NationStates Jolt Archive

More than all other presidential libraries combined. And he reserves the right to remove any papers that might be "embarrassing". The oil rich nations that he has supported are expected to contribute vast amounts of the money they made from sales to you the consumer.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/475052p-399492c.html

I know what all of you guys are thinking.


"Wait a minute... George Bush can read?"


Yeah, I was shocked, too.

Bush's institute will hire conservative scholars and "give them money to write papers and books favorable to the President's policies," one Bush insider said.

*vomits profusely*

Half a billion dollars for a library...sheesh. :rolleyes:

*vomits profusely*

*does the same*

what is a presidential library then? and why does it cost so much? and how often do we imagine dubya is going to use such a facility?

You know, one of the little-publicized bullshit moves Bush made when taking office was changing the rules on what papers get released from previous administrations. People said he did it to protect his dad's reputation, because the stuff that would have hit the public domain was from the Iran-Contra period, and Poppy was neck deep in that shit. It sounds like he's trying to do the same thing here, only to cover his own ass, and the asses of everyone who was in both administrations. I'd give money to any candidate who says that he or she will reverse that decision and open up all those records to the public.

It better fuckin look nice.

$500 million for a personal monument...now that's some Brezhnev-scale shit there.

Hell, that's five times what Mobutu Sese Seko's favorite palace cost. And interestingly, a personal friend of Mobutu's was none other than George H. W. Bush.

It better fuckin look nice.

I bet it looks overwrought and needlessly opulent. And that you'll really have to look long and hard to find anything even remotely resembling a book anywhere on the premises.

I bet it looks overwrought and needlessly opulent. And that you'll really have to look long and hard to find anything even remotely resembling a book anywhere on the premises.

If it's supposed to be like the Hoover Institution, it'll look like a giant penis.

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/516121/2/istockphoto_516121_hoover_tower.jpg



The ideas that come out of it will be equally dickish.

More than all other presidential libraries combined. And he reserves the right to remove any papers that might be "embarrassing". The oil rich nations that he has supported are expected to contribute vast amounts of the money they made from sales to you the consumer.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/475052p-399492c.html

No suprise. He did the same thing in Texas when he left, only he broke the law to do it there.

Why does the worst president in modern history get the most expensive library? Its not like he has spent a great deal of time in a library anyway.

I know what all of you guys are thinking.


"Wait a minute... George Bush can read?"


Yeah, I was shocked, too.

I'm not convinced. There's no way that he's actually going to read any of the stuff in it.

*does the same*
I had the flu so I'm tired of vomiting.

I wonder how long it'll be before some "Evild Doers" burn the place down.

Why does the worst president in modern history get the most expensive library? Its not like he has spent a great deal of time in a library anyway.

Because to the people paying for the library, he was the best president of the last fifty years. Not everyone has done badly under Bush--just most of us. Some people have made out like bandits.

If it's supposed to be like the Hoover Institution, it'll look like a giant penis.

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/516121/2/istockphoto_516121_hoover_tower.jpg



The ideas that come out of it will be equally dickish.

It's going to be ugly. :(

My god I could design him a beautiful modern work of art for less than 100,000,000..

Because to the people paying for the library, he was the best president of the last fifty years. Not everyone has done badly under Bush--just most of us. Some people have made out like bandits.

Sad, but true.

I had the flu so I'm tired of vomiting.

I wonder how long it'll be before some "Evild Doers" burn the place down.

This place won't be destroyed...$500 million on a library pretty much means it's indestructible barring the planet exploding.

I can only wonder at what we will think in the future when the only thing that remains of our home planet is a gigantic library dedicated to one of the least competent presidents in the history of the United States.

http://www.nysun.com/article/27794

Amid increasing outrage among Republicans over the use of eminent domain and other coercive measures to obtain private property for public projects, a case in Dallas County's 134th Civil District Court, which is set to begin on Tuesday, will determine whether the university violated its legal obligations to local homeowners in an effort to secure the land currently occupied by the University Gardens condominium complex, a potential library site.


here's another problem.

Because to the people paying for the library, he was the best president of the last fifty years. Not everyone has done badly under Bush--just most of us. Some people have made out like bandits.

The nomenklatura always do well when incompetence reigns supreme...

Sad, but true.

Problem is, when you point that out, some folks start screeching "class war! class war!" as if we haven't been in a class war since the inception of the republic.

The nomenklatura always do well when incompetence reigns supreme...

The what?

The what?

The nomenklatura. A term originally used to refer to the politically-savvy elites of the Communist Party in the USSR, who lived lives of luxury and made millions of dollars while everyone else got screwed during the 1970's and 1980's.

In other words, the cronies of the government. Nomenklatura has a very specific overtone that suggests even more corruption than "crony".

Problem is, when you point that out, some folks start screeching "class war! class war!" as if we haven't been in a class war since the inception of the republic.

Also true.

Edit: Added the icon by mistake.

Because to the people paying for the library, he was the best president of the last fifty years. Not everyone has done badly under Bush--just most of us. Some people have made out like bandits.

How much do you think Haliburton, the oil companies and the Saudi's can throw in from what they've made the last few years?

Problem is, when you point that out, some folks start screeching "class war! class war!" as if we haven't been in a class war since the inception of the republic.

I hate the term "class war", because it ignores the fact that any competitive market will have winners and losers. Competitive exclusion is the manner in which a market funcitons. All we can do is give everyone the same fighting chance, and let them have their "class war". That's why we do things like try and improve funding for student financial aid, provide health care so that no citizen is unable to function fairly in the market, and offer everyone a hand up if they need it.

"Class War" is natural. It is what occurs when there are winners and losers in the economy. There will always be winners and losers in the economy, and so "class war" is an innevitable occurance.

Besides which, the idea of "class war" muddles the whole issue unnecessarily.

The nomenklatura. A term originally used to refer to the politically-savvy elites of the Communist Party in the USSR, who lived lives of luxury and made millions of dollars while everyone else got screwed during the 1970's and 1980's.

In other words, the cronies of the government. Nomenklatura has a very specific overtone that suggests even more corruption than "crony".

Ah, thanks.

How much do you think Haliburton, the oil companies and the Saudi's can throw in from what they've made the last few years?

They could build a library out of solid gold and still have enough left over for a moat of burning gasoline around it.

Problem is, when you point that out, some folks start screeching "class war! class war!" as if we haven't been in a class war since the inception of the republic.

Since we're throwing out seldom used words.----We started as a republic but have become and oligarchy. (A government of the few rich.)

Congress is going to be so happy.

I hate the term "class war", because it ignores the fact that any competitive market will have winners and losers. Competitive exclusion is the manner in which a market funcitons. All we can do is give everyone the same fighting chance, and let them have their "class war". That's why we do things like try and improve funding for student financial aid, provide health care so that no citizen is unable to function fairly in the market, and offer everyone a hand up if they need it.

"Class War" is natural. It is what occurs when there are winners and losers in the economy. There will always be winners and losers in the economy, and so "class war" is an innevitable occurance.

Besides which, the idea of "class war" muddles the whole issue unnecessarily.

That's not the way the wealthy elite use the term. They use it as a pejorative to describe people of the lower and middle economic classes who demand things like raises and benefits and point out the hypocrisy of the elite class. I know that class war is natural. It just bothers me to see people shy away from it because when they do, the war is decidedly one-sided. The only time the people near the bottom make any headway is when they decide to get noisy about it.

Since we're throwing out seldom used words.----We started as a republic but have become and oligarchy. (A government of the few rich.)

And we're quickly heading toward a corporatacracy, if we're not there already, that is.

And we're quickly heading toward a corporatacracy, if we're not there already, that is.

Well, if there's any solace to be taken from that, at least it's not a theocracy.

Corporations might be horrendous rulers, but at least their drive for profit tends more towards libertarianism than oppression.

They could build a library out of solid gold and still have enough left over for a moat of burning gasoline around it.

You'd still have a job finding a book anywhere in the building, except maybe in the pissoir.

That's not the way the wealthy elite use the term. They use it as a pejorative to describe people of the lower and middle economic classes who demand things like raises and benefits and point out the hypocrisy of the elite class. I know that class war is natural. It just bothers me to see people shy away from it because when they do, the war is decidedly one-sided. The only time the people near the bottom make any headway is when they decide to get noisy about it.

I haven't had all that much exposure to the wealthy elite, given that they tend to avoid people like me like a plague, so I haven't been exposed to that. I would, of course, contend that in America, as opposed to Europe, there is no trend towards class war in the sense of a strong lower or middle- class voting bloc or a strong upper-class voting bloc, and so the lower classes do not tend to get "noisy" as one. There are obvious counter-examples, but they are few and far in between. We don't get Populist or Progressive movements very often.

More interesting, perhaps, is the new Professional class' interestest in seeing pro-working class reform. It is in the interest of both the traditional middle class and the new middle class to create greater "class" stratification in the U.S., since it will keep them politically relevent.

Then again, the middle class in the U.S. just wants it's safe suburban home with it's safe homogenous society, so it will just stay quiet.

Well, if there's any solace to be taken from that, at least it's not a theocracy.

Corporations might be horrendous rulers, but at least their drive for profit tends more towards libertarianism than oppression.

That's not how I see it. If anything, corporations are far more controlling than practically any other form of governance, especially when it comes to things like speech and association. Trust me, if this country turned into a theocracy, I'd be on the first boat to some island in the Caribbean--I ain't staying around to be burned at the stake--but corporate rulership is just as bad in the overall scheme of things. There are far more important things in this world than profit.

How much do you think Haliburton, the oil companies and the Saudi's can throw in from what they've made the last few years? I'd be suprised if even a cent came out of their filthy, corrupt, money grubbing claws, that they call hands.

They could build a library out of solid gold and still have enough left over for a moat of burning gasoline around it.

But they won't because they perfer cash filled swimming pools instead.

(Am I bitter? Of course)

You can buy a lot of crayons for $500,000,000.

You can buy a lot of crayons for $500,000,000.
And Play doh. And a certain snack food.

And Play doh. And a certain snack food.

Which one?

Behold, the world's most expensive depository of 'My Pet Goat' :p

Which one?

Pretzels?

Corporations might be horrendous rulers, but at least their drive for profit tends more towards libertarianism than oppression.

Not really.

Sure, they probably won't object to you buying porn or drugs... it's just in every other respect that you'll be horrifically unfree, with a state-corporate partnership that demolishes any semblance of free competition and makes everyone the wage-slave of a few plutocrats.

I hate the term "class war", because it ignores the fact that any competitive market will have winners and losers.

"Class war" or "class struggle" has next to nothing to do with the competitive market; it long preceded it. Indeed, strict "class struggle" analyses tend to downplay the role of competition between capitalists, and often analyze competition between workers more culturally than economically. (See hard leftist critiques of nationalism and racism.)

Competitive exclusion is the manner in which a market funcitons. All we can do is give everyone the same fighting chance, and let them have their "class war".

The very nature of class precludes giving everyone the same fighting chance; doing so would require abolishing class society, which would make class war rather superfluous.

"Class War" is natural.

Only if you presuppose that the social systems that underly it are also natural. They aren't.

I know what all of you guys are thinking.


"Wait a minute... George Bush can read?"


Yeah, I was shocked, too.
I was thinking more along the lines of, "How many books is that amount going to buy, and how long will it take GWB to colour them all in?"

More than all other presidential libraries combined. And he reserves the right to remove any papers that might be "embarrassing". The oil rich nations that he has supported are expected to contribute vast amounts of the money they made from sales to you the consumer.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/475052p-399492c.html
More than what Gene Hackman's character Eagle was going to get as the value of his Library in that movie Moosepoint?

I was thinking more along the lines of, "How many books is that amount going to buy, and how long will it take GWB to colour them all in?"

Hooray! :D

Since we're throwing out seldom used words.----We started as a republic but have become and oligarchy. (A government of the few rich.)

Personally I quite like kleptocracy...

Bush's institute will hire conservative scholars and "give them money to write papers and books favorable to the President's policies," one Bush insider said.
*vomits profusely*

Yes, that does make me feel physically quite sick.

Personally I quite like kleptocracy...

Damn...while in the shower I realised a major fault with this :(

Well, the abuse of financial power got him into the presidency in the first place, and was a key feature of his terms in office; it's no surprise that the abuse of financial power will govern the records of his legacy too.

I, for one, think it's quite convenient for the Daily News that the article does not cite any person by name. It only mentions "Bush sources with direct knowledge of library plans." And despite what the second paragraph of the article may imply, none of their sources suggest that Bush himself is lobbying for and funding this library. From what I could tell, it seems only to be supporters of Bush that are trying to raise money.

Personally, I think that not only does Bush damn well deserve a library in Texas, he deserves to have one dedicated to him in Iraq.

I, for one, think it's quite convenient for the Daily News that the article does not cite any person by name. It only mentions "Bush sources with direct knowledge of library plans." And despite what the second paragraph of the article may imply, none of their sources suggest that Bush himself is lobbying for and funding this library. From what I could tell, it seems only to be supporters of Bush that are trying to raise money.

Personally, I think that not only does Bush damn well deserve a library in Texas, he deserves to have one dedicated to him in Iraq.
'The George Bush Memorial Library: Never Again'.

'The George Bush Memorial Library: Never Again'.
Now that's an idea I support.

Did you notice that all the paper work from his two terms that might be
damaging is going to be housed there. Not to mention he's hiring people to write papers and books that will make his policies look good.

Did you notice that all the paper work from his two terms that might be
damaging is going to be housed there.

If someone managed to break in the place and get a hold of the papers, I'd die a happy man.

If someone managed to break in the place and get a hold of the papers, I'd die a happy man.


I agree, I'd be willing to bet there is a gold mine of damaging paperwork to be found if the powers that be would bother. But no they will allow him to hide it from us in a overpriced building where it can't be touched.

Personally, I think that not only does Bush damn well deserve a library in Texas, he deserves to have one dedicated to him in Iraq.

Sure, just like Hitler deserves a library in Germany and one in France. (Sarcasm)

If someone managed to break in the place and get a hold of the papers, I'd die a happy man.

What if they broke in, got a hold of the papers and burned them, thus destroying the evidence? Would you still die happy?

I agree, I'd be willing to bet there is a gold mine of damaging paperwork to be found if the powers that be would bother. But no they will allow him to hide it from us in a overpriced building where it can't be touched.

Why I said "break in". :p

Well, everyone sane knows he's a moron already. Even if someone saw all the damaging material, wouldn't he be comfortably retired on his ranch with large thank-you pensions from his buddies?

What if they broke in, got a hold of the papers and burned them, thus destroying the evidence? Would you still die happy?

Depends on WHO they burned on the papers. :D

What if they broke in, got a hold of the papers and burned them, thus destroying the evidence? Would you still die happy?
Those papers have been destroyed already. Or they've been mentioned so often that they don't even raise people's eyebrows anymore (linky (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)).

And besides, George doesn't like to read long memos, so most of the problematic materials were probably transmitted orally. Or with puppet shows.

Sure, just like Hitler deserves a library in Germany and one in France. (Sarcasm) Pssh, why stop there? Why don't you build a library for Neville Chamberlain, the man who (in full liberal fashion) tried peace negotiations with Hitler. And we all know how that turned out, right?

Pssh, why stop there? Why don't you build a library for Neville Chamberlain, the man who (in full liberal fashion) tried peace negotiations with Hitler. And we all know how that turned out, right?
Um, how is this relevant?

Pssh, why stop there? Why don't you build a library for Neville Chamberlain, the man who (in full liberal fashion) tried peace negotiations with Hitler. And we all know how that turned out, right?

I'm pretty sure there's more options than to not defend yourself and to attack everyone else out of need to wave your dick around. If Neville is bad, Bush is like Hitler, and so are the conservatives. Godwin? Fine.

Um, how is this relevant? How is comparing Bush to Hitler relevant?

I'm pretty sure there's more options than to not defend yourself and to attack everyone else out of need to wave your dick around. If Neville is bad, Bush is like Hitler, and so are the conservatives. Godwin? Fine. Yes, the political group that wants to protect the Jewish nation of Israel is comparable to the man who wanted to exterminate all of the Jews. Whatever. Let's just try to stick to the topic, and you can start a thread comparing Bush to Hitler somewhere else. Agreed?

How is comparing Bush to Hitler relevant?

Hitler destroyed his country and others in war.

Bush destroyed his country and others in war.

If you suggest Bush should get a library, so should Hitler.

How is comparing Bush to Hitler relevant?
Because it was a counter to your point on having a GWB library in Iraq. On the other hand, talking about Chamberlain seems to be just for you to say "HA! The liberals were wrong! Take that!"

Yes, the political group that wants to protect the Jewish nation of Israel is comparable to the man who wanted to exterminate all of the Jews. Whatever. Let's just try to stick to the topic, and you can start a thread comparing Bush to Hitler somewhere else. Agreed?
Triggering the creation of thousands of Islamic extremist terrorists =/= making Israel secure. :rolleyes:

Yes, the political group that wants to protect the Jewish nation of Israel BY EXTERMINATING EVERYONE OF ARAB DESCENT is comparable to the man who wanted to exterminate all of the Jews. Whatever. Let's just try to stick to the topic, and you can start a thread comparing Bush to Hitler somewhere else. Agreed?

Yes, yes he is.

It's not about being Jewish or not, it's about exterminating groups or not, and Bush does exterminate groups.

I added the bolded part, that you were "forgetting".

Because it was a counter to your point on having a GWB library in Iraq. On the other hand, talking about Chamberlain seems to be just for you to say "HA! The liberals were wrong! Take that!"
No. My point was that the article's veracity is highly disputable. My OPINION was that Bush should have a library. It was just an opinion, nothing more. And it seems only fair that if someone can take a shot at an opinion without providing any rebuttal to the actual facts in my post, I can respond in kind.

No. My point was that the article's veracity is highly disputable. My OPINION was that Bush should have a library. It was just an opinion, nothing more. And it seems only fair that if someone can take a shot at an opinion without providing any rebuttal to the actual facts in my post, I can respond in kind.

What facts? That Bush doesn't necessarily approve of having a library named after himself? What's in dispute here is whether or not he deserves a library. You claimed he deserved one in Iraq, I made the analogy of Hitler also deserving one in France, because, seemingly, to you, raping a nation gets someone a library in it.

What facts? That Bush doesn't necessarily approve of having a library named after himself? What's in dispute here is whether or not he deserves a library. Well sor-RY if the fact that the original post makes no mention of that gave me a different idea.

Well sor-RY if the fact that the original post makes no mention of that gave me a different idea.

You're forgiven. Now, back in a bit.

Those papers have been destroyed already. Or they've been mentioned so often that they don't even raise people's eyebrows anymore (linky (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)).

And besides, George doesn't like to read long memos, so most of the problematic materials were probably transmitted orally. Or with puppet shows.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/clearterroristlink7ke.gif

You claimed he deserved one in Iraq, I made the analogy of Hitler also deserving one in France, because, seemingly, to you, raping a nation gets someone a library in it. No, liberating a nation from a man who opressed his people and provided funds, training, and safe havens to terrorists gets someone a library in it.

And besides, George doesn't like to read long memos, so most of the problematic materials were probably transmitted orally. Or with puppet shows.

Professor Liebstrom!

No, liberating a nation from a man who opressed his people and provided funds, training, and safe havens to terrorists gets someone a library in it.
Yes... liberating.
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/images/060903.jpg

How is comparing Bush to Hitler relevant?

Both invaded nations on trumped up charges (Bush: Iraq has WMD's! Oops, no they don't. Hitler: The Polish burned down the Reichstag! They'll invade us next! With horse cavalry! Let's Blitz them first!)

Both made a mess of things.

The only real differences are that Bush hasn't started any death camps or SS corps to my knowledge. Although deriding your opposition and making them seem traitorous works almost as well as killing them sometimes.

No, liberating a nation from a man who opressed his people and provided funds, training, and safe havens to terrorists gets someone a library in it.

Saddam got replaced by dozens of mini Saddam's. Services and infrastructure is worst now than it was under Saddam. Prior to sanctions, Iraq had first world class stability and services. Death squads at least had a habit of targetting people who made themselves stick out (generally by giving out anti-Saddam sentiment). Women could actually hold jobs without being shot for it.

Women now suffer under the usual assorted religious nuts who go "Women must be chattel only". People get killed very randomly now, be it by car bomb or being just at the wrong place at the wrong time. Or what religious sector you belong to.

If this is what gets you a library, maybe I should burn down your neighborhood and see if that gets me a statue.

Hitler: The Polish burned down the Reichstag! They'll invade us next! With horse cavalry! Let's Blitz them first!

Really? I didn't know he had a "rationalization" for it. I thought he just invaded the place without explanation. :confused:

(Then again, my WWII knowledge is pretty sketchy. :()

Yes... liberating.
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/images/060903.jpg

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's brilliant! :D

Both invaded nations on trumped up charges (Bush: Iraq has WMD's! Oops, no they don't. It's no surprise that you're still hooked on the media lie that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

It's no surprise that you're still hooked on the media lie that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
Do you have any sources for this? And how much exactly are '1,000 radioactive materials'? It sounds like something from an RTS. "Dirty Bomb: Requires 100 Metal, 5 Radioactive Material"/"Uranium Mine: Provides 1 Radioactive/second"

It's no surprise that you're still hooked on the media lie that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

:rolleyes:

Where's that 'oh not this shit again' pic?

on edit....you might want to look at that sig of yours....its a wee bit long I believe...

Saddam got replaced by dozens of mini Saddam's. Services and infrastructure is worst now than it was under Saddam. Prior to sanctions, Iraq had first world class stability and services. Death squads at least had a habit of targetting people who made themselves stick out (generally by giving out anti-Saddam sentiment). Women could actually hold jobs without being shot for it.

Women now suffer under the usual assorted religious nuts who go "Women must be chattel only". People get killed very randomly now, be it by car bomb or being just at the wrong place at the wrong time. Or what religious sector you belong to.

If this is what gets you a library, maybe I should burn down your neighborhood and see if that gets me a statue. Yeah, the people have free elections and the economy is booming, and you say that they would've been better off under Saddam. Sure.

:rolleyes:

Where's that 'oh not this shit again' pic?

Here:
http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

It's no surprise that you're still hooked on the media lie that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

Found:A quote by Bush saying "he was "just as disappointed as everybody else" when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060406-112119-5897r.htm)

As for the library in Iraq, how about a compromise, Bush gets one, as long as he goes along (sans armed escort) and personally dedicates it. Everybody happy?

Do you have any sources for this? And how much exactly are '1,000 radioactive materials'? It sounds like something from an RTS. "Dirty Bomb: Requires 100 Metal, 5 Radioactive Material"/"Uranium Mine: Provides 1 Radioactive/second"

"In a secret operation on June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric
tons of enriched uranium—the kind used to make fuel for atomic
bombs—in a nuclear facility in Iraq, according to BBC News."
"U.S. Department of Energy experts also removed 1,000 radioactive materials
in “powdered form, which is easily dispersed,” said Bryan Wilkes,
an Energy Department spokesman."
"Polish general Marek Dukaczewski, Poland’s military intelligence
chief, revealed that troops in the Polish-patrolled sector of Iraq had
received tips from Iraqis that chemical weapons were sold to terrorists
on the black market. The weapons had been buried to avoid
detection, the general told the BBC. Polish military officials bought
seventeen chemical-weapons warheads from Iraqis for $5,000 each to
keep them from Iraq’s so-called insurgents.“An attack with such
weapons would be hard to imagine,” the general said. “All of our activity
was accelerated at appropriating these warheads.” Tests confirmed
that some of the warheads contained cyclosarin, a nerve agent five
times more powerful than sarin. These chemical weapons were supposed
to have been completely destroyed during the 1991–1998 UN
inspector regime. Clearly, some WMD survived."
"U.S. soldiers stormed into a warehouse in Mosul, Iraq, on August 8,
2005, and were surprised to find 1,500 gallons of chemical agents. It
was the largest chemical weapons lab found in Iraq."
"When a roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. convoy on May 17, 2004,
it was found to contain the nerve agent sarin."
"The Iraq Survey Group, led by David Kay and charged with finding
WMD after the war, discovered a projectile loaded with mustard gas
attached to a roadside bomb in May 2004."
-Disinformation, by Richard Miniter

These all came from the above mentioned book, Disinformation, from chapter 11: "Myth #11: There is No Evidence that Iraq Had Weapons of Mass Destruction." I suggest you read the book. In fact, you can download that particular chapter for free.

Found:A quote by Bush saying "he was "just as disappointed as everybody else" when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060406-112119-5897r.htm)
Oh yeah, that OBVIOUSLY negates my statements and the sources I just posted. Did you miss the other reasons he cited in defense of the war, or do you have responses to those, too?

It's no surprise that you're still hooked on the media lie that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

As opposed to the Populus Justicia 'truth'? The so called chemical weapons found were those from the original Iran/Iraqi war, of which we knew, and were degraded to the point where bleach would probably be a better chemical weapon. Bush claimed they were making new stuff. No new stuff found.

Enriched uranium. From their original Osirak reactor that got bombed by the Israelis decades ago? Also knew about that. Already recorded. Again, the accusation was for new stuff.

Also, there were claims of missiles capable of hitting America within 45 minutes of firing. Nothing like that ever showed up. Not one. Scuds couldn't even travel a quarter the distance.

Oh, and radioactive materials? Better go and raid your local hospital then. Various radioactive isotopes in use there. X-ray machines as well I believe.

Now then, for the rest of this crap, any reputable links? No? Why's that I wonder? Oh, maybe it's because it has the combined truth of space pirates pillaging my local 7-11 yesterday.

Nothing on BBC, nothing on CNN. Hell, even that Bushite mouthpiece Faux doesn't carry word on that. Media lie huh? Justica lie is more like it.

More than all other presidential libraries combined. And he reserves the right to remove any papers that might be "embarrassing". The oil rich nations that he has supported are expected to contribute vast amounts of the money they made from sales to you the consumer.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/475052p-399492c.html

All his preschool books will be in there. So valuable.

Libraries are good for academics, scholars, and what-have-yous... but, really now, half a billion for one library? That money could be spent in much better ways.

Why does the worst president in modern history get the most expensive library? Its not like he has spent a great deal of time in a library anyway.

What do you mean? The Jimmy Carter Library and Museum isn't the most expensive.

...And then we torch this one and build the REAL library, with the 9/11 commision report, books by Al Franken and Bob Woodward, and pictures of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, and we learn about how the CIA trained Osama?

What do you mean? The Jimmy Carter Library and Museum isn't the most expensive.

Exactly--and Carter wasn't the worst president in history either. Jeez--it's sad that we have to continually spell this shit out to you people. :rolleyes:

but, really now, half a billion for one library? That money could be spent in much better ways.

Like buying books for existing public libraries? No argument.

Like buying books for existing public libraries? No argument.

They'd fuck that up too.

If this library were being done by anyone other than Bush supporters, I would wholeheartedly support it. Hell, I'd probably sling them a twenty, because if there's any administration that needs to be documented to within an inch of its life, it's this one. But this is a farce, and what's more, it's proof that Dubya is a vainglorious, petty and pathetic human being, the poster child of failing upward.

the poster child of failing upward.

Nepotism, more like. And how it rarely accomplishes much at all.

Nepotism, more like. And how it rarely accomplishes much at all.
The two are often closely related.

Oh yeah. Doonesbury took this on today. I especially like the punch line.

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/comics/db070128.gif

Oh yeah, that OBVIOUSLY negates my statements and the sources I just posted. Did you miss the other reasons he cited in defense of the war, or do you have responses to those, too?

You claimed that the Coalition not finding WMD in Iraq was a "Media Lie", are you claiming that Bush lied about what they found to make himself look bad?

What a waste of money. What is with Bush and wasting money?

A monument to incompetence, waste, disgrace, dishonor and failure.

What a waste of money. What is with Bush and wasting money?

Again, depending on who you are, it's not a waste of money. If Bush policies can be mainstreamed in the long run, much like that joke of an economic theory known as supply-side has been, then the investment is a good one for those who finance the library, because they benefit greatly from those policies.

*vomits profusely*

*Vomits until empty...*

Libraries are good for academics, scholars, and what-have-yous... but, really now, half a billion for one library? That money could be spent in much better ways.

Yeah, like dancing on it, or eating it, or buying a million cheesesteaks. Even buying cement shoes for the Mob would be a better use of money.

Again, depending on who you are, it's not a waste of money.

This fundamental truth about class society is too often overlooked.

The real question is usually not what the benefit is, but for whom the benefit is.

This fundamental truth about class society is too often overlooked.

The real question is usually not what the benefit is, but for whom the benefit is.

Yep. People often forget that there were a few who made out like bandits during the Great Depression. Not everyone was starving and on the streets--the wealthy saw the value of their wealth increase dramatically in that situation, since what they had was worth more. It's a rare, if not unheard of economic phenomenon for everyone to lose--someone usually comes out ahead, and under Bush, it's been that class of people he was talking to in that famous clip from F9/11 when he said "some call you the elite. I call you my base."

A monument to incompetence, waste, disgrace, dishonor and failure.

It's like Caligula's Nema Ships...

The only real differences are that Bush hasn't started any death camps or SS corps to my knowledge. Although deriding your opposition and making them seem traitorous works almost as well as killing them sometimes.

Do we know what's going on in the torture camps around the world?

Abu Ghraib much, Non-Aligned States?

My offer to design a beautiful modern work of art for less than $100,000,000 still stands..

My offer to design a beautiful modern work of art for less than $100,000,000 still stands..

Give me twenty bucks, some cardboard and spit and I can make a work of art suitable to GWB! Actually, forget the cardboard!

Give me twenty bucks, some cardboard and spit and I can make a work of art suitable to GWB! Actually, forget the cardboard!

:eek:

RESPECT The Leader.

:mad:

Give me twenty bucks, some cardboard and spit and I can make a work of art suitable to GWB!Actually, forget the cardboard!

Give me a box of bran cereal, some laxative and a bucket and I can make a work of art suitable to GWB!

Give me a box of bran cereal, some laxative and a bucket and I can make a work of art suitable to GWB!

Interesting.. sorta like an adobe hut theme?

Nice concept. :)

Do we know what's going on in the torture camps around the world?

Abu Ghraib much, Non-Aligned States?

I won't say I have complete information, but based on what is available, CIA black sites, Camp X-ray, Abu Ghraib and other assorted US run internment camps are not death camps.

At least not in the industrialized murder sense.

These all came from the above mentioned book, Disinformation, from chapter 11: "Myth #11: There is No Evidence that Iraq Had Weapons of Mass Destruction." I suggest you read the book. In fact, you can download that particular chapter for free.

A book is not a news source. In fact, this particular book for all we know could have been written by a guy who has all the credibility of uncyclopedia. Maybe we should use Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code' as factual representation of the real world next hmm?

But of course you buy that sort of thing as the truth. After all, if you didn't, your pretty little world crumbles down.

Maybe I should publish a book claiming you to be a carrot.

Maybe I should publish a book claiming you to be a carrot.

Carrots are strictly my domain! ;)

Oh yeah, that OBVIOUSLY negates my statements and the sources I just posted. Did you miss the other reasons he cited in defense of the war, or do you have responses to those, too?

Reasons that flip flopped as they just kept up turning false.

1: He has WMDs! He'll attack us! Oops. Guess he doesn't have any WMDs.
2: He's got terrorist ties! He and Bin Laden are conspiring to kill us! Oops, they want to kill each other.
3: He's a dictator! Toppling him will bring peace and democracy to all. Oops, it didn't. We also trained him and gave him chemical weapons too.
4: We just want to stabilize Baghdad. Not that it's very stable.

What's 5 going to be hmm? We never wanted to go to Iraq? Or how about *gasp*, the honest truth? We just wanted to control those strategic oil reserves. And of course suck taxpayer money down to help all my election friends. Like Haliburton.

The only library this man deserves is one dedicated to showing the world how much of a farcical failure he is. Preferably along with the electric chair he would be fried on.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/bush-burns.jpg

"The basement is be huge! I believe it would make the perfect
storage place for nuclear waste. Now, all you would have to do
is support me with, mmh... let's say, I don't know - $100million?"

"Deal!"

History of the US and Saddam---Thanks for the Memories



http://www.bushflash.com/swf/thanks.swf

It's no surprise that you're still hooked on the media lie that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
That 1.77 tonnes of enriched uranium and 1000 radioactive materials wouldn't be the 1.77 tonnes and 1000 radioactive materials that had been under IAEA seal since 1991 and was last checked by IAEA inspeactors in February 2003, by any chance?
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2003/ma_iraq_0606.shtml

Incidently, I notice you missed out the caveat, low enriched uranium. Why was that? Not, I hope, because you were wanting to fool us into thinking this stuff was dangerous, weapons-wise.
Low-enriched is enriched to between 2 and 20%. Most power reactors use ~5% enriched uranium.
If you want weapons-grade stuff, you need highly-enriched uranium - 85% enriched for a nuclear weapon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_enrichment

So, to summarise:
The radioactive material 'discovered' was low-enriched, not useful for making any sort of weapon, hadn't been used, and had been sealed, since 1991 and was last inspected less than 4 months before it was seized.

Onto the other 'WMDs' you mention:

The "17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin."
Even Fox, of all media, admits that stuff was old:
Polish Troops Find Sarin Warheads
...the chemical weapons, which date back to Saddam Hussein's war with Iran in the 1980s...the 17 rockets for a Soviet-era launcher and two mortar rounds containing the nerve agent...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html
What a shock - Saddam bought nerve gas during the 1980's.
One thing Fox missed from it's report but was picked up by the BBC was this comment from the US military:
...the agent was so deteriorated it posed no threat...
...the US military said that while two of the rockets tested positive for sarin, traces of the agent were so small and deteriorated as to be virtually harmless.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm


The 1500 gallons of "1,500 gallons of chemical weapons," was in fact just "1,500 gallons of chemicals" which became "precursors for chemical weapons." The fact that the Pentagon, nor the Whitehouse, do not make any mention of this anymore is telling as to its danger.


Final word should go to Charles Duelfer, head of the CIA Iraq Survey Group whose mission was to find Saddam's WMDs:
CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq
After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.

“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”

...Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/


So PJ, do you have any other "proofs" of WMDs you wish to share with us?

I won't say I have complete information, but based on what is available, CIA black sites, Camp X-ray, Abu Ghraib and other assorted US run internment camps are not death camps.

At least not in the industrialized murder sense.

How many does it take to become "industrialized"? And we look down on those other countries that make people "disappear". Isn't it great to live in the most powerful "Banana Republic" in history.

It won't matter, DH. Being a Bush supporter means never having to admit you're wrong. It's in the fraternity bylaws.

It won't matter, DH. Being a Bush supporter means never having to admit you're wrong. It's in the fraternity bylaws.
Yup, I know.
There's a reason they're called Dittoheads.

How many does it take to become "industrialized"? And we look down on those other countries that make people "disappear". Isn't it great to live in the most powerful "Banana Republic" in history.

There's industrialized murder, and there's not-industrialized murder. Typically, industrialized means production line style infrastructure with a continuous influx of victims. Large scale gas chambers, furnaces, meat grinders, etc, etc.

At this point of time, despite high numbers of prison deaths, I cannot consider it to be industrialized murder. Allowed murder, yes. But not industrialized. There is a difference.

There's industrialized murder, and there's not-industrialized murder. Typically, industrialized means production line style infrastructure with a continuous influx of victims. Large scale gas chambers, furnaces, meat grinders, etc, etc.

At this point of time, despite high numbers of prison deaths, I cannot consider it to be industrialized murder. Allowed murder, yes. But not industrialized. There is a difference.

So the US death squad is an entrepreneur operation at the "Mom and Pop" level that is feeling it's way before we sell stock and become the microsoft of death. That makes me feel better. :rolleyes:

So the US death squad is an entrepreneur operation at the "Mom and Pop" level that is feeling it's way before we sell stock and become the microsoft of death. That makes me feel better. :rolleyes:

I never said it was better. I just said it wasn't industrialized.

If I had $500 million, I'd spend it on a massive pleasure palace and open it to all citizens for a fee, sort of like the Roman Emperors did with their massive bathhouses. You know, combine my legacy with luxurious bathing facilities...now that's better than some library.

Think of how many copies of My Pet Goat they can buy for $500,000,000.

Think of how many copies of My Pet Goat they can buy for $500,000,000.

One thing you can count on--there won't be any copies of the 9/11 Commission Report, the Duelfer Report or the Iraq Study Group report anywhere near that place.

Hell, that's five times what Mobutu Sese Seko's favorite palace cost. And interestingly, a personal friend of Mobutu's was none other than George H. W. Bush.

Now he can add "Kleptocrat" to his resume.

So, this library sounds like a colossal waste of money, designed to appeal particularly to the very wealthy, and filled with misinformation put together by professional yes-men. Heck, about the only way this could be a more fitting memorial to Bush's presidency is if he drew the blueprints himself (and then, of course, fired and replaced any builders or architects who suggested that maybe his plans weren't so great in the feasibility department).

So, this library sounds like a colossal waste of money, designed to appeal particularly to the very wealthy, and filled with misinformation put together by professional yes-men. Heck, about the only way this could be a more fitting memorial to Bush's presidency is if he drew the blueprints himself (and then, of course, fired and replaced any builders or architects who suggested that maybe his plans weren't so great in the feasibility department).

Hmmm, now that gives me an idea. Design the building so that it has one or two key structural weaknesses that would bring it down if destroyed.

And blow it up when Bush shows up to open it.

Hmmm, now that gives me an idea. Design the building so that it has one or two key structural weaknesses that would bring it down if destroyed.

And blow it up when Bush shows up to open it.

I think this plan could be improved by hanging a large banner reading "BUILDING ACCOMPLISHED" across the front of the library at the opening ceremony. ;)

I think this plan could be improved by hanging a large banner reading "BUILDING ACCOMPLISHED" across the front of the library at the opening ceremony. ;)

I think the plan could be improved by hanging a large banner reading "BUILDING ACCOMPLISHED" within three hours after the first hole is dug, but before the foundation is set.

I think the plan could be improved by hanging a large banner reading "BUILDING ACCOMPLISHED" within three hours after the first hole is dug, but before the foundation is set.

You win teh thread.

I just know it, Bush is going to be remembered as a great president in the future, man I am not looking forward to growing old.

I think the plan could be improved by hanging a large banner reading "BUILDING ACCOMPLISHED" within three hours after the first hole is dug, but before the foundation is set.

True 'nuff. :) I'm just entertained by the mental image of that banner fluttering away merrily as the building explodes.

True 'nuff. :) I'm just entertained by the mental image of that banner fluttering away merrily as the building explodes.

Fluttering away with or without fire?

Fluttering away with or without fire?

Hmm, either would work. :)

However, I'm now amused enough by Arthais's more historically-representative variation that I honestly believe that, a few years from now when construction of this library begins, some group of people should make a "BUILDING ACCOMPLISHED" banner and sneak it onto the construction site. Heck, if I were likely to be anywhere near Texas at that point, I'd do it myself. :p

Hmm, either would work. :)

However, I'm now amused enough by Arthais's more historically-representative variation that I honestly believe that, a few years from now when construction of this library begins, some group of people should make a "BUILDING ACCOMPLISHED" banner and sneak it onto the construction site. Heck, if I were likely to be anywhere near Texas at that point, I'd do it myself. :p

That's too good an idea for it not to happen. I guarantee someone will do this.

Hmm, either would work. :)

However, I'm now amused enough by Arthais's more historically-representative variation that I honestly believe that, a few years from now when construction of this library begins, some group of people should make a "BUILDING ACCOMPLISHED" banner and sneak it onto the construction site. Heck, if I were likely to be anywhere near Texas at that point, I'd do it myself. :p

ehh, I wouldn't have though of it if not for you. We'll share credit.

ehh, I wouldn't have though of it if not for you. We'll share credit.

Sounds good to me. :)

So how will we simulate the building deteriorating as it goes along? Keep the structural weakness idea?

Damn.

For a few sweet moments, I thought this thread would be about a $500,000,000 library for all the rules and fluff for Games Workshop.

:(

I just know it, Bush is going to be remembered as a great president in the future, man I am not looking forward to growing old.


I don't agree

I just know it, Bush is going to be remembered as a great president in the future, man I am not looking forward to growing old.

Take comfort--all that money and institutional power hasn't been able to rehabilitate Hoover's name, so at least there's a chance that the same will happen with Dubya.

I'm not convinced. There's no way that he's actually going to read any of the stuff in it.

I would imagine that most of them will be colouring books - what is he going to spend on crayons:eek:

I think this plan could be improved by hanging a large banner reading "BUILDING ACCOMPLISHED" across the front of the library at the opening ceremony. ;)
I think the plan could be improved by hanging a large banner reading "BUILDING ACCOMPLISHED" within three hours after the first hole is dug, but before the foundation is set.

This one goes in equal parts to the both of you:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Pergament.jpg

I would imagine that most of them will be colouring books - what is he going to spend on crayons:eek:

$450 million....

$450 million....

That's a really big box of crayons.

That's a really big box of crayons.

But it'll have every colour imaginable.

More than all other presidential libraries combined. And he reserves the right to remove any papers that might be "embarrassing". The oil rich nations that he has supported are expected to contribute vast amounts of the money they made from sales to you the consumer.

And, the problem is - ?

the vomit-inducing oplent misuse of funds by that man never cease. talk about screwing over a country!

On a serious note, though, if you're intellectually flexible (i.e. dishonest) and can write well, I'd imagine there will be more than a few well-paying gigs at this place once it's built. "Conservative" commentators do pretty well for themselves no matter how repulsive their ideas are.

On a serious note, though, if you're intellectually flexible (i.e. dishonest) and can write well, I'd imagine there will be more than a few well-paying gigs at this place once it's built. "Conservative" commentators do pretty well for themselves no matter how repulsive their ideas are.

Yeah that is true. It is also true that there are leftist writers have the same problem...

Personally I am wondering why (to preserve reality!) the Congressional Library does not perform this function...preserving Presidential documents etc...

Makes for less bias I would have thought...

Yeah that is true. It is also true that there are leftist writers have the same problem...Except that lefty writing doesn't pay as well. The money's on the conservative side. How many famous lefty pundits can you name--not famous people who have become pundits, just people who are famous for being pundits on the left? And then compare that to the right. It's not even close.

Personally I am wondering why (to preserve reality!) the Congressional Library does not perform this function...preserving Presidential documents etc...

Makes for less bias I would have thought...

The Archives does part of that, I believe, but from what I understand, the function of a Presidential Library is more to be a personal museum than anything else.

Except that lefty writing doesn't pay as well. The money's on the conservative side. How many famous lefty pundits can you name--not famous people who have become pundits, just people who are famous for being pundits on the left? And then compare that to the right. It's not even close.

Fair enough regarding the money side...and actually an interesting thought exercise...being famous for being a pundit on the left. To be honest I doubt I can think of Americans...but then I really do get exposed to American media...

Here in the UK...there are a few...Johan Harri for one...then again he writes for the Indy...which is the only print I really read these days...

The Archives does part of that, I believe, but from what I understand, the function of a Presidential Library is more to be a personal museum than anything else.

Yeah...I guess in a way its a massive memoir...?

Except that lefty writing doesn't pay as well. The money's on the conservative side. How many famous lefty pundits can you name--not famous people who have become pundits, just people who are famous for being pundits on the left? And then compare that to the right. It's not even close.

I guess we just do it for love, not money. Love, and the sneering, open derision of those who would (wrongfully) consider themselves our betters - precisely because they are being handsomely rewarded for promulgating bald-faced lies through the written word, while we... while we tell truths for free.

But wasn't the internet supposed to level the playing field, anyway? Y'know, stealing the fire of the bloated talking-heads and all that?

I guess we just do it for love, not money. Love, and the sneering, open derision of those who would (wrongfully) consider themselves our betters - precisely because they are being handsomely rewarded for promulgating bald-faced lies through the written word, while we... while we tell truths for free.

But wasn't the internet supposed to level the playing field, anyway? Y'know, stealing the fire of the bloated talking-heads and all that?

The internet has, to a certain extent, leveled the playing field. The biggest liberal political site is Daily Kos, which is also far and away the biggest political site. Glenn Reynolds is the big gun on the right, and he's maybe half the size of Kos when it comes to page views and the like. But that really hasn't translated over into the traditional media. Hell, on Meet the Press this past weekend, Russert had on Mike Huckabee (R), Chuck Shumer (D), David Vitter (R), Michael Gerson of the CFR who is a former Bush speech writer and Kenneth Pollack of Brookings, who was a huge advocate of the Iraq War. Seem a little lopsided to you? There's not a single remotely progressive voice--Shumer is at best center-left depending on the issue.

Oh, awesome. Just great. I have diarrhea.

This place won't be destroyed...$500 million on a library pretty much means it's indestructible barring the planet exploding.

I can only wonder at what we will think in the future when the only thing that remains of our home planet is a gigantic library dedicated to one of the least competent presidents in the history of the United States.

I was thinking more along the lines of alien archeologists in the far future digging up human artifacts. And what do they find? What appears to be a gigantic monument dedicated to George W. Bush. They will only be able to assume that we all respected the man greatly.

*gets depressed*

I was thinking more along the lines of alien archeologists in the far future digging up human artifacts. And what do they find? What appears to be a gigantic monument dedicated to George W. Bush. They will only be able to assume that we all respected the man greatly.

*gets depressed*

With any luck, they'll look on it more like the statue of Rameses in Shelley's "Ozymandias."

Lefty 1: I hate Bush!
Lefty 2: No I hate him more!
Lefty 3: No I hate him the mostest!

Lefty 1: I hate Bush!
Lefty 2: No I hate him more!
Lefty 3: No I hate him the mostest!

Hey, while your up Bush's ass you might as well check for polyps.

Lefty 1: I hate Bush!
Lefty 2: No I hate him more!
Lefty 3: No I hate him the mostest!

Leftyme: I've got the hershey squirts.

More than all other presidential libraries combined. And he reserves the right to remove any papers that might be "embarrassing". The oil rich nations that he has supported are expected to contribute vast amounts of the money they made from sales to you the consumer.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/475052p-399492c.html

You know, I read this post several times and was surprised at the resistence to the idea that such a small amount should be spent on the W. Bush presidential library. It seemed like a bargain for such a project, and his reputation on literacy would seem well in keeping with the price tag.

Then I read a few posts down and when the number was stated as "half a billion" I was able to see the last three zeroes that my misguided faith in common sense had hidden from my sight.

Hey, while your up Bush's ass you might as well check for polyps.
I found one! I found one! Mmm...polyp *drools*

I may not agree with all of his policies but I don't run around spouting conspiracy theories about rigged elections and steup terrorist attacks. I don't think he's any dumber than the average politician, nor do I think he's an evil genius. He's a politician. Nothing more, nothing less.

He won in 2000 by a technicality. He's not the first president to win the electoral vote but lose the popular. Get over it.

I found one! I found one! Mmm...polyp *drools*

I may not agree with all of his policies but I don't run around spouting conspiracy theories about rigged elections and steup terrorist attacks. I don't think he's any dumber than the average politician, nor do I think he's an evil genius. He's a politician. Nothing more, nothing less.

He won in 2000 by a technicality. He's not the first president to win the electoral vote but lose the popular. Get over it.
No, but he's the first to ever win by a vote of 5 to 4.

No, but he's the first to ever win by a vote of 5 to 4.

He's the first president to use the attacks as an excuse to settle a score his daddy left.

As opposed to the Populus Justicia 'truth'? The so called chemical weapons found were those from the original Iran/Iraqi war, of which we knew, and were degraded to the point where bleach would probably be a better chemical weapon. Bush claimed they were making new stuff. No new stuff found.

Enriched uranium. From their original Osirak reactor that got bombed by the Israelis decades ago? Also knew about that. Already recorded. Again, the accusation was for new stuff.

Also, there were claims of missiles capable of hitting America within 45 minutes of firing. Nothing like that ever showed up. Not one. Scuds couldn't even travel a quarter the distance.

Oh, and radioactive materials? Better go and raid your local hospital then. Various radioactive isotopes in use there. X-ray machines as well I believe.

Now then, for the rest of this crap, any reputable links? No? Why's that I wonder? Oh, maybe it's because it has the combined truth of space pirates pillaging my local 7-11 yesterday.

Nothing on BBC, nothing on CNN. Hell, even that Bushite mouthpiece Faux doesn't carry word on that. Media lie huh? Justica lie is more like it.

Did you happen to catch my above post that included sources?

You claimed that the Coalition not finding WMD in Iraq was a "Media Lie", are you claiming that Bush lied about what they found to make himself look bad? There are several possible reasons for Bush's statements. Definitions of "WMD" vary. The weapons found in Iraq are no nuclear warheads, but several do violate UN regulations. Or, he may have been misinformed. After all, the CIA misinformed him about WMDs before.

Did you happen to catch my above post that included sources?
Did you happen to catch my reply to your post?
Here it is again, to save you time:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12266301&postcount=127

Reasons that flip flopped as they just kept up turning false.

1: He has WMDs! He'll attack us! Oops. Guess he doesn't have any WMDs.
2: He's got terrorist ties! He and Bin Laden are conspiring to kill us! Oops, they want to kill each other.
3: He's a dictator! Toppling him will bring peace and democracy to all. Oops, it didn't. We also trained him and gave him chemical weapons too.
4: We just want to stabilize Baghdad. Not that it's very stable.

What's 5 going to be hmm? We never wanted to go to Iraq? Or how about *gasp*, the honest truth? We just wanted to control those strategic oil reserves. And of course suck taxpayer money down to help all my election friends. Like Haliburton.

The only library this man deserves is one dedicated to showing the world how much of a farcical failure he is. Preferably along with the electric chair he would be fried on. Hussein's regime did have WMDs and terrorist ties. And the Bush Administration made a big mistake when they stopped defending these pre-war claims, because they had sufficient evidence to back them up. President Bush has bravely faced and fought a major problem in this world, one that past presidents, like Clinton, failed to deal with properly, if at all. And if you think he should die for that, then you need to do some serious rethinking.

There are several possible reasons for Bush's statements. Definitions of "WMD" vary. The weapons found in Iraq are no nuclear warheads, but several do violate UN regulations. Or, he may have been misinformed. After all, the CIA misinformed him about WMDs before.

I doubt Bush would be too picky regarding the exact definition when he was scrambling for justification. Also, if he was misinformed, is he still so, or has he been corrected and if so why hasn't he mentioned this fact. Are you suggesting your author gets more out of the CIA than Bush?

That 1.77 tonnes of enriched uranium and 1000 radioactive materials wouldn't be the 1.77 tonnes and 1000 radioactive materials that had been under IAEA seal since 1991 and was last checked by IAEA inspeactors in February 2003, by any chance?
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2003/ma_iraq_0606.shtml
Nope. "In a secret operation on June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric
tons of enriched uranium—the kind used to make fuel for atomic
bombs—in a nuclear facility in Iraq, according to BBC News."


The "17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin."
Even Fox, of all media, admits that stuff was old:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html
What a shock - Saddam bought nerve gas during the 1980's.
One thing Fox missed from it's report but was picked up by the BBC was this comment from the US military:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm

"Polish general Marek Dukaczewski, Poland’s military intelligence
chief, revealed that troops in the Polish-patrolled sector of Iraq had
received tips from Iraqis that chemical weapons were sold to terrorists
on the black market. The weapons had been buried to avoid
detection, the general told the BBC. Polish military officials bought
seventeen chemical-weapons warheads from Iraqis for $5,000 each to
keep them from Iraq’s so-called insurgents.“An attack with such
weapons would be hard to imagine,” the general said. “All of our activity
was accelerated at appropriating these warheads.” Tests confirmed
that some of the warheads contained cyclosarin, a nerve agent five
times more powerful than sarin. These chemical weapons were supposed
to have been completely destroyed during the 1991–1998 UN
inspector regime. Clearly, some WMD survived."


The 1500 gallons of "1,500 gallons of chemical weapons," was in fact just "1,500 gallons of chemicals" which became "precursors for chemical weapons." The fact that the Pentagon, nor the Whitehouse, do not make any mention of this anymore is telling as to its danger.

"U.S. soldiers stormed into a warehouse in Mosul, Iraq, on August 8,
2005, and were surprised to find 1,500 gallons of chemical agents. It
was the largest chemical weapons lab found in Iraq."


So PJ, do you have any other "proofs" of WMDs you wish to share with us? Actually, yes.

"...Saddam's No. 2 official in the Iraqi air force, Gen. Georges Sada, has charged in his book, "Saddam's Secrets," that Iraq shipped its WMD stockpiles into Syria before the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom...They ignore the report on Iraq's WMD program from Israel's top general who served as part of the multi-national contingent with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Gen. Moshe Yaalon told the New York Sun that Saddam Hussein "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."...Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., held a press conference to announce that the United States military had found more than 500 weapons munitions containing sarin or mustard gas. Saddam Hussein did not report these chemical weapons to U.N. weapons inspectors, and they failed to find them in their pre-war inspections." - http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50752

A book is not a news source. In fact, this particular book for all we know could have been written by a guy who has all the credibility of uncyclopedia. Maybe we should use Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code' as factual representation of the real world next hmm?

But of course you buy that sort of thing as the truth. After all, if you didn't, your pretty little world crumbles down.

Maybe I should publish a book claiming you to be a carrot. There's a little flaw with your analogy: The Da Vinci Code is fiction. Disinformation has an extensive bibliography.

As for the author, read this brief biography: http://richardminiter.com/bio/index.html
I would say that he is quite qualified to report on the War on Terror, since he has done on-ground investigation in Iraq. But no, he's a CONSERVATIVE author, so he CAN'T be trusted, no matter how many sources he has, right?

But no, he's a CONSERVATIVE author, so he CAN'T be trusted, no matter how many sources he has, right?

well, yeah. Pretty much. Conservative pundits don't have a whole lot of credibility left, after all.

I doubt Bush would be too picky regarding the exact definition when he was scrambling for justification. Also, if he was misinformed, is he still so, or has he been corrected and if so why hasn't he mentioned this fact. Are you suggesting your author gets more out of the CIA than Bush? No, I'm suggesting that one of the Bush Administration's major mistakes regarding this war was not continuing to back up their pre-war claims, a feat that they apparently saw as too trivial to keep pursuing. After all, we were already in the midst of war. Why continue this seemingly meaningless debate?

well, yeah. Pretty much. Conservative pundits don't have a whole lot of credibility left, after all. So you would just completely disregard his sources and write him off as a writer too biased to be trusted? How ignorant!

Besides, Miniter has shown himself to be a fair and balanced writer. Disinformation discredits myths generated by conservatives as well, such as the myth that terrorists are infiltrating our weak borders. And in his book Losing bin Laden, he makes note of the many accomplishments of Bill Clinton regarding bin Laden and al Qae'da, not just his many failures.

And how could you possibly say that conservative pundits have little credibility left? Look at how Air America tanked! Look at how Al Franken has now decided to leave the business! And meanwhile, the Sean Hannity Show has the highest ratings its had in years! Glenn Beck has a show on friggin' CNN!

So you would just completely disregard his sources and write him off as a writer too biased to be trusted? How ignorant!

When they start being worthy of my trust, I will start trusting them. They lost the privilidge of having my trust and have done nothing to earn it back.

One of the ways to earn my trust back is to have sources that stand up to scruitiny, which is more than I can say for him. Many of his claims have been discredited in this very thread. Find a better hero to get your nose brown over, he's a hack, nothing more.

It's simple really, you treat people based on how you have been treated. Some I trust implicitly based on my experiences with them, these I will believe until I see strong proof of their deception. Others I am neutral, with no formed impression. Others I default with skepticism. Others I immediatly assume every single thing they say is an out and out lie.

I form this position based on my experience with this person and their ilk. Conservative authors are in that last position, based purely on my experience with them.

When they start being worthy of my trust, I will start trusting them. They lost the privilidge of having my trust and have done nothing to earn it back.

One of the ways to earn my trust back is to have sources that stand up to scruitiny, which is more than I can say for him. Many of his claims have been discredited in this very thread. Find a better hero to get your nose brown over, he's a hack, nothing more. His sources, as well as the sources of many other conservatives writers, HAVE stood up to scrutiny, and I dare you to prove me otherwise. Can you show me any sources discrediting him? Meanwhile, there are several websites devoted to tearing apart every single claim made by Franken and the like.

His sources, as well as the sources of many other conservatives writers, HAVE stood up to scrutiny, and I dare you to prove me otherwise. Can you show me any sources discrediting him?

Congress
The Joint Chiefs of Staff
The UN
The Iraq Study Group
President George W. Bush

All of which admit, no WMDs have been found in Iraq.

Nope. "In a secret operation on June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium—the kind used to make fuel for atomic bombs—in a nuclear facility in Iraq, according to BBC News."
Man, that's pathetic.
IAEA state that there's 1.77 tonnes of low-enriched uranium (the stuff used for legitimate power reactors), held under seal since 1991, last checked in February 2003 and then picked up by US forces in June 2003 at a specific nuclear facility.
And somehow, in your fevered little mind, this is not the same as the 1.77 tonnes of the enriched uranium picked up by US forces in June 2003 at the same nuclear facility.
All you've proved to me here is that you haven't bothered to read the links I provided, because you know it will prove you're wrong.
On 7 June 2003, a team of seven IAEA safeguards inspectors will begin taking an inventory and securing nuclear material at the nuclear material storage site at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex. The nuclear material - 1.8 tonnes of low enriched uranium and 500 tonnes of natural uranium - had been under IAEA seal since 1991. It was last visited by IAEA inspectors in February 2003.

The inspectors arrived in Baghdad, Friday, 6 June, on air transport provided by Coalition Forces from Kuwait City. The mission is expected to take about two weeks.
Or I suppose now, you're going to say that they picked it up on 7 June whereas your report says 23 June.

grasp at straw much, do you?


"Polish general Marek Dukaczewski, Poland’s military intelligence chief, revealed that troops in the Polish-patrolled sector of Iraq had received tips from Iraqis that chemical weapons were sold to terrorists on the black market. The weapons had been buried to avoid detection, the general told the BBC. Polish military officials bought seventeen chemical-weapons warheads from Iraqis for $5,000 each to keep them from Iraq’s so-called insurgents.“An attack with such weapons would be hard to imagine,” the general said. “All of our activity was accelerated at appropriating these warheads.” Tests confirmed that some of the warheads contained cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin. These chemical weapons were supposed to have been completely destroyed during the 1991–1998 UN inspector regime. Clearly, some WMD survived."

Tell me, did you even read what I posted? All you've done to recount my post is repeat your old one, which I went through pointing out the half-truths, carefully chosen and worded facts, and just outright lies. So how does repeating it suddenly make it legitimate?

Polish army found 17 rockets that even Fox said was old - pre-soviet (so even before the first war then).
The whole point of going to war, according to GWB, was that Saddam was making new WMDs. There was never any doubt he still had some old crap lying around.
And the US military stated that those rockets were so degraded as to be useless. They contained cyclosarin once, but not anymore.

Which makes your post spurious at the least. Just pick and choose the facts to fit your already decided upon premise.


"U.S. soldiers stormed into a warehouse in Mosul, Iraq, on August 8,
2005, and were surprised to find 1,500 gallons of chemical agents. It
was the largest chemical weapons lab found in Iraq."
Chemical AGENTS. NOT chemical weapons, as you stated earlier. However one of us did call them chemical agents, so I guess that makes one of us correct, right? In a lab that was set up AFTER the invasion. So how does this prove that Saddam was manufacturing WMDs?
Oh right!
It doesn't!
It just proves that some of those insurgents the invasion created were attempting to manufacture chemical weapons - weapons which doesn't mean WMDs.


Please try to read what someone's posted, digest it, reflect and then comment. Not just mindlessly repeat the same crap you spouted the first time. Repeating a lie endlessly does make it more legitimate, you know.

Man, that's pathetic.
IAEA state that there's 1.77 tonnes of low-enriched uranium (the stuff used for legitimate power reactors), held under seal since 1991, last checked in February 2003 and then picked up by US forces in June 2003 at a specific nuclear facility.
And somehow, in your fevered little mind, this is not the same as the 1.77 tonnes of the enriched uranium picked up by US forces in June 2003 at the same nuclear facility.
All you've proved to me here is that you haven't bothered to read the links I provided, because you know it will prove you're wrong.

Or I suppose now, you're going to say that they picked it up on 7 June whereas your report says 23 June.
No, I'm going to say that my source is referring to June of 2004, not 2003.

Polish army found 17 rockets that even Fox said was old - pre-soviet (so even before the first war then).
The whole point of going to war, according to GWB, was that Saddam was making new WMDs. There was never any doubt he still had some old crap lying around.
And the US military stated that those rockets were so degraded as to be useless. They contained cyclosarin once, but not anymore.

Which makes your post spurious at the least. Just pick and choose the facts to fit your already decided upon premise. Last I checked, holding onto weapons that the UN demanded you to get rid of is still a violation. Combine that with Saddam's terrorist ties, and you get the inevitable fear that Saddam may provide terrorists with these illegal weapons.

And you make the mistake of assuming that I rely solely on the Bush Administration's grounds for war. According to the CIA, not Bush, Saddam was making new WMDs. Bush merely announced what the CIA had informed him. Regardless of whether Saddam was in fact making new WMDs, the fact remains that we had sufficient grounds for invading Iraq.

Chemical AGENTS. NOT chemical weapons, as you stated earlier. However one of us did call them chemical agents, so I guess that makes one of us correct, right? In a lab that was set up AFTER the invasion. So how does this prove that Saddam was manufacturing WMDs?
Oh right!
It doesn't!
It just proves that some of those insurgents the invasion created were attempting to manufacture chemical weapons - weapons which doesn't mean WMDs. We don't know that the lab was set up after the invasion. It was discovered during the invasion.

Actually, yes.

"...Saddam's No. 2 official in the Iraqi air force, Gen. Georges Sada, has charged in his book, "Saddam's Secrets," that Iraq shipped its WMD stockpiles into Syria before the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom...They ignore the report on Iraq's WMD program from Israel's top general who served as part of the multi-national contingent with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Gen. Moshe Yaalon told the New York Sun that Saddam Hussein "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."...Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., held a press conference to announce that the United States military had found more than 500 weapons munitions containing sarin or mustard gas. Saddam Hussein did not report these chemical weapons to U.N. weapons inspectors, and they failed to find them in their pre-war inspections." - http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50752
Let's see what the person in charge of finding this had to say:
CIA can't rule out WMD move to Syria

The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.

Inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made the findings in an addendum to his final report filed last year. He said the search for WMD in Iraq -- the main reason President Bush went to war to oust Saddam Hussein -- has been exhausted without finding such weapons. Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s.

He cited some evidence of a transfer. "Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined," he said. "There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation."

...
Arguing against a WMD transfer to Syria, Mr. Duelfer said, was the fact that all senior Iraqi detainees involved in Saddam's weapons programs and security "uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria."

...

He said that even if all leads are pursued someday, the ISG may never be able to finally determine whether WMDs were taken across the border. "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place," his report stated. "However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm

In other words, unsubstianted rumours.
Possible, but unproven despite several months of research.


But best to take the word of a repulsive opportunist creep like Santorum over the guy who actually spent time in Iraq researching this, hadn't we? I just find it surprising that Santorum would announce this major find, yet the Whitehouse wouldn't. Why is that?

Congress
The Joint Chiefs of Staff
The UN
The Iraq Study Group
President George W. Bush

All of which admit, no WMDs have been found in Iraq. That doesn't mean anything. Did any one of them specifically say that the weapons and materials that Richard Miniter and Melanie Morgan reported don't count? You're riding on the argument that just because CIA intelligence was wrong, we had no grounds to invade Iraq, which is not true. Just because we didn't find any new WMDs doesn't mean Hussein was not a threat.

Demented Hamsters, I don't know how you do it. Personally, I lump people who believe and still argue that we found WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was a real threat to US security in with young-Earth Creationists and global warming skeptics. They're all empty-headed idiots who deserve only to be publicly mocked.

There are several possible reasons for Bush's statements. Definitions of "WMD" vary.

Nuclear, biological, and that's it. Otherwise, you get into the bounds of being ludicrous, like claiming a grenade to be one.


The weapons found in Iraq are no nuclear warheads, but several do violate UN regulations.

Uh huh. And these are? Either way, insufficient to go to war over. Bush sold it to congress with that "They'll hit us in 45 minutes with nukes!" lie.


Or, he may have been misinformed. After all, the CIA misinformed him about WMDs before.

This is the same man who got into office, and told his advisor's "I want reasons to go to war with Iraq" before 9/11. Don't pull that 'misinformed' crap on me.

Did you happen to catch my above post that included sources?

Your claim was a grand total of one book by a neo-con propagandist. Hardly a credible news source.

Hussein's regime did have WMDs and terrorist ties.

Nope. WMDs are to date, nuclear weapons and maybe biological weapons since chemical weapons don't cause anymore destruction than say, a FAE. Saddam's regime had neither nuclear weapons nor any form of viable biological weapons. Unless you count snot from somebody's nose.

As for terrorist ties, Bush claimed he was working with Al Qaeda. Of course, no evidence of this ever surfaced. In fact, he conveniently forgets to mention that Saddam pretty much hated religious whacko terror groups because they were a threat to his regime.

How about providing some proof of what you're saying, and not some book by Ann Coulter wannabes?


And the Bush Administration made a big mistake when they stopped defending these pre-war claims, because they had sufficient evidence to back them up.


Evidence that you cannot produce in any convincing manner. In fact, let us turn this around a little. I proclaim you to be actually Osama Bin Laden in disguise.

Disprove it.


President Bush has bravely faced and fought a major problem in this world,


You really do get a kick out of playing the mouthpiece don't you? What problem did he face? The Taliban? In case you hadn't noticed, they're quite comfortable making raids over the Pakistani border now and then as well as consolidating their holds on outlying Afghanistan territory.

Al Qaeda? Nope, the argument that there hasn't been more attacks on the American homeland don't count given the time window between each major attack by them.

New Orleans? Oh yeah, we all saw how brilliantly that was solved. Not at all.


one that past presidents, like Clinton, failed to deal with properly, if at all. And if you think he should die for that, then you need to do some serious rethinking.

Clinton's apparent failing in the eyes of most neo-cons was not taking down Osama when he supposedly had the opportunity. Bush has yet to produce Bin Laden and just doesn't care about him anymore. After all, Bin Laden was just a convenient excuse to start the war machine.

As for Bush deserving to die, it's primarily because of gross incompetence while being in the driving seat of a massive paramilitary force. If Saddam deserved to hang for what he did (by extension since it wasn't his finger on the trigger) to the Kurds, Bush certainly deserves an equal fate for what he's done to the Iraqi people.

No, I'm going to say that my source is referring to June of 2004, not 2003.
Use occam's razor here:
Either we had two identical lots of 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium + 1000 other radioactive materials found in the same nuclear complex site (Tuwaitha site south of Baghdad) exactly a year apart, or it was the same stuff.
Which sounds more plausible?

It was under seal since 1991, last inspected in Feb 2003, inventoried and secured in June 2003 (which would take quite a bit of time one would imagine) and then not transported out of the country until June 2004.

The BBC article you're refering to, btw, also had this to say:

Rather than causing a nuclear explosion, a "dirty bomb" would see radioactive material combined with a conventional explosive - probably causing widespread panic and requiring a large clean-up operation.

Uranium would not be suitable for fashioning such a device, though appropriate material may have been among the other unidentified "sources".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm
So even the BBC article you refer to says the uranium wasn't much use.

Demented Hamsters, I don't know how you do it. Personally, I lump people who believe and still argue that we found WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was a real threat to US security in with young-Earth Creationists and global warming skeptics. They're all empty-headed idiots who deserve only to be publicly mocked.
I'm taking this as a compliment as to my terrier-like tenacity.
In which case, thanks. It means to me a lot coming from you.

To tell the truth, I only have one 35 minute lesson today, and have little else to do except sodding paperwork designed to do nothing else but appease my bureaucratic overlords.

Let's see what the person in charge of finding this had to say:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm

In other words, unsubstianted rumours.
Possible, but unproven despite several months of research. So the testimonies of General Georges Sada and General Moshe Yaalon mean nothing? Two separate testimonies stating that Saddam transferred WMDs to Syria do not serve as proof?


But best to take the word of a repulsive opportunist creep like Santorum over the guy who actually spent time in Iraq researching this, hadn't we?Richard Miniter spent time in Iraq researching the war, and yet for some reason you won’t accept his claims.

I just find it surprising that Santorum would announce this major find, yet the Whitehouse wouldn't. Why is that? Like I said before, the Bush Administration made a big mistake in not continuing to support pre-war claims. They apparently thought that there was no point.

I'm taking this as a compliment as to my terrier-like tenacity.
In which case, thanks. It means to me a lot coming from you.

To tell the truth, I only have one 35 minute lesson today, and have little else to do except sodding paperwork designed to do nothing else but appease my bureaucratic overlords.

It is very much a compliment. My responses would have been more along the lines of "you still believe that shit after all this time? What are you, a twelve-year old mental patient?" and lots of rolling eye smileys.

That doesn't mean anything. Did any one of them specifically say that the weapons and materials that Richard Miniter and Melanie Morgan reported don't count? You're riding on the argument that just because CIA intelligence was wrong, we had no grounds to invade Iraq, which is not true. Just because we didn't find any new WMDs doesn't mean Hussein was not a threat.

So you're admitting we didn't find any WMDs?

Or, he may have been misinformed. After all, the CIA misinformed him about WMDs before.
It wasn't the CIA that delibrately misinformed him. It was his Administration who re-interpreted and re-wrote the reports to fit their already planned invasion into Iraq that misinformed him.
This pdf is very interesting in this respect:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Iraq3Chap2.pdf

Especially for bits like this:
The declassified NIE contained forty distinct caveats or conditions dropped by officials - including fifteen uses of the adverb “probably”
In other words, the information they received wasn't that bad. They just read into what they wanted to. So a statement saying, "Saddam may be restarting his chemical research facilities" was presented to the public (and congress) as "Saddam is restarting his chemical research facilities".
Also, they adopted a worst-case scenario to evade culpability for underestimating threats (ie to cover their asses), which certainly played into the hands of the Bush Admin. Ironically it's had the opposite effect once the Whitehouse went looking for scapegoats in order to cover their own asses.

You can read the full report here:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1435

Nuclear, biological, and that's it. Otherwise, you get into the bounds of being ludicrous, like claiming a grenade to be one. Size certainly counts as a factor. And like you said, Bush went looking for new WMDs. Even if we didn't find new ones, old ones that somehow survived UN inspections are certainly dangerous.


Uh huh. And these are? Either way, insufficient to go to war over. Bush sold it to congress with that "They'll hit us in 45 minutes with nukes!" lie. Only insufficient when it stands alone. There is no one primary justification for the Iraq invasion.


This is the same man who got into office, and told his advisor's "I want reasons to go to war with Iraq" before 9/11. Don't pull that 'misinformed' crap on me. Uh, before 9/11? Sources please?


Your claim was a grand total of one book by a neo-con propagandist. Hardly a credible news source. No, but HIS news sources count as credible sources, do they not? Would you be happy if I just posted the entire bibliography for his book? Because as soon as I find my copy of the book, I would be more than happy to.

As for terrorist ties, Bush claimed he was working with Al Qaeda. Of course, no evidence of this ever surfaced. In fact, he conveniently forgets to mention that Saddam pretty much hated religious whacko terror groups because they were a threat to his regime. There is evidence of terrorist ties. If not to Al Qae'da, at least to bin Laden.

Saddam Hussein has harbored terrorists such as Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, and Abu Abbas. The Iraqi vice president showed support for Sudan after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and Sudan even asked Hussein to grant bin Laden asylum. And an Iraqi intelligence chief met with bin Laden in Afghanistan. When the question of why bin Laden would be working with Hussein (because of the religious problems that you mentioned) came up, bin Laden actually told ABC news that "his network is wide, and there are people prepared to commit terror in his name who he does not even control." (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1704335/posts)

And CNN, of all networks, reported that Hussein offered asylum to bin Laden in 1999. In fact, bin Laden supported Iraq against Western powers. (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/)

And a Pentagon document includes a report that details Iraq and bin Laden relations dating back to 1995. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697938/posts)


As for Bush deserving to die, it's primarily because of gross incompetence while being in the driving seat of a massive paramilitary force. If Saddam deserved to hang for what he did (by extension since it wasn't his finger on the trigger) to the Kurds, Bush certainly deserves an equal fate for what he's done to the Iraqi people. Oh yes, Bush's liberation of Iraq is equivalent to Saddam's genocide of the Kurds. That's some logic there.

So you're admitting we didn't find any WMDs? I'm admitting that we didn't find any new WMDs. I'm admitting that Bush was given incorrect intelligence. But that certainly does not mean that the Iraq War is unjustified.

That doesn't mean anything. Did any one of them specifically say that the weapons and materials that Richard Miniter and Melanie Morgan reported don't count?

Richard "I'm a hack" claimed there were. The Joint Chiefs said "nope, none at all"

They don't have to specifically say some bumpkin's claim doesn't count because theirs was all conclusive.


You're riding on the argument that just because CIA intelligence was wrong, we had no grounds to invade Iraq, which is not true. Just because we didn't find any new WMDs doesn't mean Hussein was not a threat.

Threat to who? His neighbors? That's a laugh. He couldn't even maintain an effective fighting force after all the sanctions that were slapped on him. A threat to the US? About as much threat as a fly.

You're riding on the argument that despite there being no actual evidence of any threat, there is one.

How about this? I claim that you're a threat to world security, and thus should be eliminated post haste. It doesn't matter if I'm wrong. There's still enough grounds to put a bunch of bullets in your cranium.

Even if we didn't find new ones, old ones that somehow survived UN inspections are certainly dangerous.

Only if they fell on your head maybe. Look, these soviet era chemical weapons were degraded to the point where bleach was a more effective chemical weapon. This was announced by all the people who found them. Like, oh, the forces on the ground?

Instead, like an airhead, you claim them to be dangerous.


Only insufficient when it stands alone. There is no one primary justification for the Iraq invasion.

None of the other so called 'justifications' were sufficient even lumped together. Especially since most of them were proven false.


No, but HIS news sources count as credible sources, do they not?

News sources quoted out of context or deliberately worded so as to hide the actual meaning don't count as accurate reporting. Like leaving the words "degraded" and "harmless" out of reports regarding chemical weapons.


Would you be happy if I just posted the entire bibliography for his book?

Do it. Make sure to include the relevant areas he's quoting. I'd be more than happy to laugh at your for falling for factual inaccuracies.


Because as soon as I find my copy of the book, I would be more than happy to.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.


There is evidence of terrorist ties. If not to Al Qae'da, at least to bin Laden.
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1704335/posts)

Any site moderated for neo-cons has all the credibility of faux news. Neo-cons have been consistently proven not to be interested in inconvenent things like facts unless they can be twisted to forward their agenda.

Furthermore, the article claims that three intelligence agencies "don't know what was said", but are somehow sure that "asylum was offered". Sounds like "we don't know what they said, so lets make it up."


And CNN, of all networks, reported that Hussein offered asylum to bin Laden in 1999. In fact, bin Laden supported Iraq against Western powers. (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/)


Uh huh. At the same time, he disapproved of Iraq cause it was secular. Not to mention that nobody seems to know what the response to that offer was. Try again.


(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697938/posts)


Neo con site. Find another one.


Oh yes, Bush's liberation of Iraq is equivalent to Saddam's genocide of the Kurds. That's some logic there.

Very simple. Bush's so called "liberation" replaced one Saddam with dozens of mini Saddam's. He replaced order with chaos, and certainly didn't help by bombing infrastructure, that he has yet to replace. Furthermore, his utter lack of a proper occupation plan (Mission accomplished anyone?), only served to further sow the chaos, not to mention that he disbanded the only trained organization capable of keeping stability early on. The Iraqi army.

Everything he's done has only made a mess of things in Iraq and has created a death toll nearly matching Saddam's regime.

Oh, and regarding information manipulation, as well as Bush's "Invade Iraq at any cost", here's what the CIA chief had to say.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462782,00.html

There is evidence of terrorist ties. If not to Al Qae'da, at least to bin Laden.


Oh yes, Bush's liberation of Iraq is equivalent to Saddam's genocide of the Kurds. That's some logic there.

Let's see...I'm an absolute dictator who's only objective is to stay in power....I'm going to allow another organization to set up in my nation knowing they may gain power and use that power against me??



More people of Bushnam have died per year under the leadershiip of the US than died per year under Saddam. AND Saddam killed criminals, treasoners (such as the Kurds, and those who he was convicted of killing), their families, friends and supporters. The deaths under US leadership are totally random.

Under Saddam the people had safety, jobs (even women), the most advanced education in the region, they could walk the streets day or night in complete safety. Now they have "freedom", but no safety. Ironically, the US at the same time traded freedom for "safety".

http://www.bushflash.com/swf/thanks.swf


For those who forget how Saddam came to power, stayed in power and lost power. Here's a little history of the US and Saddam.

Ironically, the US at the same time traded freedom for "safety".

I'd like to see Populus Justicia live under Iraqi style "freedom" for a while and see if he still supports it. Preferably outside the Green zone.

Demented Hamsters, I don't know how you do it. Personally, I lump people who believe and still argue that we found WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was a real threat to US security in with young-Earth Creationists and global warming skeptics. They're all empty-headed idiots who deserve only to be publicly mocked.

What about ex-global warming skeptics? i.e., people who once dismissed global warming as nonsense but not anymore?

What about ex-global warming skeptics? i.e., people who once dismissed global warming as nonsense but not anymore?
I think if you've managed to shake off magical thinking on global warming, then you have hope, and have moved toward the edge of respectability. Everyone deserves a chance to prove they're not a moron. ;)

I think if you've managed to shake off magical thinking on global warming, then you have hope, and have moved toward the edge of respectability. Everyone deserves a chance to prove they're not a moron. ;)

TBH, I used to have doubts about it. But not anymore.

TBH, I used to have doubts about it. But not anymore.

You were willing to look at evidence honestly and follow where that led. That's the key. Anyone can be fooled, but someone who refuses to acknowledge and accept evidence contrary to his or her position and at least examine it siply because it contradicts their long held beliefs is a hopeless fool.

I'm admitting that we didn't find any new WMDs. I'm admitting that Bush was given incorrect intelligence. But that certainly does not mean that the Iraq War is unjustified.

Why don't you say what you ACTUALLY want to?

"No war is unjustified as long as we get to kill some brown people."

There, say it already instead of twisting the language like the proverbial pretzel that should've killed Bush.

You were willing to look at evidence honestly and follow where that led. That's the key. Anyone can be fooled, but someone who refuses to acknowledge and accept evidence contrary to his or her position and at least examine it siply because it contradicts their long held beliefs is a hopeless fool.

This goes back to the pharisee mentality of the "religious" right. They know what they know and any evidence that is different is wrong. When everything you know is 100% true, there can be no evidence that goes against that predetermined true. There is no reason to admit a wrong because what you believe cannot be wrong, therefore everyone else must be wrong.

This is what killed Jesus and this is what is killing the US.

I would imagine that most of them will be colouring books - what is he going to spend on crayons:eek:

$450 million....

That's a really big box of crayons.

But it'll have every colour imaginable.
well, if it's Haliburton delivering the box, I'm sure it'll be a few crayons short of a box...

I'm admitting that we didn't find any new WMDs. I'm admitting that Bush was given incorrect intelligence. But that certainly does not mean that the Iraq War is unjustified.

Does that mean you'll be giving up on the WMD crap? Cool. Thanks.

Maybe Dear Leader can persuade that Missouri couple who just won the $250,000,000 Powerball lottery to donate it to his library. That's half the cost, and they're old, they're going to die soon, so they don't need it, and leaving it to their relatives will just cause problems, jealousy, all that, so they can help Dear Leader and be patriotic at the same time. :p

Any site moderated for neo-cons has all the credibility of faux news. Neo-cons have been consistently proven not to be interested in inconvenent things like facts unless they can be twisted to forward their agenda. So even though the original post makes no assumptions and only includes a transcript of a newscast, you're going to disregard it because it came from a conservative site? Yeah, that makes a LOT of sense.


Furthermore, the article claims that three intelligence agencies "don't know what was said", but are somehow sure that "asylum was offered". Sounds like "we don't know what they said, so lets make it up." Being sure that asylum was offered is not the same as assuming that asylum was offered or inventing that asylum was offered. Stop twisting words.



Uh huh. At the same time, he disapproved of Iraq cause it was secular. Whatever disapproval bin Laden had for Iraq obviously did not get in the way of the support he had for it. Go get me an article proving that bin Laden could not possibly have supported Iraq under any circumstances, and then we'll talk.



Neo con site. Find another one. Borderline ignorance, especially since the post contains a source link which you could've checked and tried to counter.

More than all other presidential libraries combined. And he reserves the right to remove any papers that might be "embarrassing". The oil rich nations that he has supported are expected to contribute vast amounts of the money they made from sales to you the consumer.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/475052p-399492c.html

A little mean spirited article. And it left out the address for me to send a check to.

A little mean spirited article. And it left out the address for me to send a check to.

When the NY Daily News turns on a Republican president in his second term, you know he's doing something wrong.

A little mean spirited article. And it left out the address for me to send a check to.

I'm sure someone as resourceful as you are will have no problem discovering where to send your check. And if you do, telegram me and I'll send you an address that will work just as well. ;)

I'm sure someone as resourceful as you are will have no problem discovering where to send your check. And if you do, telegram me and I'll send you an address that will work just as well. ;)

Ah, the Soupy Sales Gambit. A classic and not seen very often these days.

Why don't you say what you ACTUALLY want to? Fine. I'll say what I actually want to. Before U.S. intervention, Iraq:


Was under the leadership of a regime with terrorist ties
- http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=MURDOCK-04-06-06
- http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/#1
- Saddam was backed by a terrorist group: "the Iranians in the group of 20 are associated with a Iran terror group comprising terrorists who earlier backed Saddam Hussein."(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1802891.cms)
- Saddam purchased mustard gas and anthrax in late 2000, and had links to several terror organizations dedicated to targeting America and American allies. (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200410%5CSPE20041004a.html)
- Saddam gave instructions to a member of Arabian Bureau Ba’ath Party leadership to “hunt the Americans.” (http://www.cnsnews.com/specialreports/2004/somali.asp)
- Saddam’s sons were in negotiations to obtain a production line for North Korean missile systems that would be manufactured under the Iraqi flag. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/international/middleeast/01MISS.html?ex=1170306000&en=0907bea3466890c3&ei=5070)
Was under the leadership of a regime belonging a political minority. Ba'athists were an even smaller minority in Iraq than the Sunni. Such an overwhelming majority as the Shiite in Iraq can only be kept under control via a police state and sustained intimidation against which that majority will revolt, leading to further repression, etc. How can anyone say that Iraq was better under Saddam when it was being ruled by an oppressive minority?

Had invaded its neighbors

Had committed genocide on its own soil

Was in violation of sixteen separate UN resolutions (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html)


Now, I would say that these are sufficient grounds for intervention.

Fine. I'll say what I actually want to. Before U.S. intervention, Iraq:


Was under the leadership of a regime with terrorist ties
- http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=MURDOCK-04-06-06
- http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/#1
- Saddam was backed by a terrorist group: "the Iranians in the group of 20 are associated with a Iran terror group comprising terrorists who earlier backed Saddam Hussein."(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1802891.cms)
- Saddam purchased mustard gas and anthrax in late 2000, and had links to several terror organizations dedicated to targeting America and American allies. (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200410%5CSPE20041004a.html)
- Saddam gave instructions to a member of Arabian Bureau Ba’ath Party leadership to “hunt the Americans.” (http://www.cnsnews.com/specialreports/2004/somali.asp)
- Saddam’s sons were in negotiations to obtain a production line for North Korean missile systems that would be manufactured under the Iraqi flag. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/international/middleeast/01MISS.html?ex=1170306000&en=0907bea3466890c3&ei=5070)
Had invaded its neighbors

Had committed genocide on its own soil

Was in violation of sixteen separate UN resolutions (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html)


Now, I would say that these are sufficient grounds for intervention.

If those were sufficient grounds, why did this war have to be sold through the use of lies?

If those were sufficient grounds, why did this war have to be sold through the use of lies? I have stated several times that I feel the Bush Administration did a terrible job of selling the war, which is why so many Americans are now opposed to it. They started out trying to justify it on incorrect information (not lies) that Saddam was manufacturing WMDs. After we got in, the administration evidently figured that there was no practicality in keeping up the debate as to why we where there. After all, we were already there. Regardless, the evidence stands that there were grounds for intervention.

Fine. I'll say what I actually want to. Before U.S. intervention, Iraq:


- Saddam was backed by a terrorist group: "the Iranians in the group of 20 are associated with a Iran terror group comprising terrorists who earlier backed Saddam Hussein."(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1802891.cms)
- Saddam purchased mustard gas and anthrax in late 2000, and had links to several terror organizations dedicated to targeting America and American allies.
Was under the leadership of a regime belonging a political minority. Ba'athists were an even smaller minority in Iraq than the Sunni. Such an overwhelming majority as the Shiite in Iraq can only be kept under control via a police state and sustained intimidation against which that majority will revolt, leading to further repression, etc. How can anyone say that Iraq was better under Saddam when it was being ruled by an oppressive minority?

Had invaded its neighbors

Had committed genocide on its own soil

Was in violation of sixteen separate UN resolutions (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html)
[/LIST]

Now, I would say that these are sufficient grounds for intervention.

First--Saddam and Iran hated each other. Why would Saddam trust Iranians?

Second--We know he had chemical weapons ---REAGAN sold them to him. The question is did he destroy them in order for the inspectors not to find them? And why did we need to go to war while the inspectors were still there? Because we needed "Mission Accomplished" before the congressional elections.

Third--the Ba'aths were a political party, not a "minority". That's like saying the Nazi's were a minor minority in Germany.

Fourth--The US told him to invade Iran. He asked the US for permission to invade Kuwait. We didn't say yes, but we said we would ignore it. We only changed after public outcry.

Fifth--He killed treasoners and criminals and their families and supporters. This is the tradition of tribal cultures. Read the Old Testament in the Bible for cultural understanding.

Sixth--Israel is in violation of far more UN resolutions, yet we don't invade in order to enforce them.

Why does the worst president in modern history get the most expensive library? Its not like he has spent a great deal of time in a library anyway.

Hasn't he sniffed around a few, while simultaneously flicking his Zippo in anticipation (think Pyro, X-Men)?

Funny how his own "truest" followers would be so keen as to bring an end to books anyway, like Alexandria. :(

Being sure that asylum was offered is not the same as assuming that asylum was offered or inventing that asylum was offered. Stop twisting words.


Now you're making up stuff on the spot. They said "we don't know what was said" and in the next breath said "We're sure asylum was offered". The two statements contradict each other.

How about this? I don't know what you said this morning, but I'm sure you admitted you were a carrot.


Whatever disapproval bin Laden had for Iraq obviously did not get in the way of the support he had for it. Go get me an article proving that bin Laden could not possibly have supported Iraq under any circumstances, and then we'll talk.

I'll find that article when you can find one that specifically states Bin Laden giving support to Iraq. And not just a "yeah, I support them" statement. I want to see clear evidence of material, personnel or intelligence based support.

As for under any circumstance? What circumstance? In the event of an alien landing? Prophet Mohammad waltzing out of the Tigris river? Pain of death and torture? Try your weasel words elsewhere.

First--Saddam and Iran hated each other. Why would Saddam trust Iranians? The problem is, you're seeing things in black and white when that's just not the case. So Saddam and Iran hated each other. Does that really make it impossible for Saddam to trust Iranian terrorists? We don't know how much loyalty these terrorists even had to their country. Not to mention the fact that the article only says that the terrorist group itself was Iranian, and therefore the particular terrorists that had backed Saddam may not have been Iranian at all. You can't try to use that argument against an article that clearly states terrorists once backed Saddam.


Second--We know he had chemical weapons ---REAGAN sold them to him. The question is did he destroy them in order for the inspectors not to find them? And why did we need to go to war while the inspectors were still there? Because we needed "Mission Accomplished" before the congressional elections. I highly doubt that Reagan sold Saddam anthrax in 2000. And we went to war when we did because of a little incident called 9/11. 9/11 was the catalyst that caused us to go into Afghanistan. After Afghanistan, the only logical next move in the War on Terror was Iraq, the country that aided terrorism, the country that committed genocide on its own soil, and the country that was in violation of numerous UN resolutions pertaining to important matters such as weapons of mass destruction, state support of terrorism, and indemnities following the Gulf War.


Third--the Ba'aths were a political party, not a "minority". That's like saying the Nazi's were a minor minority in Germany. That's not a proper analogy. The Ba'athist party came from a little clique in the small town of Tikrit. A more fitting analogy would be to say that it would be as if the Los Angeles Crips or the Chicago Mafia had seized control of the United States.

Fourth--The US told him to invade Iran. He asked the US for permission to invade Kuwait. We didn't say yes, but we said we would ignore it. We only changed after public outcry. The idea that we decided to ignore the invasion of Kuwait is speculation based on statements allegedly made by an American ambassador, statements that more likely express neutrality. And mere hours after the invasion we started a UN Security Council meeting that condemned the invasion. But all this is irrelevant anyway. America's past mistakes are irrelevant. What matters is that the invasion of Kuwait, which was in direct violation of UN Resolution 660, serves as evidence of Iraq's reckless disregard of UN security regulations, which in turn serves as evidence of the threat Iraq posed.


Fifth--He killed treasoners and criminals and their families and supporters. This is the tradition of tribal cultures. Read the Old Testament in the Bible for cultural understanding. I'm quite familiar with the practices of the Old Testament, such as the ban, but tradition and practices from before Common Era are no excuse for Iraq's actions in Dujail and the Al-Anfal campaign. Someone tries to assassinate Saddam, so what does he do? He sends military forces into the town where it happened and slaughters 148 men, incarcerates and tortures 1500 others, sends other residents (most of them women and children) to desert camps, and destroys the town and 250,000 acres of farmland. And in regards to Al-Anfal, a court in the Hague ruled that campaign as a genocide as defined by the 1948 Geneva Convention.

Sixth--Israel is in violation of far more UN resolutions, yet we don't invade in order to enforce them. Sources please? And besides, I highly doubt that they are in violation of UN resolutions the same way Iraq was. Iraq repeatedly violated several very important resolutions, and these violations further identified Iraq as a threat. Can you say the same about Israel?

Now you're making up stuff on the spot. They said "we don't know what was said" and in the next breath said "We're sure asylum was offered". The two statements contradict each other. Saying that they cannot be certain of what was discussed possibly and in fact probably means that they cannot provide an exact quote, nothing more. And yet somehow three separate intelligences agencies came to the conclusion that bin Laden was welcome in Baghdad.


I'll find that article when you can find one that specifically states Bin Laden giving support to Iraq. And not just a "yeah, I support them" statement. I want to see clear evidence of material, personnel or intelligence based support. Actually, it would probably be the other way around, with Iraq providing support for bin Laden. And my aim is not to prove that Iraq was in fact providing support for bin Laden. My aim is to prove that Iraq was open to the idea of providing support and amnesty to a terrorist. But this is moot anyway, since there is plenty of evidence identifying Iraq's sponsoring of terrorism in general. Proving that Iraq provided support for bin Laden would just be adding to the evidence.

If those were sufficient grounds, why did this war have to be sold through the use of lies?

Touché. :cool:

I don't know what you said this morning, but I'm sure you admitted you were a carrot.

This just nearly made me choke with laughter, NAS.

The problem is, you're seeing things in black and white when that's just not the case. So Saddam and Iran hated each other. Does that really make it impossible for Saddam to trust Iranian terrorists? We don't know how much loyalty these terrorists even had to their country. Not to mention the fact that the article only says that the terrorist group itself was Iranian, and therefore the particular terrorists that had backed Saddam may not have been Iranian at all. You can't try to use that argument against an article that clearly states terrorists once backed Saddam. Let's say you were an all powerful dictator that had done everything it took to stay in power. Is it logical that you would allow another force on your land that could grow to the point of challenging that power?

I highly doubt that Reagan sold Saddam anthrax in 2000. And we went to war when we did because of a little incident called 9/11. 9/11 was the catalyst that caused us to go into Afghanistan. After Afghanistan, the only logical next move in the War on Terror was Iraq, the country that aided terrorism, the country that committed genocide on its own soil, and the country that was in violation of numerous UN resolutions pertaining to important matters such as weapons of mass destruction, state support of terrorism, and indemnities following the Gulf War. It's not genocide when you kill treasoners, their family, and supporters. Not under the culture of the area. There are actually other cultures in the world, much older than Anglo-Saxon. The UN resolutions called for inspections. The inspectors were there. Now if you were considering going to war with a country, and you had people freely traveling the country looking at military installations, collecting intelligence, would it be logical to pull them out or allow them to get as much intelligence as possible? Of course, when the congressional elections are coming up that alters how much intelligence you want:p Now as a dictator who wants to stay in power and you've lost a war to people who patrol your skies everyday is it logical to support anything that might cause them to renew war?

That's not a proper analogy. The Ba'athist party came from a little clique in the small town of Tikrit. A more fitting analogy would be to say that it would be as if the Los Angeles Crips or the Chicago Mafia had seized control of the United States. Under the tradition of the culture of the area, sort of like the Libertarians getting in power. The Ba'ath party has branches throughout the area. Nearly every country has a branch. This is not a small town gang.

The idea that we decided to ignore the invasion of Kuwait is speculation based on statements allegedly made by an American ambassador, statements that more likely express neutrality. And mere hours after the invasion we started a UN Security Council meeting that condemned the invasion. But all this is irrelevant anyway. America's past mistakes are irrelevant. What matters is that the invasion of Kuwait, which was in direct violation of UN Resolution 660, serves as evidence of Iraq's reckless disregard of UN security regulations, which in turn serves as evidence of the threat Iraq posed. See resolutions against Israel.

I'm quite familiar with the practices of the Old Testament, such as the ban, but tradition and practices from before Common Era are no excuse for Iraq's actions in Dujail and the Al-Anfal campaign. Someone tries to assassinate Saddam, so what does he do? He sends military forces into the town where it happened and slaughters 148 men, incarcerates and tortures 1500 others, sends other residents (most of them women and children) to desert camps, and destroys the town and 250,000 acres of farmland. And in regards to Al-Anfal, a court in the Hague ruled that campaign as a genocide as defined by the 1948 Geneva Convention. Study the traditions and culture. A 5000 year old culture. Going back pre-AD by thousands of years. When Europe was in the dark ages this culture conserved the entire culture of the western civilized world. When someone commits treason, not only they but all of their supporters are to blame. Have you heard of peer pressure? By the way: In recorded history EUROPE has been the most waring area of the world.

Sources please? And besides, I highly doubt that they are in violation of UN resolutions the same way Iraq was. Iraq repeatedly violated several very important resolutions, and these violations further identified Iraq as a threat. Can you say the same about Israel? YES See below.

A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel"

* 1955-1992:
* * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
* *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
* obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
* states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
* two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
* council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
* by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
* claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
* Palestinian mayors".
* * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
* nuclear facility".
* * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
* Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
* allow food supplies to be brought in".
* * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
* and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
* in attack on PLO headquarters.
* * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
* its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
* at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
* denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
* requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
* at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
* Nations.
* * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
* Palestinians.
* * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
* calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
* and calls for their immediate return.

I hate America.

I hate America.

Hate me? You don't even know me!

:(

Actually, it would probably be the other way around, with Iraq providing support for bin Laden. And my aim is not to prove that Iraq was in fact providing support for bin Laden. My aim is to prove that Iraq was open to the idea of providing support and amnesty to a terrorist. But this is moot anyway, since there is plenty of evidence identifying Iraq's sponsoring of terrorism in general. Proving that Iraq provided support for bin Laden would just be adding to the evidence.
Let's see what Saddam had to say about Bin Laden:
We have never had any relationship with Mr. Osama bin Laden. And Iraq has never had any relationship with al Qaeda. And I think that Mr. bin Laden himself has recently, in one of his speeches, given-- such an answer, that we have no relation with him.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/21/iraq/main541427.shtml

What Bin Laden had to say about Saddam:
"Socialists (meaning Saddam) are infidels wherever they are,"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm

What Rumsfeld had to say of Saddam and Bin Laden working together:
"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
...
He also said that although most of al-Qaeda's senior leaders had sworn an oath to Osama Bin Laden, the man suspected to be the principal leader of the network in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had not.

Mr Zarqawi's reported presence in Baghdad before the war has been cited in the past by the US administration as evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3715396.stm
The article also has this little gem:
Mr Rumsfeld also said intelligence about weapons of mass destruction before the invasion had been faulty and that the US had been unable to find any such weapons.

And finally, what the intelligence agencies had to say about the two of them:
“We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.”
- 9/11 commission
The CIA learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, according to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report.
"Iraq has no past, current, or anticipated future contact with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda... bin Laden was in fact a longtime enemy of Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401545.html?nav=rss_world

I hate America.

I don't know, I think "A Horse With No Name" was good.

I hate America.

I don't agree, but I definitely don't blame you, either.

This goes back to the pharisee mentality of the "religious" right. They know what they know and any evidence that is different is wrong. When everything you know is 100% true, there can be no evidence that goes against that predetermined true. There is no reason to admit a wrong because what you believe cannot be wrong, therefore everyone else must be wrong.

This is what killed Jesus and this is what is killing the US.

Agreed.

I'm a Christian, and the religious right disgusts me. Unlike them, I don't take the whole Bible literally, I do believe in evolution, and I don't believe in legislating morality. Oh, and I also firmly support equal rights - including marriage - for homosexuals. I guess they would label me a heretic then. ;)

Agreed.

I'm a Christian, and the religious right disgusts me. Unlike them, I don't take the whole Bible literally, I do believe in evolution, and I don't believe in legislating morality. Oh, and I also firmly support equal rights - including marriage - for homosexuals. I guess they would label me a heretic then. ;)

But I won't, I'll make sure to save a little place in Heaven for you. With A/C and those drinks with little umbrellas in them. ;)