proxy. getting someone else to lie for you does not absolve you from the guilt of the lie.
Do you even read what you type? "im not saying THEY were lying... he was... getting someone else to lie for [him]." If you're saying he got them to lie for him, then you're saying they were lying. Which they weren't, by definition.

i put it in quotes because if we use your technical definitions of lying, bill clinton did not lie when he looked into the camera and said "i did not have sexual relations with that woman". he didnt have "sexual relations" because in the clinton family blow jobs dont count as sexual relations. so its not a "lie". it is however quite obvious to everyone that he was lying. not because he did have "sexual relations" but because he was having an affair with her.
Well, I guess that's fair... but Clinton didn't have three semi-respectable intelligence agencies telling him, "Sexual relations do not encompass blowjobs."

i am utterly sure that you agree that clinton lied about it. if you use the same standards with the man you seem to admire, you will see that he is also a liar.
I hardly admire Bush. He's not even close to the worst President we've ever had, but he's definately not the best we've ever had either. I simply agree with the War in Iraq, and am aware enough of the definition of lying and the facts behind his decision that it was not a lie we went on. It was misinformation. There's a difference. And, while I agree Clinton lied, the situations are hardly the same. Whereas Clinton basically ignored schoolbook definition to back up his lying (while I do not think he should have been questioned about it in the first place), Bush believed what he was told by massive government intelligence agencies.

ok so a few pumps went missing. now that could just be the local farmer looking to improve his water supply ... but no CLEARLY its international terrorists up to no good as usual.

IOW, Iraq had HAD stuff a long time ago.

Like, DUH

and uhhh, it IS a Faux story

Ok then! I guess the IAEA report that said that the looters were organized and took machines that can't be hauled away without special equipment escaped your notice.

The IAEA report indicated well organized looting of duel use machines. Mmmm. Perhaps there was something to hide after all.

Rogue Newbie is making the rest of us Bush defenders look bad :( .

Dude, go do something fun for a couple days, a forum is not an appropriate place to swear and blaspheme every other sentence. You're getting yourself worked up over a political discussion!

*sigh* I know. Apologies, will calm down. I get somewhat heated when arguing with people whom cannot be as stupid as they present themselves to be. I was calm in the beginning, I just lose it and become sarcastic after trying to drill the facts into someone's head over and over again.

Rogue Newbie is making the rest of us Bush defenders look bad :( .

Dude, go do something fun for a couple days, a forum is not an appropriate place to swear and blaspheme every other sentence. You're getting yourself worked up over a political discussion!

I agree with The Winter Alliance

I said it is not substanciated. In other words, the document may or may not be true. There is no proof either way, and until there is proof I will not accept it as either valid or invalid.
What's it going to take? The Lord Jesus Christ coming down from on high, bitchslapping you in the face with it and telling you to wake the fuck up? There are none so blind as those who will not see, Celtlund, and you're about as willfully fucking blind as anyone on this board.

What's it going to take? The Lord Jesus Christ coming down from on high, bitchslapping you in the face with it and telling you to wake the fuck up? There are none so blind as those who will not see, Celtlund, and you're about as willfully fucking blind as anyone on this board.
Nazz, I've detailed plenty of reasons why there is just as much reason not to take that report for its word as there is to take it as utter fact. Just because he chooses to go with an argument that makes less sense doesn't mean he's wrong to disbelieve the report, or at least be somewhat skeptical of it.

Nazz, I've detailed plenty of reasons why there is just as much reason not to take that report for its word as there is to take it as utter fact. Just because he chooses to go with an argument that makes less sense doesn't mean he's wrong to disbelieve the report, or at least be somewhat skeptical of it.
Actually, you haven't. You've circled around it and tried, but you've never gone after the crux of the question, which is why, if there are so many reasons to distrust it, the White House and Downing Street haven't even attempted to attack its credibility. And until you deal with that part of the issue, the Downing Street memo remains the most compelling evidence that the Bush administration knew the intel was faulty before going into Iraq, and that the reason they knew was because they were the ones fixing it. Deny it all you like, but until you can satisfactorily explain why the White House is willing to just let it lie there unchallenged, you're on the losing side of this argument.

he met every one of those definitions. plus the extras of having other people lie FOR him.

[QUOTE=Ashmoria]when the president of the united states whips up hysteria in the population such that they believe that there is going to be an imminent attack by drone planes carrying anthrax. thats a LIE

Neither the President nor his adninistration did that.

when more than 50% of the population of the country believes that iraq was responsible for 9/11 because of the things the president and his lap dogs have said and he doestt correct it, ITS A LIE.

The President never said or implied that. He said Saddam had links to terrorists not that he was responsible or had anything to do with 911.

when the president of the united states tells a story about "yellowcake" that was believed at one time but now is already known to be false, in his state of the union address ITS A LIE.

At the time of the State of The Union address this was believed to be true, so it was not a lie.

and when you have other people lie for you ITS STILL LYING.

The President never did this.

what part of THAT dont you understand? im sure it was all crystal clear to you when bill clinton "lied" about his affair with monica lewinsky.

He did. He said publicly"I never had sex with that woman." He also committed purjery which is lying under oath.

Actually, you haven't. You've circled around it and tried, but you've never gone after the crux of the question, which is why, if there are so many reasons to distrust it, the White House and Downing Street haven't even attempted to attack its credibility. And until you deal with that part of the issue, the Downing Street memo remains the most compelling evidence that the Bush administration knew the intel was faulty before going into Iraq, and that the reason they knew was because they were the ones fixing it. Deny it all you like, but until you can satisfactorily explain why the White House is willing to just let it lie there unchallenged, you're on the losing side of this argument.
I've hardly circled around it. The fact is that you can't read people's minds. Besides, pretty much every piece of information in the possession of the CIA, M6, et cetera discredits the Downing Street memo by nature, because innumerable documents say that the intelligence on Iraq was thought to be accurate, whereas the Downing Street memo is only one document that serves to ignore a plethora of facts against it. Believing one government document that rings of bias and persuasive undertone over two-hundred government documents that contain all sorts of information including photographs, conversations, taps, and other intel is completely ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Ashmoria]he met every one of those definitions. plus the extras of having other people lie FOR him.
either the President nor his adninistration did that.
The President never said or implied that. He said Saddam had links to terrorists not that he was responsible or had anything to do with 911.

At the time of the State of The Union address this was believed to be true, so it was not a lie.
The President never did this.
He did. He said publicly"I never had sex with that woman." He also committed purjery which is lying under oath.
this server is going to drive me crazy!

when you have left a false impression on the public and you dont correct it this is LYING.

to let the public believe that there is a chance that drone plane with anthrax will fly over the US at any time and not correct it, is lying.

to let the public beleive that iraq was responsible for 9/11 and not stand up and say in no uncertain terms "NO" is lying.

to have colin powell lie to the UN is the same as the president lying to them.

for bill clinton to imply with his "Truthful" statment 'i did not have sexual relations with that woman' that he was innocent of having an affair with her, is lying.

to pick and choose what intelligence to believe based on your desire to have it be true is the mark of a bad president.

this server is going to drive me crazy!
You've already driven me crazy.

when you have left a false impression on the public and you dont correct it this is LYING.
A: Not by definition, B: The situation has corrected itself and it has been admitted that no WMD's have been found and was expected.

to let the public believe that there is a chance that drone plane with anthrax will fly over the US at any time and not correct it, is lying.
Ditto.

to let the public beleive that iraq was responsible for 9/11 and not stand up and say in no uncertain terms "NO" is lying.
The people don't elect a President to play the part of their daddy. It's not his job to educate idiots.

to have colin powell lie to the UN is the same as the president lying to them.
Colin Powell wasn't lying at the time, by definition.

for bill clinton to imply with his "Truthful" statment 'i did not have sexual relations with that woman' that he was innocent of having an affair with her, is lying.
Technically, it's not, if he honestly believed that "sexual relations" did not entail oral sex. Whether you believe he's that stupid or not is your choice.

to pick and choose what intelligence to believe based on your desire to have it be true is the mark of a bad president.
The intelligence was overwhelmingly supportive of Iraq having the weapons. To not act on intelligence and to try to handle militarily dangerous situations diplomatically is the mark of a bad President and will be much worse for everyone in the long run.

What's it going to take? The Lord Jesus Christ coming down from on high, bitchslapping you in the face with it and telling you to wake the fuck up? There are none so blind as those who will not see, Celtlund, and you're about as willfully fucking blind as anyone on this board.

And you sir, do not know how to carry on an intelligent debate. The cussing and swearing are not necessary. Also, if you are going to attack, attack the idea, not the individual. To do otherwise is a demonstration of your lack of maturity and ignorance. Nuf said.

There are some problems with this story. First of all, as many other posters have pointed out, the materials they found were dual use. A plant that produces insecticide can switch production to nerve gas with little effort. Both chemicals are organophosphates and are produced with similar chemical reactions but using different precursor materials. Also a plant that produces BT, a bacterium used to kill catterpillars on crops, can also be modified to produce anthrax or plague.

In addition to that many common chemicals can be used to produce poison gasses. Common laundry bleach and ammonia, when mixed, produce toxic hydrazine and chloramine gas. This means anybody who has cleaning products has the precursors to WMD.

In all honesty you need more than chemical plants, bioreactors, and common industrial chemicals to proove the existance of a WMD program.

Our evidence against Al Shifa was stronger than this.

I've hardly circled around it. The fact is that you can't read people's minds. Besides, pretty much every piece of information in the possession of the CIA, M6, et cetera discredits the Downing Street memo by nature, because innumerable documents say that the intelligence on Iraq was thought to be accurate, whereas the Downing Street memo is only one document that serves to ignore a plethora of facts against it. Believing one government document that rings of bias and persuasive undertone over two-hundred government documents that contain all sorts of information including photographs, conversations, taps, and other intel is completely ridiculous.
What rock have you been living under for the last two years that makes you think that the evidence is not on the side of this memo? Since before the war started, there were rumblings from people at CIA and other intel agencies that said the administration was making shit up, and since the war started, especially when the WMD couldn't be found, you've had numerous former CIA agents, NSA people, and NSC people come out and say that they were pressured by the office of the VP and the higher-ups in the administration to come up with evidence that Saddam had WMD. This was Team-B all over again--they took unsubstantiated rumor, or worse, intel that CIA and others knew was crap, and presented it as fact. This is not in dispute.

All the Downing Street memo does is show that this wasn't done by some lower echelon people at the intel agencies. What it does is implicate the administration as having directed the faulty intelligence gathering, and if you can't see that, then you're so blinded by loyalty that you won't see anything. If you're this blind, then Bush could wipe his ass with the Constitution and light the Declaration of Independence on fire to kill the smell and you wouldn't care.

And you sir, do not know how to carry on an intelligent debate. The cussing and swearing are not necessary. Also, if you are going to attack, attack the idea, not the individual. To do otherwise is a demonstration of your lack of maturity and ignorance. Nuf said.
Sir,
I have attacked the idea. I have beaten it down and dragged it in the dust. I have made a mockery of it on more than one occasion on this thread and the best you've been able to come up with in reply is "it's unsubstantiated," when it clearly has been. In essence, sir, you have stuck out your tongue and said "nuh uh" and dared to call it a substantive argument. When you're ready to do more than that, call me. Otherwise, go act superior around someone else.

Is that polite enough for you?

And by the way, your second-to-last sentence notes that while I may (in your opinion) have a lack of maturity, I also have a lack of ignorance. I appreciate your acknowledgement of said fact. Good day, sir.

What rock have you been living under for the last two years that makes you think that the evidence is not on the side of this memo? Since before the war started, there were rumblings from people at CIA and other intel agencies that said the administration was making shit up, and since the war started, especially when the WMD couldn't be found, you've had numerous former CIA agents, NSA people, and NSC people come out and say that they were pressured by the office of the VP and the higher-ups in the administration to come up with evidence that Saddam had WMD. This was Team-B all over again--they took unsubstantiated rumor, or worse, intel that CIA and others knew was crap, and presented it as fact. This is not in dispute.
Okay, basically, this is what I'm hearing: a few documents come out saying that all of the evidence is complete bullshit and that this situation was some government conspiracy, some pissed off CIA officials start arguing to support the bullshit information even though the vast majority of the CIA disagree with them, and it's immediately a fact. I guess that makes sense... wait, no it doesn't.

All the Downing Street memo does is show that this wasn't done by some lower echelon people at the intel agencies. What it does is implicate the administration as having directed the faulty intelligence gathering, and if you can't see that, then you're so blinded by loyalty that you won't see anything. If you're this blind, then Bush could wipe his ass with the Constitution and light the Declaration of Independence on fire to kill the smell and you wouldn't care.
Again, one obviously biased guy writes up a memo, and the information in it automatically takes precedence over all of the other facts that would dispute it. When you believe a few reports over the many, that's just believing what you want to believe, not the other way around.

So let me see if I have this correct: [The Prez and George Bush in the Oval Office]

BUSH: Saddam has WMD, so the invasion of Iraq is necessary and justified.

CHENEY (via microphone well-hidden in Bush's suit coat) : Bad intel Mr. Prez, bad intel.

BUSH: Scratch that (thanks, Prez Cheney. I mean, Dick. I mean, Sir. Sorry.)
Saddam had the capability to produce WMD, so the invasion of Iraq was justified?

CHENEY: Good one. And don't forget the whole "September 11th" thing, George.

BUSH: Oh, yeah. Saddam slept with underage girls last September!

CHENEY: No, George. That's Saddam's son. We agreed to leave that one out, remember?

BUSH: Crap.

CHENEY: *Sigh* New York. Twin Towers? Eh?

BUSH: I've seen those! Man, they sure are tall.

CHENEY: Er....remember that movie I showed you last week?

BUSH: I thought I wasn't supposed to talk about that to other people.

CHENEY: NOT THAT ONE! The other one, with the loud bangs....?

BUSH: Oh yeah! I liked that one!

CHENEY: Tell 'em Saddam did it.

BUSH: He did?

CHENEY: *Sigh*

BUSH: OH YEAH! And Saddam bombed those buildings in New York, too! After he slept with those girls!

CHENEY: I'm leaving now. Just read what's on the card, please. The stuff in Crayon.

BUSH: The red or the blue?

CHENEY: Red, of course.

BUSH: Yeah, that's cool. I like red.

CHENEY: JUST READ IT!

BUSH: Ok man....Jeezus! Oh, sorry about that, Rev. Fallwell. My bad.

FALWELL [Exiting the bathroom with a bible and tissue stuck to his shoe] : Don't sweat it, George. I'm just in it for the cash, remember?

BUSH: Oh yeah. Did you leave that thing for me....you know, what we talked about?

FALWELL: SHIT! I mean, Lord Be Praised! [remembering the Nixon Tapes]

BUSH: Huh?

FALWELL: Just read the card, like we practiced earlier.

BUSH: Okie dokie. Ahem. And Saddam was torturing his own people by making them pray to statues of him. And he was gassing them, too, and not like we did in college, either. And he knows alot of Arab people. I mean Islam people. I mean, people who are friends with Islam.

FALWELL [Banging head against desk]

BUSH: I mean, people who follow Islam stuff. And blow up buildings because Islam told 'em to. So were gonna go in there 'n smoke 'em out. And that's why you should support my war.....I mean, the war in Iraq.

Thank You, goodnight, and God Bless the United States of America.

LOL!

Again, one obviously biased guy writes up a memo, and the information in it automatically takes precedence over all of the other facts that would dispute it. When you believe a few reports over the many, that's just believing what you want to believe, not the other way around.
well you forgot something ,people believe ONLY what they want to....or is it. in order to see everything als truth you have to see it as a lie....Confusing?
What a circus!!!!!!and we all looks like clowns ,imagine Who is laughthing now!! :p

Okay, basically, this is what I'm hearing: a few documents come out saying that all of the evidence is complete bullshit and that this situation was some government conspiracy, some pissed off CIA officials start arguing to support the bullshit information even though the vast majority of the CIA disagree with them, and it's immediately a fact. I guess that makes sense... wait, no it doesn't.


Again, one obviously biased guy writes up a memo, and the information in it automatically takes precedence over all of the other facts that would dispute it. When you believe a few reports over the many, that's just believing what you want to believe, not the other way around.
This is my last comment to you on this subject, because you're obviously so closed to any other possibility that it doesn't matter what I post.

Look at the situation as a whole. In 2002, we start hearing drumbeats of war somewhere other than Afghanistan--we start hearing Bush linking al Qaeda and Iraq subtly, rhetorically. We start hearing horror stories of WMD. The news media jumps on it, starts blaring it loud and proud all the time. These crazy allegations about Saddam's capability start popping up--can hit Britain in 45 minutes, anthrax dropped from remote control planes, maybe giving a nuke to al Qaeda-scary shit.

And way in the background, underneath all that, there are some former CIA agents saying "hey, you know, we don't really know all that."

State of the Union address, the yellowcake statement which had been pulled out of a previous speech because they knew it was bullshit gets put back in. Colin Powell addresses the UN having already discarded a good third of his speech because he knew it was so crazy that they'd never buy it, proceeds to lay out a non-convincing argument that Iraq is a danger. France calls them on it--the Congress starts serving freedom fries in their restaurant.

Still, in the background, "we don't have solid intel on all these claims. Cheney's making shit up."

We go into Iraq, don't find any WMD, and two years later, have lost almost 1700 troops, spent over $200 billion, killed about 12,000 Iraqis according to their official count, and the voices, which were there all along telling us the intel was bogus, are louder now, and they're coming from inside the government of our most trusted ally.

And still you refuse to believe that Bush and his inner circle had something to do with fixing intel. You would rather believe that they were fooled into it by some dastardly lower echelon people. Well, keep fooling yourself if you must. I guess it helps you sleep at night thinking that your president is a fool instead of a liar.

Yeah, its all too easy just to read a report that some other person has written, and agree with it and rubber-stamp it just because its too much work to check all the sources. Im not saying thats what happened, but its likely.

I agree with a statement near the front of the thread; despite the problems with information, he was an evil bastard and the world is a better place with him not in charge. Only 30ish african leaders plus a few others to go then ;)

Yeah, its all too easy just to read a report that some other person has written, and agree with it and rubber-stamp it just because its too much work to check all the sources. Im not saying thats what happened, but its likely.

I agree with a statement near the front of the thread; despite the problems with information, he was an evil bastard and the world is a better place with him not in charge. Only 30ish african leaders plus a few others to go then ;)
Tu ..tu ...tu..udhdudhduhduh tu...tu tu du du duh duh,welcome to this beautiful circus ladies and gentlemen,i present you(what, s your name?:"Strongbad") ...well welcome to you,and don't forget your WMD,they will make you stong and most important enjoy it..(you will need it)

And way in the background, underneath all that, there are some former CIA agents saying "hey, you know, we don't really know all that."
Which, most definately, has nothing to do with them being former CIA agents.

Still, in the background, "we don't have solid intel on all these claims. Cheney's making shit up."
Still, in the background, "Goddamn I wish Clinton wouldn't have cut our fucking funding so that we'd know the Russians and M6 were wrong."

We go into Iraq, don't find any WMD, and two years later, have lost almost 1700 troops, spent over $200 billion, killed about 12,000 Iraqis according to their official count, and the voices, which were there all along telling us the intel was bogus, are louder now, and they're coming from inside the government of our most trusted ally.
From people who are obviously big fans of the President, of course, and would never dare make anything up to discredit him.

And still you refuse to believe that Bush and his inner circle had something to do with fixing intel. You would rather believe that they were fooled into it by some dastardly lower echelon people. Well, keep fooling yourself if you must. I guess it helps you sleep at night thinking that your president is a fool instead of a liar.

A: I never said they were fooled into it by anyone dastardly. They were mislead by evidence presented to them by "our trusted ally" and others.
B: Bush isn't that smart. In all honesty, the guy is no Einstein. Thinking about Bush fixing intel and not getting caught immediately is laughable, especially fixing so much intel so perfectly in his favor.
C: I guess it helps you sleep at night to think your President was reelected by being a dirty liar, rather than by being the preferable candidate.

Naturally the oil was an important reason to invade Iraq and not, for instance, Iran or North Korea. But "going in for the oil" is morally and strategically justifiable - would you like to have an unfriendly dictator controlling something as vital as your.. eeeehm.. I mean the worlds fuelsupply ?
i'd rather us not be as dependent on oil. there are ways to do this, but thats for a different thread.

Originally Posted by The Alma Mater
Naturally the oil was an important reason to invade Iraq and not, for instance, Iran or North Korea. But "going in for the oil" is morally and strategically justifiable - would you like to have an unfriendly dictator controlling something as vital as your.. eeeehm.. I mean the worlds fuelsupply ?

Yeay,hear me Chavez is building WMD too!...

C: I guess it helps you sleep at night to think your President was reelected by being a dirty liar, rather than by being the preferable candidate.
Not my president. I rejected him long ago. You can call me whatever name you want over this--I don't care--but Bush is not my president. He does not speak for me or for the country I love.

Not my president. I rejected him long ago. You can call me whatever name you want over this--I don't care--but Bush is not my president. He does not speak for me or for the country I love.

Heh, sorry to burst your bubble, but he's your President whether you want him to be or not. If you don't like it, you have a few choices: look for conspiracies, deal with it until next election, or move the fuck out. Looks like you've picked option A, though I wish you'd have picked option B or C.

Everybody, just plug your ears, and just read what bush says. Either he is right, or he was lied to. If he says something false, its never his fault, and all blame should be alleviated from him. But he is never false anyways. We just cant find what he said was there.

I mean, clearly, he's right.

Heh, sorry to burst your bubble, but he's your President whether you want him to be or not. If you don't like it, you have a few choices: look for conspiracies, deal with it until next election, or move the fuck out. Looks like you've picked option A, though I wish you'd have picked option B or C.
or
D) make sure everyone knows just what kind of man he is, not let up on the pressure on him, fight his policies at every opportunity and make it clear to the rest of the world that not every american thinks he is right.

I've hardly circled around it. The fact is that you can't read people's minds. Besides, pretty much every piece of information in the possession of the CIA, M6, et cetera discredits the Downing Street memo by nature, because innumerable documents say that the intelligence on Iraq was thought to be accurate, whereas the Downing Street memo is only one document that serves to ignore a plethora of facts against it. Believing one government document that rings of bias and persuasive undertone over two-hundred government documents that contain all sorts of information including photographs, conversations, taps, and other intel is completely ridiculous.
I'd really like to see this plethora of evidence you seem to think exists for WMDs in Iraq. I've seen the Downing Street Memo, and as you've pointed out, it's fairly credible in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It's strange then that I've never seen any of the opposing side's evidence since I would think the administration has everything to gain by making it public if it exists.

The most probable explanation I can think of for why I haven't seen this evidence is that it doesn't exist.

Have you seen this evidence, or do you just assume it exists because if it doesn't the Bush administrations actions would be unjustified? Can you provide references that have a comparable level of credibility to the Downing Street Memo?

and i forgot those... Israel
shhhhh... don't blow our cover.

Heh, sorry to burst your bubble, but he's your President whether you want him to be or not. If you don't like it, you have a few choices: look for conspiracies, deal with it until next election, or move the fuck out. Looks like you've picked option A, though I wish you'd have picked option B or C.
No, he isn't. He may be the President, but he's not my President. The difference may be too subtle for you to understand, and honestly, I don't give a shit if you get it or not, but it is important to me. I'm dealing with it in my own way, so I guess you can take solace in that, but I'm not leaving, no matter how much people like you wish I would. I'm here and I'm going to be a thorn in your side as long as it takes. You will not be able to hide behind lies and deception forever.

Everybody, just plug your ears, and just read what bush says. Either he is right, or he was lied to. If he says something false, its never his fault, and all blame should be alleviated from him. But he is never false anyways. We just cant find what he said was there.

I mean, clearly, he's right.

clearly!

Does Israel even have them?
uhhhhh... no, no, of course not... what would ever make you think that?

Heh, sorry to burst your bubble, but he's your President whether you want him to be or not. If you don't like it, you have a few choices: look for conspiracies, deal with it until next election, or move the fuck out. Looks like you've picked option A, though I wish you'd have picked option B or C.


Hmmm Did you call Clinton your President?

Are you sure they didn't use Chemical Weapon?
is napalm considered a chemical weapon?

Hmmm Did you call Clinton your President?

Yeah, Clinton was my President. I didn't like it, but he was. I just put up with him, and argued with people about him occasionally if it seemed like I could convince them.

is napalm considered a chemical weapon?
read it (the all tread ) again,if you don't, enjoy and flame
And what is chemical BTW?

is napalm considered a chemical weapon?
hey

WE get to decide what is and is not a chemical weapon. WE decide what is a wmd. therefore napalm and agent orange do not fit the definitions.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/napalm.jpg

is there a problem with that?

Because why would a President want to act quickly in times of possible urgency?
clearly he should have been reading My Pet Goat.

shhhhh... don't blow our cover.
Cover ?SHHHHHHHH

is napalm considered a chemical weapon?

No, and neither is a flamethrower.

clearly he should have been reading My Pet Goat.
or the anarchist cook book?

A: I never said they were fooled into it by anyone dastardly. They were mislead by evidence presented to them by "our trusted ally" and others.
B: Bush isn't that smart. In all honesty, the guy is no Einstein. Thinking about Bush fixing intel and not getting caught immediately is laughable, especially fixing so much intel so perfectly in his favor.
C: I guess it helps you sleep at night to think your President was reelected by being a dirty liar, rather than by being the preferable candidate.
You fail to realize that Bush isn't the one in charge here. It's his daddy, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Rummy and their friends at the PNAC. THEY fixed the intel, but I must give you credit for accepting that Bush is the retard that he is.

you know that the ultimate weapon of mass destrustion is WAR(2)... :sniper: :headbang:

I've hardly circled around it. The fact is that you can't read people's minds. Besides, pretty much every piece of information in the possession of the CIA, M6, et cetera discredits the Downing Street memo by nature, because innumerable documents say that the intelligence on Iraq was thought to be accurate, whereas the Downing Street memo is only one document that serves to ignore a plethora of facts against it. Believing one government document that rings of bias and persuasive undertone over two-hundred government documents that contain all sorts of information including photographs, conversations, taps, and other intel is completely ridiculous.
then link to something credible that completely disproves the downing street memo.

Colin Powell wasn't lying at the time, by definition.
watch uncovered: the war in Iraq. it's basically just interviews of former CIA directors and employees along with footage of the administration. one part basically shows how Powell did lie at the UN. they show a clip of something Powell says, then show a bunch of CIA analysts saying how what he just said was a lie. then they repeat for each piece of evidence he presented. and don't just dismiss it as liberal propoganda (even though it is), it still has merit, watch it.

C: I guess it helps you sleep at night to think your President was reelected by being a dirty liar, rather than by being the preferable candidate.
no, the fact that he is the preferable candidate is what makes it hard for us to sleep at night.

Hmmm Did you call Clinton your President?
any president who gets a blow job is MY president.

read it (the all tread ) again,if you don't, enjoy and flame
And what is chemical BTW?
who's flaming?