NationStates Jolt Archive

I tried to find dome info about this but failed. Got any links?

Link about Taha:
http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Rihab_Rashid_Taha

Link about viability of anthrax spores left in the open:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1457035.stm

Anthrax is one of the best known agents of biological warfare - and possibly one of the most feared.
The bacterium occurs naturally, in low levels, in some animals, but when it is inhaled by humans in the form of spores it is deadly.

The killing power of anthrax was demonstrated by British scientists during the Second World War when it was released on a tiny Scottish island to wipe out a flock of sheep.

The island, Gruinard, just off the mainland, in Gruinard Bay, half way between Ullapool and Gairloch in the Highlands, was so contaminated that it was deemed out-of-bounds for almost 50 years.

Google was invented for a reason Xanaz. Beside that, it was really a brief mention. Probably because it did absolve Bush of everything. I'll find it for ya when I have time.

I tried to google it actually, got nothing saying anything to the effect that absolved Bush of lying and manipulation. That is why I asked you for a source, since you're the one making the claim. However, I shall wait for your source when you have time.

Link about Taha:
http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Rihab_Rashid_Taha

Link about viability of anthrax spores left in the open:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1457035.stm

you mean to say that Saddam did have WMD after all?

Imagine that...

you mean to say that Saddam did have WMD after all?

Imagine that...

Actually, no he didn't. At least none that were found. It was already said in the Senate hearings that Anthrax was no good anymore.

you mean to say that Saddam did have WMD after all?

Imagine that...

Yes, and even after being dumped on the ground, it was still viable.

Imagine that...

Google was invented for a reason Xanaz. Beside that, it was really a brief mention. Probably because it did absolve Bush of everything. I'll find it for ya when I have time.

Committee: No politics in prewar intelligence (But Democrats complain probe wasn't broad enough)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/05/sprj.nirq.wmd.congress/index.html

Yes, and even after being dumped on the ground, it was still viable.

Imagine that...

No it wasn't. It could cause some to become ill, but was not enough to kill anyone. Didn't we go to war with Iraq because they were a danger to OUR national security? So that wasn't true. Didn't we go to war with Iraq because they had ties with the terrorists and bin Laden? Oh right, that wasn't true either. Didn't they say they knew exactly where all this stuff was? Oh right, again that wasn't true too.

Didn't lie? Give us a break!

Committee: No politics in prewar intelligence (But Democrats complain probe wasn't broad enough)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/05/sprj.nirq.wmd.congress/index.html


Yeah, so that doesn't tell us much at all now does it. I mean given we now have new information that it had everything to do with politics, as time goes by, more and more evidence will come out that this was planned since the day Bush assumed the office in 2000.

No it wasn't. It could cause some to become ill, but was not enough to kill anyone. Didn't we go to war with Iraq because they were a danger to OUR national security? So that wasn't true. Didn't we go to war with Iraq because they had ties with the terrorists and bin Laden? Oh right, that wasn't true either. Didn't they say they knew exactly where all this stuff was? Oh right, again that wasn't true too.

Didn't lie? Give us a break!


Hmm, we knew that there was 1800 gallons of anthrax. We know that anthrax spores are viable for decades. We had no way of ever knowing what happened to that anthrax.

A mere kilogram tossed off the top of a high building will kill millions of people 1000km downwind...

So, would the presence of even a kilogram of anthrax pose a risk to national security?

Hmm. I guess we'll have to find out if the anthrax is there or not, because no one will let us look, and no one is talking.

While I've posted a link to proof that anthrax lives for decades, you've just made unsupported assertions that somehow anthrax magically becomes inert on its own in 10 years.

*YAWNS*

Even IF Bush lied, who gives a shit? What does it change? Nothing. Whining over it on international forums will surely change a lot. *rolls eyes*

'Sides... he didn't, he only said what CIA and the rest told him. Tough shit. If you don't like it, sue him. Curious how many seconds such a trial would last. 5 or 6?

Hmm, we knew that there was 1800 gallons of anthrax.

This was a threat to OUR national security how again?

I mean when was the last time Iraq attacked us? Oh right, NEVER!

A few observations I'd like to make about this topic:

1. It was the Bush-supporters who really started the partisan generalizations and sweeping categorizations. Are they all trolls? Most likely some actually believe what they say and are just responding negativily, but many are probably doing so on purpose.

2. It was the Bush-supporters who began to use ad hominem attacks more than actual attempts at debate. Have they ruined what promised to be a good topic? Yes, I believe so.

3. It was those coming out in support of publicizing this memo that attempted to provide rational, well-thought out debate points.

4. It was those same people from number 3 who have provided links and other source material for their information. I may have missed it, but I do not believe any of the Bush-supporters have provided any links.


Tell me, who is winning this debate? Those who do nothing but claim "THERE'S NO PROOF" (When indeed this topic's first post has a link that hasn't been falsified) and then dog-pile anyone who disagrees, or those who have provided links and other source materials for their claims?

Link about Taha:
http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Rihab_Rashid_Taha

Link about viability of anthrax spores left in the open:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1457035.stm


the lasting of anthrax highly depends from the environmental conditions
exposed to sunlight for example it lasts a few days

the lasting of anthrax highly depends from the environmental conditions
exposed to sunlight for example it lasts a few days

Gruinard was anthrax sprayed in the open.

They kept visiting the island in biological isolation suits over the years, and only recently declared it uncontaminated.

Taha's anthrax, if she had not dumped it, would still be in a vat. Unexposed to light.

And anthrax spores are immune to sunlight.

Committee: No politics in prewar intelligence (But Democrats complain probe wasn't broad enough)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/05/sprj.nirq.wmd.congress/index.html
Administration officials and President Bush warned that Iraq could supply weapons of mass destruction to terrorists to use against the United States.

But nearly 10 months after U.S. troops ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, no such weapons have been found. And last week, the Bush's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, told a Senate committee he now believes it unlikely such weapons could be found in Iraq. (Full story)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said the committee failed to examine whether the Bush administration willfully used bad intelligence to make the case for war.

Wern't we talking about how Bush made the case for war where he alledgedly lied?

Gruinard was anthrax sprayed in the open.

They kept visiting the island in biological isolation suits over the years, and only recently declared it uncontaminated.

Taha's anthrax, if she had not dumped it, would still be in a vat. Unexposed to light.

And anthrax spores are immune to sunlight.
What they mean by "deactivated"?

This was a threat to OUR national security how again?

I mean when was the last time Iraq attacked us? Oh right, NEVER!

Iraq ran a terrorist training camp open to anyone, but specifically to Palestinians, at Salman Pak.

They even had an airliner there to practice hijackings.

He paid millions to terrorists around the world. Not necessarily al-Qaeda, but others for sure.

In a post-911 world, do you think that we should take the political chance that Saddam might give a kilo of anthrax to some unnamed group to attack us? Hey, he would be off the hook - a non-state actor dispensing anthrax in the US - and he could attack us at will without our retaliation.

Hmm. Remember right after the 911 attacks - we had a rash of anthrax attacks.

And they've proven it wasn't that kook Hatfill.

So, who was it? Given a situation like that, we might have gone in just to find out if it was Saddam or not.

ROFLMAO! Boy! There's a really well-run petition for ya. :D

The reason for the scrutiny of exclamation points is that hand-writing analysis has shown that excessive use of exclamation points is indicative of an unstable personality. Interesting, yes? :)

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What they mean by "deactivated"?

It means she mixed it with something to kill it.

But it wasn't deactivated until she, on her own, decided to get rid of it.

If it had stayed in the vat as Saddam had ordered, it would be viable for decades.

From another forum I visit, someone posted:

I strongly suggest that everyone here sign the petition, write the President a letter, and tell as many people as you know. After the petition reaches 500,000 people, Congressman John Conyers (D - MI) is going to deliver the petition to the President.

I believe it's sad that we even need a petition for this. A full-fledged investigation should've been launched immediately. It was only the cooperation of the media and the people that led to the investigation of Nixon. Hopefully, bias in the media and apathy won't permit this criminal to stay in office.


Right on!

I've already signed.

And anthrax spores are immune to sunlight.

False. They are sensible to light. Do not misinformate.

For the people saying Bush didn't lie.

A question. If proof beyond any resonable doubt came out that he in fact lied. Couldn't be debated, it was absolute proof, would you still feel the same about Bush and this war?

For the people saying Bush didn't lie.

A question. If proof beyond any resonable doubt came out that he in fact lied. Couldn't be debated, it was absolute proof, would you still feel the same about Bush and this war?

Then we liberated the oppressed Iraqi people ;)

By the way, you can say what you want, but there were no WMD in Iraq
and if there were reasonable suspects, the UN would have given its permission to the war, but this is not the case

It means she mixed it with something to kill it.

But it wasn't deactivated until she, on her own, decided to get rid of it.

If it had stayed in the vat as Saddam had ordered, it would be viable for decades.
That's what I thought. Thanks for clearing it up.

Hi this is bushanomics here. I just wanted to tell you that no facts were fixed to do anything. You know sadam was a bad guy. A bad guy you know. The problem is these "tourism" threats. These "tourism" threats have got a lot of "earl" Sh*t I mean oppressed peoples. And will all of this "earl" Sh*t I mean uh uh um "tourism" you know they had "nuclar" weapon of mass destruction which is abbreviated W.M.D. cause I like the the letter W. Though I cannot remember why. You know its just like during the debates my opponet, who im not sure who that was some french panzy, was trying to use big words to confuse me and let me tell it was working I didnt even know where I was at, but I was there, and thats an amazing accomplishment for a president who is technically retarted.

(by the way in bush speak "tourism" is an attempt to say terrorist, "earl" is an attempt to say oil, and "nuclar" of course is him trying to say nuclear.)

Okay in all seriousness this is similar to what happened to nixon. When government lies they lie and lie more to cover up their lies. It becomes such a big lie that the government becomes "blotted". Similar to as Gov. Ventura described it as cancerous tumor that does nothing but expand and destroy all in its path. To the government the lies become what is good and the truth is what is evil and needs to be hidden. If the truth came out with undisputable evidence then president bush would be impeacted. But unfortunetly then Dick cheney would be president, or worse "condy" (Ms. Rice). The truth is the only that will expose the bush administration to what it realy is. During the election bush tried to claim that Kerry was traitor. That he killed his own troops in vietnam. First off if a soilder goes a-wall and does that the whole platton will turn around and waste him. I have a friend who is ex-millitary (honorably discharged) who confirmed that. Second off Kerry released his records and there was no such event that ever took place. He was not even punished for anything. The truth is whats needed the truth is all that matters. Our soliders are dying over one mans personal crusade for oil and revenge on the man who tried to kill his father. I admit if someone tried to kill my dad I would be very angry, but thats no justification to start a war.

Shrubby, babe, explain to me then how President Clinton stayed out of jail after lying to a FEDERAL grand jury.
Treason - no, the word is purgery. A tad different. But reality has escaped you long ago, so this difference may be hard for you to grasp.
Because, being taken into court, primarily for having an affair (which is not a legitimate reason for a trial) and then spending the majority of the trial asking questions related to your sex-life is immoral, and in my opinion, illegal in and of itself. Whereas, with Nixon... Nixon made anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic remarks, broke into opponents' offices to find dirt, and tried to use the intelligence agencies to cover it up. That's a hell of a lot worse than getting a blowjob, being put on trial over it, and lying about it.

You're completely unread.

Taha dumped the anthrax, which was not impure, into a ditch near one of Saddam's palaces in April 1991.
http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Rihab_Rashid_Taha

Try again, making up facts. They even got to the point where they tested weaponized anthrax on prisoners.
I was aware of that, although I couldn't find the specific report regarding the viability of Iraq's anthrax. Someone else mentioned that it had a life no longer than 12 years. So, intelligence relied upon the idea that Iraq created new anthrax. Any existing anthrax was irrelevant.

I did, however, find several non-government reports on the threat of anthrax before we invaded Iraq:

Read Rand.org's report's section of anthrax in 1999:
http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel/terror.pdf

Read their report's section on anthrax, in 2002:
http://www.rand.org/publications/CT/CT186/CT186.pdf

In 2002, the Asian media was also skeptical of the claims for WMDs in Iraq:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK27Ak01.html

No, I don't believe it was "bad intelligence." I don't believe that the FBI can be "accidentally biased", in such an extreme manner, as to claim that there are weapons, when there is no concrete evidence, whatsoever.

Cherry picking your intel is not lying. That's all the memo covers.

It doesn't say, "Bush said he wanted to make up some lies."
"...the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

If that's not lying, I don't know what it is.

Oh, Shrubbery and others, you are SO pwned.
Hardly. The article I posted explains the Kerry story. I was just trying to catch your attention. Even though Kerry's not impeaching Bush, he's compelled by it as well, and probably has feelings of that nature.

Johnson hit 35%, Reagan also 35%, and Clinton had 37% as their lowest approval ratings during their Presidency. Other two-termers have had more support at this time (a few months into their 2nd term) of their Presidency, but after Eisenhower every president dipped below 40% at some point in their administration.

http://gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=15463
(You have to be a subscriber to see the whole thing, including where I got the numbers from)
Ah, please forgive me. I misquoted that. Lowest approval rating, for any two-term President during this time, since WWII.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000866232

Yes, and even after being dumped on the ground, it was still viable.

Imagine that...
According to the reports by RAND.ORG, in the links above, anthrax decays rapidly, when out in the open. So, no, it wouldn't have been viable if it was dumped. It's a biological weapon. It needs to be kept refrigerated, in a lab.

False. They are sensible to light. Do not misinformate.
Or disassemble!

Iraq ran a terrorist training camp open to anyone, but specifically to Palestinians, at Salman Pak.

They even had an airliner there to practice hijackings.

No, he didn't. The only evidence we have of this is heresy from two captured grunts who would have very good reason to tell their American captors what they wanted to hear. We have no physical evidence, no coberations from other sources.

In fact, there is some psychological disproof of this:

Saddam was a megalomaniac, there can be little doubt of this. Most dictators are. Do you really think he would trust a bunch of terrorists (many of which hate his guts for his secularist stance) within his borders when he couldn't exercise direct control over them? This is a man on par with Stalin for paranoia, practically inventing grabs at his power in his own mind.

He paid millions to terrorists around the world. Not necessarily al-Qaeda, but others for sure.

He gave several thousand each to families of deceased suicide bombers in Palestine. Try not to spin things too far, m'kay?

In a post-911 world, do you think that we should take the political chance that Saddam might give a kilo of anthrax to some unnamed group to attack us? Hey, he would be off the hook - a non-state actor dispensing anthrax in the US - and he could attack us at will without our retaliation.

He also wasn't an idiot. While he had every reason to maintain the illusion that he had WMD's (Iran being right next door and not under sanctions like him), he had no reason to use any he might have had. Look at what actually happened. He never once attacked America nor any of our particularly close allies. We invaded Iraq anyway. Simple deductive logic on his part based on the psychological attitude of the Bush adminstration would be enough to conclude that, even without solid proof, we would invade if we were to suffer such an attack.

Even then, some chemicals can be traced back to the lab that created them. Oops.

Hmm. Remember right after the 911 attacks - we had a rash of anthrax attacks.

And they've proven it wasn't that kook Hatfill.

So, who was it? Given a situation like that, we might have gone in just to find out if it was Saddam or not.

Further proving what I just said.

With no actual evidence showing they came from Iraq, we invade anyway.

*gasps* Bush lied??

I'm shocked.

.. Not. Everyone knows he's a rotton liar, and the only reason that he's in power is because he's a good (possibly unknowing) puppet for the REAL powers. Seriously though, Bush, intelligent enough to run a huge country?? Yeah right, I've seen more intellectual ability in a pretzel. :D

2) i've yet to be shown how the "worthwile cause was a fabrication". and didnt you already say that you were glad we outsed a tyrant?

We have yet to find WMDs, or anything that was used to make WMDs, or any real reason to believe that WMDs were being researched or produced before we went to war. THIS was the reason we went to war. Officials in the FBI, CIA, and British Intelligence have all made claims that reports were ignored, false claims were made, or "intelligence" fabricated. Take a look around. You'll find more than just this Memo. You'll find cases both of our intelligence agencies that support the notion that there is something fishie.

Next, Iraq did not support Al-Queda. 9/11 Committee, created by Bush, said this.

Third, you don't understand our govnernment at all if you think we wanted to liberate the Iraqi people. We do not go to war for such reasons. We could care less. It's none of our government's concern. The only two reason we go to war:

We have an actual threat from said nation.

We want $$$$.

Now, seeing as how the evidence for Iraq being any threat at all is sketchy, at best(And seeing as how CIA and FBI officials say that reports were made that actually did not support WMDS and such), the "Imminent Threat" to America idea is flawed.

And seeing as how Iraq has one of the largest oil supplies in the world, and that we protected oil refineries and oil sites before we went to nuclear sites, it would appear that there was more to this than just "Liberate the Iraqi people".

Also, the fact that government has changed the reasons for the war several times seems to indicate that perhaps that someone is bullshitting America.

Of course, most Americans are stupid, and can't really see that it is even possible that something may be going on. There is mounting evidence that supports the notion that this entire war was a fabrication. And the fact that government Officials don't even comment is showing that they are being backed into a corner. There is certainly enough evidence for at least an investigation here. But that won't happen. People are far to stupid to give a damn these days.

Oh, and on what you said, although he is glad that Saddam is ousted, that doesn't mean he's happy he was lied to, and that lie causing the deaths of many people. If you are perfectly fine being lied to, you are a weak, ignorant person.

Oh, the Orwellian Populace of America, why have become so?

your all a bunch of pinko morons :headbang: . cant you see that whether or not he had them when we went in, he used to have them?? he gased the Kurds for crying out loud!!! and, polish troops DID find weapons, something which the media tried not to cover: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39243

and so what? if he did, or if he didnt, who really cares? he was a dictator. he filled mass graves all of iraq. he was a mass kiler. he deserved to go, and the world is better off without him.

i got a question for all of you, how many resolutions did the UN make against iraq? hmmmmm? what was it...17??!! so why is it that, when the UN (a corrupt organization which all you liberals love) makes resolution after resolution and saddamm basically gives the world the middle finger, the UN decides to back off, every time, but when the USA, one of the powers of the UN, and basically the only thing holding the UN together finally gets enough courage to do what the UN would not, we're the bad guys?!??!!? please explain the logic behind that, will you?


i agree. Not only that, but we are pretty much the only UN member that does anything that involves military force. Well not the only one Britain helps us, but everyone else sends like what, 1,000 people at the very most. We should just leave the UN

Or disassemble!
lol

i agree. Not only that, but we are pretty much the only UN member that does anything that involves military force. Well not the only one Britain helps us, but everyone else sends like what, 1,000 people at the very most. We should just leave the UN

The UN was created to try to prevent war, not as a global police organization.

Britain was in their own theater of operations. It wasn't the Pacific Theater. As for USSR.... that's a whole different game. They went to war right after Hiroshima. Then Japan ordered a cease-fire after Nagasaki. USSR wasn't happy when the cease-fire went into affect.

But this is off topic.

Eh? Britian had a large contingent in the Pacific theater. Why do you think they made that movie about a bridge?

We have yet to find WMDs, or anything that was used to make WMDs, or any real reason to believe that WMDs were being researched or produced before we went to war. THIS was the reason we went to war. Officials in the FBI, CIA, and British Intelligence have all made claims that reports were ignored, false claims were made, or "intelligence" fabricated. Take a look around. You'll find more than just this Memo. You'll find cases both of our intelligence agencies that support the notion that there is something fishie.

Next, Iraq did not support Al-Queda. 9/11 Committee, created by Bush, said this.

Third, you don't understand our govnernment at all if you think we wanted to liberate the Iraqi people. We do not go to war for such reasons. We could care less. It's none of our government's concern. The only two reason we go to war:

We have an actual threat from said nation.

We want $$$$.

Now, seeing as how the evidence for Iraq being any threat at all is sketchy, at best(And seeing as how CIA and FBI officials say that reports were made that actually did not support WMDS and such), the "Imminent Threat" to America idea is flawed.

And seeing as how Iraq has one of the largest oil supplies in the world, and that we protected oil refineries and oil sites before we went to nuclear sites, it would appear that there was more to this than just "Liberate the Iraqi people".

Also, the fact that government has changed the reasons for the war several times seems to indicate that perhaps that someone is bullshitting America.

Of course, most Americans are stupid, and can't really see that it is even possible that something may be going on. There is mounting evidence that supports the notion that this entire war was a fabrication. And the fact that government Officials don't even comment is showing that they are being backed into a corner. There is certainly enough evidence for at least an investigation here. But that won't happen. People are far to stupid to give a damn these days.

Oh, and on what you said, although he is glad that Saddam is ousted, that doesn't mean he's happy he was lied to, and that lie causing the deaths of many people. If you are perfectly fine being lied to, you are a weak, ignorant person.

Oh, the Orwellian Populace of America, why have become so?


I also have to agree with you. I don't like being lied too. It is nice to get rid of a dictator and liberate the people for Iraq, but there is definatly another reason Bush isnt telling us

To point something out, I think the deposition of Saddam was a good thing and I think that, now that we're there we need to stay until things settle down.

However, I am also of the opinion that we could have struck a much graver blow against terrorism had we taken Afghanistan from the Taliban and stayed there and only there until we had found Bin Laden. Now we're dilluting our forces.

Hi this is bushanomics here. I just wanted to tell you that no facts were fixed to do anything. You know sadam was a bad guy. A bad guy you know. The problem is these "tourism" threats. These "tourism" threats have got a lot of "earl" Sh*t I mean oppressed peoples. And will all of this "earl" Sh*t I mean uh uh um "tourism" you know they had "nuclar" weapon of mass destruction which is abbreviated W.M.D. cause I like the the letter W. Though I cannot remember why. You know its just like during the debates my opponet, who im not sure who that was some french panzy, was trying to use big words to confuse me and let me tell it was working I didnt even know where I was at, but I was there, and thats an amazing accomplishment for a president who is technically retarted.

(by the way in bush speak "tourism" is an attempt to say terrorist, "earl" is an attempt to say oil, and "nuclar" of course is him trying to say nuclear.)

Okay in all seriousness this is similar to what happened to nixon. When government lies they lie and lie more to cover up their lies. It becomes such a big lie that the government becomes "blotted". Similar to as Gov. Ventura described it as cancerous tumor that does nothing but expand and destroy all in its path. To the government the lies become what is good and the truth is what is evil and needs to be hidden. If the truth came out with undisputable evidence then president bush would be impeacted. But unfortunetly then Dick cheney would be president, or worse "condy" (Ms. Rice). The truth is the only that will expose the bush administration to what it realy is. During the election bush tried to claim that Kerry was traitor. That he killed his own troops in vietnam. First off if a soilder goes a-wall and does that the whole platton will turn around and waste him. I have a friend who is ex-millitary (honorably discharged) who confirmed that. Second off Kerry released his records and there was no such event that ever took place. He was not even punished for anything. The truth is whats needed the truth is all that matters. Our soliders are dying over one mans personal crusade for oil and revenge on the man who tried to kill his father. I admit if someone tried to kill my dad I would be very angry, but thats no justification to start a war.

if you're going to ape someone, at least get their pronunciations right.

bush pronounces "oil" as any native non-Mexican Texan does: "ole" (rhymes with "coal")

he pronounces "nuclear" like this: "nuke-yuh-ler"

and he pronounces terrorism more or less normally, but he pronounces "terror" like this: "terrah"

take a linguistics course

bush pronounces "oil" as any native non-Mexican Texan does: "ole" (rhymes with "coal")

he pronounces "nuclear" like this: "nuke-yuh-ler"

and he pronounces terrorism more or less normally, but he pronounces "terror" like this: terrah
He pronounces "terrorism" and "terrorist" without the 'O.'

(by the way in bush speak "tourism" is an attempt to say terrorist, "earl" is an attempt to say oil, and "nuclar" of course is him trying to say nuclear.)

Did you just say nuclear? It's nuke-cue-laur. The 's' is silent. lol Family Guy sorry

I also have to agree with you. I don't like being lied too. It is nice to get rid of a dictator and liberate the people for Iraq, but there is definatly another reason Bush isnt telling us

Exactly. Freeing the Iraqi people is all well and good, but if one truly thinks this was the big reason for the war, they really don't understand anything about our government or why we go to war. It's kinda sad, but true, that we never go to war for such reasons, we just simply don't care. If anything, this war is about the greenbacks. Look at the people who have profitted and who will profit from this war, and you'll realize why I say this.

I also have to agree with you. I don't like being lied too. It is nice to get rid of a dictator and liberate the people for Iraq, but there is definatly another reason Bush isnt telling us

Um yeah.

Invading Iraq was never about WMDs. That was a pretext. I am amazed that anyone ever believed it was. It wasn't about oil either.

At the same time, the French led opposition was never about respecting human rights or international law. Nor was it about preserving financial ties to hussein.

I thought everyone had figured that out by now.


BTW, this memo is going no-where. Thanks to the innoculation of the US populace against this issue by Micheal Moore and his asshat friends - I swear if one more person blabs 'bush lied, people died' to me, they are going to get such a massive kick in the balls - no-one even remotely cares. For that matter people aren't even all that surprised. At least not enough to be bothered by it. Good job lefties, hoist by your own pro-kerry agitprop petard. Keep up the hyperbole.

if you're going to ape someone, at least get their pronunciations right.

bush pronounces "oil" as any native non-Mexican Texan does: "ole" (rhymes with "coal")

he pronounces "nuclear" like this: "nuke-yuh-ler"

and he pronounces terrorism more or less normally, but he pronounces "terror" like this: "terrah"

where did you get that non-mexican texan's say oil like ole? :P i was born and raised in texas, and i say oil ilke it's spelt :P oy-yil

*edit*either that or oy-il

why are ppl arguing over what already happened?

i say we withdraw everything. EVERYTHING. let the iraqis rebuild their own nation the way they please. if we try to help iraq will become another huge expense.. it will just keep taking and taking. there will always be opposition from religous ppl who see the US as a Christian giant. so we will always need troops there getting blown up unless we leave.

lets prevent hurting any nations any further and focus on more domestic issues. the us is having major economic and social problems. also iu dont think people realize wut the homeland security actualy does.... they have the ability to come into your house in the middle of the night, take your stuff and children then shoot your pets. then nothing will happen to them. you could do nothing. speaking against them could be seen as an act of treason and then you would be mysteriously taken all Gestapo-like. our government have destroyed the bill of rights by making departments and forces that can ignore the BoR.

*kitty* :mp5:

Um yeah.

Invading Iraq was never about WMDs. That was a pretext. I am amazed that anyone ever believed it was. It wasn't about oil either.

At the same time, the French led opposition was never about respecting human rights or international law. Nor was it about preserving financial ties to hussein.

I thought everyone had figured that out by now.


BTW, this memo is going no-where. Thanks to the innoculation of the US populace against this issue by Micheal Moore and his asshat friends - I swear if one more person blabs 'bush lied, people died' to me, they are going to get such a massive kick in the balls - no-one even remotely cares. For that matter people aren't even all that surprised. At least not enough to be bothered by it. Good job lefties, hoist by your own pro-kerry agitprop petard. Keep up the hyperbole.
I am in no way trying to further your anger I'm just a little confused. You're angry because other people are angry? And you think that anger is making other people not care? I don't know, I just...what?

where did you get that non-mexican texan's say oil like ole? :P i was born and raised in texas, and i say oil ilke it's spelt :P oy-yil

*edit*either that or oy-il
Where is it they say "earl" for "oil?" Huh? Answer me that one, if you can! :p

Where is it they say "earl" for "oil?" Huh? Answer me that one, if you can! :p

the northwest! they stick r's in everythign! (or was that the northeast... no, they replace r's with h's)

I am in no way trying to further your anger I'm just a little confused. You're angry because other people are angry? And you think that anger is making other people not care? I don't know, I just...what?

I wouldn't say I am angry. Possibly irritated.

What irks me is that fact that only people who keep banging on about the lack of WMDs who are the ones who opposed a war over them in the first place. Everyone else seems to accept that it was just a pretext and has moved on. Frankly, it is a bit much to shout that it's not worth going to war over WMDs in the frist place, and then later on become all incensed because they were not there. It is not as if these people supported the actions before the lack of WMDs in Iraq became a big issue. (Prior to the lack of WMD fiasco, "violation of international law" was the mantra). So i wish they would turn down the faux-outrage, because it is nothing more than an attempt to score debating points.

The second thing is that the behavior of people like Micheal Moore have made this a non-issue. He basically lied about Bush lying - as did the rest of the pro-kerry agitprop spin meisters - and now, everyone is so used to hearing it, they don't care. Even if it turns out he was inadvertently right.

Had Moore et al praticed any form of ethics, they wouldn't have made the unsupported claims - as is his wont - and this memo would be a real bombshell. Considering a lot of the apathy about this was caused by the left in the first place, I think it is a bit rich to complain about it.

I also think people should stop being such slaves to news-media and read a whole bunch of National Geographics and history books, then look at a map and decide for themselves what the war was really about. I don't see how it is productive to play these Washington Times/Fox News v. Moveonnow/CNN games. Both sides get it wrong. So whichever side "wins" is irrelevant.

where did you get that non-mexican texan's say oil like ole? :P i was born and raised in texas, and i say oil ilke it's spelt :P oy-yil

*edit*either that or oy-il
"Spelt?"

And also, excuse me, Yosemite Sam, but "oil" is only one-syllable.

why are ppl arguing over what already happened?

i say we withdraw everything. EVERYTHING. let the iraqis rebuild their own nation the way they please. if we try to help iraq will become another huge expense.. it will just keep taking and taking. there will always be opposition from religous ppl who see the US as a Christian giant. so we will always need troops there getting blown up unless we leave.
The Iraqis are pleading that we not leave, and we've said we'll stay there as long as they ask us to stay, because we're worried about it turning into a power-vaccuum, and ending up with another dictator in power.

I wouldn't say I am angry. Possibly irritated.

What irks me is that fact that only people who keep banging on about the lack of WMDs who are the ones who opposed a war over them in the first place. Everyone else seems to accept that it was just a pretext and has moved on. Frankly, it is a bit much to shout that it's not worth going to war over WMDs in the frist place, and then later on become all incensed because they were not there. It is not as if these people supported the actions before the lack of WMDs in Iraq became a big issue. (Prior to the lack of WMD fiasco, "violation of international law" was the mantra). So i wish they would turn down the faux-outrage, because it is nothing more than an attempt to score debating points.
The basis for it being against international law was that it wasn't an imminent threat. And, as we've seen now, no WMDs, therefore it wasn't an imminent threat, therefore it was against international law, which was said even before the war was started (even by the British Attorney General).

The basis for it being against international law was that it wasn't an imminent threat. And, as we've seen now, no WMDs, therefore it wasn't an imminent threat, therefore it was against international law, which was said even before the war was started (even by the British Attorney General).

Irrelevant. The US can invade anyone it likes so long as there are no treaties with that nation to the contrary. We never undertook not to invade Iraq, so the action was perfectly legal. (And don't spout the UN charter, because it is not a treaty).

Anyway, that wasn't what people were saying. It was against international law even if there were WMDs. That was dog and pony show back then.

I don't know about Britain. Their law could be different.

Let me ask you this, before the "shocking" revelation of the Downing Street memo, did you support Bush and the war in Iraq? Has this brought on a sudden conversion? Or, have you always been vehemently opposed to it and Bush?

*edit*either that or oy-il
Agreed. That's how I pronounce it.

Of course, East Texans screw up the pronunciation of everything with that damned redneck drawl. :p

where did you get that non-mexican texan's say oil like ole? :P i was born and raised in texas, and i say oil ilke it's spelt :P oy-yil

*edit*either that or oy-il

well, fine!

my favorite pronunciation of "oil" goes on -- i think -- in Mississippi maybe:

owl (as in the bird)

"I best put some owl in mah core."

"Do what? Didn't you git you some owl yisterdye, Jimmy Waylon?"

From another forum I visit, someone posted:

I strongly suggest that everyone here sign the petition, write the President a letter, and tell as many people as you know. After the petition reaches 500,000 people, Congressman John Conyers (D - MI) is going to deliver the petition to the President.

I believe it's sad that we even need a petition for this. A full-fledged investigation should've been launched immediately. It was only the cooperation of the media and the people that led to the investigation of Nixon. Hopefully, bias in the media and apathy won't permit this criminal to stay in office.

EDIT: For the benefit of clarification, I'd like to add a few things.

#1. The memo was a summary of discussions between the highest ranking British government officials.
#2. The Blair administration has confirmed its authenticity, calling it, "Nothing new." ([url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592904,00.html) The individuals involved in initially putting out the memo have not gotten in trouble for putting out lies, and no one disputes the memo's authenticity.

Individuals who put out the memo:
Foreign Policy Advisor, David Manning, who endorsed the memo
Matthew Rycroft, Manning's Aide who wrote the memo

Individuals who recieved the memo:
Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon
Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw
Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith
Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson
Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett (currently head of MI-6)
Ex-Director of GCHQ, Francis Richards
Chief of Defence Staff (identified as as "CDS"), Admiral Sir Michael Boyce
Head of MI-6 (identified as "C"), Sir Richard Dearlove (resigned in 2003)
Head of Defence Staff, Jonathan Powell
Director of Political & Government Relations, Sally Morgan
Head of Strategy, Alastair Campbell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_street_memo
Wait, when did lying become a big deal?

Wait, when did lying become a big deal?
When Republicans blew it out of proportion over a measly blow job.

When Republicans blew it out of proportion over a measly blow job.
Ahhhhhhhhhh...and the truth comes out.

... (And don't spout the UN charter, because it is not a treaty).

...
Oh, not again... :-)

Why in the world the UN Chater is not an international treaty?

Ahhhhhhhhhh...and the truth comes out.
Something we haven't seen from Bush yet

Something we haven't seen from Bush yet
I (apparently along with other posters on this thread) am still waiting for incontrovertable proof of Bush knowingly lying.

By the way, you can say what you want, but there were no WMD in Iraq
and if there were reasonable suspects, the UN would have given its permission to the war, but this is not the case

The UN would never have given its permission because there are so many countries with Veto power and two of them were involved in shady dealings to make money off of keeping the sanctions on Iraq. The war ended the sanctions and this could not be tolerated.

I (apparently along with other posters on this thread) am still waiting for incontrovertable proof of Bush knowingly lying.
How about when he went up to his counterterrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, the day after 9/11, on 9/12/01, and asked him if Iraq was involved in any way. The answer was "no," of course, but did that stop Bush from invading Iraq even before Rumsfeld could say go? No. If he didn't know he was lying to the public when he said Iraq is *was* a direct threat to the American public, he is even dumber than I think. It's incredibly hard to prove someone knew they were lying unless you test them ,and with Bush's status, that is never going to happen.

How about when he went up to his counterterrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, the day after 9/11, on 9/12/01, and asked him if Iraq was involved in any way. The answer was "no," of course, but did that stop Bush from invading Iraq even before Rumsfeld could say go? No. If he didn't know he was lying to the public when he said Iraq is *was* a direct threat to the American public, he is even dumber than I think. It's incredibly hard to prove someone knew they were lying unless you test them ,and with Bush's status, that is never going to happen.

Bush could have said Iraq is going down as his election platform and it still wouldn't be suggestive of lies. Isn't it amazing how people on both sides of this issue can't look at these things with reason and instead say things that are either like "Bush is God" or like "he [Bush] is even dumber than I think".

I (apparently along with other posters on this thread) am still waiting for incontrovertable proof of Bush knowingly lying.
The head of MI-6, and other top British officials isn't enough.

Some of the Conservatives require Bush to be plagued with leprosy, and then decapitated by angels, who then deliver his head personally to each one of their doors, before they believe he lied.

The rest of the Conservatives say, "Eh.. He lied! So what?!"

Even though lying to Congress and the American people is a Federal crime, which is absolutely severe enough to have Bush impeached.

The head of MI-6, and other top British officials isn't enough.

Some of the Conservatives require Bush to be plagued with leprosy, and then decapitated by angels, who then deliver his head personally to each one of their doors, before they believe he lied.

The rest of the Conservatives say, "Eh.. He lied! So what?!"

Even though lying to Congress and the American people is a Federal crime, which is absolutely severe enough to have Bush impeached.

Yes, congressmen don't religiously lie to each other and the American people. No, no, only presidents do that.

Yes, congressmen don't religiously lie to each other and the American people. No, no, only presidents do that.
Jocabia, here is a question I have for you and all of the Conservatives here:

Yes or no: IS IT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO LIE TO CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC?

IMO memo = new cause for investigation.

However, I'm done here. This whole argument is a microcosm of what's happening all across the US, and, frankly, since none of us is ever going to agree, I'd rather think about what to cook for dinner. :rolleyes:

Sorry that you can't understand the fact that it has been investigated and that Bush has been absolved of everything.

The UN was created to try to prevent war, not as a global police organization.

It didn't Prevent:

Israeli/Arab wars
Korean War
Pakistan/India wars
Uganda/Tanzania War

Care to point out what war the UN Prevented?

Eh? Britian had a large contingent in the Pacific theater. Why do you think they made that movie about a bridge?

A bridge too far? That was Europe.

Sorry that you can't understand the fact that it has been investigated and that Bush has been absolved of everything.
Who "investigated"!? The media does not count. He hasn't even been fully charged. So, there's no way he can be "absolved."

Irrelevant. The US can invade anyone it likes so long as there are no treaties with that nation to the contrary. We never undertook not to invade Iraq, so the action was perfectly legal. (And don't spout the UN charter, because it is not a treaty).

Someone else who says that the UN Charter isn't a treaty! :p Thanks dude :)

Oh, not again... :-)

Why in the world the UN Chater is not an international treaty?

Glad to see I'm not the only way saying it ain't a treaty!

I (apparently along with other posters on this thread) am still waiting for incontrovertable proof of Bush knowingly lying.

We'll be waiting awhile :D

Jocabia, here is a question I have for you and all of the Conservatives here:

Yes or no: IS IT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO LIE TO CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC?

Knowingly lie no but Im still waiting for proof that he lied in the first place.

Who "investigated"!? The media does not count. He hasn't even been fully charged. So, there's no way he can be "absolved."

WAIT WAIT WAIT! He has to be charged before someone investigated something? Jeez. That's a switch. When did that go into effect?

As for the media, no it wasn't them but a commission that was set up to investigate the intelligence. They concluded that it was bad intel and that it wasn't sexed up to borrow the british phrase.

Bush ain't gonna be impeached. But, if ya wanna waste time signing a petition, well, go right ahead.
I for one never gave a damn about WMD and never felt we needed them to justify an invasion. Hussein violated the treaties he signed to end the war, that is the only provocation needed to justify an invasion.
The UN, showing their usual mettle, passed resolution after resolution against him and they had no intention of ever enforcing these resolutions in any meaningful way. They are weak and useless and so a nation that has power stepped in and did something about the situation. It is the way of the world, it always has been and will be so for a long long time.
You can sit and whine about right and wrong and lies and so forth and it won't ever change a thing.

WAIT WAIT WAIT! He has to be charged before someone investigated something? Jeez. That's a switch. When did that go into effect?

As for the media, no it wasn't them but a commission that was set up to investigate the intelligence. They concluded that it was bad intel and that it wasn't sexed up to borrow the british phrase.
A commission set up by Bush, which faced severe lack of funding and lack of cooperation with the White House, and was only set up on the condition that Bush could appoint the head of the it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911_Commission

A bridge too far? That was Europe.

Not A Bridge Too Far, he is talking about Bridge on the River Kwai (an excellent movie!)

A commission set up by Bush, which faced severe lack of cooperation with the White House.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911_Commission

If your going to quote something, quote for the subject at hand. I have the 9/11 Commission report. Do you want me to quote something regarding Iraq and Al Qaeda out of it for you?

To the people who were talking about Clinton's impeachment on the first page(I don't know if this has been covered since, I don't feel like reading all 22 pages) Clinton lied UNDER OATH. If you can prove that Bush knowingly lied, it wouldn't matter, because he wasn't UNDER OATH. Lying isn't a crime, or everyone would be arrested at least once in their life.

Clinton's intel informed us of the WMD's in Iraq anyway. If you're counting, chalk another one on Clinton's list of lies and moral wrongdoings.

To the people who were talking about Clinton's impeachment on the first page(I don't know if this has been covered since, I don't feel like reading all 22 pages) Clinton lied UNDER OATH. If you can prove that Bush knowingly lied, it wouldn't matter, because he wasn't UNDER OATH. Lying isn't a crime, or everyone would be arrested at least once in their life.

Clinton's intel informed us of the WMD's in Iraq anyway. If you're counting, chalk another one on Clinton's list of lies and moral wrongdoings.

Correct Antheridia. I said that Bush used the same intel as Clinton but the line gets ignored every time.

If your going to quote something, quote for the subject at hand. I have the 9/11 Commission report. Do you want me to quote something regarding Iraq and Al Qaeda out of it for you?
The 911 report isn't worth shit, since Bush was able to appoint the head of the 911 commission (blocking its creation for a year, until they finally agreed). Furthermore, Bush only testified with the 911 commission on the condition that he didn't have to take an oath. So, essentially, he could have been lying to the 911 commission as well.

W00T, more Amnesty International type "evidence". Oh, wait a second, AI didn't even have something as spurious as this.

The 911 report isn't worth shit, since Bush was able to appoint the head of the 911 commission (blocking its creation for a year, until they finally agreed). Furthermore, Bush only testified with the 911 commission on the condition that he didn't have to take an oath. So, essentially, he could have been lying to the 911 commission as well.

Thank you for showing yourself to be not so very bright. You are definitely making a fool out of yourself. We have shown you why Bush isn't guilty of an impeachable offense but you have ignored everything regarding it.

It has now become apparent that no matter what we say, your going to ignore because we are on the opposite side and that you have bought propaganda. I'm still willing to debate because I think you need to have more facts drilled into your head.

Look at all the facts before spouting off your mouth.

Correct Antheridia. I said that Bush used the same intel as Clinton but the line gets ignored every time.
:) Sorry if I restated what you said earlier in this thread. Like I said, I didn't read all 22 pages.

To the people who were talking about Clinton's impeachment on the first page(I don't know if this has been covered since, I don't feel like reading all 22 pages) Clinton lied UNDER OATH. If you can prove that Bush knowingly lied, it wouldn't matter, because he wasn't UNDER OATH. Lying isn't a crime, or everyone would be arrested at least once in their life.
Lying to the American people is not against the law, but lying to Congress, or any government administration is.

Here is the specific law regarding it:
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+563+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%20%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AN D%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281001%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

Seriously, everybody lies. Especially politicians. My advice to everyone who helped make this thread is so popular is to GET OVER IT.

:) Sorry if I restated what you said earlier in this thread. Like I said, I didn't read all 22 pages.

Nah don't apologize. I'm just glad you said it as well. People here need to realize that everyone had bad intel and that if Bush lied then Clinton lied (Again).

Frankly, people are trying to blow up bad intelligence into a big conspiracy and frankly, its getting really really annoying.

Furthermore, Bush only testified with the 911 commission on the condition that he didn't have to take an oath. So, essentially, he could have been lying to the 911 commission as well.
If I remember correctly, the president should never except in the case of impeachment and his original presidential oath be put under an oath.

Lying to the American people is not against the law, but lying to Congress, or any government administration is.

Here is the specific law regarding it:
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+724+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%20%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AN D%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281505%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

Thanks for the Law Code. You just proved Clinton's Guilt by posting this but that's a different issue.

Care to show me where Bush lied now or are you going to spout more fiction?

If I remember correctly, the president should never except in the case of impeachment and his original presidential oath be put under an oath.
But, other than wrongdoing, why would he demand that he not be put under oath?

Seriously, everybody lies. Especially politicians. My advice to everyone who helped make this thread is so popular is to GET OVER IT.

Tell that to my uncle who's life has now been taken because of this conflict

I took the liberty of calling\emailing the major newsmedias (at the request, of an auto-email, after filling out the petition), and I suggested that they cover the Downing Street memo.

When I called CBS News, someone answered. I told him that I'm a viewer and wanted to suggest a certain story. He said, "Downing Street Memo?", and I said, yes, then he said he was going to transfer me to their mailbox. They must've had a fair amount of calls on it, for him to ask me that.

Quoted from the thread poster.


Wait a second, didn't one of the media places you called fire a guy for reporting on false information? I believe so. Before you get sucked into this wormhole of lies, READ THIS:

Our great country has its own intelligence gathering agency called the CIA. They have people all over the world gathering information from other countries about their activities.

This is how intelligence gets to the President:

There are field operatives that gather information and send it to the US. Professionals in the US carefully check the documents and send it to the Senior Official of the CIA. He then reviews if the people who checked the information are sound and then reads the information himself. Then he sends it to the President AND the cabinet of the US. The president AND the cabinet discuss the issue and the President makes the decision what to do.

Now in the case of Invading Iraq, the US first went to the UN and with all of the power the UN has and what the UN is SUPPOSED to do to keep the WORLD safe and free of terrorism, what did they do?

So the President and the cabinet meet again and discuss what is to be done. We obviously went to war with Iraq and now people are "finding" these documents saying that the President knew there was nothing in Iraq and he wanted to invade for other reasons...

Now say WHAT?!? I believe that it says in our GREAT NATION'S CONSTITUTION that if the cabinet believe the President is unsound in decisions that they may vote and the Vice President will then become President. Now, if the President met with the cabinet to make the decision to invade Iraq, why haven't THEY done anything? THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE! Because the information was incorrect, NOT THE PRESIDENT'S FAULT, and he made a good decision for the information that he was given.

Hey Liberals, :upyours:

Tell that to my uncle who's life has now been taken because of this conflict

Sorry for your loss Gataway Driver.

:headbang: and you wonder why i say screw the world lets become isolationist and let the world go screw itself? because of morons like him :mp5: :sniper:
your all a bunch of pinko morons
go back to france and screw yourselves you ungrateful idiots.
are you trying to be dumb or does it come naturally?seriously, shut up if you dont have anything useful to say.Take your own advice, NAS.


The NAS Rebels, Official Warning, flaming and flamebaiting

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop


... and might I add to the rest of you that bolding, SHOUTING, coloring and size shouting are no substitute for a logical argument. Lordy.

Sorry for your loss Gataway Driver.

its not that he gave his life because he actually wanted to free the iraqi people. That was the reason he wanted to go but I can't stand people trivulising (sp?) it to such a thig that one can just "get over". It doesn't have to be someone in your family just anyone. I can't see how people can brush it off so easily.

Wait a second, didn't one of the media places you called fire a guy for reporting on false information? I believe so. Before you get sucked into this wormhole of lies, READ THIS:
Actually, RatherS voluntarily resigned as their senior news anchor, and is on CBS, Sundays, now, in the mornings. There have also been similar allegations, on the other side of the political spectrum.

Fox News was caught coaching several individuals as, "Terri Schiavo nurses" (several of which weren't even NURSES!), before an interview:
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2005_04_27_question_does_sean_hannity_respect_alan_colmes.asp
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/04/16/hannitys_nurses_get_coached.php

Just as with intelligence, the media is pressured to "get the scoop." The New Republic, the magazine of Air Force one, also faced a major scandal when it was discovered in the 90's that their reporter, Stephen Glass, literally fabricated dozens of stories. Sometimes, mistakes are made.


Our great country has its own intelligence gathering agency called the CIA. They have people all over the world gathering information from other countries about their activities.

This is how intelligence gets to the President:

There are field operatives that gather information and send it to the US. Professionals in the US carefully check the documents and send it to the Senior Official of the CIA. He then reviews if the people who checked the information are sound and then reads the information himself. Then he sends it to the President AND the cabinet of the US. The president AND the cabinet discuss the issue and the President makes the decision what to do.
Field operatives never have an idea of the full picture, and only once the hierarchy has gone fairly high up, is the full document clear.

And furthermore, I don't believe that the media's allegations are correct. Because FBI and CIA analysts would certainly not openly claim their dissent with their employer, but only secretly with the media. Because, with any investigation, they are not given anonynymity. That's dangerous for them, politically and financially. I guarantee you that commission that Nixon would've put together, would've issued FBI reports clearing his name just as much as Bush has cleared his.

Okay, and the rest of your post, you reviewed the evidence up until now, but completely ignored the memo. How does the memo fit in? What happened?

The Man didn't lie. He was just utterly poor advised.... which might be even worse if you are the president of the most powerful nation on earth...

Actually, Rather voluntarily resigned as their senior news anchor, and is on CBS, Sundays, now, in the mornings. There have also been similar allegations, on the other side of the political spectrum.

Euphemism for getting canned.

Fox News was caught coaching several individuals as, "Terri Schiavo nurses" (several of which weren't even NURSES!), before an interview:
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2005_04_27_question_does_sean_hannity_respect_alan_colmes.asp
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/04/16/hannitys_nurses_get_coached.php

Proof of this please that come from credible sources?

Just as with intelligence, the media is pressured to "get the scoop." The New Republic, the magazine of Air Force one, also faced a major scandal when it was discovered in the 90's that their reporter, Stephen Glass, literally fabricated dozens of stories. Sometimes, mistakes are made.

The only correct thing you've said most of this day though I would love to see this story of this particular scandle

Field operatives never have an idea of the full picture, and only once the hierarchy has gone fairly high up, is the full document clear.

Care to explain this in greater detail please? The field operatives would have more information than the higherups since they're the ones getting the story and not the higher ups who approve of the stories.

And furthermore, I don't believe that the media's allegations are correct. Because FBI and CIA analysts would certainly not openly claim their dissent with their employer, but only secretly with the media. Because, with any investigation, they are not given anonynymity. That's dangerous for them, politically and financially. I guarantee you that commission that Nixon would've put together, would've issued FBI reports clearing his name just as much as Bush has cleared his.

Considering that Bush hasn't done anything wrong, there's nothing to clear. As for Nixon, it didn't matter what he put out because he was caught lying. The story was out there about what happened at Watergate and it was investigated. BTW, the commissions aren't always done by the President. They are done by Congress. Yes Presidents can put commissions together but commissions dealing with the Pres himself are done by Congress alone.

But, other than wrongdoing, why would he demand that he not be put under oath?
He didn't demand, he just said he wouldn't. The word demand comes from a newspaper's editorializing.

Sorry for your loss Gataway Driver.

I didn't really say this cos was still annoyed but thank you. We usually don't agree with each other much. But I respect you more than the average member on this forum. :)


*cookie*?

it wouldn't have been a lie even if there hadn't been weapons... since Bush is not a fortune teller.

Only if he knew that there were not weapons, and there actually were not weapons... would it be a lie.
Let's fill the forum and this utterly ballooning universe with the ubiquity of what Bush doesn't know or at least we assume he doesn't know (or says he doesn't know)
Someone that f*cking ignorant doesn't merit the position of influence and choice he's got. He's either incompetent or evil. You don't get to paint ANOTHER sweet face on that chimpf*ck. Start dealing with the reality.

I didn't really say this cos was still annoyed but thank you. We usually don't agree with you much. But I respect you more than the average member on this forum. :)


*cookie*?

only if its chocolate Chip :)

Your right, we don't always agree but military families stick together.

He claimed. He claimed. He claimed.

I can claim anything I like. Does that make it true?
How many people's lives are resting on your judgment based on whatever "theories" or "facts" you claim to have?
As i'd said, he's incompetent or facilitatively evil. Don't try to paint a pretty face on him.

only if its chocolate Chip :)

Your right, we don't always agree but military families stick together.

You insult me the fact that you have to ask whether its Chocolate Chip ;) .

No matter what our feelings on the war the only thing we can do is stick together. thank you

How many people's lives are resting on your judgment based on whatever "theories" or "facts" you claim to have?
As i'd said, he's incompetent or facilitatively evil. Don't try to paint a pretty face on him.

The punishment of being in power. You got any better ideas?

He didn't demand, he just said he wouldn't. The word demand comes from a newspaper's editorializing.
Not at all. It took about a month, between March and April of 2004, before Bush was finally convinced to speak with the 911 Comission. Initially, he said he wouldn't. If the 911 Commission said he had to testify under oath, there is absolutely no doubt that he would not have testified.

MR. RUSSERT: On September 11, there is a commission now in place which the administration originally resisted and also resisted extending the deadline. They now want to interview the president. He has said he'll only sit down with the chairman and co-chairman of the committee for one hour. Will the president meet with the full commission and will he do it for longer than an hour?

DR. RICE: The president, of course, is the president, and he does have a schedule to keep, but he has said that he will sit with the chairman and with the co-chairman and that he will answer whatever questions they have. And I'm quite certain he will take as long as they need to answer those questions.

MR. RUSSERT: Several hours, a day if they need?

DR. RICE: Well, I would hope that they would recognize that he's president and that people would be judicious in the use of his time.

MR. RUSSERT: John Kerry said, “The president has time to go to a rodeo but not spend time with the commission.”

You insult me the fact that you have to ask whether its Chocolate Chip ;) .

:D I love chocolate chip. I can't help it :)

No matter what our feelings on the war the only thing we can do is stick together. thank you

You are welcome. My father is going back soon himself. I know its hard on families to have loved one overseas in war. Believe me that I do worry about everyone of them and mourn every loss. No matter that we disagree, the military life forges people to friends. Hopefully we can be no matter how much we disagree on issues :)

Your right, we don't always agree but military families stick together.
Unless, of course, the two families are of different branches. The Navy hates the Army and makes fun of the Marines. The Army hates the Navy and makes fun of the Air Force. And, yeah, I'd probably say that the Air Force hates everyone, simply because, with their better housing facilities and higher ASVAB requirement, they have a fairly good reason to believe they're better than everyone. As for the Marines... They're just robots.

:D I love chocolate chip. I can't help it :)



You are welcome. My father is going back soon himself. I know its hard on families to have loved one overseas in war. Believe me that I do worry about everyone of them and mourn every loss. No matter that we disagree, the military life forges people to friends. Hopefully we can be no matter how much we disagree on issues :)

believe me you have a friend and ally here even though we are in different countries and have different beliefs but I hope we still can be friends :) . My hopes and prayers are with your father

believe me you have a friend and ally here even though we are in different countries and have different beliefs but I hope we still can be friends :) . My hopes and prayers are with your father

I'll pass them along to my dad :) and thank you Gataway_Driver. Your one of the better people to argue with here. Pleasure meeting you. Stay well :)

Unless, of course, the two families are of different branches. The Navy hates the Army and makes fun of the Marines. The Army hates the Navy and makes fun of the Air Force. And, yeah, I'd probably say that the Air Force hates everyone, simply because, with their better housing facilities and higher ASVAB requirement, they have a fairly good reason to believe they're better than everyone. As for the Marines... They're just robots.

They may not like eachother President Shrub, but they all respect eachother and they all work together. It doesn't matter what branch. They look out for eachother and defend eachother. I've seen this first hand.

Unless, of course, the two families are of different branches. The Navy hates the Army and makes fun of the Marines. The Army hates the Navy and makes fun of the Air Force. And, yeah, I'd probably say that the Air Force hates everyone, simply because, with their better housing facilities and higher ASVAB requirement, they have a fairly good reason to believe they're better than everyone. As for the Marines... They're just robots.

Robots?

have you ever served?

Do you know what its like ?

Thought not then have no opinion. as you can see from my Political test results that I'm left wing but hell am I rubbing shoulders with you. At least I respect the army navy and air force.

I'll pass them along to my dad :) and thank you Gataway_Driver. Your one of the better people to argue with here. Pleasure meeting you. Stay well :)
any time my friend

Robots?

have you ever served?

Do you know what its like ?

Thought not then have no opinion. as you can see from my Political test results that I'm left wing but hell am I rubbing shoulders with you. At least I respect the army navy and air force.

You tell him Gataway! :)

They may not like eachother President Shrub, but they all respect eachother and they all work together. It doesn't matter what branch. They look out for eachother and defend eachother. I've seen this first hand.
hey we brits don't care LOL. More numbers the better :D

hey we brits don't care LOL. More numbers the better :D

LOL!!! Well you damn Brit, what do you know about numbers? :D

LOL!!! Well you damn Brit, what do you know about numbers? :D

Not a lot really only we seem to kill more than we lose. Funny that ;)

Two words for those who have a problem with G.W. Bush:

BILL_CLINTON

If you want an incompetent president, look at him. He was a disgrace to the office, for crying out loud.

All of you who rip on Bush...do you really think John Kerry, or (God forbid) John Edwards, who was a heartbeat away, would do a better job given Bush's position?

Do you really think Gore, or Clinton, or Dean, or any other liberal would do as well in the face of 9/11 and the huge mound of shit Bush has do deal with because he has become president in a time of global uncertainty and chaos?

I believe that Bush has done a lot better than you give him credit for. The war in Iraq was, looking back, NOT A MISTAKE AT ALL. Forget WMDs. I'm amazed nobody took Saddam out before we did. I mean, he's probably the worst dictator since Hitler and Stalin. I'd be willing to bet that, even though it's controversial now, Operation: Iraqi Freedom will be remembered as a good move for the sake of Iraq, America, and the world.

Now all that remains is that sticky situation in North Korea, and a dozen other conflicts that America will have to face, sooner or later. Conflict is sometimes inevitable in today's world. We ALL have to deal with it.

Not a lot really only we seem to kill more than we lose. Funny that ;)

LOL!!! I can name a war where that wasn't the case :D

THe US seems to do the samething. Kill more than they kill of us! Funny that ;)

Welcome back, Skapedroe! :D
I just love... No actually I hate how Busheviks can never actually defend him; they just make personal attacks on those who criticise him.

Skapedroe never actually sourced his shit. This is from the Times.

Unfortunately, I don't think anything will happen as mainstream media isn't picking this up
You don't consider The Times to be mainstream media?

This has been a long, bloody row in British politics, I simply do not see the same concern in the US.
We are all amazed that no one gives a shit that Bush lied. I feel that his supporters would not abandon him even if he was caught sodomising his daughters on the White House lawn. :rolleyes:

SADDAM IS A BAD MAN WHO NEEDED REMOVAL FOR THE SAKE OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD WMD, WORDS WERE NOT GOING TO WORK WITH HIM. SO WE REMOVED HIM.

I agree with the removal of Saddam, but I would like to ask Bush why he did not just say this to everyone in the first place? Wouldn't you? The whole "freedom" thing only became an official reason about a year after the war started.

(yet another invalid, unsupportable war-for-oil reference...)

b)Zimbabwe might be next. We can only off the evil dictators one at a time. hehe.
The war clearly was for oil. Wars are always for economic reasons. Do you honestly think that the US motivations were purely altruistic?

b) No, Sudan should be next! Mugabe is small potatoes compared to what they do!

You didn't seem to give a shit at the time. Anyway, they were enemy compatants rebellling against their President.
I hope you're not serious. Saddam Hussein committed genocide. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign)

LOL!!! I can name a war where that wasn't the case :D



what war was that?

what war was that?

Revolutionary War! LOL and maybe the war of 1812 though I'm not sure.

Revolutionary War! LOL and maybe the war of 1812 though I'm not sure.
technically the USA was not created so wasn't it just us fighting ourselves? :D

any way goodnight ppl

your all a bunch of pinko morons :headbang: . cant you see that whether or not he had them when we went in, he used to have them?? he gased the Kurds for crying out loud!!! and, polish troops DID find weapons, something which the media tried not to cover: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39243



Formula for perpetual war.

1) Pick a country to invade.
2) Sell them stuff.
3) Convince the dumbest 51% of people who you think matter that that stuff indicates that the posessor is a bad person.
4) While this is going on sell something else to the next country on your list.
5) Invade with the adoration of the horde.
6) Repeat steps 3 through 5 endlessly.

Formula for perpetual war.

1) Pick a country to invade.
2) Sell them stuff.
3) Convince the dumbest 51% of people who you think matter that that stuff indicates that the posessor is a bad person.
4) While this is going on sell something else to the next country on your list.
5) Invade with the adoration of the horde.
6) Repeat steps 3 through 5 endlessly.
Ah, the One who evaded his sarcasm vaccination.... come hither...

Two words for those who have a problem with G.W. Bush:

BILL_CLINTON

If you want an incompetent president, look at him. He was a disgrace to the office, for crying out loud.

All of you who rip on Bush...do you really think John Kerry, or (God forbid) John Edwards, who was a heartbeat away, would do a better job given Bush's position?

Do you really think Gore, or Clinton, or Dean, or any other liberal would do as well in the face of 9/11 and the huge mound of shit Bush has do deal with because he has become president in a time of global uncertainty and chaos?

I believe that Bush has done a lot better than you give him credit for. The war in Iraq was, looking back, NOT A MISTAKE AT ALL. Forget WMDs. I'm amazed nobody took Saddam out before we did. I mean, he's probably the worst dictator since Hitler and Stalin. I'd be willing to bet that, even though it's controversial now, Operation: Iraqi Freedom will be remembered as a good move for the sake of Iraq, America, and the world.

Now all that remains is that sticky situation in North Korea, and a dozen other conflicts that America will have to face, sooner or later. Conflict is sometimes inevitable in today's world. We ALL have to deal with it.

Wow! Your brain got washed so clean it must twinkle.

Tell me one thing you don't like about what Clinton did? I can think of a few, but I'm a liberal and the things I don't like were all conservative moves. e.g. He lowered the tax on dividends earnings. Though he raised it on the highest 1% wage earners. I'd have gone the other way around if I had to choose between the two. But that's hardly incompotence.

On Iraq it was under Clinton that Saddam actually lost the WMD's that he acquired under the Bush Sr. and Reagan administrations.

We enjoyed 8 solid years of economic expansion after record setting deficits under consecutive Reagan-Bush administrations, and those deficits are now at new records under the Bush Jr. Modern republicans are universally incompotent. The last 3 republican presidents are demonstrably the worst in American history, but Clinton knew what he was doing.

As for how much better anyone else could do? I assure you, no one could do worse if they tried. Seriously, if you were aiming to do what Bush did the result would likely be better just for you having overlooked something.

Ah, the One who evaded his sarcasm vaccination.... come hither...

Na, just seemed like the place to bring it up. I missed a decent chance to bring up my formula for destroying the press in a free society so I'm not going to keep quiet over a little thing like sarcasm :p

Na, just seemed like the place to bring it up. I missed a decent chance to bring up my formula for destroying the press in a free society so I'm not going to keep quiet over a little thing like sarcasm :p
You can complain as much as you like...later..now... left or right cheek?

EDIT: We just cant take sarcasm from Americans (UNHCR)

Formula for perpetual war.

1) Pick a country to invade.
2) Sell them stuff.
3) Convince the dumbest 51% of people who you think matter that that stuff indicates that the posessor is a bad person.
4) While this is going on sell something else to the next country on your list.
5) Invade with the adoration of the horde.
6) Repeat steps 3 through 5 endlessly.

hey heres a list for u
1) complain about everything because u solve so much
2) ramble on about nothing
3) complain about how "corrupt" government is
4) complain some more
5) make up some stupid percentages and add in a bias source to sound like u know what your talking about
6) complain
7) make some stuff up, cause after all u won't be held accountable for what u say
8) "I feel that his supporters would not abandon him even if he was caught sodomising his daughters on the White House lawn." this proves my point because it is complete bull
9) talk of a quote from the news because if its on the news it must be completely correct right?! *dan rather*
10) yell at bush and say how much u hate him for hating others
11) bring up oil because its bushs fault that the companies wont sell it to us and the rioters wont let him dig for it in alaska
12) say what a horrible man bush is and how he is destroying america without giving factual information on what is going on
13) watch conan o'brien and fahrneheit 911 because this will give u a bunch of bull to help u in your next argument
14) complain
15) finally and if all else fails complain, defend your diginity by yelling about world crisis because it really benefits the economy that bush is "destroying"

I was wondering if someone was going to mention this. I suggest you go back to the Supreme Court decision that did rule in his favor. Read up on the opinion. You'll see that Florida had no set recount standards and that everyone had a different set of circumstances regarding the chads and that the Florida Supreme Court was changing the rules in the middle of said recount.

The SC ruling was not in favor of Bush. The SC handed the issue back to the hands of the state, since it was a state issue. Those were state elections [even though it was for Pres.] The SC didn't want to set that kind of precedent.

I signed this a couple days ago on another site, glad it's making the rounds.

*realizes how long thread is*
*notes fact that is only on p 17*


*runs away*
:headbang:

Iraq ran a terrorist training camp open to anyone, but specifically to Palestinians, at Salman Pak.

They even had an airliner there to practice hijackings.


No, he didn't. The only evidence we have of this is heresy from two captured grunts who would have very good reason to tell their American captors what they wanted to hear. We have no physical evidence, no coberations from other sources.

In fact, there is some psychological disproof of this:

Saddam was a megalomaniac, there can be little doubt of this. Most dictators are. Do you really think he would trust a bunch of terrorists (many of which hate his guts for his secularist stance) within his borders when he couldn't exercise direct control over them? This is a man on par with Stalin for paranoia, practically inventing grabs at his power in his own mind.


He paid millions to terrorists around the world. Not necessarily al-Qaeda, but others for sure.


He gave several thousand each to families of deceased suicide bombers in Palestine. Try not to spin things too far, m'kay?


In a post-911 world, do you think that we should take the political chance that Saddam might give a kilo of anthrax to some unnamed group to attack us? Hey, he would be off the hook - a non-state actor dispensing anthrax in the US - and he could attack us at will without our retaliation.


He also wasn't an idiot. While he had every reason to maintain the illusion that he had WMD's (Iran being right next door and not under sanctions like him), he had no reason to use any he might have had. Look at what actually happened. He never once attacked America nor any of our particularly close allies. We invaded Iraq anyway. Simple deductive logic on his part based on the psychological attitude of the Bush adminstration would be enough to conclude that, even without solid proof, we would invade if we were to suffer such an attack.

Even then, some chemicals can be traced back to the lab that created them. Oops.


Hmm. Remember right after the 911 attacks - we had a rash of anthrax attacks.

And they've proven it wasn't that kook Hatfill.

So, who was it? Given a situation like that, we might have gone in just to find out if it was Saddam or not.


Further proving what I just said.

With no actual evidence showing they came from Iraq, we invade anyway.

Sadly both of you are missing the point.
You made and still agressively enforce laws that forbid your actions. It's that simple.

Putting the above inane shit into perspective, I could say (supposing the bullshit was true):

Iraq ran a terrorist training camp open to anyone, but specifically to Palestinians, at Salman Pak.
They even had an airliner there to practice hijackings.
So do the USA. They even exprot their knowhow to oppressive dictatorships across the globe. Still, we do not kill you Americans on sight - Though I'd consider making an execption for Whispering Legs

He paid millions to terrorists around the world. Not necessarily al-Qaeda, but others for sure.
Never in the recorded hostory of the world has the collective nations of the world - excluding the US - come even close to the massive financial and military sponsorship of outright terrorism, you Americans do. And yes, you're diong it right now. If it's a reason to kill people, start killing yourself now. Thank you.

In a post-911 world, do you think that we should take the political chance that Saddam might give a kilo of anthrax to some unnamed group to attack us? Hey, he would be off the hook - a non-state actor dispensing anthrax in the US - and he could attack us at will without our retaliation.
You tell me. You put the Bath party in power in Iraq. You did it through blatant violation of international law, by infiltration and instigation of civil unrest bordering on civil war, and you put Saddam in power. You also provided the maniac with Anthrax, amongst numerous other weapons. By your logic, you just put a death sentence on your nation.

Hmm. Remember right after the 911 attacks - we had a rash of anthrax attacks.
Designed, exported and so on.... By your own government. Yet you still vote for the man who's father enabled lunatics to contaminate your institutions with bioweapons. It truely must suck to be so suicidal. You have my vote for a Darwin Award.

But like I said, even defending your mindblowing hypocracy is missing the point entirely. You are war crimminals. It's that simple. You yourself invented the laws governing this.

I know I lost the respect of the entire US rightwing with my previous posts. I'll admit I'm antagonistic. Now please admit you're homocidal maniacs and let's be done with the politeness.

I have said so elsewhere, and I stand by this:

Any society with fair, humane and ethical laws, would make it a civil duty to kill American politicians. You are a menace to everything and everyone - Your own population included

Euphemism for getting canned.
It's not a euphemism. Dan Rather still works for them!

You aren't "canned", if you're still employed with the company.


Proof of this please that come from credible sources?
Fox News' Sean Hannidy coaching the nurses is mentioned on Congressman Conyer's blog.
http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000060.htm

A better source on it: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/300125p-256914c.html

A copy of the audio, with (some Liberal commenting on it). The first Sean Hannity recording in the MP3, I believe, is audio that was recorded AFTER the second part was released. http://movies.crooksandliars.com/leshow-hannity_coaching_guests.mp3


Care to explain this in greater detail please? The field operatives would have more information than the higherups since they're the ones getting the story and not the higher ups who approve of the stories.
For security reasons, field operatives are only made aware of evidence that they're required to know to do their job and nothing more. That way, if terrorists capture them, they have a very little to confess. So, as I said, within intelligence, there is a hierarchy and a "need to know" basis.

Robots?

have you ever served?

Do you know what its like ?
No. But both my parents did. And I know that Navy Sailors have a saying.

Muscles Are Required Intelligence Non-Essential.

And I'd seriously considered joining (even after 9\11), but for conscientious reasons, decided not to. The Navy recruiter also mentioend that acronym, by the way. Anyone who denies that there has been and still is rivalry among the different branches of the military is a liar.

any way goodnight ppl

Good night dude.

The SC ruling was not in favor of Bush. The SC handed the issue back to the hands of the state, since it was a state issue. Those were state elections [even though it was for Pres.] The SC didn't want to set that kind of precedent.

Go back and check your Supreme Court History. Mid-December, they ruled the Recounts over and thus Bush got the victory. I have the Supreme Court Opinion somewhere bookmarked.

It's not a euphemism. Dan Rather still works for them!

You aren't "canned", if you're still employed with the company.

Proof that he's still working please?

Fox News' Sean Hannidy coaching the nurses is mentioned on Congressman Conyer's blog.
http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000060.htm

Credible source please?

A better source on it: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/300125p-256914c.html

Gossip section. I love it. Real story please?

A copy of the audio, with (some Liberal commenting on it). The first Sean Hannity recording in the MP3, I believe, is audio that was recorded AFTER the second part was released. http://movies.crooksandliars.com/leshow-hannity_coaching_guests.mp3

A liberal? Oh brother. I want full proof because something like this would be on the front pages of the papers and it wasn't. Can I have the real story now or are you still going to quote the gossip section?

For security reasons, field operatives are only made aware of evidence that they're required to know to do their job and nothing more. That way, if terrorists capture them, they have a very little to confess. So, as I said, within intelligence, there is a hierarchy and a "need to know" basis.

That's true but if a field operative hits on something, he'll have full knowledge of it and the hierarchy will learn of it from the bottom up.

No. But both my parents did. And I know that Navy Sailors have a saying.

Muscles Are Required Intelligence Non-Essential.

I have an Uncle who, if he was still alive, take you out back. Hell, most marines would take you out back. I know marines who are very bright.

And I'd seriously considered joining (even after 9\11), but for conscientious reasons, decided not to. The Navy recruiter also mentioend that acronym, by the way. Anyone who denies that there has been and still is rivalry among the different branches of the military is a liar.

I thought about joining after 911 myself but I don't want to put up with all the BS that comes from the Generals. I've been around the military for all of my life so I know what that life is like and I want no part of it. As for the rivalry, its there but they still work with eachother regardless of rivalries.

conan o'brien and fahrneheit 911 rock.. bush sucks.. lifes a bitch and then you die.. republicans can suck my dick.. i wish i lived in canada.

Proof that he's still working please?
Jeeeeeeeeessssssuuuuuuuus Chriiiiiiiiiiiissssstttttttt!

Rathers mentioned in his interview on Larry King!! Do I have to substantiate every source for you, or are you that paranoid?


Credible source please?
A Congressman isn't a credible source?!?


Gossip section. I love it. Real story please?
The NY Daily News isn't a credible source, either?!


A liberal? Oh brother. I want full proof because something like this would be on the front pages of the papers and it wasn't. Can I have the real story now or are you still going to quote the gossip section?
It was confirmed by a Congressman and there's fucking audio of it. I'm not certain why the mainstream media wouldn't cover it, but I doubt that the Congressman would quote it just from amateur googling. Listen to the audio. Sean Hannity hasn't released any information that it was fake, either.


I have an Uncle who, if he was still alive, take you out back. Hell, most marines would take you out back. I know marines who are very bright.
Marines.. Out back... Wait, you mean by the barrel?

conan o'brien and fahrneheit 911 rock.. bush sucks.. lifes a bitch and then you die.. republicans can suck my dick.. i wish i lived in canada.

F 9/11 has been debunked so many times it isn't even funny. Your right that life's a bitch though and I can help you move to Canada if your unhappy here. You do know that no one is keeping you here right?

Jeeeeeeeeessssssuuuuuuuus Chriiiiiiiiiiiissssstttttttt!

Rathers mentioned in his interview on Larry King!! Do I have to substantiate every source for you, or are you that paranoid?

Yes you do because I don't watch CNN


A Congressman isn't a credible source?!?

Its his blog so no.

The NY Daily News isn't a credible source, either?!

Gossip sections don't cut the program.

It was confirmed by a Congressman and there's fucking audio of it. I'm not certain why the mainstream media wouldn't cover it, but I doubt that the Congressman would quote it just from amateur googling. Listen to the audio. Sean Hannity hasn't released any information that it was fake, either.

Probably because he doesn't care about it maybe? Just because someone doesn't respond to something means the story is true! Since I haven't seen it in ANY news media (and that's both liberal and conservative) then I'm not giving it much credibility.

Marines.. Out back... Wa[quote]it, you mean by the barrel?

Now this is an insult to all marines. If I wasn't in such a good mood, I'd hammer you so fast, it aint funny. And I can do that too. Family Honor.

BTW: This has nothing to do with the topic at hand! Are you going to show us that Bush knowing lied to us?

hey heres a list for u
1) complain about everything because u solve so much
2) ramble on about nothing
3) complain about how "corrupt" government is
4) complain some more

Wow! A hypocritical republican? I'm all agog.

5) make up some stupid percentages and add in a bias source to sound like u know what your talking about

51% is a stupid percentage? The amount by whice the president won the election? I made that up? I thought it was pretty widly known.

6) complain

Again, pot... kettle... look it up.

7) make some stuff up, cause after all u won't be held accountable for what u say

I didn't make up anything. We were the ones who sold him his WMD's and we admit it freely. The memo proves that he was looking to invade Iraq before 9/11 ever happened.

BTW, I know that you conservatives hate things like rights and liberty, or think of them as something that should exist on paper only, but I'm allowed to say whatever I please on the internet or in life. I usually do. e.g. You're an idiot.

8) "I feel that his supporters would not abandon him even if he was caught sodomising his daughters on the White House lawn." this proves my point because it is complete bull
9) talk of a quote from the news because if its on the news it must be completely correct right?! *dan rather*

You know, I just complained about my lack of a decent opportunity to present my formula for destroying the free press of a free society, and wouldn't you know it, here you go an give me one.

1) Spend years complaining about the "liberal media" while conservative corporations buy up all the media outlets.
2) Become an object of near universal scorn, with little documened evidence.
3) Release fraudulant, but credible, documented evidence.
4) When undeniable evidence of gross corruption and incompotence surfaces just burn the strawman from number 2.

10) yell at bush and say how much u hate him for hating others

His stooges don't allow that. They put us in "free speech zones." Funny though, I thought America was supposed to be a free speech zone.

11) bring up oil because its bushs fault that the companies wont sell it to us and the rioters wont let him dig for it in alaska

This just doesn't make any sense. Companies sell plenty. But I'd like to point out here that Bush's new energy bill is presented as a fix for our energy shortages, even though he himself says that this won't do anything to fix it.

12) say what a horrible man bush is and how he is destroying america without giving factual information on what is going on

Fact, after 9/11 the world loved us.
Fact, after Bush opened his fat pie hole the world hated us.
Fact, there is not a single credible shred of evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.
Fact, Bush pulled resources away from catching the people who were looking for Bin Laden and used them to go and fight this war for oil.
Fact, Bush said, of Bin Laden, in a press conference "I don't know where he is, he's just not that important."
Fact, Almost 1700 american's lives and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis' lives have been wasted in the war for Iraq. Whatever they thought we went there to liberate them from, I don't think they'd have agreed if they knew it was their lives.

13) watch conan o'brien and fahrneheit 911 because this will give u a bunch of bull to help u in your next argument

I haven't watched Farenheit 9/11 because I don't need to spend $10.00 to listen to a fat guy who can't use a razor tell me that Bush is a lousy president any more than I need to waste a morning listening to a felt puppet tell me the letters of the alphabet.

14) complain
15) finally and if all else fails complain, defend your diginity by yelling about world crisis because it really benefits the economy that bush is "destroying"

If you hate complaits so much, WTF are you doing here?

The SC ruling was not in favor of Bush. The SC handed the issue back to the hands of the state, since it was a state issue. Those were state elections [even though it was for Pres.] The SC didn't want to set that kind of precedent.

No, the SC found in favor of Bush by saying that Florida had to stop counting because they didn't use the same method of counting in every district so there was no way to enforce "equal protection."

The SC said that this wasn't a precedent, they didn't actually abstain from ruling to avoid a precedent.

A better source on it: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/300125p-256914c.html



FYI for those of you who aren't entierly familiar with New York. The Daily News is a rag. Not that I particularly hate it, I never actually read it, but it's a local tabloid, not a valid source for anything but entertainment news. Not news about the entertainment industry mind you, just entertainment pretending to be news.

It's the paper that the Daily Bugle from Spiderman was based on.

No, the SC found in favor of Bush by saying that Florida had to stop counting because they didn't use the same method of counting in every district so there was no way to enforce "equal protection."

The SC said that this wasn't a precedent, they didn't actually abstain from ruling to avoid a precedent.

The Congress had a case here to toss out the Florida Electoral Vote. I would've had to support the tossing too. however no one stepped up to attempt it so......

Wow! Your brain got washed so clean it must twinkle.

Snip

What a wit you are. Or half of one at least. Anyway, I've got a news flash for you: the actions of the President have almost NOTHING to do with the economy. Good or bad, the President can't control Wall Street.

Oh, and since Bill Clinton is such a hero, how is it that he's one of the most notorious adulterers ever? Oh, wait. You probably think it's cool to get sucked by some ugly, pudgy intern. Then again, ol' Willie must have been pretty depressed with that wife of his. Who wouldn't be?

Ah, but I digress. Did you watch Reagan's funeral last summer? Or are you too blind to see his OVERWHELMING POPULARITY? Reagan was one of the most loved Presidents ever. It's not even so bad when you go after the Bush family, but having a go at every Republican President in the last few decades? That's a bit much, old man.

Oh, and since Bill Clinton is such a hero, how is it that he's one of the most notorious adulterers ever? Oh, wait. You probably think it's cool to get sucked by some ugly, pudgy intern. Then again, ol' Willie must have been pretty depressed with that wife of his. Who wouldn't be?

Ah, but I digress. Did you watch Reagan's funeral last summer? Or are you too blind to see his OVERWHELMING POPULARITY? Reagan was one of the most loved Presidents ever. It's not even so bad when you go after the Bush family, but having a go at every Republican President in the last few decades? That's a bit much, old man.

Wait one second there speedy. Clinton may not be moral, but he NEVER should have been impeached. It was a petty, childish move by the Republican Congress to put a bad image on him... which didn't work out all that well. How in the hell is getting a little action a Federal Crime, worthy of impeachement? Seriously, he never should have been brought to trial for such stupid reasons. I'm pissed off that Congress actually wasted valuable time and money on such a childish move, when they could have done something constructive and worthwhile. Name something that actually harmed the country, not something that was "immoral".

Almost all Presidents are met with such support at their funerals. When a President dies, nobody will ever make a bad remark about them, as people tend to have upped pride. This in no way effects how good he was as a President. Pretty much every President is met with just as much popularity when they die. Also, Reagan was an Actor, which people like, not to mention he was charming, charismatic, and good looking(for a President). Basically, people liked him because he was a likable person.

Glad to see I'm not the only way saying it ain't a treaty!
Im' glad for you, too... :)

I hope you're not serious.
No I wasn't. The first pages were filled with so incredibly stupid posts that I just had to add my share.

The basic Republican mantra is this:

1) Clinton lied under oath about getting a blowjob, so he is scum that needs to be impeached, never mind that such a sordid incident did not affect global politics whatsoever.

2) Bush should not be impeached because he never lied under oath about the whole reasons behind the Iraq war, never mind that Bush has too much to lose to know better than to swear anything under oath and the result does affect global politics significantly. They will also chant "Faulty Intelligence" despite the fact that the people who came up with said faulty intelligence were not punished and in some cases like Paul Wolfowitz were awarded (ie the Medal of Freedom) for passing on faulty intelligence as a case for the invasion.

Basically, the Clinton Bashers are excusing Bush on a technicality, the sort of move that got O.J. Simpson acquitted of murder.

The basic Republican mantra is this:

1) Clinton lied under oath about getting a blowjob, so he is scum that needs to be impeached, never mind that such a sordid incident did not affect global politics whatsoever.

Which he did lie under oath and that counts as a high crime/misdemeanor.

2) Bush should not be impeached because he never lied under oath about the whole reasons behind the Iraq war, never mind that Bush has too much to lose to know better than to swear anything under oath and the result does affect global politics significantly.

I'm still waiting for the lie that he told. Do you have it?

They will also chant "Faulty Intelligence" despite the fact that the people who came up with said faulty intelligence were not punished and in some cases like Paul Wolfowitz were awarded (ie the Medal of Freedom) for passing on faulty intelligence as a case for the invasion.

And it was faulty intelligence. That's a known fact. Its even been reported by every news media in the US.

Basically, the Clinton Bashers are excusing Bush on a technicality, the sort of move that got O.J. Simpson acquitted of murder.

There's no technicality here. Just the facts.

I see no source for this memo... So some "reporter" with an overactive imagination could have easily BSed the entire thing. How nice. Sounds just like the situation down in Cuba: A reporter making shit up to strengthen the Left.

F 9/11 has been debunked so many times it isn't even funny.

F 9/11 was never "debunked" everything you seen in that movie happened. Perhaps not in the exact order, but nothing was faked or lied about. I always find it funny when people spew it wasn't a documentary because Michael Moore took the facts and told the story from his perspective using facts. That's what people who make documentaries do. Doh!

If he had lied and used non-factual information his ass would of been dragged into a court so fast it would of made your head spin. But I do understand it is the running Republican lie to say "It's been debunked" No, no it hasn't.

Proof that he's still working please?

Check out "48 Hours" and "60 Minutes" on CBS, he most certainly is still working for them. All he retired from what the anchor chair for the 6 o'clock news. Look it up. You were the one who told me yesterday to google it, now I can return the advice.

F 9/11 was never "debunked" everything you seen in that movie happened.

Not accurate. Sorry. I have proof regarding certain aspects of that movie and it has been debated on this forum enough. MM lied and everyone knows it. Next lie please?

Perhaps not in the exact order, but nothing was faked or lied about. I always find it funny when people spew it wasn't a documentary because Michael Moore took the facts and told the story from his perspective using facts. That's what people who make documentaries do. Doh!

Prove that what MM said in the movie was accurate please!

If he had lied and used non-factual information his ass would of been dragged into a court so fast it would of made your head spin. But I do understand it is the running Republican lie to say "It's been debunked" No, no it hasn't.

It doesn't have to be dragged into court to be proved as a lie my friend. Its been proven enough in the news media. Nice try though.

If your going to quote something, quote for the subject at hand. I have the 9/11 Commission report. Do you want me to quote something regarding Iraq and Al Qaeda out of it for you?

Oh yes please do! The quote I like the most is where they come to the conclusion that there was no connection!

Not accurate. Sorry. I have proof regarding certain aspects of that movie and it has been debated on this forum enough. MM lied and everyone knows it. Next lie please?

Ok, lets see your credible proof that he lied?

No opinion pieces or blogs please.

Oh yes please do! The quote I like the most is where they come to the conclusion that there was no connection!

:rolleyes:

Ok, lets see your credible proof that he lied?

No opinion pieces or blogs please.

The 9/11 Commission Report.

The 9/11 Commission Report.

Oh that! Yeah, MM cleared that up and all the proof you need is to watch the movie. The claim was that he had lied about the date Bush let all the bin Laden's leave. The claim was that MM had said it was before airspace was re-opened. But he never said that, what he said was the exact date that airspace was reopened and that the bin Laden's were basically allowed to be among the first to leave after the airspace had reopened. Which of course is proven fact. Sorry, better try next time!

Oh that! Yeah, MM cleared that up and all the proof you need is to watch the movie.

I make it a point not to watch something that has been hammered and destroyed.

The claim was that he had lied about the date Bush let all the bin Laden's leave. The claim was that MM had said it was before airspace was re-opened. But he never said that, what he said was the exact date that airspace was reopened and that the bin Laden's were basically allowed to be among the first to leave after the airspace had reopened. Which of course is proven fact. Sorry, better try next time!

Actually he did say it and it wasn't Bush that let them go! It was Richard Clarke! Oops. MM lied about that! :rolleyes:

BTW: This is off topic so shall we get back on topic. I'm still waiting on proof that Bush lied.

I make it a point not to watch something that has been hammered and destroyed.



Actually he did say it and it wasn't Bush that let them go! It was Richard Clarke! Oops. MM lied about that! :rolleyes:

At the time Richard Clarke worked directly for the administration.. a rose by any other name is still a rose.

I find it ironic that you claim a movie you've never seen to be debunked when A) there is nothing but opinion out there, the movie was never debunked. That you claim he said something in the movie that he clearly didn't. I seen it and own the movie. Yet you claim he did say it and yet you've never seen it.

Your method of debating needs a lot of work. You can't argue second hand information as fact when it's never been proven as fact and you yourself have no first hand knowledge. You're a parrot. That is what you do. Tsk, Tsk!

I think it would be a safer bet to say that you've been debunked!

Which politician DOESN'T lie? Name one.

Don't mean to go so far back but LOL! I like this line :)

George Washington :D

Howard Dean, hahaha.

He just recently Lied and has lied before Nice try!

But anyway, a President being caught lying is grounds for impeachment. Clinton was impeached for lying about a fucking blowjob. But lying about the intelligence on Iraq is okay?!

He lied under oath which is why he was impeached :rolleyes:

He just recently Lied and has lied before Nice try!

noce job Captlizing random Words. And give me proof that says he knew he was lying, if you need that strong evidence for Bush lying it should apply to everyone, right?


He lied under oath which is why he was impeached :rolleyes:
If you want to be nit-picky you're right, but he lied about not having a blowjob--under oath. Big difference, really worth the argument. And not very many people died as a result of that lie, if anyone even died at all, whereas countless thousands of innocent Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers died as a result of Bush's "mistake." Bush and his fellow Republicans pretend they support the troops, but why don't the troops get the truth? Their lives are in Bush's hands and he is taking advantage of that. The troops deserve to know the real reason why their lives are being put in danger every day. If Bush did indeed support the troops as much as he says he does, he would stop cutting VA funds and come clean about the movites for invading Iraq.

At first it was "he helped Al Qiada (sorry, I don't feel like looking up one of the 728941749 ways to spell it right now, you know what I mean) 9/11" then when that was disproved in about .1 seconds, it was "he has stockpiles of WMD and we know he does." When that was found to be untrue it was "Saddam was a bad, bad man, it's good he's gone." Now that he's gone and Iraq is still a big shithole, we're just being told again and again that Iraqis are better off without Saddam and that the invasion of Iraq was justified by that and because God said so. We are told again and again that Saddam posed an immediate threat to Americans.

"A lie repeated often enough is accepted as truth." -- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

"...see, in my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda."--GWB; Greece, New York, May 24, 2005"

At the time Richard Clarke worked directly for the administration.. a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Sorry but it was Richard Clarke that gave that authorization and NOT the President. That came out in the 9/11 commission report. So yep, MM lied here. Alwell.

*moves back onto topic*

noce job Captlizing random Words. And give me proof that says he knew he was lying, if you need that strong evidence for Bush lying it should apply to everyone, right?

They found his semen on the intern's dress and he said and I quote "I did not have sex with that woman." He said that to a federal grand jury while UNDER OATH! That's purjury my friend.

I'm still waiting for Proof that Bush lied.

I'm still waiting for Proof that Bush lied.
There is never going to be solid "Proof" that Bush knowingly lied to the American public unless he is tried in a court of law, and with his status, that will never happen. And the shift key is your friend only when starting a sentence, or typing a proper noun such as "Dubya," not for capitalizing random words.

There is never going to be solid "Proof" that Bush knowingly lied to the American public unless he is tried in a court of law, and with his status, that will never happen.

False again. Your striking out here Achtung. Its already been investigated dude. The intel that Bush used was faulty. So what lie are you talking about?

And the shift key is your friend only when starting a sentence, or typing a proper noun such as "Dubya," not for capitalizing random words.

:rolleyes:

So wait, the opinion of the intelligence agencies are good now cause they don't support Bush anymore? jesus christ what a bunch of hypocritical liberal douche bags ya'll can be

False again. Your striking out here Achtung. Its already been investigated dude. The intel that Bush used was faulty. So what lie are you talking about?

I'm not even going to get started in my rant. If you want to believe we went to war over bad information, go on and think that. Nothing I say can change your mind and it's a waste of time anyway. If only you knew half of what Bush's family and his Administration was really like, you may think twice about supporting him. We're the world's superpower right? So we should have the best intelligence in the world and make as little mistakes as possible and when we screw up, humbly admit it, not bury it under more lies.

So wait, the opinion of the intelligence agencies are good now cause they don't support Bush anymore? jesus christ what a bunch of hypocritical liberal douche bags ya'll can be
what the hell are you talking about? that has no relevence whatsoever nor does it make sense.

So wait, the opinion of the intelligence agencies are good now cause they don't support Bush anymore? jesus christ what a bunch of hypocritical liberal douche bags ya'll can be

Interesting isn't it? They believed the intel to be factual and they approve now they want to impeach Bush because he reported bad intel that he was given. I'm still not seeing a lie here.

I'm not even going to get started in my rant. If you want to believe we went to war over bad information, go on and think that. Nothing I say can change your mind and it's a waste of time anyway. If only you knew half of what Bush's family and his Administration was really like, you may think twice about supporting him. We're the world's superpower right? So we should have the best intelligence in the world and make as little mistakes as possible and when we screw up, humbly admit it, not bury it under more lies.

Care to tell me what your babbling about? All I'm seeing is that you hate Bush. Fine you made your point that you hate Bush. Now prove that he lied to Congress and the American People.

Now prove that he lied to Congress and the American People.

I believe the memo is proof that he lied, coupled with the statements made by people who were at said meeting and were high ranking UK officials. The fact that neither Blair nor Bush has denied it says all you need to know. If it wasn't true, they'd be on every talk show in the country trying to dispute it, but they're not. That's proof enough for 99.9% of people. It is for me.

Corneliu, Bush could drop a nuke on New York city and you would defend him, so your getting a bit tiresome with the same thing over and over again, when more than enough proof is out there that if the evidence was presented in a court of law he would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So why are you still going? I know, it's what you do. :rolleyes:

I believe the memo is proof that he lied, coupled with the statements made by people who were at said meeting and were high ranking UK officials.

This ain't proof dude. I"m sorry but it isn't!

The fact that neither Blair nor Bush has denied it says all you need to know.

So not mentioning something makes it factual? I'm glad I don't live in your dream world.

If it wasn't true, they'd be on every talk show in the country trying to dispute it, but they're not.

If it had any substance at all, it'll be all over every media outlet on this planet and it wasn't. That says enough for me.

That's proof enough for 99.9% of people. It is for me.

Apparently not proof enough for most people since NO ONE, not even the liberal Press, has commented on this :rolleyes:

Corneliu, Bush could drop a nuke on New York city and you would defend him, so your getting a bit tiresome with the same thing over and over again, when more than enough proof is out there that if the evidence was presented in a court of law he would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hell of a run on sentence here :rolleyes: As for Bush dropping a nuke on NYC, I wouldn't defend him. Now if he dropped one on San Fran...I would put him up for a medal! LOL

So why are you still going? I know, it's what you do. :rolleyes:

Now can you prove that Bush lied please?

Corneliu, at this point you're just trolling. I don't feed trolls.

Corneliu, at this point you're just trolling. I don't feed trolls.

How am I trolling? I'm asking you a simple question that you have yet to answer. Where did Bush lie about the intelligence he reported to Congress and the American People?

It was just Bad Intel. There is nothing to impeach Bush on. So where is Bush's impeachable offense? You haven't shown it yet. No one on the forum has either.

How am I trolling?

Because you keep asking the same question over and over again when countless people have already explained the answer to you. However, because it's not what you want to hear, you just keep asking the same question. After 40+ pages, that enters the trolling sphere.

Because you keep asking the same question over and over again when countless people have already explained the answer to you. However, because it's not what you want to hear, you just keep asking the same question. After 40+ pages, that enters the trolling sphere.

Since this page isn't even at 40 and I haven't even been in it for the first 10+ pages.....

And the reason I keep asking is that there isnt any friggin proof of an impeachable offense.

Since this page isn't even at 40 and I haven't even been in it for the first 10+ pages.....

And the reason I keep asking is that there isnt any friggin proof of an impeachable offense.

Fine, that is your opinion. I prefer to look at the evidence and the evidence supports he lied. You may believe as you wish. By the way, we are on pg. 43!

In Blair's last town meeting (a while ago), where ANY CITIZEN could attend, the public absolutely butchered him over the memo. By the end of the meeting, he had been sweating so profusely and scratching his head so often, that he looked like Jack Nicholson in "The Shining." After he went evil, I mean.

But Bush's town meetings have been by invitation-alone. They send out "tickets" to specific constituents. At one point, three individuals were removed from the audience by the Secret Service for having a "No Blood For Oil" bumper sticker on the back of their car. [1] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10969-2005Mar29.html)

I believe that both Bush and Blair lied.

So far, the Conservative rebuttals are as follows:

Rebuttal: It's not authentic.
Counter-Rebuttal: No one questions its authenticity, anymore. The Blair administration calls it "nothing new." [2] (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592904,00.html)

Rebuttal: It was the interpretation of the Foreign Secretary's Aide.
Counter-Rebuttal: It was a top-secret document, endorsed by the Foreign Secretary, as a summary of their discussions, and written by his aide. And if the aide were making false statements, the Blair administration could've claimed that it was false, and released evidence proving that (such as memos by officials immediately afterwards, claiming that the memo was an incorrect assessment). That has not happened. And it was not an essay, but a summary of their discussions.

Rebuttal: Iraq HAD WMDs!
Counter-Rebuttal: That is arguable, but even so, the memo itself states that the Chief of MI-6 (British Intelligence, remember James Bond?) said it's unlikely that Iraq was an "imminent threat", but rather, the U.S. was intentionally generating false intelligence to support an unnecessary war. That pre-war intelligence's failure has been reported in the media many times.[3] (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/sprj.nirq.wmd.kay/)

Rebuttal: The 911 Commission and other investigations contradict the memo.
Counter-Rebuttal: Bush refused to allow the 911 Commission to exist for "nearly a year" after it was suggested. Even then, he only agreed to it, provided that he could appoint the head of the comission. So, arguably, the 911 Comission, the only "independent" investigation on intelligence was not independent at all. All other investigations were government-operated and therefore subject to political bias, just as with the pre-war intelligence. [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911_Commission#Claims_of_bias_within_the_commission)

Rebuttal: "Fixed", in British English, means "established."
Counter-Rebuttal: It can be either our definition or Britain's "established." However, take a look at the context of the memo saying, "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 qualifier 'but' implies a contradictory nature. For example, "I am a Liberal, BUT I am against gun control." So, within the context of, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam because of WMDs, BUT the intelligence was being fixed", the definition of intentionally adjusting applies and the intelligence was, indeed, being illegally 'fixed.'

Rebuttal: Cherry picking your intelligence is not lying.
Counter-Rebuttal: That is incorrect. Read the law. [5] (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+563+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%2 0%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281001%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20)
18 USC Sec. 1001
"whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-- (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
Rebuttal: All politicians lie.
Counter-Rebuttal: But just like with Nixon, Clinton, and Tom DeLay, if they are caught, they should be put on trial, because lying to Congress is a Federal crime, worthy of impeachment. Lying to Congress to support an unnecessary war could also be interpreted as treason, especially when Bush's trust-fund (for retirement) is vested in oil and the Vice-President used to be on the board of directors of the major oil company, Haliburton, which has recieved major government deals and bonuses in Iraq. [6] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml)

Rebuttal: No one believes this memo. It's old news.
Counter-Rebuttal: The British newspaper, the Times, did a front-page story on it recently, as did the New York Times. 89 Congressmen have demanded that Bush answer the allegations put forth by the memo, led by Congressman John Conyers. [7] (http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/)

Rebuttal: It's not solid proof that he lied.
Counter-Rebuttal: But there is enough evidence to support an independent investigation, and that's all we're asking for.

Fine, that is your opinion. I prefer to look at the evidence and the evidence supports he lied. You may believe as you wish. By the way, we are on pg. 43!

Page 29 on mine

Anyone have any more rebuttals?

"A lie repeated often enough is accepted as truth." -- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

"...see, in my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda."--GWB; Greece, New York, May 24, 2005"
Kapow!!!! :sniper:
You ROCK! Thanks for posting that, i was about to.
*bows*

Kapow!!!! :sniper:
You ROCK! Thanks for posting that, i was about to.
*bows*
Haha. Yeah, that does kickass.

Bush also once said, "It would be a heck of a lot easier if it was a dictatorship... So long as I'm the dictator, heh heh heh."

CNN'S COVERING THE DOWNING STREET MEMO, AT 11:30 A.M. ON SUNDAY!

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=173&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., yesterday accused the Bush administration of "dishonesty, lack of candor, and lack of planning" in launching war on Iraq. (That's two influential Senators, Kerry and Kennedy, speaking on it now).

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=174&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/images/tony.jpg

Military families in Britain have also taken their case to the International Criminal court.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=181&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

There's a summary of all the current information and current events with the Downing Street memo, at:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=182&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

...As well as information on how to protest. I'll be in Washington D.C. on Monday, protesting outside the National Press Club award luncheon, where Cheney is giving an award for Journalism.

All the Conservatives who said it's old news and no one's going to cover it. What do you say now?

A Conservative I know, in another forum, wrote the following:
IT has always been my belief that the amount of proof from subjectives is justified not in the proof but by the person's beliefs. From the objective position proof has to be substantial enough to prove mens rea, the action in question actually happened, and that the action was illegal.

I'm going to use three cases of when a crime was committed by the president and analyze each to the best of my ability. I will use Nixon, Clinton, and Bush as they are seen as the "three liars" of American politics.

Richard Nixon platformed on a policy of honesty an openess. He had hundreds of "hippy protestors." When the Washington Post first broke the story, NO ONE believed it. First off the person confirming their information was a "shadow CIA informant." What the hell is that stuff, right? Imagine if I came out today with an article saying that an FBI member confirms that Elvis Pressley was a child molestor, would you believe it? Of course not, because it is so far from reality that it is almost impossible to believe. So Watergate comes out and near the end of Nixon's term a formal investigation is announced. To avoid impeachment he resigns and admits guilt. At that point only did everyone actually believe that Nixon did it.

In our second case we have Clinton. Clinton was a very liberal man. He played jazz, blues, and recognized by many as a "man of the people." As governor there were murmurs of him having sexual relations with other women. But his wife was actually very attractive woman. The list of people they named as involved, were not. It was so far from reality that only his political enemies pushed it. It wasn't until he was at the height of his power and nearing the end of his term did they push it again. They named out two women, Monika Lewinsky and Paula Jones. Neither of these women once again were very beautiful, and yet both of them made the claim. They proposed a lot of evidence that was shifty at best. One was a phonecall between Clinton and Lewinsky which was shown by a sound specialist to be a modified, as well showing how anyone can imprint the voice patterns of any phone call taken out of context on a tape. In a trial Lewinsky told everything, that was confirmed by many sources. But, just like Nixon what was said was only confirmable by very shifty sources. People only believed it when Clinton came out and said that he had an affair. Of course not everyone believed he actually had an affair as many will still say he was only having "oral sex" which isn't actually "sleeping with that woman."

Our third case is George W. Bush. Bush stated that he worked with the information that he had at the time and he could have never known the information was not good. A case has now been built to show opposite. A couple of men who were in that administration left it or were fired and came out a couple of months later with books explaining their experiences and building up a circumstantial unconfirmable case about Bush and the CIA. Many made claims that he baited the CIA to botch up the intelligence, nothing could back this up yet. The M16 reform could be the thing to bring him down though. Several incrimidating (of Tony Blaire) memos and notes have come present. Considering that both M16 and the CIA have been declared 'faulty and broken" though it is hard to even see it as confirmed evidence either (because both are known to be faulty and thus cannot truly be trusted).

My question to Republicans is, what measure will it take for you to believe that Bush did it?
To Democrats, is there anyone who is reliable enough anymore to actually confirm it?

seems nobody is listening this morning. . .go have a glass of wine and relax, try again later maybe.

I posted this at my regular forums, which about 10 people have signed the petition. I posted this at a very, very large forum known as WrestleZone which has about 1000 people who post there regularly. My expectations is that those two websites alone will produce anywhere from 100 to 500 signatures.

seems nobody is listening this morning. . .go have a glass of wine and relax, try again later maybe.

That's probably because no one really cares 31. If Bush did lie knowingly, it would've came out by now and it hasn't. I'm stil waiting for proof of an impeachable offense and so far have read none.

That's probably because no one really cares 31. If Bush did lie knowingly, it would've came out by now and it hasn't. I'm stil waiting for proof of an impeachable offense and so far have read none.
Did you read what the Conservative said of Nixon? Only until after Nixon admitted guilt and resigned did people believe it. The same is true in this case as well.

That's probably because no one really cares 31. If Bush did lie knowingly, it would've came out by now and it hasn't. I'm stil waiting for proof of an impeachable offense and so far have read none.

Oh I agree completely, I just find Shrub entertaining. Such anger. . .I have a feeling Shrub is young, could be wrong but this kind of fire is usualy reserved for the young amoung us.
Bush ain't gonna be impeached.

Did you read what the Conservative said of Nixon? Only until after Nixon admitted guilt and resigned did people believe it. The same is true in this case as well.

You really don't have a grasp of History do you? No I didn't think you did. He only resigned after articles of Impeachment were brought to the House Committee. It was only when he did that did he confess. It was a good thing he resigned too because he would've been the first President to be inpeached AND convicted.

Here though, you don't have a leg to stand on. There is absolutely no proof that Bush knowingly lied about the intelligence. If there was absolute proof, it would've been out there in the Press long before now. Since there wasn't a press uproar, and still no uproar, I guess he didn't lie. If Bush knowingly lied, I would've been the first person calling for his impeachment but since it wasn't under oath and what not, there's no grounds to impeach him on no matter how much we shout.

However, I know he didn't knowingly lie. The intelligence was just bad. You can't impeach the president for bad intel. If you did, then Clinton would've had to be impeached too because the intel that Bush used was the same that Clinton used in his 1998 bombing of Iraq dubbed "Operation Desert Fox"

Oh I agree completely, I just find Shrub entertaining. Such anger. . .I have a feeling Shrub is young, could be wrong but this kind of fire is usualy reserved for the young amoung us.
Bush ain't gonna be impeached.

You are right about this 31.

I do think he is young as well. Probably around my age if not younger. Bush won't get impeached. He hasn't done anything to deserve impeachment.

This is nothing but one person's opinion and its getting blown out of proportion.

(That's two influential Senators, Kerry and Kennedy, speaking on it now).
Let's see...a sore loser presidential wannabe and a drunk who allowed a woman to drown while he played PR cleanup. Oh YEAH...that's some credability there. *lmao*

You are right about this 31.

I do think he is young as well. Probably around my age if not younger. Bush won't get impeached. He hasn't done anything to deserve impeachment.

This is nothing but one person's opinion and its getting blown out of proportion.

You're young!? OMG nooooooo! :D
I, on the other hand, am an old 33. Such back pain, and I could tell ya about my adinoids!!
Well, time for worky, see ya later.

You're young!? OMG nooooooo! :D
I, on the other hand, am an old 33. Such back pain, and I could tell ya about my adinoids!!
Well, time for worky, see ya later.

Take Care 31! see ya later :)

Oh I agree completely, I just find Shrub entertaining. Such anger. . .I have a feeling Shrub is young, could be wrong but this kind of fire is usualy reserved for the young amoung us.
Bush ain't gonna be impeached.
Almost 21.

You really don't have a grasp of History do you? No I didn't think you did. He only resigned after articles of Impeachment were brought to the House Committee. It was only when he did that did he confess. It was a good thing he resigned too because he would've been the first President to be inpeached AND convicted.
I'm not talking about politicians. I'm talking about what the people believed, and that's what the Conservative I know said. From what I know, he's fairly old.

However, I know he didn't knowingly lie. The intelligence was just bad. You can't impeach the president for bad intel. If you did, then Clinton would've had to be impeached too because the intel that Bush used was the same that Clinton used in his 1998 bombing of Iraq dubbed "Operation Desert Fox"
This memo is extremely profound. As you've seen in throughout this thread, many Conservatives have said that they knew Bush was lying and don't care, because Iraq still needed to be taken care of and all politicians lie. I just got off the phone with my father, who is a Conservative, and he said the same thing.

You are right about this 31.
I do think he is young as well. Probably around my age if not younger. Bush won't get impeached. He hasn't done anything to deserve impeachment.

This is nothing but one person's opinion and its getting blown out of proportion.
You claim it's an opinion, and that the intelligence wasn't purposely falsified, but consider this:

There were unconfirmed documents containing intelligence that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Africa, and we automatically assumed it was true, making a public statement, and investigating it.

Now, there are confirmed documents containing intelligence that the Bush administration has been abusing their authority over the FBI and CIA, and you are automatically assuming it's false, and refuse to even investigate it.

Iraq getting uranium is just as serious of a crime as Bush lying to Congress to support war, so why assume one is true and one is false, and investigate one, but refuse to even investigate the other?

Should I give my name on this petition? I would like to but what if this is fake and some dude wants my adress?

Should I give my name on this petition? I would like to but what if this is fake and some dude wants my adress?
The petition was actually started by the Department of Homeland Security in order to get the names and addresses of "enemies of the State". :eek:

The intel was confirmed by more then just our intelligence, but that is neither here nor there.

Bush will not be inpeached. He has done nothing to be impeached for. Also when I read the memo you have to understand that this was written as a personal breif. Therefore it is one persons take on the meeting. Heck it is hard to get the same opinion on what color a vase was in a room of several people. It is all based on their take of it.

The memo really does not prove anything.

Just for the record I am a moderate. Telling from the way the last election went Bush has the majority behind him. I know he sways most moderates to his side because lately liberals have been makeing themselves look like raving idiots, tossing out half baked conspiracy ideas, or shards of half truths. Most of the American populace does not even pay attention to them anymore.

If there was something solid and completly bullet proof that would implicate Bush, then something would happen. But when you have persons like, Mr Rather, screwing up the way he did most not longer buy into what you are selling.

As far as to the age of our esteemed poster, Winston Churchill said it best.

"If you are under 30 and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are over 30 and not a conservative, you have no brain."

The petition was actually started by the Department of Homeland Security in order to get the names and addresses of "enemies of the State". :eek:


Hee hee...too funny

Bush will not be inpeached. He has done nothing to be impeached for. Also when I read the memo you have to understand that this was written as a personal breif.
As said before, it was top-secret, endorsed by the Foreign Secretary in order to inform the top government officials, and it was most likely compiled from notes during their various meetings. It was not a personal essay he was writing about foreign policy. It was simply a summary of the information they'd given. Are you suggesting that he accidentally tossed the parts in about the U.S. fixing intelligence?

Okay, so, let's at least assume that he misunderstood MI-6 or worded it incorrectly. What do you think the head of MI-6 could've said, that caused the Foreign Secretary's Aide to write such things?

Telling from the way the last election went Bush has the majority behind him.
Wow, you're fucking ignorant. According to the most recent poll, his approval rating is at 45%, the lowest in his career, and also the lowest in history, at this point, for any two-term President since World War II.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000866232


I know he sways most moderates to his side because lately liberals have been makeing themselves look like raving idiots, tossing out half baked conspiracy ideas, or shards of half truths.
Have you actually read the PATRIOT Act?

I have. Unlike most American politicians, I've read the entire thing. And it is the end of Civil Rights as we know it.


If there was something solid and completly bullet proof that would implicate Bush, then something would happen. But when you have persons like, Mr Rather, screwing up the way he did most not longer buy into what you are selling.
And as the other Conservative I know, who also found this disturbing, asked: What more evidence do you need?!

Almost 21.

That explains the age. I'm a couple of years older. If I may ask, what are you studying in college?

I'm not talking about politicians. I'm talking about what the people believed, and that's what the Conservative I know said. From what I know, he's fairly old.

Well my parents both remember it.

This memo is extremely profound. As you've seen in throughout this thread, many Conservatives have said that they knew Bush was lying and don't care, because Iraq still needed to be taken care of and all politicians lie. I just got off the phone with my father, who is a Conservative, and he said the same thing.

My father is in the USAF. He says it was bad intelligence. Bad intel that got us to where we are in Iraq. He knows that Bush didn't knowingly lie but told the American People precisely what the intelligence heads told him. I'm not 100% sure that intel knowingly lied either. That is a whole different debate anyway.

You claim it's an opinion, and that the intelligence wasn't purposely falsified, but consider this:

There were unconfirmed documents containing intelligence that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Africa, and we automatically assumed it was true, making a public statement, and investigating it.

And that came from the BRITISH and NOT the USA!

Now, there are confirmed documents containing intelligence that the Bush administration has been abusing their authority over the FBI and CIA, and you are automatically assuming it's false, and refuse to even investigate it.

First I've heard of this. Apparently its not in the news or was never reported BY ANY OUTLET. Can I see proof of these documents please so that I can have a look see?

Iraq getting uranium is just as serious of a crime as Bush lying to Congress to support war, so why assume one is true and one is false, and investigate one, but refuse to even investigate the other?

Because the intel has already been investigated and prove to be faulty. Even the British admit that getting yellowcake uranium was sketchy at best. If that was true, there's another violation of UN Resolutions. Alwell... Bush didn't knowingly lie to the US. There's still nothing here to impeach Bush on.

WOwowowo.

Look here you little mongel.

There is not need to get personal and call me ignorant. I was just voiceing my opinion on the matter. Just because if differs from yours does not give you the right to jump on me or anyone else for the matter.

This is the point I was tring to make. Most of America are moderates and it is people like YOU who push them to the opposite direction with heavy handed tactics.
Ooh... *takes cover, grabs bowl of popcorn and waits for flame war to commence.*

EDIT: Hmm... either you got smart, chickened out, or both! :p

EDIT 2.0: Oh, my mistake. Apparently, you did not. You just double-posted your direct insult.

EDIT 3.0: Okay, this is getting f***ing annoying!

EDIT 4.0: ANOTHER?

The petition was actually started by the Department of Homeland Security in order to get the names and addresses of "enemies of the State". :eek:

HAHAHA!! Yea they want to see who the hell opposes our most glorious leader so they can execute them!

PS: This was a joke post. Don't take it seriously

Wow, you're fucking ignorant.

WOwowowo.

Look here you little mongel.

There is not need to get personal and call me ignorant. I was just voiceing my opinion on the matter. Just because if differs from yours does not give you the right to jump on me or anyone else for the matter.

This is the point I was tring to make. Most of America are moderates and it is people like YOU who push them to the opposite direction with heavy handed tactics.

Edit- forgot the quote on why I am pissed off

WOwowowo.

Look here you little mongel.

Wow, you're fucking ignorant

There is not need to get personal and call me ignorant.

Hmmm... yea, you did the same.

I signed the petition.

It was at 98% right when I added my name.

this is so wrong.... its just the OPINION of some Uk intel guys....

Bush made action based on the info presented to him. I'm sure if Kerry had won, and made the same decesion, all the liberals would be praising him, and this wouldnt have even come up.

I'm simply amazed at the disrespect for our leader, President Bush.

this is so wrong.... its just the OPINION of some Uk intel guys....

Bush made action based on the info presented to him. I'm sure if Kerry had won, and made the same decesion, all the liberals would be praising him, and this wouldnt have even come up.

Funny you mentioned Kerry. Kerry even stated himself that if he had the same info as Bush did, he would've done precisely what Bush did.

this is so wrong.... its just the OPINION of some Uk intel guys....

Bush made action based on the info presented to him. I'm sure if Kerry had won, and made the same decesion, all the liberals would be praising him, and this wouldnt have even come up.

I'm simply amazed at the disrespect for our leader, President Bush.

It wouldn't be the US if there wasn't dissent.

Back to the topic at hand: the CIA and FBI have both said that the intelligence issue was streatched to match the administrations goals in Iraq. Colin Powel has said the same thing as well. Just go back and look over the documents, look at the presentations, and then look at the post-war debreifs and reports. You will see that the administration cleary streatched the intel and that they knew that they were doing it.

That explains the age. I'm a couple of years older. If I may ask, what are you studying in college?
Psychology, but considering switching to Philosophy.

My father is in the USAF. He says it was bad intelligence. Bad intel that got us to where we are in Iraq. He knows that Bush didn't knowingly lie but told the American People precisely what the intelligence heads told him. I'm not 100% sure that intel knowingly lied either. That is a whole different debate anyway.
There were numerous anonymous sources that claimed to the media, before the investigations, that they were pressured by the intelligence agencies to put out bad intelligence. I don't believe that they'd be as honest with government-run investigators, as they could be with being anonymous sources for the media. Oh, and, editors and producers quite frequently demand to know anonymous sources, so I think it would be conspiracy-theorism to claim that the news has been making up anonymous sources.

And that came from the BRITISH and NOT the USA!
Huh?

Both documents came from Britain.


First I've heard of this. Apparently its not in the news or was never reported BY ANY OUTLET. Can I see proof of these documents please so that I can have a look see?
I'm referring to the memo as "intelligence documents", which is what it is, hence it being top-secret.

And I'm explaining:
NIGER DOCUMENTS ABOUT HUSSEIN AND NUKES: ASSUMED TO BE TRUE AND INVESTIGATED
DOWNING STREET MEMO, ABOUT BUSH'S LIES: ASSUMED TO BE FALSE AND NOT INVESTIGATED.

There's a clear double-standard.

Because the intel has already been investigated and prove to be faulty. Even the British admit that getting yellowcake uranium was sketchy at best. If that was true, there's another violation of UN Resolutions. Alwell... Bush didn't knowingly lie to the US. There's still nothing here to impeach Bush on.
Bullshit. I don't believe that fake Niger documents just "appear" out of thin air, nobody knows where they came from, and that when Bush recieved them, he wasn't aware that its validity was questionable.

They, apparently, hadn't even investigated the Niger documents, but Bush came out on TV and PROCLAIMED, "Saddam Hussein has been seeking significant quantities of uranium."

I don't believe, that with the billions of dollars and state-of-the-art equipment we have, that, even after 9\11 and the PATRIOT Act were passed, our intelligence agencies are still that incompetent. It's completely bullshit.

Because the intel has already been investigated and prove to be faulty. Even the British admit that getting yellowcake uranium was sketchy at best. If that was true, there's another violation of UN Resolutions. Alwell... Bush didn't knowingly lie to the US. There's still nothing here to impeach Bush on.
Bullshit. I don't believe that fake Niger documents just "appear" out of thin air, nobody knows where they came from, and that when Bush recieved them, he wasn't aware that its validity was questionable.

They, apparently, hadn't even investigated the Niger documents, but Bush came out on TV and PROCLAIMED, "Saddam Hussein has been seeking significant quantities of uranium."

WOwowowo.

Look here you little mongel.
WTF is a "mongel"?

You mean MONGOL? The barbarian invaders, led by Ghengis Khan, from Mongolia?

Psychology, but considering switching to Philosophy.

Interesting. I'm a Political Science and a History major. Had to switch from Meteorology when I couldn't do the math.

There were numerous anonymous sources that claimed to the media, before the investigations, that they were pressured by the intelligence agencies to put out bad intelligence.

One thing I can't stand is an Anonymous source. I don't trust them too much.

I don't believe that they'd be as honest with government-run investigators, as they could be with being anonymous sources for the media.

Ok, I'll grant you this but then on the flip side of the coin (i love that phrase), they could be out to make waves when none are present.

Oh, and, editors and producers quite frequently demand to know anonymous sources, so I think it would be conspiracy-theorism to claim that the news has been making up anonymous sources.

I won't argue with you there but still...

Huh?

Both documents came from Britain.

What is the 2nd document? You only mentioned the one regarding Yellowcake Uranium. for this post. This is what I was saying that this memo (The yellowcake one) was from Britain and not the US.

I'm referring to the memo as "intelligence documents", which is what it is, hence it being top-secret.

And I'm explaining:
NIGER DOCUMENTS ABOUT HUSSEIN AND NUKES: ASSUMED TO BE TRUE AND INVESTIGATED
DOWNING STREET MEMO, ABOUT BUSH'S LIES: ASSUMED TO BE FALSE AND NOT INVESTIGATED.

There's a clear double-standard.[/quote]

And yet, it was bad intelligence and the Intel community got a shake up because of it. And now I'll ask again for the proof please.


Bullshit. I don't believe that fake Niger documents just "appear" out of thin air, nobody knows where they came from, and that when Bush recieved them, he wasn't aware that its validity was questionable.

I though that memo has been proved to be inaccurate. What you quote still holds though. Did you even read what you quoted? Even I said that the British thought it was sketchy. Learn to read :D

They, apparently, hadn't even investigated the Niger documents, but Bush came out on TV and PROCLAIMED, "Saddam Hussein has been seeking significant quantities of uranium."

I know what he said. You don't have to tell me. However, the intel came from the Brits so you can't really hang Bush on it.

I don't believe, that with the billions of dollars and state-of-the-art equipment we have, that, even after 9\11 and the PATRIOT Act were passed, our intelligence agencies are still that incompetent. It's completely bullshit.

Well it is. They are still having intel problems actually and the PATRIOT ACT has nothing to do with Intelligence. That is strictly law enforcement.

Bullshit.

Now can you say no that's not right without resorting to swearing? I'm getting annoyed with it.

I don't believe that fake Niger documents just "appear" out of thin air, nobody knows where they came from, and that when Bush recieved them, he wasn't aware that its validity was questionable.

It came from the British. I said that already.

They, apparently, hadn't even investigated the Niger documents, but Bush came out on TV and PROCLAIMED, "Saddam Hussein has been seeking significant quantities of uranium."

Your repeating yourself.

[snip]
WTF is a "mongel"?

You mean MONGOL? The barbarian invaders, led by Ghengis Khan, from Mongolia?
Actually, I think he meant "mongrel".

Actually, I think he meant "mongrel".

I think this is what he ment too.

What is the 2nd document? You only mentioned the one regarding Yellowcake Uranium. for this post. This is what I was saying that this memo (The yellowcake one) was from Britain and not the US.
I'm saying that the Niger document and the Downing Street document (hence "documents") both came from Britain.

And yet, it was bad intelligence and the Intel community got a shake up because of it. And now I'll ask again for the proof please.
But the fact is--major British officials were saying that America was putting out false intelligence. Then we did.

Are you trying to say that MI-6 thought we were putting out false intelligence, then looked at the false intelligence and said, "Oh! I guess we were wrong! This false intelligence is CORRECT"? :confused:

I though that memo has been proved to be inaccurate. What you quote still holds though. Did you even read what you quoted? Even I said that the British thought it was sketchy. Learn to read :D
If the British thought that it was sketchy, why did Bush, Rice, and several others PROCLAIM that it was true?!?!?!

I know what he said. You don't have to tell me. However, the intel came from the Brits so you can't really hang Bush on it.
Of course you can. Because they didn't drop it in his mailbox. I'm sure that if they knew it was sketchy, they told him it was sketchy too.

Well it is. They are still having intel problems actually and the PATRIOT ACT has nothing to do with Intelligence. That is strictly law enforcement.
Really? Just law enforcement? Because I was under the impression that it was to STOP TERRORISM.

For example:
SEC. 219 allow Federal investigators to choose the district which reviews their search warrants. While giving investigators faster search warrants, it has the problem of allowing them to "pick" a certain judge. SEC. 412 allows the Attorney General to detain any non-citizen for up to 7 days, after which they must be either deported or charged with a crime. If they can’t be deported, he can have them detained permanently (reviewed every 6 months) if they "will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person. "

Oh, and, in the PATRIOT Act..

SEC. 503 set up a DNA database of terrorists and even just anyone who commits a violent crime.

SEC. 808 adds "threatening, attempting, or conspiring" to be a terrorist, as part of the Federal crime of terrorism (such as the white, teenage girl in New York, who threatened to suicide bomb people, but had no connections to terrorism whatsoever). What I find fairly odd, though, was that the "Army of God", the militant, Christian group that has murdered doctors and sent anthrax threats was never put on trial as terrorists. How odd! Random Muslims and teenage girls, but no, not radical Christian groups, no, no! That would hurt Bush's core demographic, of right-wing basketcases, even though they, legally, are terrorists.

There are some good sections, though, that aren't related to strictly law-enforcement. Fool.

SEC. 101 makes a counterterrorism fund, to reimburse any government department or agency which faces damages due to terrorism. SEC. 103 increased fund to the FBI technical support center by 200 million. (Yet we STILL screwed up?! Nonsense!) SEC. 105 allows the Secret Service to develop a national network of electronic crime task forces, to prevent electronic attacks against critical infrastructure and financial payment systems. SEC. 205 increases the amount of FBI translators. SEC. 361 establishes a "Financial Crimes Enforcement Network", to combat money laundering, which like the Department of Homeland Security, gathers information so that it can notify other authorities. SEC. 405 supports an extra $2 million funding of the FBI’s current fingerprinting database. SEC. 1016 $20 million funding so that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency can analyze the U.S. infrastructure, to do threat-assessment studies and models.

So, don't tell me this bullshit "only law-enforcement." Like I said, I've read the entire thing. And I know it's not just for law-enforcement. And the FBI has recieved many millions as a result of the PATRIOT Act. For many of those programs, a specific amount wasn't allocated in the bill, but was probably allocated later, as they'd require money.

It came from the British. I said that already.
Are you trying to suggest that our intelligence agencies don't even TALK about the validity of evidence, before handing it from the British to the President?!?! :confused:

Are you trying to tell me that, in the time that it took for Bush to spend weeks of giving speeches on it, that the British never had an opportunity to tell the President that it was "sketchy"?!?! :confused:

Bullshit!

oooh, pwned Corneliu

I think that it is conspiracy-theorism to claim that the two largest intelligence agencies in the entire world, which both recieve billions of dollars and have state-of-the-art equipment, operated by the most intelligent and skilled people in the world, would simultaneously have the same "intelligence failures" on numerous occassions, at the exact same time, over the exact same issue.

Failure on 9\11 is believable. But "accidentally" believing Hussein had connections to Al-Qaeda, "accidentally" believing Hussein had WMDs, "accidentally" claiming the Niger story was accurate.

You're so full of shit.

And even if, theoretically, these intelligence agencies did have massive failures of this level, then I'd say that their reports now are worth fucking toilet paper and any increased power or funding is unnecessary.

If they can put out false intelligence then, then what the fuck has changed that would stop them from doing it now? It wasn't that "information sharing" bullshit. The PATRIOT Act, which allowed any Federal agency to share info with another agency, was put into effect before all of these Iraqi intelligence failures happened.

<snip>
You're so full of shit.
<snip>

You have some good points, but try not to flame or flaimbait too much; I'd hate to see you forumbanned. We must keep our cool when dealing with Republicans. :)
My advice, read up on the rules if you haven't already done so.

I think I speak for everyone who petitioned here when I say this:

Anyone who thinks that Bush was moral and justified when goin in this war for Iraq are all rednecks who have no idea what they are talking about. They are all brainwashed little fools who should learn a little more about humans. Bush is a friggin moron and a warmonger. He pluralized the internet during the 2nd presidential debate, he has gotten America into a major deficit even though we had a surplus after Clinton left. He has the whole U.N against him now (wih a few exceptions) for this war and now we have proof that he is a lying scumbag who should be shot for war crimes. People like NAS should leave this forum right now for their stupidity and stop defending this moron who they consider as a "good man". He was not misinformed, he planned this all along. It even said, Iraq had lesser chance of making WMDs then Libya, and yet we go and invade them. Ok how about this, how about we invade Russia because they have WMDs. Or, how about the world invades us because WE have the most WMDs? Saddam was nothing compared to other dictators like some in Africa. So why did we pick on him first? Wouldnt it be logical if we took out the dictator which causes the most damage? But nooooooooooo, we must invade Iraq for NO valid reason whatsoever. Bush went to Yale, not because of his intelligence, but because his daddy gave him enough money to join Yale. In Yale, Bush was a drunkard (they revealed this during the first presidential run after CLinton's reign). I have also noticed, only smart people realize that Bush is a fuckin scumbag while rednecks and stupid people like NAS support him. On 9/11, he was in a school reading a story to some kids. The Secret Service agents came and told him about what happened to the WTC towers and what did he do? HE SAT THERE FOR 7 MINUTES DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. If you saw his face at that time, you would start laughing. It was filled with utter blankness and stupidity. So many soldiers and people died for a war that should not have happened. All those deaths went in vain. Soldiers died, innocent Iraqs died, women and children died. IS THIS ALL JUSTIFIED????!!! 1,200 U.S soldiers are dead. That is nothing compared to the number of Iraqis dead. There are around 10,000+ iraqis dead and yet no one seems to remember that. ALL FOR A WAR THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN PLACE. THAT IS WHY THERE IS STILL HOSTILITY IN IRAQ TODAY!!

Hmm... I suppose this is why everyone hates America. Heaven forbid they offer any proof of their allegations.

We saved the world in WWII. The Russians and Brits couldn't have done it alone. It was our industry, our manpower, our might, our foodstuffs production, which kept the Allies in the fight against Nazi Germany. I guess everyone is too young to remember those days. They are also too young to remember the oppression and repression and massmurder of the Communist regimes, only to which America could stand against.

America has driven the world's economy, and invention, for over a hundred-fifty years. America invented the telephone, the internet, the airplane, the automobile, the television, and our gov't and civilian programs/corporations have produced the most advanced technologies used around the world today.

If you don't believe the economy part, then how come the ENTIRE WORLD dipped into recession after the September 11 attacks? How come no one has any sympathy for America after such a horrendous event?

And if this war was for oil, why the heck is my mother paying $2.60 for a gallon of gas? It is basic economics. The more of a commodity, the cheaper it is.

Anyway, all I guess I have to say, is,

Damn you, sir, and all the other ingrates in the world who have nothing to hate, and decide to hate the most generous nation in the world, the glue which holds this planet, and all its nations, in a coherent, civilized, state. Your precious (but useless) U.N. was initiated by the US, and the US continues to fund over 75% of its operations.

I can go on and on like this, because once you, in your IGNORANCE, start blaming America for things it HAS NOT DONE, and not giving credit to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the enormous good that it has done for this world, both Republicans and Democrats, you have lost any credibility in my eyes, and the eyes of many others



Let me clarify on where I stand on the matter. I'm new here and I'm not here to pick fights but I do want to give my 2 cents worth on this. I am Malaysian, for those of you who do not know where that is, it's directly north of Singapore and no, we do not live on trees. I am also a Muslim but I am not a very religious person. I do not believe in a faith where you cannot question it's teachings, I believe in the Quran but not everyone who claims to to know it well enough to be telling us how to live our lives. We answer for our own souls.

In reference to the thread I pasted, I agree. America has contributed tremendously to today's world. And it's economy drives the rest of the world.
I've lived in the Big Apple for 4 years and I knew great people while I was there. We owe America alot for it's contributions.

However, if you live on this side of the world you also see things differently. I have American friends who are not proud of their country's recent war making behaviour. There were alot of good points thrown in this discussion, both for and against.

I do not deny that Saddam was a bad leader. Yes he gassed the Kurds, but he wasn't the only man who's ever done something of the sort. If you look back there were plenty of of examples. Hitler and the Native American Indians to name a few. History repeats itself and I'm not saying since it happened before it's okay. America used to lynch negros even.

But what business does America have to barge in one's country and remove Saddam? Where is the sovereignity of a nation when that happens? It is said to liberate the Iraqi people. But who of us here, comfortable in their own homes, with internet connections, cars....a good life, can say they are better off? How can they be when their main source of income, Oil, is being drilled by foreign contractors? Even now there are sporadic fighting in Iraq. More innocents are dying. More soldiers are dying....and I ask...for what?

Doesn't this action seem like imposing one's belief of how a country should be runned on another? Is that what America stands for? Like how Christianity was imposed in Europe before? (I do not mean to offend any Christians here, I am merely giving examples, if you are offended I am sorry)

However, what is done is done, Saddam is gone and Iraq is now in a state of turmoil. Now the rest of the International Community is asking...what now? There were no WMDs and many have died because of such a reason. The invasion went ahead even when the most of the International Community was against it. France spoke against it and they were shot down. They were merely voicing out their stand on the matter. Are they not allow to do that? America said that France was ungrateful for the aid in WWII. So since America saved them from the Germans they have to stay quiet and just say yes? How is that freedom? Then they should just become another state and join the other 50.

America is a leader, my friend, however, recent actions have shaken the faith the world has had in America. Who wouldn't be shaken. Who's to stop them from barging into my country for whatever reasons? The UN couldn't stop them, America is carving out a dictator-like image of itself. I do not question America's values as a Nation, but I do question it's leader's intentions.

Hmm... I suppose this is why everyone hates America. Heaven forbid they offer any proof of their allegations.

We saved the world in WWII. The Russians and Brits couldn't have done it alone. It was our industry, our manpower, our might, our foodstuffs production, which kept the Allies in the fight against Nazi Germany. I guess everyone is too young to remember those days. They are also too young to remember the oppression and repression and massmurder of the Communist regimes, only to which America could stand against.

America has driven the world's economy, and invention, for over a hundred-fifty years. America invented the telephone, the internet, the airplane, the automobile, the television, and our gov't and civilian programs/corporations have produced the most advanced technologies used around the world today.

If you don't believe the economy part, then how come the ENTIRE WORLD dipped into recession after the September 11 attacks? How come no one has any sympathy for America after such a horrendous event?

And if this war was for oil, why the heck is my mother paying $2.60 for a gallon of gas? It is basic economics. The more of a commodity, the cheaper it is.

Anyway, all I guess I have to say, is,

Damn you, sir, and all the other ingrates in the world who have nothing to hate, and decide to hate the most generous nation in the world, the glue which holds this planet, and all its nations, in a coherent, civilized, state. Your precious (but useless) U.N. was initiated by the US, and the US continues to fund over 75% of its operations.

I can go on and on like this, because once you, in your IGNORANCE, start blaming America for things it HAS NOT DONE, and not giving credit to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the enormous good that it has done for this world, both Republicans and Democrats, you have lost any credibility in my eyes, and the eyes of many others



Let me clarify on where I stand on the matter. I'm new here and I'm not here to pick fights but I do want to give my 2 cents worth on this. I am Malaysian, for those of you who do not know where that is, it's directly north of Singapore and no, we do not live on trees. I am also a Muslim but I am not a very religious person. I do not believe in a faith where you cannot question it's teachings, I believe in the Quran but not everyone who claims to to know it well enough to be telling us how to live our lives. We answer for our own souls.

In reference to the thread I pasted, I agree. America has contributed tremendously to today's world. And it's economy drives the rest of the world.
I've lived in the Big Apple for 4 years and I knew great people while I was there. We owe America alot for it's contributions.

However, if you live on this side of the world you also see things differently. I have American friends who are not proud of their country's recent war making behaviour. There were alot of good points thrown in this discussion, both for and against.

I do not deny that Saddam was a bad leader. Yes he gassed the Kurds, but he wasn't the only man who's ever done something of the sort. If you look back there were plenty of of examples. Hitler and the Native American Indians to name a few. History repeats itself and I'm not saying since it happened before it's okay. America used to lynch negros even.

But what business does America have to barge in one's country and remove Saddam? Where is the sovereignity of a nation when that happens? It is said to liberate the Iraqi people. But who of us here, comfortable in their own homes, with internet connections, cars....a good life, can say they are better off? How can they be when their main source of income, Oil, is being drilled by foreign contractors? Even now there are sporadic fighting in Iraq. More innocents are dying. More soldiers are dying....and I ask...for what?

Doesn't this action seem like imposing one's belief of how a country should be runned on another? Is that what America stands for? Like how Christianity was imposed in Europe before? (I do not mean to offend any Christians here, I am merely giving examples, if you are offended I am sorry)

However, what is done is done, Saddam is gone and Iraq is now in a state of turmoil. Now the rest of the International Community is asking...what now? There were no WMDs and many have died because of such a reason. The invasion went ahead even when the most of the International Community was against it. France spoke against it and they were shot down. They were merely voicing out their stand on the matter. Are they not allow to do that? America said that France was ungrateful for the aid in WWII. So since America saved them from the Germans they have to stay quiet and just say yes? How is that freedom? Then they should just become another state and join the other 50.

America is a leader, my friend, however, recent actions have shaken the faith the world has had in America. Who wouldn't be shaken. Who's to stop them from barging into my country for whatever reasons? The UN couldn't stop them, America is carving out a dictator-like image of itself. I do not question America's values as a Nation, but I do question it's leader's intentions.

I agree with you mate. Im not blaming America at all. Im blaming Bush.

No matter how information and observations point towards Bush being less than a straight shooter, it won't matter.

Americans have become more cynical and apathetic in the 21st century, and Shrub has a solid personality cult developed around him where he can do no wrong.

Americans have become more cynical and apathetic in the 21st century, and Shrub has a solid personality cult developed around him where he can do no wrong.
And it's attitudes like that the keep fascists like Bush in power. We can defeat this evil! The power of INDIVIDUALS to have a say in one's government is the very basis for Democracy. Just because Bush has a lot of sinister and crafty webs of influence surrounding him is no reason why we should give up.

:rolleyes: you silly boy, Politics are for intellectuals. The British cracked ENIGMA, ULTRA, JN-25, PURPLE, and invented Radar, and the analog computer (COLOSSUS). The Germans built NASA, Werner Von Braun and many more, Albert Einstein was a German. The Soviets built the T-34/75 on technology the US pooh-poohed utterly. The British SAS/SOE trained Delta Force, the Green Berets, and the OSS. Dieppe proved that the countries of Europe would not be liberated without the aide of the US, they needed only war materiel and warm bodies, both things the US could produce en masse. The Uk and Soviets, incl Australlia had much of their factories destroyed, the US was untouched. Without the Germans the cold war would have been much harder, they also built the supersecret NSA, read "Body of Secrets". The 9/11 attacks were known about and allowed to happen, furthermore the British sent a telegram to FDR warning of an imminent attack on Pearl Harbour, but FDR ignored it. Think about this, Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan was put in place by the US, but one of his first actions was to cut heroin/opium production and export to the Uk (BBC) and (First In). The Downing street memo proves that George W. Bush wanted to go invade Iraq, even though evidence suggested there was NO REASON to.

"in my line of work you have to repeat yourself several times before the '"truth' sinks in, you know, catapult the propoganda" -G.W.B June 2005

Does this sound like an honest man?????

they only need 3000 more names

"in my line of work you have to repeat yourself several times before the '"truth' sinks in, you know, catapult the propoganda" -G.W.B June 2005

Does this sound like an honest man?????

He's a politician wanting to stay in power because people are questioning him. Why do you think he's going to be honest. We are but mere voting consumers that wouldn't be able to grasp the world political stage. We don't deserve the truth ;)

This message was brought to you by the word, Sarcasm, Irony and the lesser known phrase "attempted humour"

Enjoy

I loathe to admit my own country is in Iraq to help Bush steal their oil.. But this isn't a debate about my government.

I honestly can't say if Bush lied. Only he can. It's hardly plausible he didn't though, considering all the indications. In his defence, he comes across as being so utterly unintelligent that he might actually have believed what he said. I don't see how it's possible the rest of the administration didn't lie though.

But as I've stated previously, that's hardly what's important. What is important is you had no grounds for starting a war (just as my own government are war criminals). Let's ignore for a moment the concept of pre-emptive war.

What was the motivation to attack? As far as I can tell, it was a question of expansionist politics, securing the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world. But I digress..
Did Iraq pose a threat to anyone? - Prior to 9/11 the entire world agreed he was unable to wage war on anyone. He simply didn't have the means to do it. At the most, he was able to defend Iraq from immediate neighbours. After 9/11 US, Israeli and British intelligence changed their opinion. Hardly anyone else did, even though those three agencies shared their information in the hopes of gaining international support for an attack.
Skip forward a year, and only the Israeli intelligence still claims he posed a threat to anyone. Both British and US intelligence excuse their claims of Iraq being a threat.
Did he posses WMD's? - Again this is more or less a repeat of the above. We - the world community - did not want to see Saddam posses WMD's. We took steps to address this. The US wanted to attack regardless, and put their entire propaganda system to work, discrediting the UN werapons inspectors. Reading through this thread, it's obvious they were very successful in their endevour.

Now last time I checked, a nation needs a very good reason to invade another soverign state. Where was our reason?
Hiding behind claims of "faulty intelligence" and the like, just doesn't cut it. If there's reasonable doubt involved, then an attack is a war crime. Even while America (and allies) were pushing the UN for their (ok, our) war, conflicting information kept surfacing, casting serious doubt on the crdibility of the intelligence. That is why the UN didn't sanction the attack.

That's also why the arguement about lying is irellevant. We are war crimminals. Your nations (UK & USA) are the primary authours of the laws governing the concept. My own country ratified them. Argue away, but make no mistake. We are criminals in the very worst sense.

Now about the very polite post telling me off previously, said I am an ingrate, because of all the wonderfull things the USA have done for the world... Such as saving my behind in WWII & inventing the TV.
Please excuse me while I sit here with an expression of utter amazement for a moment...

Ok, I'm over it now. I suppose I could RIP your - very polite - post. I'll just call you an ingrate instead. I don't suppose you know why, so I'll tell you: We europeans settled the USA. According to your logic, you're the ingrate for questioning me, when clearly you owe your entire existence to europe.
I hope I'm not the only one who finds that completely absurd.
Oh and... In case the birth of your nation isn't something you find as important as the TV, we (the non-us part of the world) pay roughly 6% of your gross national product each year. If we didn't the global economy would collapse, because it's based on the USD. That motive also accounts for europe's, Japan's and China's massive investments in the USA. If we don't keep you afloat - regardless of how utterly enept you are at running a successful economy - you'll pull us down with you.
Do I ask for your gratitude? Nope. But I think you should heed my advice and choose someone with a brain next time. Preferrably one that doesn't invest 40% (or whatever) of your taxdollars in your military, doesn't prioritise the oil & weapons industries at the cost of your service sector and social system, one that gives a shit about educating your people so you can remain a productive part of the global community, one that doesn't alienate every friend you once had, one that doesn't take pride in turning your major cities into slums.... The list is endless... Hell I'm sure even you would do a better job.

Some of you have mentioned you think the rest of us would prefer if you isolated yourself from the rest of the globe. Sure... If you really want to, please go ahead and try. You can't do it. You'd go bankrupt. So would we, but arguably, it would be worth it ;)

It's amazing how people can debate all this for 30 something pages and still not be able to see the wood for the trees. Yes, the memo is horrible. Yes, it's plausible he is lying, especially when he tries to harm any intelligence employee's contradicting him.... But it's just not what's important.
It's like listening to people talk about the obesity epidemic and only blame Burger King. Sure they're at fault, but Burger King isn't the real problem.

A nice (and very sharp) point

A nice (and very sharp) point

If it was mine then cheers, but I doubt it ;)

Continuing my last post...

It just occured to me quite a few of you might not realize why it's important to bring out leaders to justice and why this - otherwise relatively minor - war is so horribly wrong.

The international community have laws governing our conduct to insure our stability, safety and prosperity. America is the single most important nation in this regard.
Their military might is so incredible, it is probably comparable to the combined military might of every other force on the planet. No alliance today can hope to take you on. This means, that other than ethics, there's nothing to stop the USA from submitting any nation to their will. Or to put it differently, as long as America behaves somewhat responsible and doesn't grind random nations to dust for the sake of furthering their own agenda, other nations can only assume the most horrendus force ever assembled will be out to get them if they violate international law. That was the reality untill we attacked Iraq.
Keeping the above in mind, you are one of the most screwed up economies on the planet. Not only do you rely on the economy of the wealthy nations to keep you afloat, you've also been actively exploiting 3rd world nations to sustain yourself to a much greater extent than anyone else in world history. When you suddenly change the rules of the game, and adapt a policy of expansionist warfare for profit, you scare the shit out of everyone.
I don't know how to make an example, so I'll stick to reality... I just hope you can comprehend this.
USA have long (since WWII) abused, overthrown, assasinated and inserted goverments and dictators in countries with resources but miserable economies. Effectively sponsoring civil wars and genocides across the span of the globe. You've done this for profit. It's not because you dislike democracies or dictators, like civil rights or dislike civil rights. The only common thread in your exploitation have been... Well, your exploitation and profit.
Most of the poor countries in the world to day have desirable features for a super power. Natural resources, unregulated markets.. You name it. Most such nations also either hurt their own populations and have massive, highly dangerous weapons programs. A lot of them even pose a threat to their immediate neighbours.
America have now made a new set of rules for warfare and acceptable international conduct. All of the things I just mentioned poverty stricken 3rd world countries have in common, are now reasons for the USA to wage war.

Noone feels safe anymore. Whether you're threatning them right now or not, how can they believe you're not gonna decide to whipe them out?
That kind of global instability doesn't just spawn terrorism and national instability in affected countries. Potentially, it sends such nations to war with eachother.
You also set an example for your allies and other nations you cannot credibly threaten. Israel and Russia springs to mind. As soon as you went to war, they started disregarding UN decisions and started murdering & deporting native minorities. I'm sure they also are grateful for the telephone....

I hope it's worth it. And if this really was to liberate humans and not oil, I incourage you to hit Burma next time. That has to be the most oppresive and downright evil regime on the planet today.

But I must confess, I hope we can bring our leaders to justice for their inexcusable war crimes, and reinstate global peace.

I loathe to admit my own country is in Iraq to help Bush steal their oil..

You just shot yourself in the foot with this line.

I'm saying that the Niger document and the Downing Street document (hence "documents") both came from Britain.

I was just talking about the yellocake memo in regards to everything I was talking about! :rolleyes:

But the fact is--major British officials were saying that America was putting out false intelligence. Then we did.

It was BAD INTELLIGENCE! How many times does this have to be said? Oh wait. You hate Bush so no matter how much proof we show you that it was only bad intel, you wouldn't believe it. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Bush won't get impeached because he hasn't done anything impeachable.

Are you trying to say that MI-6 thought we were putting out false intelligence, then looked at the false intelligence and said, "Oh! I guess we were wrong! This false intelligence is CORRECT"? :confused:

It was bad intelligence. I blame the British for not investigating the Yellowcake thing more thoroughly since it was them in the first place that told us about it. :rolleyes:

If the British thought that it was sketchy, why did Bush, Rice, and several others PROCLAIM that it was true?!?!?!

Why did the British give us the intelligence in the first place if they thought it was sketchy?

Of course you can. Because they didn't drop it in his mailbox. I'm sure that if they knew it was sketchy, they told him it was sketchy too.

Not Bush's fault that the British didn't investigate the Niger thing more thoroughly than they did. They handed the intel to us. Even Bush commented on this that if he KNEW that it wasn't fully accurate, he wouldn't have included it in his State of the Union Address. HE STATED THIS HIMSELF!!!!! So no you can't hang Bush on it. I'm blaming the British for this Intel screw up.

Really? Just law enforcement? Because I was under the impression that it was to STOP TERRORISM.

Yes it was but it deals with the FBI.

For example:
SEC. 219 allow Federal investigators to choose the district which reviews their search warrants. While giving investigators faster search warrants, it has the problem of allowing them to "pick" a certain judge. SEC. 412 allows the Attorney General to detain any non-citizen for up to 7 days, after which they must be either deported or charged with a crime. If they can’t be deported, he can have them detained permanently (reviewed every 6 months) if they "will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person. "

And this deals with the CIA how? I'm not seeing anything about the CIA in these sections you quoted.

Oh, and, in the PATRIOT Act..

SEC. 503 set up a DNA database of terrorists and even just anyone who commits a violent crime.

And yet we have a database for Rapists and child molestors too. This is just another database to help law enforcement! Jeez. I thought everyone knew this.

SEC. 808 adds "threatening, attempting, or conspiring" to be a terrorist, as part of the Federal crime of terrorism (such as the white, teenage girl in New York, who threatened to suicide bomb people, but had no connections to terrorism whatsoever). What I find fairly odd, though, was that the "Army of God", the militant, Christian group that has murdered doctors and sent anthrax threats was never put on trial as terrorists. How odd! Random Muslims and teenage girls, but no, not radical Christian groups, no, no! That would hurt Bush's core demographic, of right-wing basketcases, even though they, legally, are terrorists.

Considering I have not heard of the Army of God, I shall not comment on it. As for the teenage girl, if she threatened it good for the cops. Just because someone does a suicide attack, doesn't mean she has connections to terrorists. You know how easy it is to make a bomb on your own? :rolleyes:

There are some good sections, though, that aren't related to strictly law-enforcement. Fool.

Dumbass! Yes they are. Fool.

SEC. 101 makes a counterterrorism fund, to reimburse any government department or agency which faces damages due to terrorism.

How does this prove anything? Nothing!

SEC. 103 increased fund to the FBI technical support center by 200 million. (Yet we STILL screwed up?! Nonsense!)

Doesn't prove what you say. If anything it disproves it. Notice that it says F.B.I Technical Support Center. Yes its funds are increased. Good. Makes it easier for them to do their jobs in defending us.

SEC. 105 allows the Secret Service to develop a national network of electronic crime task forces, to prevent electronic attacks against critical infrastructure and financial payment systems.

Another law enforcement section. Your not convincing me with these sections here. I thought you said it dealt with intel and not with law enforcement? :rolleyes:

SEC. 205 increases the amount of FBI translators.

FBI again and goes back to law enforcement!

SEC. 361 establishes a "Financial Crimes Enforcement Network", to combat money laundering, which like the Department of Homeland Security, gathers information so that it can notify other authorities.

Money laundering, a crime in and of itself. Another law enforcement bill. Yep. So far the USAPATRIOT ACT is dealing with the protection of the US through Law enforcement :rolleyes:

SEC. 405 supports an extra $2 million funding of the FBI’s current fingerprinting database.

*yawns* You have just destroyed your entire arguements regarding the patriot act and intelligence. Yes it was passed to stop terrorism but it was also to beef up LAW ENFORCEMENT so that they can stop terrorism.

SEC. 1016 $20 million funding so that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency can analyze the U.S. infrastructure, to do threat-assessment studies and models.

Very good. You finally quoted a section that didn't deal with law enforcement. After all that this is the only section you can quote?

So, don't tell me this bullshit "only law-enforcement."

It is BS. The USAPATRIOT Act gives LAW ENFORCEMENT the tools to make sure another terrorist attack doesn't happen. Your right that it was designed to stop terrorism however, I am also right that the USAPATRIOT Act also deals with Law Enforcement.

Like I said, I've read the entire thing.

Want a medal?

And I know it's not just for law-enforcement.

Your only 20 years old. I, at least, have studied this issue. It does deal with Law Enforcement. Apparently you continously missed the three letters F.B.I.

And the FBI has recieved many millions as a result of the PATRIOT Act.

And what is the FBI? Everyone say it with me. Its a Law Enforcement Agency.

For many of those programs, a specific amount wasn't allocated in the bill, but was probably allocated later, as they'd require money.

Here, I'll agree with you on this point.

Are you trying to suggest that our intelligence agencies don't even TALK about the validity of evidence, before handing it from the British to the President?!?! :confused:

Oh I'm sure and Im sure that the British Intel Officer who handed over the intel, thought that the Yellowcake intel was accurate. We don't know who handed it to whom and what was said. We are actually in the dark about this issue.

Are you trying to tell me that, in the time that it took for Bush to spend weeks of giving speeches on it, that the British never had an opportunity to tell the President that it was "sketchy"?!?! :confused:

Not saying that at all. I'm sure that they urged caution on the matter because it was probably still being investigated. I would urge caution in the British shoes. However, since it was the British Intel, I blame them for that screw up and not Bush.

Bullshit!

Is this the only word you can say to say no?

And it's attitudes like that the keep fascists like Bush in power. We can defeat this evil! The power of INDIVIDUALS to have a say in one's government is the very basis for Democracy. Just because Bush has a lot of sinister and crafty webs of influence surrounding him is no reason why we should give up.

How in the hell is Bush a Fascist? He has shown absolutely no fascist tendencies whatsoever. Prove this!

He's a politician wanting to stay in power because people are questioning him.

Sounds like the Democrats who want to regain the power they have been losing since 1994! :D

they only need 3000 more names

And just how many of those are actually legal signatures? That is what I would love to know!

It won't make a bit of difference anyway. :rolleyes:

Regardless

Not considering the Patriot Act, the faulty intel, the budget or whatever.

The main "factor" here is, Bush went to war. He practically spearheaded the "Coalition". Granted that he didn't go in alone, but he did anyway.

Bush is NOT the only leader to blame, other leaders who went in with him are just as guilty. What kind of leader would just go "yes I'll follow you to war" without kowing all the facts, a matter of trust? Just because Bush was the front man doesn't mean the leaders behind him aren't as guilty as we are saying Bush is.

Sim (Shortened for The Similized World), has a good point. The leaders have to be held responsible.

Look at it this way, you literally help create and fund an organization where all Nations can have a voice in world issues, The UN, the bulk of which was against the Invasion of Iraq. And yet those voices went literally unheeded.

By doing so,

-Bush and the other leaders, have proven that the UN cannot stop him
-The UN is now looked down by less developed nations for being incapable of doing so.

For those of you who know a bit of history, the UN now is scary as it is on the path of following it's predecessor The League of Nations, which failed to stop the events leading up to WWII. And history has this scary habit of repeating itself.

Is this the proper behaviour of world leaders? No. Should they be held responsible? Definitely.

It was in Spiderman that they said - With great power comes great responsibilities. If you're not responsible then you don't deserve to wield such power.

These leaders will encourage another generation of leaders who will abuse the trust given to them as world leaders. Other more powerful nations can now use this event as an excuse to do what they please.

"If America, Britain and Australia can invade Iraq when the rest of the world was against it, why can't I."

And if they try to stop them, they'll be hypocrits.

And just how many of those are actually legal signatures? That is what I would love to know!

It won't make a bit of difference anyway. :rolleyes:

I know but its fun thinking it will ;) . Or at least other people believing it will one of the two

I know but its fun thinking it will ;) . Or at least other people believing it will one of the two

Ok, I'll agree with you :D

In Blair's last town meeting (a while ago), where ANY CITIZEN could attend, the public absolutely butchered him over the memo. By the end of the meeting, he had been sweating so profusely and scratching his head so often, that he looked like Jack Nicholson in "The Shining." After he went evil, I mean.

But Bush's town meetings have been by invitation-alone. They send out "tickets" to specific constituents. At one point, three individuals were removed from the audience by the Secret Service for having a "No Blood For Oil" bumper sticker on the back of their car. [1] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10969-2005Mar29.html)

I believe that both Bush and Blair lied.

So far, the Conservative rebuttals are as follows:

Rebuttal: It's not authentic.
Counter-Rebuttal: No one questions its authenticity, anymore. The Blair administration calls it "nothing new." [2] (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592904,00.html)


The Blair admin calls it "nothing new"? What has that got to do with authenticity??


Rebuttal: It was the interpretation of the Foreign Secretary's Aide.
Counter-Rebuttal: It was a top-secret document, endorsed by the Foreign Secretary, as a summary of their discussions, and written by his aide. And if the aide were making false statements, the Blair administration could've claimed that it was false, and released evidence proving that (such as memos by officials immediately afterwards, claiming that the memo was an incorrect assessment). That has not happened. And it was not an essay, but a summary of their discussions.


So the note we are discussing is British? We all know that they dont do as many security checks as us. It goes from our field operatives to a professional who decifers if it is authentic, then it goes to the Head of the CIA who then checks the sanity of anyone who has written or corrected it and then carefully takes it to the President and cabinet. It seems what you have written above that in Britian it goes right from the field operatives to the Prime Minister. Hmmm...


Rebuttal: Iraq HAD WMDs!
Counter-Rebuttal: That is arguable, but even so, the memo itself states that the Chief of MI-6 (British Intelligence, remember James Bond?) said it's unlikely that Iraq was an "imminent threat", but rather, the U.S. was intentionally generating false intelligence to support an unnecessary war. That pre-war intelligence's failure has been reported in the media many times.[3] (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/sprj.nirq.wmd.kay/)


The Chief of MI-6 said that it was UNLIKELY that Iraq was an imminent threat. At this point in time we had documents pointing out that he may have had WMD and this was a man that had a village of 5,000 of Iraqis gassed one morining and WATCHED IT. What you pulled from the memo there looks like the Chief of MI-6's opinion. He obviously didnt know the genecidal phsyco.


Rebuttal: The 911 Commission and other investigations contradict the memo.
Counter-Rebuttal: Bush refused to allow the 911 Commission to exist for "nearly a year" after it was suggested. Even then, he only agreed to it, provided that he could appoint the head of the comission. So, arguably, the 911 Comission, the only "independent" investigation on intelligence was not independent at all. All other investigations were government-operated and therefore subject to political bias, just as with the pre-war intelligence. [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911_Commission#Claims_of_bias_within_the_commission)


Ok, in this one you do not show the other documents or tell how they contradict one another, just that Bush let it out later than planned.


Rebuttal: "Fixed", in British English, means "established."
Counter-Rebuttal: It can be either our definition or Britain's "established." However, take a look at the context of the memo saying, "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 qualifier 'but' implies a contradictory nature. For example, "I am a Liberal, BUT I am against gun control." So, within the context of, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam because of WMDs, BUT the intelligence was being fixed", the definition of intentionally adjusting applies and the intelligence was, indeed, being illegally 'fixed.'


Ok, I get how "fixed" can mean "established" in Britian, but fixed can also mean that it is being declassified and we making sure they did not have a conflict with the policy. I'd also like to know what policy that is refering to, please. I dont just like seeing one phrase, I like the whole paragrah. For example: "Yes I killed him!" When it was in the paragrah: "Then he pulled out his gun and aimed it at me so I lunged at him with my knife in self defense. Yes I killed him!"


Rebuttal: Cherry picking your intelligence is not lying.
Counter-Rebuttal: That is incorrect. Read the law. [5] (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+563+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%2 0%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281001%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20)


I don't believe anyone in the Bush admin has stated that "cherry picking your intelligence is not lying" because they are all SMARTER than that! Did you see the GRADES Bush made at Harvard and John Kerry's? Kerry for President would have been a dumb, melted candle for President and would have let every country walk all over us because he cant decide. And when he does decide, it is very possible he may change his mind, again and again.


Rebuttal: All politicians lie.
Counter-Rebuttal: But just like with Nixon, Clinton, and Tom DeLay, if they are caught, they should be put on trial, because lying to Congress is a Federal crime, worthy of impeachment. Lying to Congress to support an unnecessary war could also be interpreted as treason, especially when Bush's trust-fund (for retirement) is vested in oil and the Vice-President used to be on the board of directors of the major oil company, Haliburton, which has recieved major government deals and bonuses in Iraq. [6] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml)


There is NO GAIN from us invading Iraq otherwise, absolutely no incentive like there was at WaterGate. We are not after oil so badly we invade countries. We would tap Alaska LONG before possibly starting WWIII.


Rebuttal: No one believes this memo. It's old news.
Counter-Rebuttal: The British newspaper, the Times, did a front-page story on it recently, as did the New York Times. 89 Congressmen have demanded that Bush answer the allegations put forth by the memo, led by Congressman John Conyers. [7] (http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/)


Wait a second! The New York Times, the Times, and the 89 congressmen are ALL DEMOCRATS! If any other party believes in this document, please step forward so we dont have to listen to the democrats, PLEASE!


Rebuttal: It's not solid proof that he lied.
Counter-Rebuttal: But there is enough evidence to support an independent investigation, and that's all we're asking for.

I'm sorry, but there isn't even enough proof for an investigation. It is all hearsay, and if you took ANYTHING in college about law, you would know it. He said she said!

The Chief of MI-6 said that it was UNLIKELY that Iraq was an imminent threat. At this point in time we had documents pointing out that he may have had WMD and this was a man that had a village of 5,000 of Iraqis gassed one morining and WATCHED IT. What you pulled from the memo there looks like the Chief of MI-6's opinion. He obviously didnt know the genecidal phsyco.

For the billionth time, Saddam wasnt a threat. Wow, he may have had a WMD. BIG DEAL! We have the most WMDs in the world!! HOW COME NO ONE IS INVADING US! Stupid hypocrites. And now, you are saying that the U.S are freedom fighters therefore we are justified in invading Iraq. And now, there are approx. 1,200 soldiers dead and 10,000+ innocent Iraqis dead. Flawed logic dont ya think?

Ok, in this one you do not show the other documents or tell how they contradict one another, just that Bush let it out later than planned.

That, ladies and gentlemen is a perfect example of covering up. It is also a perfect example of "twisting the truth". Stop lying, fool.

Ok, I get how "fixed" can mean "established" in Britian, but fixed can also mean that it is being declassified and we making sure they did not have a conflict with the policy. I'd also like to know what policy that is refering to, please. I dont just like seeing one phrase, I like the whole paragrah. For example: "Yes I killed him!" When it was in the paragrah: "Then he pulled out his gun and aimed it at me so I lunged at him with my knife in self defense. Yes I killed him!"

What gun? You killed a defenseless man!

I don't believe anyone in the Bush admin has stated that "cherry picking your intelligence is not lying" because they are all SMARTER than that! Did you see the GRADES Bush made at Harvard and John Kerry's? Kerry for President would have been a dumb, melted candle for President and would have let every country walk all over us because he cant decide. And when he does decide, it is very possible he may change his mind, again and again.

I thought you would know this. But since you support Bush, you are a moron. Every smart person knows that grades mean NOTHING! I have a kid in my class who is a genius but yet he is not doing well merely because he doesnt try. How do I know this, he never does his homework and never studies for any tests. But when we have an intellectual discussion, I see him flaunt his brilliance to us and then I realize he is smart. There is a girl in my class who does very well but when I talk to her, I find out that she is a friggin moron. She thought Thomas Watt invented the lightbulb! Now on topic, the Bush admin is filled with morons. For example, Bush pluralized internet during the second presdential debate. Only rednecks and morons say such things. So yes, you better believe they said that. I know its shocking to someone like you when you find out that the person you have been supporting is the biggest idiot on the face of this planet.


Wait a second! The New York Times, the Times, and the 89 congressmen are ALL DEMOCRATS! If any other party believes in this document, please step forward so we dont have to listen to the democrats, PLEASE!

Since when was being a democrat or liberal a bad thing? You stupid fools have distorted the whole meaning of liberal and democrat.

I'm sorry, but there isn't even enough proof for an investigation. It is all hearsay, and if you took ANYTHING in college about law, you would know it. He said she said!

Once again, the whole idea of "I NEED MORE PROOF" even though we have given you all the proof needed. Meh, just give it up. You lost the argument. You're fighting a losing battle.

And just how many of those are actually legal signatures? That is what I would love to know!

It won't make a bit of difference anyway. :rolleyes:
For petitions to be valid (in the US), all of the signers have to be American citizens of voting age that are eligible to vote.

I'm pretty sure this petition has at least some (a lot, most likely) foreign nationals and minors signing it, I'll bet they have more than just 3000 signatures to go.

For petitions to be valid (in the US), all of the signers have to be American citizens of voting age that are eligible to vote.

I'm pretty sure this petition has at least some (a lot, most likely) foreign nationals and minors signing it, I'll bet they have more than just 3000 signatures to go.

as you have to have an american zip code i reckon the numbers going to be higher

For petitions to be valid (in the US), all of the signers have to be American citizens of voting age that are eligible to vote.

I'm pretty sure this petition has at least some (a lot, most likely) foreign nationals and minors signing it, I'll bet they have more than just 3000 signatures to go.

I would agree with you Texpunditistan. When they deliver it, the dems are just going to be made to look like fools.

For petitions to be valid (in the US), all of the signers have to be American citizens of voting age that are eligible to vote.

I'm pretty sure this petition has at least some (a lot, most likely) foreign nationals and minors signing it, I'll bet they have more than just 3000 signatures to go.

They don't actually need 500,000 signatures. That's just an arbitrary value they decided to set that when it was reached they would deliver it to the president.

And as a note, it appears they've hit their 500,000 mark.

They don't actually need 500,000 signatures. That's just an arbitrary value they decided to set that when it was reached they would deliver it to the president.

And as a note, it appears they've hit their 500,000 mark.

But how many of those are actually legal US Citizens?

as you have to have an american zip code i reckon the numbers going to be higher
How hard is it for someone to look up a zip code on the internet and provide a fake address?

The point is, the petitioners have to go through and weed out all the ineligible signers and fakes for the petition to be valid.

I would agree with you Texpunditistan. When they deliver it, the dems are just going to be made to look like fools.

Actually, everything we have said will be proven right once Bush either confesses or refuses to give any comment or he blatently tries to cover up this story.