Why Bush Should be Impeached [Archive] - Page 2 - Theology Forum

Skeptic

June 26th, 2003, 11:38 PM

Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments:
Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence

June 20, 2003

Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows.

But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.

Here is a transcript of the exchange:
--------------------------------------------------------

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

----------------------------------------------------------

Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."

Despite its implications, Martin's report was greeted largely with silence when it aired. Now, nine months later, media are covering damaging revelations about the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, yet still seem strangely reluctant to pursue stories suggesting that the flawed intelligence-- and therefore the war-- may have been a result of deliberate deception, rather than incompetence. The public deserves a fuller accounting of this story.

If you'd like to encourage media outlets to investigate this story, please see FAIR's Media Contact list: http://www.fair.org/media-contact-list.html

From: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html

RogerB

June 27th, 2003, 08:59 AM

GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.

Thanks for misrepresenting the truth, Skeptic.

If you don't think Saddam is a terrorist, you're just plain crazy.

BillyBob

June 27th, 2003, 05:59 PM

Yeah Skeptic.........silly neocom.

Eireann

June 27th, 2003, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by RogerB
Thanks for misrepresenting the truth, Skeptic.

If you don't think Saddam is a terrorist, you're just plain crazy.
Terrorist, perhaps. At least, he did support terrorism.

Connected in any way to 9/11, that's another story. I am still waiting for any of you who say he was to actually show something of substance that establishes any connection at all between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

So far the closest anyone has come to doing that was when BillyBob posted an article containing a lot of conjecture from Israelis, even to the point that it was phrased as conjecture and opinion, but even that fell miserably short of substance (since it was largely nothing but opinion and conjecture).

Skeptic

July 5th, 2003, 07:29 PM

U.S. Envoy Says Bush 'Twisted' Iraq Intelligence (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20030706/pl_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc)

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A former U.S. ambassador who investigated a report about Iraq buying uranium from Niger for the CIA accused the Bush administration on Sunday of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Joseph Wilson, Washington's envoy to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, detailed in his role in investigating the report -- which turned out to be a forgery -- in an article in the New York Times on Sunday.

The report was cited by President Bush and Britain to support their charges that Saddam was trying to obtain nuclear weapons and to justify their invasion of Iraq in March.

"Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat," Wilson wrote.

Controversy is raging in both Britain and the United States over charges that the governments of the two countries manipulated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the war. No evidence of such weapons has been found by the occupying forces in Iraq.

Wilson, who helped to direct Africa policy for the National Security Council under former President Bill Clinton, said he was the "unnamed former envoy" who news media have said traveled to Niger in February 2002 to check the report of a uranium deal between the west African country and Iraq.

At the request of the CIA, which was to report his findings to Vice President Dick Cheney, Wilson said he spent more than a week meeting current and former Niger government officials and people associated with the uranium business.

"It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place," he said.

Wilson said he reported his findings in detail to the CIA and the State Department. But in January 2003 Bush "repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa," Wilson said.

"If the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them," he said.

Wilson said that if the administration had ignored his information "because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses."

In the weeks before the war began, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the report about an Iraq-Niger uranium deal was a forgery.

Is it possible?

July 5th, 2003, 08:05 PM

Testing

Is it possible?

July 5th, 2003, 08:06 PM

:devil:

Eireann

July 5th, 2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
U.S. Envoy Says Bush 'Twisted' Iraq Intelligence (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20030706/pl_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc)

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A former U.S. ambassador who investigated a report about Iraq buying uranium from Niger for the CIA accused the Bush administration on Sunday of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Joseph Wilson, Washington's envoy to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, detailed in his role in investigating the report -- which turned out to be a forgery -- in an article in the New York Times on Sunday.

The report was cited by President Bush and Britain to support their charges that Saddam was trying to obtain nuclear weapons and to justify their invasion of Iraq in March.

"Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat," Wilson wrote.

Controversy is raging in both Britain and the United States over charges that the governments of the two countries manipulated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the war. No evidence of such weapons has been found by the occupying forces in Iraq.

Wilson, who helped to direct Africa policy for the National Security Council under former President Bill Clinton, said he was the "unnamed former envoy" who news media have said traveled to Niger in February 2002 to check the report of a uranium deal between the west African country and Iraq.

At the request of the CIA, which was to report his findings to Vice President Dick Cheney, Wilson said he spent more than a week meeting current and former Niger government officials and people associated with the uranium business.

"It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place," he said.

Wilson said he reported his findings in detail to the CIA and the State Department. But in January 2003 Bush "repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa," Wilson said.

"If the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them," he said.

Wilson said that if the administration had ignored his information "because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses."

In the weeks before the war began, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the report about an Iraq-Niger uranium deal was a forgery.
This news isn't surprising. Particularly the part about the administration ignoring evidence because it didn't fit a particular preconception about Iraq. Integrity took its leave of this administration long ago.

RogerB

July 7th, 2003, 11:42 AM

Integrity took its leave of this administration long ago.

We got witches judging integrity. :confused:

Eireann

July 7th, 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
We got witches judging integrity. :confused:
And your blanket attacks on witches continue. Again I ask you, do you have a basis for these aspersions? Did a witch somehow personally wrong you at some point? Do you even know what a witch is, especially in context with the modern day? Be warned: what the bible describes as a "witch" isn't even close to what a modern witch is.

Gerald

July 7th, 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by RogerB
We got witches judging integrity. :confused:
The witches have the bigger stick...at least until Patriot II gets passed; then Duhbya can just have them all hunted down and shot...

RogerB

July 7th, 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Gerald
The witches have the bigger stick...

You mean brooms? :chuckle:

Gerald

July 7th, 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by RogerB
You mean brooms? :chuckle:
Hey, one uses what works; I once took down the school bully with a broom handle (granted, he was using the urinal at the time...).

Eireann

July 7th, 2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by RogerB
You mean brooms? :chuckle:
Hey, buddy ... Nimbus 2002! Don't knock it! It's got get-up-and-go!

Gerald

July 7th, 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Eireann
Hey, buddy ... Nimbus 2002! Don't knock it! It's got get-up-and-go!
The '03 has a better climb rate; costs a bit, but then you gets what you pays for...:D

Eireann

July 7th, 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Gerald
The '03 has a better climb rate; costs a bit, but then you gets what you pays for...:D
Yeah, but I never trust brand new models. I like to let at least a year go by, make sure they've had time to get the bugs worked out (or at least properly fed). Nothing worse than having your brand new broom break down over the desert ... a mile up!

Skeptic

July 10th, 2003, 10:44 PM

The evidence continues to grow. :chuckle:

White House downplays role of faulty report
Thu Jul 10, 7:57 AM ET

John Diamond USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration defended on Wednesday its decision to go to war against Iraq and downplayed the role of discredited intelligence in the decision. President Bush said Saddam Hussein's regime posed a threat to world peace, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the Sept. 11 attacks put the danger in sharp relief.

Rumsfeld's statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee and Bush's comments in Africa marked the second day this week that the administration tried to reframe its justification for war in Iraq and rebut criticism over how intelligence was used.

''The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder,'' Rumsfeld said. ''We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light, through the prism of . . . Sept. 11th.''

Bush, visiting South Africa, declined to say whether he had any regrets about alleging in his State of the Union Address on Jan. 28 that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Niger for a nuclear weapons program. The White House said earlier this week that the charge should not have been in the speech because it was based on information that U.S. intelligence knew was bogus.

''I am confident that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program,'' Bush said. He didn't answer a question on whether he regretted including false information in his speech.

Rumsfeld's remark drew a sharp response from critics of the administration's Iraq policy.

''It is deeply troubling that Congress would be asked to vote on something as serious as sending American troops into harm's way and then be told after the fact, 'There's nothing new,' '' Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., said.

At the hearing Wednesday, Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the committee, called it ''absolutely startling'' that Rumsfeld had repeated Bush's Jan. 28 charge on CNN the next day, apparently unaware of widely circulated intelligence reports concluding that the documents on Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium were forgeries.

At a Washington news conference hosted by the Arms Control Association, a former senior official in the State Department's intelligence bureau said the problem was not bad information but the tendency of policymakers to exaggerate intelligence on Iraq.

''The administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude: 'We know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers,' '' said Greg Thielmann, who resigned last September as chief arms proliferation analyst. Rumsfeld said, ''The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder. We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light, through the prism of . . . Sept. 11th.''

What does this statement really say? It says that Bush and his neocons didn't really have any new information about a clear and imminent threat of Iraqi WMD. They didn't have any more info than they had several years ago. But, after 9/11, Bush and his neocons saw an opportunity ("saw the existing evidence in a new light") to take advantage of public's fear of terrorism ( "prism of . . . Sept. 11th") to preemptively strike Iraq and fulfill the ten-year old neoconservative plan to invade Iraq for strategic advantage.

The following is an excerpt of their principles (my bold):
"The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
...we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

The above excerpt was taken from a statement signed in 1997 by the following people:
Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

Eireann

July 11th, 2003, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

Let me get some more crack for your pipe.

Was that supposed to be a rebuttal? Is this the neocon perspective, that one must be on drugs to actually want some truth and integrity from this administration?

ebenz47037

July 11th, 2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Eireann
Was that supposed to be a rebuttal? Is this the neocon perspective, that one must be on drugs to actually want some truth and integrity from this administration?

Well, none of the liberal crowd wanted truth and integrity from the last administration.

Eireann

July 11th, 2003, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by ebenz47037
Well, none of the liberal crowd wanted truth and integrity from the last administration.
The last administration didn't send us into a full-scale war citing lies, forgeries, and manufactured evidence. I think the degree of sin is considerably greater with this administration.

Besides, as I've said before, it ain't a spitting contest. This isn't a case where the "your guy got away with it so ours should, too" argument is going to have any merit.

ebenz47037

July 11th, 2003, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Eireann
The last administration didn't send us into a full-scale war citing lies, forgeries, and manufactured evidence. I think the degree of sin is considerably greater with this administration.

Besides, as I've said before, it ain't a spitting contest. This isn't a case where the "your guy got away with it so ours should, too" argument is going to have any merit.

No. He just authorized the bombing of an aspirin factory to take the attention off of his sexual problems.

I don't care who's in office. Either way, the guy's a politician and as such cannot be trusted to tell the truth. That goes for any politician out there.

BillyBob

July 12th, 2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Eireann
The last administration didn't send us into a full-scale war citing lies, forgeries, and manufactured evidence.

Billy;
Neither did this administration.
GW sent our troops to remove Saddam and did it quite well. What lies are you talking about?

Is it possible?

July 12th, 2003, 09:30 AM

If Bush should be impeached so should Clinton for he did far worse to this country than Bush...

I was disappointed to hear that Bush apologized for slavery...it was reminescient of Clinton when he spoke to college students and told them America was responsible for 9-11.

Just like this man...to pass the buck.

GOD, bless everyone on this thread!

By the way America is not responsible for all the evils in this world...no

billwald

July 12th, 2003, 12:49 PM

Impeached For taking bad advice?

Is it possible?

July 12th, 2003, 01:03 PM

what are you talking about Bill?

I do not think Bush should be impeached...the Senate should of had a REAL trail in the first place and removed Clinton from office in the first place...who knows how much better off we would have been.... by the way the true hero's were the house managers...

my hats off to these boys!

Eireann

July 13th, 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by BillyBob
Originally posted by Eireann
The last administration didn't send us into a full-scale war citing lies, forgeries, and manufactured evidence.

Billy;
Neither did this administration.
GW sent our troops to remove Saddam and did it quite well. What lies are you talking about?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=424008
http://www.whodies.com/lies.html

This one below is especially interesting. It shows that the forged information Bush cited in his January SotU address had already been stopped once when they tried to use it three months earlier. It also says that the reference didn't appear in any of the drafts prior to Bush reading it. Looks to me like someone slipped it in after it made it past the censors, then when it backfired Tenet was forced to take the fall so Bush wouldn't have to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48847-2003Jul12.html?nav=hptop_tb

Skeptic

July 13th, 2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Eireann
This one below is especially interesting. It shows that the forged information Bush cited in his January SotU address had already been stopped once when they tried to use it three months earlier. It also says that the reference didn't appear in any of the drafts prior to Bush reading it. Looks to me like someone slipped it in after it made it past the censors, then when it backfired Tenet was forced to take the fall so Bush wouldn't have to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48847-2003Jul12.html?nav=hptop_tb You beat me to it! I was just going to post the exact same link! :thumb:

Eireann

July 13th, 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
You beat me to it! I was just going to post the exact same link! :thumb:
You know what they say. Great minds think alike! :thumb:

claire

July 13th, 2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by ebenz47037
No. He just authorized the bombing of an aspirin factory to take the attention off of his sexual problems.

I don't care who's in office. Either way, the guy's a politician and as such cannot be trusted to tell the truth. That goes for any politician out there.

:D I am agreeing with the first point....lolol.....but I couldn't live with myself if I didn't comment on the last....which I agree with to some degree, but with a couple of reservations...

I am a TEXAN (that's always spelled in capital letters for the uninitiated :) W is a good man, who is moral, much smarter than people give him credit for, and has a very deep love for this country and the things it stands for....he is very protective of our freedoms, our way of life, and our constitution.

We (collectively) tend to assess what we read in the media without giving any thought to the fact that there is much deeper and more detailed information that we are NOT privvy to. I trust him because I know what kind of man he is.....and while I do not agree with everything he may do, I know that the place it comes from is centered in right....It is amazing to me how public opinion turns on a dime depending on what liberal media "puts out there"....but regardless.....

Let the voter's decide in 2004.....

ebenz47037

July 13th, 2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by claire
:D I am agreeing with the first point....lolol.....but I couldn't live with myself if I didn't comment on the last....which I agree with to some degree, but with a couple of reservations...

I am a TEXAN (that's always spelled in capital letters for the uninitiated :) W is a good man, who is moral, much smarter than people give him credit for, and has a very deep love for this country and the things it stands for....he is very protective of our freedoms, our way of life, and our constitution.

We (collectively) tend to assess what we read in the media without giving any thought to the fact that there is much deeper and more detailed information that we are NOT privvy to. I trust him because I know what kind of man he is.....and while I do not agree with everything he may do, I know that the place it comes from is centered in right....It is amazing to me how public opinion turns on a dime depending on what liberal media "puts out there"....but regardless.....

Let the voter's decide in 2004.....

Claire,

I trust Bush more than I've ever trusted any other politician. That says a lot. But, the fact is that he's a politiician. I don't pay attention to what the media says. I base my decisions on what I see.

I'm thirty-four years old. And, I haven't seen a president yet who valued the safety and security of this nation more than he valued saving his own hide. The republicans tend to be more "pro-military," while the democrats tend to be "pro-welfare." If I was allowed to choose, I'd choose "pro-military" anyday. I believe that people should work to support themselves and their families instead of expecting the government to do it for them.

claire

July 13th, 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by ebenz47037
Claire,

I trust Bush more than I've ever trusted any other politician. That says a lot. But, the fact is that he's a politiician. I don't pay attention to what the media says. I base my decisions on what I see.

I'm thirty-four years old. And, I haven't seen a president yet who valued the safety and security of this nation more than he valued saving his own hide. The republicans tend to be more "pro-military," while the democrats tend to be "pro-welfare." If I was allowed to choose, I'd choose "pro-military" anyday. I believe that people should work to support themselves and their families instead of expecting the government to do it for them.

Well, we seem to have arrived at the same conclusions, I'm happy to say....:)

I am politically conservative in most ways...I am liking for the government to stay out of my hair, and I also believe that able bodied and minded people should work and support themselves and their families....I believe in Peace through strength (go navy :D) and also that we have a right, as well as a duty, to protect the freedoms which have made our country what it is....people have a right to live without fear...and I'll take a determined decision maker in that regard over an indecisive liberal (no names needed) anyday....

I think that our constitution must be guarded and protected...so that the intentions of our forefathers are not "embellished" based on a changing social climate....

There, thats my political rant for the day...:).

taxpayerslavery

July 13th, 2003, 02:55 PM

One thing is for sure, the Liberal media is out to get Bush. They have been ever since the Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court's attempt to select Gore.

We don't hear about the honeymoon which is going on between our troops and the Iraqi people, only the body count is being reported. I wonder why?

The Liberals were wrong about everything they predicted of what would happen if we went to war. Now they're wrong about Bush putting a false statement in the state of the union speech. The problem with the Liberal media is that you can't always depend on them to be wrong. If you could then at least you could always take the opposite of what they say and they would then be of some use.

So now the Liberal media is trying this Bush lied thing to get Bush. I wish they were as interested in exposing Bill Clinton's lies, they would have had a story every time Clinton spoke. Oh, it's the Liberal media we're talking about, Clinton was their guy that they got elected. That's why they did every thing they could to help him out.

Bush said a British government report states that Saddam tried to buy uranium in Africa. Since a British report said that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Africa, then Bush told the truth in his speech.

The British are standing by their unnamed sources for this information.

End of story.

Alqeada was training in Iraq. Just in case anybody forgot, Bush stated that any country allowing terrorist training would be held accountable.

The Liberals are really sticking their neck out say that there are no weapons of mass destruction this early in the search. Since they have been wrong about everything else, I expect they will be wrong about this. they are so eager to GET BUSH, and they are so confident that the Liberal media will give them a pass if they are wrong, they are jumping the gun way too early.

At what point do the Liberals loose complete and total credibility?

If weapons of mass destruction are not found, then I guess we liberated the people of a country, ended torture chambers, freed a bunch of child prisoners, shut down terrorist training camps and made America safer . . . FOR NOTHING ! ! !

I hate it when that happens.

o2bwise

July 13th, 2003, 04:19 PM

Hey taxpayerslavery,

What is Bush doing to abolish the Federal Reserve banking System and to restore lawful money (gold and silver coin)? Why would Bush allow our money system to be owned by a private corporation whose stock is >70% owned by foreigners?

Bush is a communist. He is out for ONE THING. And that is to enslave us all.

He didn't even allow Congress to read the staggeringly draconian Patriot Act.

Playing the "Democrat-Republican" paradigm is suicide.

The solution lies elsewhere. The differences between Klinton and Bush are microscopic.

BillyBob

July 13th, 2003, 04:19 PM

Eireann;
You know what they say. Great minds think alike!

:vomit:

BillyBob

July 13th, 2003, 04:25 PM

Eireann;
This one below is especially interesting. It shows that the forged information Bush cited in his January SotU address had already been stopped once when they tried to use it three months earlier. It also says that the reference didn't appear in any of the drafts prior to Bush reading it.

Billy;
The CIA approved the speech before Bush gave it.

Eireann;
Looks to me like someone slipped it in after it made it past the censors, then when it backfired Tenet was forced to take the fall so Bush wouldn't have to.

Billy;
Yes, it is a political mishap. The thing is, Tony Blair stands by the accusation that saddam was indeed trying to purchase nuclear material. Turns out that Bush's caution was appropriate and supported from more than one source.

There is no doubt that Saddam was doing what he could to obtain WMD including nukes. The Brits back this up. The UN knew it and now Saddam is gone.

Woo Hoo!!!!!!!!!

BillyBob

July 13th, 2003, 04:29 PM

Taxpayslavery;
At what point do the Liberals loose complete and total credibility?

Billy;
About 10 years ago......

TPS;
If weapons of mass destruction are not found, then I guess we liberated the people of a country, ended torture chambers, freed a bunch of child prisoners, shut down terrorist training camps and made America safer . . . FOR NOTHING ! ! !

I hate it when that happens.

Billy;
Woo Hoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eireann

July 13th, 2003, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob

Billy;
The CIA approved the speech before Bush gave it.
Did you read the link? The CIA approved what was given to them as a final draft. Those drafts that were given to them for approval did not include the reference that was ultimately included in the given speech.

Billy;
Yes, it is a political mishap. The thing is, Tony Blair stands by the accusation that saddam was indeed trying to purchase nuclear material. Turns out that Bush's caution was appropriate and supported from more than one source.
Exactly what caution are you referring to? Bush wasn't cautious. The CIA was cautious. The CIA warned Bush about the document, and even blocked him from using it three months earlier. Bush ignored their cautions and warnings and used it anyway.

There is no doubt that Saddam was doing what he could to obtain WMD including nukes.
Then why has every effort to find evidence of such turned up completely empty?

The Brits back this up.
Have you actually seen what the Brits backed up? They backed up a document that cited a constitution that had been defunct for four years at the time of the citation, which was signed by a dignitary who was no longer in office at the time of the signing and which didn't even get the name of the government right! Is that honestly what you call reliable?

Eireann

July 13th, 2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by taxpayerslavery
One thing is for sure, the Liberal media is out to get Bush. They have been ever since the Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court's attempt to select Gore.

We don't hear about the honeymoon which is going on between our troops and the Iraqi people, only the body count is being reported. I wonder why?

The Liberals were wrong about everything they predicted of what would happen if we went to war. Now they're wrong about Bush putting a false statement in the state of the union speech. The problem with the Liberal media is that you can't always depend on them to be wrong. If you could then at least you could always take the opposite of what they say and they would then be of some use.

So now the Liberal media is trying this Bush lied thing to get Bush. I wish they were as interested in exposing Bill Clinton's lies, they would have had a story every time Clinton spoke. Oh, it's the Liberal media we're talking about, Clinton was their guy that they got elected. That's why they did every thing they could to help him out.

Bush said a British government report states that Saddam tried to buy uranium in Africa. Since a British report said that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Africa, then Bush told the truth in his speech.

The British are standing by their unnamed sources for this information.

End of story.

Alqeada was training in Iraq. Just in case anybody forgot, Bush stated that any country allowing terrorist training would be held accountable.

The Liberals are really sticking their neck out say that there are no weapons of mass destruction this early in the search. Since they have been wrong about everything else, I expect they will be wrong about this. they are so eager to GET BUSH, and they are so confident that the Liberal media will give them a pass if they are wrong, they are jumping the gun way too early.

At what point do the Liberals loose complete and total credibility?

If weapons of mass destruction are not found, then I guess we liberated the people of a country, ended torture chambers, freed a bunch of child prisoners, shut down terrorist training camps and made America safer . . . FOR NOTHING ! ! !

I hate it when that happens.
For those who don't want to read this whole rant, I'll translate it for you: WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

BillyBob

July 13th, 2003, 08:43 PM

Sorry Eireann, your feeble attempts to implicate GW in some sort of deliberate deception for some undisclosed reason is falling flat. GW still has a higher approval rating than the percentage of people who voted for him.

I assume that you wish Saddam was still in power......

Or should I assume that your entire motivation is not based on truth at all, but rather contempt for a conservative President?

Which is it?

Eireann

July 13th, 2003, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob
Sorry Eireann, your feeble attempts to implicate GW in some sort of deliberate deception for some undisclosed reason is falling flat. GW still has a higher approval rating than the percentage of people who voted for him.
Not by much. He's down to about 60% now, down almost 20 points from where he was at when the war was declared over, and dropping steadily. At the rate his rating has been dropping, if he doesn't pull a rabbit out of his hat and kick the economy into gear really quick, he'll be below 50% within a month or so.

BillyBob

July 13th, 2003, 08:48 PM

Eireann;
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Billy;
Translation:
'I don't have a thing to say in defense of my silly neocom ranting which was just proven to be completely innacurate so I will try to win the argument by pretending to be clever. '

Sad how you libs ignore the obvious truth.....:ahso:

BillyBob

July 13th, 2003, 08:58 PM

Eireann;
Not by much. He's down to about 60% now, down almost 20 points from where he was at when the war was declared over,

Billy;
The war was never declared over.

Eireann;
and dropping steadily. At the rate his rating has been dropping, if he doesn't pull a rabbit out of his hat and kick the economy into gear really quick, he'll be below 50% within a month or so.

Billy;
One of the reasons he has dropped is because of the constant liberal lies assaulting everything from WMD which EVERYBODY agreed he had, to some silly notion that the economy is in bad shape.

The economy is booming, the stock market is officially considered a bull market and even YOU got a job this year.

Sorry, the liberal lies just won't cut it this time and even your 'base' is starting to see through you. Which is surprising because the democrat constituency is predominantly ignorant, unemployed, black, stupid, union thugs, extremely old, so old that they are easily duped, special interest groups, welfare recipients, the very lazy, the extremely lazy, the uninformed, the lied to, inmates and the formerly living.

Eireann

July 13th, 2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob
Eireann;
Not by much. He's down to about 60% now, down almost 20 points from where he was at when the war was declared over,

Billy;
The war was never declared over.
President Bush declared an end to major combat hostilities on May 1st. True, no end of war was declared, because war was never declared in the first place.

Eireann;
and dropping steadily. At the rate his rating has been dropping, if he doesn't pull a rabbit out of his hat and kick the economy into gear really quick, he'll be below 50% within a month or so.

Billy;
One of the reasons he has dropped is because of the constant liberal lies assaulting everything from WMD which EVERYBODY agreed he had, to some silly notion that the economy is in bad shape.
Completely baseless. Nice rant, though. You do give the liberal voice a whole lot of credit!

The economy is booming, the stock market is officially considered a bull market
I think economists would disagree with you. This is what you WANT to believe, but it has no basis in reality.

Sorry, the liberal lies just won't cut it this time and even your 'base' is starting to see through you.
Tell it to the economists and pollsters. The numbers are right there. You can read them yourself. You can pretend it's all lies, because that's what you so desperately want to believe, but in the end you'll have to face the facts.

Which is surprising because the democrat constituency is predominantly ignorant, unemployed, black, stupid, union thugs, extremely old, so old that they are easily duped, special interest groups, welfare recipients, the very lazy, the extremely lazy, the uninformed, the lied to, inmates and the formerly living.
Baseless, as usual. Nice rant, though.

Eireann

July 13th, 2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob
Eireann;
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Billy;
Translation:
'I don't have a thing to say in defense of my silly neocom ranting which was just proven to be completely innacurate so I will try to win the argument by pretending to be clever. '
Perhaps you would care to show where in his ignorant rant he proved anything inaccurate. The best he could come up with was that Bush didn't lie on a technicality (a cry of desperation if I ever saw one!) because he said the source was from Britain. That won't wash, though, because according to witness statements from the State Department and the CIA, Bush knew the document was false before the speech was ever made. That he plotted for a contingency by passing the buck to the Brits IN the speech is irrelevent. He presented as truth to the nation what he already knew to be untrue. That's a lie in any book, sorry to tell you. Beyond the irrelevent technicality argument, the remainder of his post was nothing but a desperation tantrum against the liberals that you like so much to blame for all your ills (easier than accepting responsibility for your own actions, I suppose).

Honestly, rants like we just saw from TPS read more like desperate prayers than an honest critique.

BillyBob

July 13th, 2003, 09:15 PM

Billy;
The economy is booming, the stock market is officially considered a bull market
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eireann;
I think economists would disagree with you. This is what you WANT to believe, but it has no basis in reality.

Billy;
It has nothing to do with what I want to believe. The Dow is up and so is NASDAQ. If you doubt it, check for yourself, we are officially in a bull market. The fact that you instantly disregard the truth about the economy demonstrates your liberal bias.

BillyBob

July 13th, 2003, 09:21 PM

Eireann;
Tell it to the economists and pollsters.

Billy;
There is quite a difference between economists and pollsters. The economists agree that the Clinton/Gore recession is over. They agree that the market is a bull market and they agree that the economy is growing.

Pollsters, such as yourself, are emotional and don't want to hear the truth about a strong economy because it defies your political bias and twisted asperations.

Eireann;
The numbers are right there. You can read them yourself. You can pretend it's all lies, because that's what you so desperately want to believe, but in the end you'll have to face the facts.

Billy;
What numbers are you taliking about? The fact that the Dow is up over 25% and the NASDAQ is up over 35%? I agree, the numbers speak the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Woo Hoo!!!!!! I love this country!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BillyBob

July 13th, 2003, 09:29 PM

Wow, I forgot how much I enjoy arguing with you!

I must do it more often.......

"I'm too sexy for my shirt..... too sexy for my shirt.... I leave Eirean in the dirt"

"I'm too sexy for this thread....too sexy for this thread... I just climbed inside your head!!!!"

Eireann

July 13th, 2003, 09:48 PM

The Dow and Nasdaq have been up and down on a roller coaster ride for some time now. That they are up right now hardly indicates a "booming economy." They've been up before and then back down. Let's give this a few months and see if it can gain a consistency it's lacked since the war started before we proclaim it a "booming economy," eh?

mrsnacks

July 14th, 2003, 01:47 AM

BillyBob: What is this the humor thread I've stumbled on to.??
Yes, your right the economy is booming. You will notice all the new factories being built in the US in the past year.

The kids out of college have jobs just waiting for them.

The unemployment offices are closing down all over the country.

The malls are not having to put items on sale all year around as they have had to. people are buying left and right.

By the way -- is Bush your god ???:confused:

BillyBob

July 14th, 2003, 06:04 AM

Yeah, that's it......

BillyBob

July 14th, 2003, 06:05 AM

Let's go back and take a look......

Greenspan: It's Clinton's Bad Economy
Dan Frisa
Wednesday, Dec. 20, 2000

Let the word go forth, far and wide, that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has identified the current economic slowdown as occurring during the Clinton-Gore administration.
Yes, it is the economy, stupid!

And that economic "genius" Bill Clinton must be held responsible for this downturn in the economy.

Yesterday the Federal Reserve Board met and while refusing to lower interest rates, it did finally signal its belief that its previous hyper-focus on inflationary fears was misplaced.

What is clearly in order is a reduction in the Federal Funds Rate, which is then, in due course, reflected in lower interest rates to consumers and businesses.

During times when the economy is "moderating" – to borrow the Fed’s characterization – lower interest rates provide incentives to spur growth.

At the same time, this news from the Fed will likely provide a greater impetus for passage of reductions in marginal tax rates, as proposed by President-elect Bush, early in the 107th Congress.

Altogether, this confluence of events in both monetary and fiscal policies could inure to the benefit of the economy and the initial stature of George W. Bush at the beginning of his tenure as the 43rd president.

First impressions are said to be lasting impressions, and if such a scenario should play out in this manner, a positive tone could well be set for his entire first term.

So, let it be clearly understood that Bill Clinton left a declining economy as yet another part of his sorry legacy.

This is the Clinton economic downturn.

In January, President George W. Bush will have the opportunity to clean up this Clinton economic mess as well as to restore honor and dignity to the presidency, which has been lacking for the past eight years.

BillyBob

July 14th, 2003, 06:16 AM

Bush has done as much as a President can do to allow Americans to keep more of the money they earn. Clinton took money away from them by rasing taxes, even the taxes that elderly SS recipients pay!

So we had the Clinton tax hikes, Enron style bookeeping so Clinton could hide the downturning economy, the Clinton/Gore recession of 1999 and then the Clinton stock market crash of 2001.

And despite all that, the economy is still booming! We just had the largest quarterly growth in ten years. The real estate market is strong.

I just had my best year ever with no end in sight and Eireann landed a 60K job.

The future's so bright....I gotta wear shades!

o2bwise

July 14th, 2003, 06:52 AM

From:
http://www.store.yahoo.com/infowars-shop/darsecinbohg.html

SINCE 1873, THE GLOBAL ELITE HAS HELD SECRET MEETINGS IN THE ANCIENT REDWOOD FOREST OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. KNOWN MEMBERS OF THE SO-CALLED BOHEMIAN CLUB INCLUDE FORMER PRESIDENTS NIXON, EISENHOWER, REAGAN AND BUSH. THE BUSH FAMILY MAINTAINS A STRONG INVOLVEMENT.

EACH YEAR AT BOHEMIAN GROVE, WORLD LEADERS DON RED, BLACK AND SILVER CLOAKS AND CONDUCT AN OCCULT RITUAL, WHEREIN THEY WORSHIP A GIANT STONE OWL. DURING THE CEREMONY A HUMAN BEING IS SACRIFICED "IN EFFIGY" TO THE OWL GOD IDOL.

NOW, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, AN OUTSIDER HAS INFILITRATED BOHEMIAN GROVE WITH A VIDEO CAMERA AND CAUGHT THE RITUAL ON TAPE.

THAT MAN IS ALEX JONES.

THE RITUAL IS JUST ONE PART OF THE TERRIFYING EXCLUSIVE VIDEO IN HIS LATEST DOCUMENTARY: DARK SECRETS: INSIDE BOHEMIAN GROVE

Apparently, Alex Jones caught George Bush on tape. Now, if this is true (and anyone can buy the video), I would like to know what a CHRISTIAN and a PRESIDENT is doing attending such an occultic event.

o2bwise

July 14th, 2003, 06:56 AM

Hi Claire,

Well, I can't share your fondness for Mr Bush, BUT, your state has some WONDERFUL PATRIOTS. I am aware of:

1. Congressman Ron Paul - my favorite Congressman.

2. Alfred Adask - writer of the Antishyster and a true patriot (now incarcerated). I bound up all of his Antishyster magazines. See www.antishyster.com

3. Alex Jones. I don't know how this guy is still alive. I have four of his videos. www.infowars.com

Curtsibling

July 14th, 2003, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by o2bwise
From:
http://www.store.yahoo.com/infowars-shop/darsecinbohg.html

SINCE 1873, THE GLOBAL ELITE HAS HELD SECRET MEETINGS IN THE ANCIENT REDWOOD FOREST OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. KNOWN MEMBERS OF THE SO-CALLED BOHEMIAN CLUB INCLUDE FORMER PRESIDENTS NIXON, EISENHOWER, REAGAN AND BUSH. THE BUSH FAMILY MAINTAINS A STRONG INVOLVEMENT.

EACH YEAR AT BOHEMIAN GROVE, WORLD LEADERS DON RED, BLACK AND SILVER CLOAKS AND CONDUCT AN OCCULT RITUAL, WHEREIN THEY WORSHIP A GIANT STONE OWL. DURING THE CEREMONY A HUMAN BEING IS SACRIFICED "IN EFFIGY" TO THE OWL GOD IDOL.

NOW, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, AN OUTSIDER HAS INFILITRATED BOHEMIAN GROVE WITH A VIDEO CAMERA AND CAUGHT THE RITUAL ON TAPE.

THAT MAN IS ALEX JONES.

THE RITUAL IS JUST ONE PART OF THE TERRIFYING EXCLUSIVE VIDEO IN HIS LATEST DOCUMENTARY: DARK SECRETS: INSIDE BOHEMIAN GROVE

Apparently, Alex Jones caught George Bush on tape. Now, if this is true (and anyone can buy the video), I would like to know what a CHRISTIAN and a PRESIDENT is doing attending such an occultic event.

That is wild! :think:
Could it be true?

Curtsibling

July 14th, 2003, 07:21 AM

I found some so-called dirt on the Bush clan!

These are not my words, please note!
Some of it may be true, some of may not be. Decide for yourself...

A few Questions that Bushes Controlled Media never asks him....

1.) “Mr. President, is it true that your grandfather Prescott Bush knowingly served as a money launderer for the Nazis?”

2.) “Mr. President, can you explain why it is not common knowledge to most Americans that the Bushes knew perfectly well that Brown Brothers was the American money channel into Nazi Germany, and that Union Bank was the secret pipeline to bring the Nazi money back to America from Holland?”

3.) “Mr. Bush, how would you respond to a report that Prescott Bush was a director of a New York bank where rich Germans who supported the Nazis stashed millions in personal wealth?”

4.) “Mr. President, has your father ever discussed with you his activity in the early 70's when he worked with David Rockefeller in promoting a worldwide depopulation program?”

5.) “Mr. President, was it not the Reagan-Bush administration that armed, trained and financed Usama bin Laden, and deliberately built up Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan into a force to be reckoned with?”

6.) “Sir, could you explain your administration’s numerous direct ties to vaccine and drug manufacturers; why so many of your cabinet members are former drug company executives; and could you explain if there is any connection between these ties and your family’s seventy year long documented involvement with eugenics and population control?”

7.) “Mr. President, how can you characterize your domestic agenda as "compassionate conservatism", when it was formulated by the CIA's Manhattan Institute?”

8.) “Mr. Bush, is the Manhattan Institute not a right wing think tank founded by former CIA director William Casey who helped bring thousands of former Nazis to the US following WWII?”

9.) “Sir, would you care to elaborate on a report that you, your father and brothers Jeb and Neil, have 25 super secret bank accounts worldwide, through which you have laundered tens of billions of dollars of illicit funds from drug trafficking from weapons smuggling, and clandestine and illegal gold smuggling overseas?”

10.) “Mr. President, could you share with the American people the series of real estate frauds, bank swindles, and other reputed massive rip-offs, perpetrated by you and your brothers, which have caused the taxpayers and innocent parties billions and billions of dollars?”

11.) “Mr. President, is it true that just before his fatal take-off, you were near the New Jersey airport where JFK Jr. kept his plane? If so, why?

12.) “Mr. President, Why, in January 2001, did your administration issue orders to the FBI and intelligence agencies to "back off" investigations involving the bin Laden family, including two of Usama bin Laden's relatives?”

13.) “Sir, how do you respond to a report in the French newspaper Le Figaro, that Usama bin laden met with the CIA while being treated in a hospital in Dubai and was then free to leave?”

14.) “Mr. President, do you care to comment on your father’s recurring amnesia when asked of his whereabouts on November 22, 1963?”

15.) “Sir, is it true that you, your father, and your brothers are personally acquainted with would be presidential assassin John W. Hinckley and his brother Scott?”

Eireann

July 14th, 2003, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by BillyBob
Let's go back and take a look......

Greenspan: It's Clinton's Bad Economy
Dan Frisa
Wednesday, Dec. 20, 2000

Let the word go forth, far and wide, that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has identified the current economic slowdown as occurring during the Clinton-Gore administration.
Yes, it is the economy, stupid!

And that economic "genius" Bill Clinton must be held responsible for this downturn in the economy.

Yesterday the Federal Reserve Board met and while refusing to lower interest rates, it did finally signal its belief that its previous hyper-focus on inflationary fears was misplaced.

What is clearly in order is a reduction in the Federal Funds Rate, which is then, in due course, reflected in lower interest rates to consumers and businesses.

During times when the economy is "moderating" – to borrow the Fed’s characterization – lower interest rates provide incentives to spur growth.

At the same time, this news from the Fed will likely provide a greater impetus for passage of reductions in marginal tax rates, as proposed by President-elect Bush, early in the 107th Congress.

Altogether, this confluence of events in both monetary and fiscal policies could inure to the benefit of the economy and the initial stature of George W. Bush at the beginning of his tenure as the 43rd president.

First impressions are said to be lasting impressions, and if such a scenario should play out in this manner, a positive tone could well be set for his entire first term.

So, let it be clearly understood that Bill Clinton left a declining economy as yet another part of his sorry legacy.

This is the Clinton economic downturn.

In January, President George W. Bush will have the opportunity to clean up this Clinton economic mess as well as to restore honor and dignity to the presidency, which has been lacking for the past eight years.
It doesn't really matter squat who is ultimately responsible for the current economy. You and I both know that the current state of the economy is largely out of Bush's control. He didn't cause the economic slump, and he alone cannot repair it. But what you and I know doesn't mean squat. What the average joe off the street thinks is what matters, because that's your voting public, and the voting public generally holds the President responsible. Clinton may have caused the economic downturn, but the voting public will hold Bush responsible. So if something doesn't happen dramatic and fast, Bush will have to shoulder the burden of responsibility for a failing economy. Whether he is really responsible is totally irrelevent.

Eireann

July 14th, 2003, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by BillyBob

So we had the Clinton tax hikes, Enron style bookeeping so Clinton could hide the downturning economy, the Clinton/Gore recession of 1999 and then the Clinton stock market crash of 2001.
Yes, and speaking of Enron and that scandal, let's not forget that the entity responsible for that bookkeeping was Anderson, the same entity who audited Halliburton and Harken during their similar corporate scandals. Let's not forget that Bush has strong ties to Anderson and all the above companies -- Bush himself was CEO of Harken during its scandal, Cheney was CEO of Halliburton during its scandal, and Bush's number one campaign financier was ... duh duh duhhhhhhhhhhh ... Kenneth Lay!

Curtsibling

July 14th, 2003, 08:13 AM

The plot thickens! :)

Eireann

July 14th, 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Curtsibling
The plot thickens! :)
Yeah. They love to try to take heat off of Bush by drawing irrelevent comparisons to Clinton, but they really hate when that mirror is thrust into their faces!

They love to draw upon Clinton's association with Enron, all the while forgetting that Bush has a much stronger tie to Enron than Clinton ever had!

RogerB

July 14th, 2003, 11:09 AM

But Clinton's ties to immorality, Direct student loans and the whole missing back-bone thing trumps everything.

Eireann

July 14th, 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
But Clinton's ties to immorality, Direct student loans and the whole missing back-bone thing trumps everything.
Trumps everything? No. But it certainly makes Clinton as corrupt as any politician out there (though I'm not sure what you mean about the student loans, I'm not a follower of Clinton, so could you elaborate?). I'm not a fan of either Clinton or Bush.

Curtsibling

July 14th, 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Eireann
Yeah. They love to try to take heat off of Bush by drawing irrelevent comparisons to Clinton, but they really hate when that mirror is thrust into their faces!

They love to draw upon Clinton's association with Enron, all the while forgetting that Bush has a much stronger tie to Enron than Clinton ever had!

I fear the august Mr Bush has many naughty skeletons in the old family closet! ;)

Curtsibling

July 14th, 2003, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
But Clinton's ties to immorality, Direct student loans and the whole missing back-bone thing trumps everything.

I think the Bush Clan importing Nazis and shooting JFK trumps everything.

But, hey! I'm just old-fashioned! :D

RogerB

July 14th, 2003, 11:21 AM

The Federal Direct loan program was a BAD idea that never caught on and now banks and student loan servicers are stuck with administering a program that is dying a slow, painful death. I wonder how much it cost?

Curtsibling

July 14th, 2003, 11:22 AM

Not as much as the pointless invasions of those sand nations!

Ooops! :)

RogerB

July 14th, 2003, 11:23 AM

How would you know?

Eireann

July 14th, 2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
The Federal Direct loan program was a BAD idea that never caught on and now banks and student loan servicers are stuck with administering a program that is dying a slow, painful death. I wonder how much it cost?
I don't know how much it costs or how its future stands. I know it was a big help in putting me through school, though.

RogerB

July 14th, 2003, 11:29 AM

An FFELP loan made through your local bank would have put you through school just as well.

Gerald

July 14th, 2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by o2bwise
3. Alex Jones. I don't know how this guy is still alive. I have four of his videos. www.infowars.com
Perhaps because he's nothing more than a garden-variety crank?

If The Government (cue accordion sting) really considered him a threat, he'd have vanished a long time ago...probably before anybody ever heard of him...

Eireann

July 14th, 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
An FFELP loan made through your local bank would have put you through school just as well.
Well, you know what they say, hindsight is 20/20.

BillyBob

July 14th, 2003, 11:39 AM

Eireann;
It doesn't really matter squat who is ultimately responsible for the current economy. You and I both know that the current state of the economy is largely out of Bush's control.

Billy;
Yes, I agree. About all he can do is push for tax cuts and less governmental spending. So far he has a .500 batting average.

Eireann;
He didn't cause the economic slump, and he alone cannot repair it. But what you and I know doesn't mean squat. What the average joe off the street thinks is what matters, because that's your voting public, and the voting public generally holds the President responsible.

Billy;
I agree. And that is why the libs are constantly beating the drum about how Bush is mishandling the economy and how it is his fault and how much better it was because of Clinton. The worst thing that can happen for the dems is the ecomony rebounding. Even as it is gaining momentum, the libs are still claiming doom and gloom.

Eireann;
Clinton may have caused the economic downturn, but the voting public will hold Bush responsible. So if something doesn't happen dramatic and fast, Bush will have to shoulder the burden of responsibility for a failing economy.

Billy;
Yeah, that is how it is looking right now. I saw that evil witch Hillary Clinton [no offense meant to witches] on Letterman last week. She was squawkin' about Bush's mishandling of the economy. It was a blatant lie and I was even more repulsed by her than usual.
[I'm really starting to hate that woman]

Eireann;
Whether he is really responsible is totally irrelevent.

Billy;
Yeah, I know what you are saying, but it really is relevent. Isn't the truth always relevent? You are usually very careful how you word your posts so as not be accused of any falsehood. You demand retraction from accusers if they are unjust to you. You can't tell me that there aren't plenty of voters out there who are just as aware of what is going on as we are and who know the truth.

There are also plenty who do not....

Curtsibling

July 14th, 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
How would you know?

And you do know? ;)

What is more expensive, a student or an Apache Longbow?
:cool:

BillyBob

July 14th, 2003, 11:43 AM

Eireann;
and Bush's number one campaign financier was ... duh duh duhhhhhhhhhhh ... Kenneth Lay!

Billy;
Ken Lay was also Clinton's golf buddy and he donated tons of cash to the dems.

Let's keep it 'real', Eireann.

The reason I mentioned Enron style accounting is because it was discovered that the 'surplus' Clinton claimed to have had was a gross, deliberate over-estimation. A lie.

Curtsibling

July 14th, 2003, 11:46 AM

I think Reps and Dems are both blackmailing the USA...

They are politicians after all! Do they care about us, the plebs?

Skeptic

July 14th, 2003, 11:06 PM

======================
Published on Monday, July 14, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Intelligence Unglued
by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

SUBJECT: Intelligence Unglued

The glue that holds the Intelligence Community together is melting under the hot lights of an awakened press. If you do not act quickly, your intelligence capability will fall apart—with grave consequences for the nation.

The Forgery Flap

By now you are all too familiar with the play-by-play. The Iraq-seeking-uranium-in-Niger forgery is a microcosm of a mischievous nexus of overarching problems. Instead of addressing these problems, your senior staff are alternately covering up for one another and gently stabbing one another in the back. CIA Director George Tenet’s extracted, unapologetic apology on July 11 was classic—I confess; she did it.

It is now dawning on our until-now somnolent press that your national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, shepherds the foreign affairs sections of your state-of-the-union address and that she, not Tenet, is responsible for the forged information getting into the speech. But the disingenuousness persists. Surely Dr. Rice cannot persist in her insistence that she learned only on June 8, 2003 about former ambassador Joseph Wilson’s mission to Niger in February 2002, when he determined that the Iraq-Niger report was a con-job. Wilson’s findings were duly reported to all concerned in early March 2002. And, if she somehow missed that report, the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristoff on May 6 recounted chapter and verse on Wilson’s mission, and the story remained the talk of the town in the weeks that followed.

Rice’s denials are reminiscent of her claim in spring 2002 that there was no reporting suggesting that terrorists were planning to hijack planes and slam them into buildings. In September, the joint congressional committee on 9/11 came up with a dozen such reports.

Secretary of State Colin Powell’s credibility, too, has taken serious hits as continued non-discoveries of weapons in Iraq heap doubt on his confident assertions to the UN. Although he was undoubtedly trying to be helpful in trying to contain the Iraq-Niger forgery affair, his recent description of your state-of-the-union words as “not totally outrageous” was faint praise indeed. And his explanations as to why he made a point to avoid using the forgery in the way you did was equally unhelpful.

Whatever Rice’s or Powell’s credibility, it is yours that matters. And, in our view, the credibility of the intelligence community is an inseparably close second. Attempts to dismiss or cover up the cynical use to which the known forgery was put have been—well, incredible. The British have a word for it: “dodgy.” You need to put a quick end to the dodginess, if the country is to have a functioning intelligence community.

The Vice President’s Role

Attempts at cover up could easily be seen as comical, were the issue not so serious. Highly revealing were Ari Fleisher’s remarks early last week, which set the tone for what followed. When asked about the forgery, he noted tellingly—as if drawing on well memorized talking points—that the Vice President was not guilty of anything. The disingenuousness was capped on Friday, when George Tenet did his awkward best to absolve the Vice President from responsibility.

To those of us who experienced Watergate these comments had an eerie ring. That affair and others since have proven that cover-up can assume proportions overshadowing the crime itself. All the more reason to take early action to get the truth up and out.

There is just too much evidence that Ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of Vice President Cheney’s office, and that Wilson’s findings were duly reported not only to that office but to others as well.

Equally important, it was Cheney who launched (in a major speech on August 26, 2002) the concerted campaign to persuade Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein was about to get his hands on nuclear weapons—a campaign that mushroomed, literally, in early October with you and your senior advisers raising the specter of a “mushroom cloud” being the first “smoking gun” we might observe.

That this campaign was based largely on information known to be forged and that the campaign was used successfully to frighten our elected representatives in Congress into voting for war is clear from the bitter protestations of Rep. Henry Waxman and others. The politically aware recognize that the same information was used, also successfully, in the campaign leading up to the mid-term elections—a reality that breeds a cynicism highly corrosive to our political process.

The fact that the forgery also crept into your state-of-the-union address pales in significance in comparison with how it was used to deceive Congress into voting on October 11 to authorize you to make war on Iraq.

It was a deep insult to the integrity of the intelligence process that, after the Vice President declared on August 26, 2002 that “we know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons,” the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) produced during the critical month of September featured a fraudulent conclusion that “most analysts” agreed with Cheney’s assertion. This may help explain the anomaly of Cheney’s unprecedented “multiple visits” to CIA headquarters at the time, as well as the many reports that CIA and other intelligence analysts were feeling extraordinarily great pressure, accompanied by all manner of intimidation tactics, to concur in that conclusion. As a coda to his nuclear argument, Cheney told NBC’s Meet the Press three days before US/UK forces invaded Iraq: “we believe he (Saddam Hussein) has reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

Mr. Russert: …the International Atomic Energy Agency said he dose not have a nuclear program; we disagree?

Vice President Cheney: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of the intelligence community disagree…we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei (Director of the IAEA) frankly is wrong.

Contrary to what Cheney and the NIE said, the most knowledgeable analysts—those who know Iraq and nuclear weapons—judged that the evidence did not support that conclusion. They now have been proven right.

Adding insult to injury, those chairing the NIE succumbed to the pressure to adduce the known forgery as evidence to support the Cheney line, and relegated the strong dissent of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (and the nuclear engineers in the Department of Energy) to an inconspicuous footnote.

It is a curious turn of events. The drafters of the offending sentence on the forgery in president’s state-of-the-union speech say they were working from the NIE. In ordinary circumstances an NIE would be the preeminently authoritative source to rely upon; but in this case the NIE itself had already been cooked to the recipe of high policy.

Joseph Wilson, the former US ambassador who visited Niger at Cheney’s request, enjoys wide respect (including, like several VIPS members, warm encomia from your father). He is the consummate diplomat. So highly disturbed is he, however, at the chicanery he has witnessed that he allowed himself a very undiplomatic comment to a reporter last week, wondering aloud “what else they are lying about.” Clearly, Wilson has concluded that the time for diplomatic language has passed. It is clear that lies were told. Sad to say, it is equally clear that your vice president led this campaign of deceit.

This was no case of petty corruption of the kind that forced Vice President Spiro Agnew’s resignation. This was a matter of war and peace. Thousands have died. There is no end in sight.

Recommendation #1

We recommend that you call an abrupt halt to attempts to prove Vice President Cheney “not guilty.” His role has been so transparent that such attempts will only erode further your own credibility. Equally pernicious, from our perspective, is the likelihood that intelligence analysts will conclude that the way to success is to acquiesce in the cooking of their judgments, since those above them will not be held accountable. We strongly recommend that you ask for Cheney’s immediate resignation.

The Games Congress Plays

The unedifying dance by the various oversight committees of the Congress over recent weeks offers proof, if further proof were needed, that reliance on Congress to investigate in a non-partisan way is pie in the sky. One need only to recall that Sen. Pat Roberts, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has refused to agree to ask the FBI to investigate the known forgery. Despite repeated attempts by others on his committee to get him to bring in the FBI, Roberts has branded such a move “inappropriate,” without spelling out why.

Rep. Porter Goss, head of the House Intelligence Committee, is a CIA alumnus and a passionate Republican and agency partisan. Goss was largely responsible for the failure of the joint congressional committee on 9/11, which he co-chaired last year. An unusually clear indication of where Goss’ loyalties lie can be seen in his admission that after a leak to the press last spring he bowed to Cheney’s insistence that the FBI be sent to the Hill to investigate members and staff of the joint committee—an unprecedented move reflecting blithe disregard for the separation of powers and a blatant attempt at intimidation. (Congress has its own capability to investigate such leaks.)

Henry Waxman’s recent proposal to create yet another congressional investigatory committee, patterned on the latest commission looking into 9/11, likewise holds little promise. To state the obvious about Congress, politics is the nature of the beast. We have seen enough congressional inquiries into the performance of intelligence to conclude that they are usually as feckless as they are prolonged. And time cannot wait.

As you are aware, Gen. Brent Scowcroft performed yeoman’s service as National Security Adviser to your father and enjoys very wide respect. There are few, if any, with his breadth of experience with the issues and the institutions involved. In addition, he has avoided blind parroting of the positions of your administration and thus would be seen as relatively nonpartisan, even though serving at your pleasure. It seems a stroke of good luck that he now chairs your President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

Recommendation #2

We repeat, with an additional sense of urgency, the recommendation in our last memorandum to you (May 1) that you appoint Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Chair of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to head up an independent investigation into the use/abuse of intelligence on Iraq.

UN Inspectors

Your refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq has left the international community befuddled. Worse, it has fed suspicions that the US does not want UN inspectors in country lest they impede efforts to “plant” some “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, should efforts to find them continue to fall short. The conventional wisdom is less conspiratorial but equally unsatisfying. The cognoscenti in Washington think tanks, for example, attribute your attitude to “pique.”

We find neither the conspiracy nor the “pique” rationale persuasive. As we have admitted before, we are at a loss to explain the barring of UN inspectors. Barring the very people with the international mandate, the unique experience, and the credibility to undertake a serious search for such weapons defies logic. UN inspectors know Iraq, know the weaponry in question, know the Iraqi scientists/engineers who have been involved, know how the necessary materials are procured and processed; in short, have precisely the expertise required. The challenge is as daunting as it is immediate; and, clearly, the US needs all the help it can get.

The lead Wall Street Journal article of April 8 had it right: “If the US doesn’t make any undisputed discoveries of forbidden weapons, the failure will feed already-widespread skepticism abroad about the motives for going to war.” As the events of last week show, that skepticism has now mushroomed here at home as well.

Recommendation #3

We recommend that you immediately invite the UN inspectors back into Iraq. This would go a long way toward refurbishing your credibility. Equally important, it would help sort out the lessons learned for the intelligence community and be an invaluable help to an investigation of the kind we have suggested you direct Gen. Scowcroft to lead.

If Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity can be of any further help to you in the days ahead, you need only ask.

/s/
Ray Close, Princeton, NJ
David MacMichael, Linden, VA
Raymond McGovern, Arlington, VA

Steering Committee
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Raymond McGovern is a member of the Steering Committee, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He can be contacted at: rmcgovern@slschool.org

From: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0714-01.htm
======================

Skeptic

July 14th, 2003, 11:30 PM

:chuckle:

April 23, 2003
George W. Bush's Resume

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by Kelley Kramer

I recently had an email exchange with a right-winger from my local newspaper, and of course the war with Iraq came up pretty quick. But he said something in defense of George Bush that really surprised me. In defense of the attack on Iraq he said 'between Hussein and Bush, Hussein is the bad guy'.

My first response was ... So your guy is better than a third world dictator, Wow! what an accomplishment! Does he put that on his resume?

And with that in mind, I started wondering ... what would a George W. Bush resume look like exactly?

Listed below is what I came up with,

Best!

Kelley Kramer

-------------

George W. Bush Resume

Past work experience:

Ran for congress and lost.

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.

With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

Attacked and took over two countries.

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)

Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

First US president to establish a secret shadow government.

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

First US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.

In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Records and References:

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.

For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.) :chuckle:

mrsnacks

July 15th, 2003, 12:13 AM

Hey skeptic : So what ! Don't confuse us with the facts --we already have made up our minds about Bush.

i'm just kidding. I get so frustrated and upset with the whole thing . Why is it that the government overall - AIN'T DOING A DARN THING ?

Where are the WMD ?? I am not defending Sadam . I am questioning our going in there on the basis of a lie to the American people. No one is holding him accountable. So where's the outrage from the American people ???

I feel so helpless and insignificant. The problem is that the American people as a whole aren't worth taking a stand for . because they could care less.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Curtsibling

July 15th, 2003, 04:03 AM

Welcome to the new world order, mrsnacks.

Where media flashing lights have robbed the people of their desire to ask questions of the cold profiteers that rule over them...

It's frustrating, and where is it all going to end?
What outrage will it take to snap the people from this enforced sleepwalk?

BillyBob

July 15th, 2003, 08:12 AM

mrsnacks;
So where's the outrage from the American people ???

Billy;
What is there to be outraged about?
Saddam is out of power. The Iraqi's are liberated. The oil is starting to flow. We have shown the world our might and we have shown them that we mean what we say.

Woo Hoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mrsnacks

July 15th, 2003, 11:19 AM

Billy Bob : Have you tripped over a cordless phone ? I read your comment and then went to read your profile page. Honestly you're a burger shy of a happy meal. i urge some of you to read his profile. Sounds scary to me.

There are a lot of things to be outraged about. i take it that you don't read a lot. Read " Brave New Schools " - about the government's intentional dumbing down of America.

How about the false teaching in the churches and the condition they are in.

How about our health care system.

You say Sadam is out of power but you missed the whole point.

I will let others comment .

You have a president and government that lies to the American people. They have covered up 9- 11 . They have lied to you about the WMD . Read the previous posts.

If you were married and you found out that your wife has been cheating on you and lying to you all along and i came up to you while you were about to leave her and said : " come on give her a chance - at least she still cooks dinner for you .

There are many things to be outraged about. It's a matter of finding the right button in each person to get them outraged. Judging by your profile -- your button might be if the government took away your right to bear arms. Or took away your pension for serving in the armed services.

mrsnacks

July 15th, 2003, 11:25 AM

By the way -- I am retired form the IRS( 2 years) but I am under oath to report directly to my former boss -suspicious Americans who have made comments about avoiding the IRS by giving them available info . i'm sorry- but you'll probably be getting an audit notice soon. i'm just doing my part as an American citizen. Good luck. :help:

mrsnacks

July 15th, 2003, 11:28 AM

Billy Bob : I was just kidding !! :chuckle:

ebenz47037

July 15th, 2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by mrsnacks
Billy Bob : Have you tripped over a cordless phone ? I read your comment and then went to read your profile page. Honestly you're a burger shy of a happy meal. i urge some of you to read his profile. Sounds scary to me.

There are a lot of things to be outraged about. i take it that you don't read a lot. Read " Brave New Schools " - about the government's intentional dumbing down of America.

How about the false teaching in the churches and the condition they are in.

How about our health care system.

You say Sadam is out of power but you missed the whole point.

I will let others comment .

You have a president and government that lies to the American people. They have covered up 9- 11 . They have lied to you about the WMD . Read the previous posts.

If you were married and you found out that your wife has been cheating on you and lying to you all along and i came up to you while you were about to leave her and said : " come on give her a chance - at least she still cooks dinner for you .

There are many things to be outraged about. It's a matter of finding the right button in each person to get them outraged. Judging by your profile -- your button might be if the government took away your right to bear arms. Or took away your pension for serving in the armed services.

mrsnacks,

BillyBob's whole TOL pesonality (profile and all) is a joke. The only time I would say that he lets his "real" self out is when he talks about politics. He is an extremely conservative man. Am I the only person on TOL who sees him as he is?

mrsnacks

July 15th, 2003, 02:01 PM

Hey thanks for that info : I was really concerned and assumed that he would be truthful in his bio. But you must admit there are people who are that way and that's scary. I guess you can't believe everything you read. He's a buffalo in sheeps clothing. :confused:

ebenz47037

July 15th, 2003, 02:17 PM

mrsnacks,

There are very few people that are what they say they are anywhere. I'd imagine that there are even less here because they want to maintain the anonymous (sp?) atmosphere. I think I'm an oddball here because I use my real name and tell everyone exactly what I am and what I believe.

Curtsibling

July 16th, 2003, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by mrsnacks
Billy Bob : I was just kidding !! :chuckle:

Or is he? :crackup:

mrsnacks

July 16th, 2003, 06:08 PM

Or is she????:confused:

Eireann

July 16th, 2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by mrsnacks
Or is she????:confused:
You're female? You mean that is supposed to read Mrs. Nacks? I had always read it as Mr. Snacks! I was envisioning some guy sitting at his computer surrounded by bags of chips and boxes of Twinkies!
:D

mrsnacks

July 16th, 2003, 06:21 PM

Yes. i'm Billy Bob's twin sister.

Just kidding. No I'm a Mr. Snacks - a man stuck in a male's body.

Just for even thinking I was a female- may a thousand elephants go to your house and stomp on your carefully constructed leggo town .

:bannana:

BillyBob

July 16th, 2003, 07:56 PM

Eireann;
You're female? I was envisioning some guy sitting at his computer surrounded by bags of chips and boxes of Twinkies!

Billy;
Yep, Tye's cover is blown....The chips and Twinkies are accurate!

BillyBob

July 19th, 2003, 06:51 AM

What happened to Skeptic?

BillyBob

July 19th, 2003, 06:51 AM

I miss his really long posts that I never read. :chuckle:

RogerB

July 21st, 2003, 07:39 AM

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't tempt him back.

BillyBob

July 21st, 2003, 05:34 PM

Well, he was a steady fixture around here and I knew I could always find an argument with him.

Now I am arguing with people that I usually don't disagree with just for the fun of arguing!

It was more fun with Skeptic....

Skeptic

July 22nd, 2003, 12:38 AM

I'm back. Been busy. Please read:

___________________________
Published on Monday, July 21, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
President Bush Must Set the Niger-Uranium Story Straight
by Governor Howard Dean

As the Niger uranium story has unfolded over the past week, it has become increasingly obvious that many questions remain to be answered about the way the Bush Administration led the American people to war, managed the conflict in Iraq, and failed to foresee the continuing resistance that our military is now confronting.

Decisions regarding war and peace are the most serious and solemn that a Commander-in-Chief is called upon to make. There are now fundamental questions about President Bush's leadership in taking us to war with Iraq.

There has been much controversy over the 16 words included in the State of the Union address. I call on President Bush to answer these sixteen questions, to ensure that the American people can retain their trust in their government and to ensure that the United States retains its credibility as a moral force in the world.

1) Mr. President, beyond the NSC and CIA officials who have been identified, we need to know who else at the White House was involved in the decision to include the discredited Niger uranium evidence in your speech, and, if they knew it was false, why did they permit it to be included in the speech?

2) Mr. President, we need to know why anyone in your Administration would have contemplated using the Niger evidence in the State of the Union after George Tenet personally intervened in October 2002, to have the same evidence removed from the President's October 7th speech? (The Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Mike Allen, 7/13/2003)

3) Mr. President, we need to know why you claimed last week that the CIA objected to the Niger uranium sentence "subsequent" to the State of the Union address, contradicting everything else we have heard from in your administration and in the intelligence community on the matter? (Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)

4) Mr. President, we urgently need an explanation about the very serious charge that senior officials in your Administration may have retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson by illegally disclosing that his wife is an undercover CIA officer. (The Nation, Corn, David, 7/16/2003)

5) Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration persisted in using the intercepted aluminum tubes to show that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear program and why your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, claimed categorically that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," when in fact our own government experts flatly rejected such claims. (CNN, 9/08/2002, Knight Ridder News Service, 10/04/2002)

6) Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld created a secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon that selectively identified questionable intelligence to support the case for war - including the supposed link to al-Qaeda - while ignoring, burying or rejecting any evidence to the contrary? (New Yorker, Seymour Hersh, 5/12/03)

7) Mr. President, we need to know what the basis was for Secretary Rumsfeld's assertion that the US had bulletproof evidence linking Al Qaeda to Iraq, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to Al Qaeda? (NY Times, Schmitt, Eric, 9/28/2002, NY Times, Krugman, Paul, 7/15/2003)

8) Mr. President, we need to know why Vice President Cheney claimed last September to have "irrefutable evidence" that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, an assertion he repeated in March, on the eve of war? (AP, 9/20/2002, NBC 3/16/2003)

9) Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Powell claimed with confidence and virtual certainty in February, before the UN Security Council, that, "Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets?" (UN Address, 2/05/2003)

10) Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld claimed on March 30th, in reference to weapons of mass destruction, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat?" (The Guardian, Whitaker, Brian and Rory McCarthy, 5/30/2003)

11) Mr. President, we need an explanation of the unconfirmed report that your Administration is dishonoring the life of a soldier who died in Iraq as a result of hostile action by misclassifying his death as an accident. (Time, Gibbs, Nancy and Mark Thompson, 7/13/2003)

12) Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration has never told the truth about the costs and long-term commitment of the war, has consistently downplayed what those would be, and now continues to try to keep the projected costs hidden from the American people?

13) Mr. President, we need to know why you said, on May 1, 2003 , that the war was over, when US troops have fought and one or two have died nearly every day since then and your own generals have admitted that we are fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq? (Abizaid, Gen. John, 7/16/2003)

14) Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration had no plan to build the peace in post-war Iraq and seems to be resisting calls to include NATO, the United Nations and our allies in the stabilization and reconstruction effort?

15) Mr. President, we need to know what you were referring to in Poland on May 30, 2003, when you said, "For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them?" (Washington Post, Mike Allen, 5/31/2003)

16) Mr. President, we need to know why you incorrectly claimed this very week that the war began because Iraq would not admit UN inspectors, when in fact Iraq had admitted the inspectors and you opposed extending their work? (Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)

If President Bush can't or won't answer these 16 questions, I call on the Republicans in Congress to stop blocking efforts to create an independent, bipartisan committee to investigate what is a matter of the highest importance: whether President Bush’s decision to go to war was sound and just. The American public deserves answers to all of these questions. I urge President Bush to lead with the honor and integrity that he promised as a candidate, and I urge Americans to join me in demanding these questions be answered by visiting: http://www.deanforamerica.com/16.
___________________________

Bush will be gone before next year's election! That is, unless the Republicans in Congress and the right-wing media can keep the public in the dark about the truth long enough to allow the Bush camp to steal another election.

BillyBob

July 22nd, 2003, 05:11 AM

Hey Skeptic, was that last paragraph a quote or was it yours?

[I already know the answer]

Where have you been these last couple of weeks?

Skeptic

July 22nd, 2003, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by BillyBob
Where have you been these last couple of weeks? Just busy at home and work.

RogerB

July 22nd, 2003, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I'm back. Been busy. Please read:

___________________________
Published on Monday, July 21, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
President Bush Must Set the Niger-Uranium Story Straight
by Governor Howard Dean

As the Niger uranium story has unfolded over the past week, it has become increasingly obvious that many questions remain to be answered about the way the Bush Administration led the American people to war, managed the conflict in Iraq, and failed to foresee the continuing resistance that our military is now confronting.

Decisions regarding war and peace are the most serious and solemn that a Commander-in-Chief is called upon to make. There are now fundamental questions about President Bush's leadership in taking us to war with Iraq.

There has been much controversy over the 16 words included in the State of the Union address. I call on President Bush to answer these sixteen questions, to ensure that the American people can retain their trust in their government and to ensure that the United States retains its credibility as a moral force in the world.

1) Mr. President, beyond the NSC and CIA officials who have been identified, we need to know who else at the White House was involved in the decision to include the discredited Niger uranium evidence in your speech, and, if they knew it was false, why did they permit it to be included in the speech?

2) Mr. President, we need to know why anyone in your Administration would have contemplated using the Niger evidence in the State of the Union after George Tenet personally intervened in October 2002, to have the same evidence removed from the President's October 7th speech? (The Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Mike Allen, 7/13/2003)

3) Mr. President, we need to know why you claimed last week that the CIA objected to the Niger uranium sentence "subsequent" to the State of the Union address, contradicting everything else we have heard from in your administration and in the intelligence community on the matter? (Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)

4) Mr. President, we urgently need an explanation about the very serious charge that senior officials in your Administration may have retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson by illegally disclosing that his wife is an undercover CIA officer. (The Nation, Corn, David, 7/16/2003)

5) Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration persisted in using the intercepted aluminum tubes to show that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear program and why your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, claimed categorically that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," when in fact our own government experts flatly rejected such claims. (CNN, 9/08/2002, Knight Ridder News Service, 10/04/2002)

6) Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld created a secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon that selectively identified questionable intelligence to support the case for war - including the supposed link to al-Qaeda - while ignoring, burying or rejecting any evidence to the contrary? (New Yorker, Seymour Hersh, 5/12/03)

7) Mr. President, we need to know what the basis was for Secretary Rumsfeld's assertion that the US had bulletproof evidence linking Al Qaeda to Iraq, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to Al Qaeda? (NY Times, Schmitt, Eric, 9/28/2002, NY Times, Krugman, Paul, 7/15/2003)

8) Mr. President, we need to know why Vice President Cheney claimed last September to have "irrefutable evidence" that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, an assertion he repeated in March, on the eve of war? (AP, 9/20/2002, NBC 3/16/2003)

9) Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Powell claimed with confidence and virtual certainty in February, before the UN Security Council, that, "Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets?" (UN Address, 2/05/2003)

10) Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld claimed on March 30th, in reference to weapons of mass destruction, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat?" (The Guardian, Whitaker, Brian and Rory McCarthy, 5/30/2003)

11) Mr. President, we need an explanation of the unconfirmed report that your Administration is dishonoring the life of a soldier who died in Iraq as a result of hostile action by misclassifying his death as an accident. (Time, Gibbs, Nancy and Mark Thompson, 7/13/2003)

12) Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration has never told the truth about the costs and long-term commitment of the war, has consistently downplayed what those would be, and now continues to try to keep the projected costs hidden from the American people?

13) Mr. President, we need to know why you said, on May 1, 2003 , that the war was over, when US troops have fought and one or two have died nearly every day since then and your own generals have admitted that we are fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq? (Abizaid, Gen. John, 7/16/2003)

14) Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration had no plan to build the peace in post-war Iraq and seems to be resisting calls to include NATO, the United Nations and our allies in the stabilization and reconstruction effort?

15) Mr. President, we need to know what you were referring to in Poland on May 30, 2003, when you said, "For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them?" (Washington Post, Mike Allen, 5/31/2003)

16) Mr. President, we need to know why you incorrectly claimed this very week that the war began because Iraq would not admit UN inspectors, when in fact Iraq had admitted the inspectors and you opposed extending their work? (Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)

If President Bush can't or won't answer these 16 questions, I call on the Republicans in Congress to stop blocking efforts to create an independent, bipartisan committee to investigate what is a matter of the highest importance: whether President Bush’s decision to go to war was sound and just. The American public deserves answers to all of these questions. I urge President Bush to lead with the honor and integrity that he promised as a candidate, and I urge Americans to join me in demanding these questions be answered by visiting: http://www.deanforamerica.com/16.
___________________________

Bush will be gone before next year's election! That is, unless the Republicans in Congress and the right-wing media can keep the public in the dark about the truth long enough to allow the Bush camp to steal another election.

The war is justified even if these questions are never answered. Sadam was an evil man and a terrorist.

Skeptic

July 22nd, 2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
The war is justified even if these questions are never answered. Sadam was an evil man and a terrorist. Launching a full-scale preemptive war on a country, and killing thousands of people, just because its leader was an "evil man" (based on acts he committed years ago) is NOT what I call justified.

Saddam's links to international terrorism were hardly significant enough to warrant launching a full-scale preemptive invasion of Iraq!

RogerB

July 22nd, 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Launching a full-scale preemptive war on a country, and killing thousands of people, just because its leader was an "evil man" (based on acts he committed years ago) is NOT what I call justified.

Saddam's links to international terrorism were hardly significant enough to warrant launching a full-scale preemptive invasion of Iraq!

He's a sick murderer, like Hitler before him.

Saddam's links to terrorism are not known by the likes of you.

Skeptic

July 22nd, 2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
He's a sick murderer, like Hitler before him. Saddam hardly compares to Hitler in the crimes he committed against humanity and the threat he was to the world!

Saddam's links to terrorism are not known by the likes of you. Oh, but I suppose they are known to you?

Eireann

July 22nd, 2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
He's a sick murderer, like Hitler before him.
The question isn't whether or not action to remove Hussein was justified. The question is whether it was justified FOR the grounds given by the President ... and it wasn't. All the posturing about REAL justifications for war will not change the simple fact that the man lied.

Saddam's links to terrorism are not known by the likes of you.
Nor by the likes of you.

Skeptic

July 22nd, 2003, 11:53 AM

Bush is going down!! :thumb:

-----------------------------------------------
Published on Sunday, July 20, 2003 by the Toronto Sun
Bush Deserves to be Impeached
by Eric Margolis

"Worse than a crime, it was a blunder," was how the cynical Talleyrand famously described Napoleon's murder of the Duke d'Enghien.

The same may be said of President George Bush's attempts to murder the leader of a sovereign nation, Saddam Hussein, and his foolhardy eagerness to invade Iraq.

Thanks to Bush's blundering, nearly 50% of U.S. Army combat units are now stuck in a spreading guerrilla war in Iraq , costing $4 billion US monthly, that is becoming the biggest, most expensive, and bloodiest foreign mess since Vietnam. This when the U.S. is threatening military action against North Korea.

As the furor in Washington grows over Bush's admission of now-discredited claims about Iraqi uranium imports from Africa in his keynote state of the union address, administration officials are viciously blaming one another.

George Tenet, the CIA's meek director, became the fall guy for the uranium fiasco, though he repeatedly warned the White House its claims were unsubstantiated.

Blame rightly belongs to Bush himself, and to his woefully inadequate national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. Either they knew the uranium story was false, or they were unfit for high office.

For one thing, uranium ore is no more threatening than cake mix.

To weaponize it, ore must be laboriously transformed into uranium hexafluoride gas, then separated and enriched in huge, highly visible plants, equipped with "cascades" of thousands of high-speed centrifuges.

The U.S. knew there were no such nuclear plants in Iraq. French intelligence warned it the Niger story was bogus.

Nor had Iraq any means of delivering nuclear or biowarfare weapons. In short, Iraq had zero offensive capability, and posed zero threat.

At the time, Bush's critics, including this column, dismissed as hogwash his claims Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the U.S.

We were denounced as "unpatriotic" and "friends of Saddam" in the pro-war press.

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who challenged White House lies, was vilified and smeared with loathsome personal attacks by the neo-con U.S. media.

The Niger uranium story may have come from Vice President Dick Cheney's office.

Three days before the invasion of Iraq, Cheney actually claimed Iraq "has reconstituted nuclear weapons."

As the Niger uranium scandal grows, it is increasingly clear the White House's campaign to drive Americans into an unjustified, unnecessary war had nothing to do with Iraq's alleged weapons, nor its internal repression.

Whipping boy

Bush's crusade against Iraq was designed to assuage Americans' fury and fear over 9/11 by making Saddam Hussein a whipping boy for the attack in which he had no part.

The jolly little wars against Afghanistan and Iraq were also designed to make Americans forget the Bush White House had been caught with its pants down by 9/11, and was asleep at the switch in the Enron financial disaster.

Who now remembers that Attorney General John Ashcroft actually cut spending on anti-terrorism before 9/11, or that Washington was giving millions to the Taliban until four months before 9/11?

How better to get Americans to support a war than by insinuating, as did Bush, that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, and claiming Saddam was about to attack the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction?

A pre-emptive attack on Iraq was urgent to save America, insisted Bush.

A weak-kneed Congress and credulous public went along with White House warmongering, while the spineless UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, and UN arms inspector Hans Blix wriggled like jellyfish.

Most Democrats, including some presidential candidates, joined Bush's lynch mob.

It was not just the Niger canard.

A torrent of lies poured from the administration, all aimed at justifying a war of aggression, thwarting the UN Security Council, ending UN inspections in Iraq and grabbing Iraq's oil riches.

Virtually all administration claims about Iraq's weapons had been disproved by UN inspectors before Bush went to war.

Exposed as fakery are the "drones of death;" aluminum tubes for centrifuges; chemical munitions bunkers; mobile germ labs; hidden Scuds; links to al-Qaida and "poison camps;" Saddam's smallpox; Saddam's secret nuclear program.

And the biggest canard of all: Bush's absurd claims there was "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," and that it "threatened all mankind."

Thanks to the shameful complicity of the U.S. media, which amplified White House propaganda, Americans were led to believe Iraq attacked the U.S. on 9/11, and was in league with al-Qaida.

Bush's faux war on terrorism was redirected, by clever White House spin, into a hugely popular campaign against Iraq.

The failure to kill terrorist leader Osama bin Laden was covered up by the rush to kill Saddam.

The litany of lies produced by the White House and its neo-con allies would be farcical were it not for the deaths of so many Americans and Iraqis.

Of course, all politicians lie.

But lying to get one's country into an unnecessary war is an outrage, and ought to be an impeachable offence.
-----------------------------------------------

He's going down!! :thumb:

Gerald

July 22nd, 2003, 12:20 PM

Eric Margolis should stay away from small private planes...

RogerB

July 22nd, 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
the biggest, most expensive, and bloodiest foreign mess since Vietnam.

Way to narrow the field, moron. Let's not compare apples to apples. Oh, no! Saddam is so much nicer than Hitler. He only kills his own kind.

Skeptic

July 22nd, 2003, 12:39 PM

Because you all like Eric Margolis so much, here's another (my bold):
_____________________________
June 15, 2003
U.S. media caved in to the Bush agenda
By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor

Why, readers in the U.S. keep asking me, are so many Americans unconcerned their government appears to have misled them and Congress over Iraq, and then waged a war with no basis in law or fact?

Why is there growing outrage in Britain over Tony Blair's equally exaggerated or patently false warnings over Iraq, while middle America couldn't seem to care less about George Bush's "Weaponsgate."

One answer is found in an old joke.

Greenberg is sitting in a bar. He goes up to Woo, a Chinese gentleman, and punches him.

"Why'd you do that?" cries Woo.

"Because of Pearl Harbor," snarls Greenberg.

"But I had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, I'm Chinese!" says Woo.

"Chinese, Japanese, it's all the same to me," answers Greenberg.

A month later, Greenberg sees Woo in the bar and apologizes to him. The Chinese gentleman smiles, then punches Greenberg.

"Why did you do that?" cries Greenberg?

"Because of the Titanic."

"What do I have to do with the Titanic?" asks Greenberg.

"Greenberg, iceberg, it's all the same to me."

Iraqis, Iranians, Pakistanis, Saudis, Taliban, al-Qaida ... it's all too much for many geographically challenged Americans. Don't bother us with the details and strange names, they say, kill 'em all (like BillyBob says), God will sort 'em out. The Muslim 'A-rabs' did 9/11 and we got revenge. Whacking those I-raqis made us feel a whole lot better. So what if Saddam didn't really have the weapons of mass destruction good ol' George W. Bush said endangered the entire world? All politicians lie. So what?"

First, venting national outrage over 9/11 was one factor that helped form this group-think.

Second, starting with Afghanistan, the Bush White House threatened big corporate media it would be held "unpatriotic" and occasionally hinted at unspecified reprisals if coverage did not actively support the war effort there and in Iraq.

Big media too often caved in, sometimes sounding like a public relations arm of the administration.

Third, there was near total domination of Iraq media commentary by the special interest groups that helped to engineer this phony war. Almost all of it in the lead-up to war was done by self-serving Iraqi exiles, uninformed generals and neo-conservatives from Washington think-tanks sometimes echoing the views of Israel's Likud party. In short, a media lynch mob developed, endlessly repeating that Baghdad's terrifying killer weapons were about to blitz the U.S.

I scanned the major U.S. networks for voices challenging the distortions and bunkum coming from the White House and neo-cons. There was virtually none.

Group-think and the big lie prevailed. The British and Canadian media carried both pro- and anti-war views; as a result, there was far more healthy skepticism in both nations about the war than in America.

By contrast, much of the U.S. mainstream media muffled criticism, became part of the war effort and devoted itself to patriotic flag-waving. Americans would have been totally misled had it not been for such Internet sites as Antiwar.com, Bigeye and LewRockwell, and incisive magazines such as American Conservative and Harpers.

Even the august New York Times allowed itself to be used. Right now, the Times is hand-wringing about two cases of plagiarism and phony reporting by staffers. It should instead be anguishing that its pages trumpeted phony reports about Iraqi weapons and links to al-Qaida that came from anti-Saddam exile groups and the pro-war cabal in the Pentagon.

Most so-called Iraqi "experts" on TV, including some colleagues of mine, merely regurgitated what they had read in the morning's Times. The Times and much of the major media were duped, to put it politely, abandoning their vital role in our democratic system as tribune and questioner of the politicians.

So, too, the Democratic party, which, as war fever was being stoked by the Bush administration and the press, shamefully rolled over and played dead - with the exception of that great American, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who long ago denounced Bush's Iraq misadventure, and who now demands a full investigation of how Americans and their Congress were misled.

Absurd exaggerations

The black comedy continues:

Bush citing what turned out to be crudely forged documents in his state of the union address.

"Drones of death" that turned out to be rickety model airplanes.

The "decontamination" trucks cited by Colin Powell that turned out to be fire trucks when inspected by the UN.

The notorious "mobile germ labs" the British press now reports were for inflating artillery balloons and, in fact, were sold to Iraq by the U.K.

Some British and American intelligence officers are accusing their governments of outright lies or absurd exaggerations.

Maybe Americans have become brain-dead from too much TV. Maybe they don't care terrorism is surging, or that recent polls show the U.S. is reviled, hated, or distrusted around the globe thanks to this administration and its neo-con mentors. Maybe they don't understand that over 288 Americans and an estimated 26,300 Iraqi civilians and soldiers have so far died in a totally unnecessary conflict. Or that the U.S. in now stuck in an ugly little colonial war in Iraq, its very own West Bank and Gaza.
_____________________________

Bush has got to go!! :thumb:

Skeptic

July 22nd, 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by RogerB
Way to narrow the field, moron. Let's not compare apples to apples. Oh, no! Saddam is so much nicer than Hitler. He only kills his own kind. I seem to recall that Hitler was BEFORE the Vietnam war. :chuckle:

RogerB

July 22nd, 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
So what if Saddam didn't really have the weapons of mass destruction....?

Where's the proof?

RogerB

July 22nd, 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I seem to recall that Hitler was BEFORE the Vietnam war. :chuckle:

My point exactly. To say it's the bloodiest war since Vietnam isn't really saying much.

Eireann

July 22nd, 2003, 12:47 PM

Again, for those of you who are obviously missing the point by a mile -- the topic question is whether or not Bush should be impeached for lying to the nation to justify a full-scale war.

The question is NOT whether or not there existed a justification for the war. The question is NOT whether or not Saddam was an evil despot who needed to be removed.

The question is did Bush lie to the American people to sell us on his war, and should he be impeached for it? If he did deliberately lie (and to all indications, he did), then he deserves impeachment, and any justifications for war that may have existed ASIDE from those that were given are irrelevent to the question.

Considering the specificity of the question, the response that "Saddam was evil and needed to go" is nothing but a red herring.

Skeptic

July 22nd, 2003, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by RogerB
My point exactly. To say it's the bloodiest war since Vietnam isn't really saying much. No, it is saying a LOT!! Especially since the full-scale preemptive invasion of Iraq was totally unjustified!! Of course, the Vietnam war was unjustified also.

Looks like, since Vietnam, the bigger the war, the more unjustified the war.

Skeptic

July 22nd, 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Eireann
Again, for those of you who are obviously missing the point by a mile -- the topic question is whether or not Bush should be impeached for lying to the nation to justify a full-scale war.

The question is NOT whether or not there existed a justification for the war. The question is NOT whether or not Saddam was an evil despot who needed to be removed.

The question is did Bush lie to the American people to sell us on his war, and should he be impeached for it? If he did deliberately lie (and to all indications, he did), then he deserves impeachment, and any justifications for war that may have existed ASIDE from those that were given are irrelevant to the question.

Considering the specificity of the question, the response that "Saddam was evil and needed to go" is nothing but a red herring. Agreed!!

Lying about war, where thousands are killed, should be FAR MORE impeachable than lying about sex!

RogerB

July 22nd, 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Eireann
(and to all indications, he did)

Hogslop.

Skeptic

July 22nd, 2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by RogerB
Hogslop. Why do believe he did not lie? Because Bush is your man, and you trust him? :chuckle:

What does the bulk of the evidence thus far suggest to you?

RogerB

July 22nd, 2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
What does the bulk of the evidence thus far suggest to you?

That the bulk of the evidence is unknown to you and I.

But I have seen the pictures and heard the testimonies of the Iraqi people and that alone is sufficient to take Saddam out.

Eireann

July 22nd, 2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by RogerB
Hogslop.
Well, he told the nation that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger. Despite the fact that he said it came from Britain, he presented it in such a way that was meant to convey that it was a proven fact. He did this despite the fact that the CIA had told him three months before that the intelligence was bad and the documents were unreliable. Now what would you call it?

RogerB

July 22nd, 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Eireann

Now what would you call it?

I call it "telling the people only as much as they need to know."

Does it bother you that there are many more secrets that you aren't privy to?

Eireann

July 22nd, 2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by RogerB
I call it "telling the people only as much as they need to know."
So the people didn't "need to know" that the intelligence source from which it came was bad, is that what you're saying? They didn't need to know that it wasn't true? They didn't need to know it was based on documents that cited a defunct constitution, bore the signature of a person who wasn't in office at the time it was signed, and got the name of the government wrong? You're saying the people didn't need to know all of that? You're saying the people didn't need to know that our own intelligence told him three months before NOT to use the information because it was no good?

Does it bother you that there are many more secrets that you aren't privy to?
The untrue information we are given bothers me more.

RogerB

July 22nd, 2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Eireann
So the people didn't "need to know" that the intelligence source from which it came was bad, is that what you're saying? They didn't need to know that it wasn't true?

The report was "dubious", not false.

Eireann

July 22nd, 2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by RogerB
The report was "dubious", not false.
Dubious, eh? Have you actually READ the facts in the case? Forgeries are not merely "dubious."

RogerB

July 22nd, 2003, 01:37 PM

White House officials Friday released portions of a top-secret report from last year that concluded that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was actively seeking nuclear weapons.

But that finding in the classified National Intelligence Estimate, prepared for the White House in October, came loaded with reservations that reflected deep divisions in the intelligence community over Iraq's weapons programs and were at odds with the certainty expressed by Bush and his top aides.

The report even quoted intelligence experts at the State Department as describing claims that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa as ``highly dubious.'' Bush nevertheless repeated the assertion in his State of the Union speech in January while arguing the need for war.

Although the report concluded that Iraq was seeking chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, it acknowledged the scarcity of solid information. If the excerpts accurately reflect the full report, Bush reached the decision to go to war by assuming the worst about Iraq's capabilities and Saddam's intentions.

So you would wait for Saddam to use the weapons before going after him? What if he killed 1,000 people? 10,000? 1,000,000? Would you volunteer to talk to the familes about why you failed to act?

Gerald

July 22nd, 2003, 01:46 PM

Assuming the worst...

By that logic, we should have just cut to the chase in 1962, and nuked Havana and Moscow...

Eireann

July 22nd, 2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by RogerB
So you would wait for Saddam to use the weapons before going after him?
WHAT WEAPONS?!?!?

Good grief, some of you people are dense!

The "dubious" documents were dated 2000. They cited a Nigerian constitution that had been replaced in 1996, four years earlier! They featured the signature of a government official who had left office in 1989, eleven years earlier! They were on the letterhead that sported the name of a government that had been replaced in 1996, four years earlier!

It took Baute’s team only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake. The agency had been given about a half-dozen letters and other communications between officials in Niger and Iraq, many of them written on letterheads of the Niger government. The problems were glaring. One letter, dated October 10, 2000, was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a Niger Minister of Foreign Affairs and Coöperation, who had been out of office since 1989. Another letter, allegedly from Tandja Mamadou, the President of Niger, had a signature that had obviously been faked and a text with inaccuracies so egregious, the senior I.A.E.A. official said, that “they could be spotted by someone using Google on the Internet.”
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

Now how reliable would YOU consider it to be?

Skeptic

July 22nd, 2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by RogerB
That the bulk of the evidence is unknown to you and I. So, who do you think DOES know the bulk of the evidence? Bush and the Pentagon? If so, then why haven't they shared it with the American public? Do they want to keep it secret, so Americans will not criticize their actions in Iraq?

No, I think we have enough evidence to suggest that the full-scale preemptive invasion of Iraq was based on lies and exaggerations.

But I have seen the pictures and heard the testimonies of the Iraqi people and that alone is sufficient to take Saddam out. Have you seen the pictures of post-invasion dead Iraqis? (warning - graphic):
http://www.peacenowar.net/Iraq/News/Photo-Casualities.htm

Have you heard only the testimonies of pro-U.S. Iraqis?

Skeptic

July 22nd, 2003, 02:48 PM

If you're not already paranoid about the Bush administration:

==============================
Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments:
Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence

June 20, 2003

Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows.

But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.

Here is a transcript of the exchange:
------------------------------------------------
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
------------------------------------------------

Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."

Despite its implications, Martin's report was greeted largely with silence when it aired. Now, nine months later, media are covering damaging revelations about the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, yet still seem strangely reluctant to pursue stories suggesting that the flawed intelligence-- and therefore the war-- may have been a result of deliberate deception, rather than incompetence. The public deserves a fuller accounting of this story.
==============================

:noid:

wholearmor

July 22nd, 2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Eireann
Again, for those of you who are obviously missing the point by a mile -- the topic question is whether or not Bush should be impeached for lying to the nation to justify a full-scale war.

The question is NOT whether or not there existed a justification for the war. The question is NOT whether or not Saddam was an evil despot who needed to be removed.

The question is did Bush lie to the American people to sell us on his war, and should he be impeached for it? If he did deliberately lie (and to all indications, he did), then he deserves impeachment, and any justifications for war that may have existed ASIDE from those that were given are irrelevent to the question.

Considering the specificity of the question, the response that "Saddam was evil and needed to go" is nothing but a red herring.

If Clinton had never been impeached, no one would even be thinking of impeaching Bush right now. It's sour grapes and nothing more.

Skeptic

July 22nd, 2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by wholearmor
If Clinton had never been impeached, no one would even be thinking of impeaching Bush right now. It's sour grapes and nothing more. So, you think that Bush has been totally honest with the American public about the intelligence and motivations leading up to the invasion of Iraq? Is this correct?

wholearmor

July 22nd, 2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
So, you think that Bush has been totally honest with the American public about the intelligence and motivations leading up to the invasion of Iraq? Is this correct?

I don't think any President we've ever had has been totally honest about everything. I just believe that Clinton lovers are still so incensed about his impeachment, that they've been laying (lying?) low (and I do mean low) just waiting to pounce on something to talk about impeaching Bush for. I repeat, if Clinton had not been impeached, no one would be looking to impeach Bush.

Skeptic

July 22nd, 2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by wholearmor
I don't think any President we've ever had has been totally honest about everything. I just believe that Clinton lovers are still so incensed about his impeachment, that they've been laying (lying?) low (and I do mean low) just waiting to pounce on something to talk about impeaching Bush for. I repeat, if Clinton had not been impeached, no one would be looking to impeach Bush. I'll rephrase the question: Do you think that Bush has been totally honest with the American public, not about other things, but specifically about the intelligence and motivations leading up to the invasion of Iraq?

BillyBob

July 22nd, 2003, 06:16 PM

Skeptic;
Do you think that Bush has been totally honest with the American public, not about other things, but specifically about the intelligence and motivations leading up to the invasion of Iraq?

Billy;
Absolutely! You libs are trying to spin Bush's motives about this war and imply that it was based on 16 words in the State of the Union Address about Niger. [pronounced Ni-jer]

Silly Neocoms.....

Skeptic

July 22nd, 2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
Do you think that Bush has been totally honest with the American public, not about other things, but specifically about the intelligence and motivations leading up to the invasion of Iraq?

Billy;
Absolutely! You libs are trying to spin Bush's motives about this war and imply that it was based on 16 words in the State of the Union Address about Niger. [pronounced Ni-jer]

Silly Neocoms..... First of all, I didn't ask you. I'm still waiting for an answer from wholearmor.

BillyBob, did Bush lie or mislead the American public about the alleged uranium from Niger using those 16 words? Isn't it reasonable to assume that the president of the U.S. would have known about the CIA's position regarding that false information? The CIA asked that a similar uranium/Niger statement be removed from another speech three months prior to the State of the Union Address! Don't you think the president and his closest advisers would know this? Everything points to Bush knowingly lying about the truthfulness of this. Much worse than lying about sex.

Silly Neocons...

Is it possible?

July 22nd, 2003, 06:53 PM

Hey people don't you look at the news. We got Saddam's son. Bush you have my vote!!!!Please the spin misters are just blowing hot air. Democrats beware!

BillyBob

July 22nd, 2003, 06:55 PM

Eireann;
WHAT WEAPONS?!?!?

Billy;
-quote-
Remember this Clinton quote from 1998: "If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction...he will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction.... Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." Do any of those words sound like Clinton thinks Saddam doesn't have an arsenal?

More Clinton Quotes - They're All Right Below, Cited for Your Convenience

On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..." February 17, 1998, Bill Clinton: "Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan." Here are just some of the things this defection forced Iraq to admit, as cited by Clinton: "[A]n offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum...2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled scud warheads, and 157 aerial bombs."

In President Bush's January 28, 2003 State of the Union he specifically cited the information gathered by the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and Bill Clinton as a basis for his conclusion that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. In my view, Saddam either hid them or destroyed them prior to the end of months of diplomacy and dithering with the UN. Maybe he shipped them out of the country - perhaps to Syria's Bekáa Valley. So if you conclude that Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney lied, you have to add all these other folks into the list.

More from Clinton: "And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production." Of course, Saddam's son-in-law was killed when he returned to Iraq. Now, I know that everybody on the right said Clinton was using Iraq to distract from his impeachment scandal. You have a point, but screw it. This is what Clinton said, and I think someone should point it out to his supporters who are now out there saying there were never any WMD in Iraq.

Eireann

July 22nd, 2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

Isn't it reasonable to assume that the president of the U.S. would have known about the CIA's position regarding that false information? The CIA asked that a similar uranium/Niger statement be removed from another speech three months prior to the State of the Union Address! Don't you think the president and his closest advisers would know this?
It wasn't a "similar statement," it was the same statement, drawn from the same source. There is no denying that Bush and his advisors knew about it. That's why the statement never appeared in any of the drafts of the speech that passed through the censors, because they knew it wouldn't pass the censors.

Is it possible?

July 22nd, 2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Is it possible?
Hey people don't you look at the news. We got Saddam's son. Bush you have my vote!!!!Please the spin miesters are just blowing hot air. Democrats beware!

Is it possible?

July 22nd, 2003, 07:01 PM

Old NEWS PEOPLE...OLD NEWS

How long you gonna spin this stuff? Please hell does not freeze. It remains nice and hot.

Is it possible?

July 22nd, 2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Eireann
It wasn't a "similar statement," it was the same statement, drawn from the same source. There is no denying that Bush and his advisors knew about it. That's why the statement never appeared in any of the drafts of the speech that passed through the censors, because they knew it wouldn't pass the censors.

You are funny Eireann. You need to work for the government.

BillyBob

July 22nd, 2003, 07:04 PM

Skeptic;
BillyBob, did Bush lie or mislead the American public about the alleged uranium from Niger using those 16 words?

Billy;
Absolutely not. He sited British intel who still claim that the intel was correct.

What's a matter Skeptic, don't you know that saddam has been amassing weapons for 20 years?

Skeptic;
Isn't it reasonable to assume that the president of the U.S. would have known about the CIA's position regarding that false information?

Billy;
Doesn't matter. He had evidence from the British and had to make a decision. He chose to play it safe for the US and the rest of the free world. If we left these decisions up to you neocoms, we would all be speaking German, Japanese or even Arabic by now.

Skeptic;
The CIA asked that a similar uranium/Niger statement be removed from another speech three months prior to the State of the Union Address!

Billy;
So? It doesn't mean that Bush lied.

Skeptic;
Don't you think the president and his closest advisers would know this? Everything points to Bush knowingly lying about the truthfulness of this.

Billy;
No, everything points to Bush being a great leader who does not take crap from a terrorist. [unlike your hero, Bill Clinton]

It points to a President who did the right thing even after the UN backed down from their empty threats.

It points to a free Iraq and a threat to terrorism worldwide.

WOO HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wholearmor

July 22nd, 2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I'll rephrase the question: Do you think that Bush has been totally honest with the American public, not about other things, but specifically about the intelligence and motivations leading up to the invasion of Iraq?

I don't know for sure and neither do you.

BillyBob

July 22nd, 2003, 07:34 PM

Yeah Skeptic.

Neener, neener, neener.............

wholearmor

July 22nd, 2003, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob
Yeah Skeptic.

Neener, neener, neener.............

BB...it's Septic.

BillyBob

July 22nd, 2003, 07:36 PM

:doh:

marc

July 22nd, 2003, 07:43 PM

"Against the False Prophet" by Jurgen Fliegen is available on www.portland.indymedia.org. His book is in its 17th printing!
"Brother Bush, you have broken them all with one blow..Sorry, Mr. president you don't represent the God who liberates through grace and patience, love and affection. You represent a god with Texan features."
On my website www.mbtranslations.com, you can find "Faith Heals Reason" by Dorothee Soelle. Hearkening back to a fairy tale by Hans Christian Anderson, Ms. Soelle says the devil invented a distorting mirror that turns everything beautiful into a cesspool. A type of reason that allows the market logic and profit mania is this distorting mirror. Hundreds of articles await you on the Gospel of John and other subjects! Enjoy the feast! Poor in things - we can be rich in faith! Another world is possible and if we're very quiet we can hear her coming! (Arundhatyi Roy)

rfburnhertz

July 22nd, 2003, 07:50 PM

Skeptic,

First, the mere fact that you would referance Howard Dean is proof that you, while perhaps educated, are an idiot. This is equal to someone who calls themselves conservative referancing David Duke.

Both are nutts.

Secondly, the fact that you believe Dean is proof that you, while perhaps educated, are an idiot.

The Bristish still stands by it claim concerning Niger and Saddams attempt to buy uranium.

The forged document everyone keeps referancing to was NOT the only evidence they had/have.

Bush, in his speech, never claimed this evidence was our eveidence. He said "the Bristish have..."

Another little bit of history is that pre-Gulf War 1 Saddam it is a known established fact that Saddam did in fact buy uranium from Niger. Which makes it fairly believable that he might had tried again.

Your rabid with hatred.
You are a typical leftist, you fear good and defend evil.

Don't bother posting back because, while perhaps educated, you are in fact an idiot. Put on your little plastic bike helmet go on the short bus, wave good-bye to mommy and shut up.

P.S.- like my catch phrase? "while perhaps educated".

That'll be I my next movie due to come out next summer. It's a feel good horror movie called, "The demise of the zombie leftists".

Eireann

July 22nd, 2003, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Is it possible?
You are funny Eireann. You need to work for the government.
While the last part of my statement, the part regarding motive, was conjecture, the rest was straight from the mouths of the speechwriters and censors themselves.

State of the Union Scandal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48847-2003Jul12.html?nav=hptop_tb)

"We followed the NIE and hoped there was more intelligence to support it," a senior administration official said yesterday. When told there was nothing new, White House officials backed off, and as a result "seeking uranium from Niger was never in drafts," he said. -- emphasis mine

Officials said three speechwriters were at the core of the State of the Union team, and that they worked from evidence against Iraq provided by the National Security Council. NSC officials dealt with the CIA both in gathering material for the speech and later in vetting the drafts.
Hmmmm, only three speechwriters, but they still can't find who put the reference in there!

Eireann

July 22nd, 2003, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by rfburnhertz

The Bristish still stands by it claim concerning Niger and Saddams attempt to buy uranium.

The forged document everyone keeps referancing to was NOT the only evidence they had/have.
So goes the mantra anyway.

British officials said they "stand behind" the original allegation. They note they never mentioned "Niger," the subject of the forged documents, and imply, but do not say, that there was other information, about another African country. But an informed U.N. official said the United States and Britain were repeatedly asked for all information they had to support the charge. Neither government, the official said, "ever indicated that they had any information on any other country." -- emphasis mine
More SOTU Scandal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A9011-2003Mar22&notFound=true)

Eireann

July 22nd, 2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by rfburnhertz

Another little bit of history is that pre-Gulf War 1 Saddam it is a known established fact that Saddam did in fact buy uranium from Niger. Which makes it fairly believable that he might had tried again.
Not really, but it definitely makes it believable that if someone were to invent a uranium scandal, they would use an alleged source for whom a precedent had already been set. Iraq bought from them in the past, so it makes the perfect patsy when it comes time to invent a new scandal just to keep the war agenda alive.

wholearmor

July 22nd, 2003, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by Eireann
Not really, but it definitely makes it believable that if someone were to invent a uranium scandal, they would use an alleged source for whom a precedent had already been set. Iraq bought from them in the past, so it makes the perfect patsy when it comes time to invent a new scandal just to keep the war agenda alive.

You're about as logical as the bogus Bible codes. You take a jumble of information and arrange it to your liking and hold it out and say, "See?"

Anyone who's as obsessed with their government as you are needs to get a life (and here I am posting on TOL at 11:30 at night! :chuckle: )

Eireann

July 22nd, 2003, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by rfburnhertz

That'll be I my next movie due to come out next summer. It's a feel good horror movie called, "The demise of the zombie leftists".
Ooh, that would be a very effective way to get rid of the left! Turn them into zombies. We all know from watching the Romero movies that zombies require living brains for sustenance. If the left were turned into brain-eating zombies, leaving only the right, the zombies would starve to death in no time! I think you're onto something there!

wholearmor

July 22nd, 2003, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Eireann
Ooh, that would be a very effective way to get rid of the left! Turn them into zombies. We all know from watching the Romero movies that zombies require living brains for sustenance. If the left were turned into brain-eating zombies, leaving only the right, the zombies would starve to death in no time! I think you're onto something there!

You sure struggle to answer the "no-brainer's" questions, though, don't you?

Eireann

July 22nd, 2003, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by wholearmor
You sure struggle to answer the "no-brainer's" questions, though, don't you?
No struggle at all. You people are easy!

wholearmor

July 22nd, 2003, 11:34 PM

You struggle. I can tell we get to you at times.

Is it possible?

July 22nd, 2003, 11:36 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eireann
While the last part of my statement, the part regarding motive, was conjecture, the rest was straight from the mouths of the speechwriters and censors themselves.

State of the Union Scandal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48847-2003Jul12.html?nav=hptop_tb)

The Washington post...just what I figured. By the way i can not even access it...it asks me if I am a liberal. I said no so I was blocked....but if you are a terrorist sympathizer your access is expediated. :D

wholearmor

July 22nd, 2003, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by wholearmor
You're about as logical as the bogus Bible codes. You take a jumble of information and arrange it to your liking and hold it out and say, "See?"

I liked this so much I decided to post it again.

Is it possible?

July 22nd, 2003, 11:39 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wholearmor
You're about as logical as the bogus Bible codes. You take a jumble of information and arrange it to your liking and hold it out and say, "See?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:D

Eireann

July 22nd, 2003, 11:43 PM

Isn't it funny how quick they are to label any media press as "Liberal," solely because they dish against a Republican President. I guess they never noticed that they also dished against liberal Presidents, too. So, what, were they conservatively biased back then, but suddenly liberally biased now? Gotta love those conservative boobs and their campaign to stereotype everyone!

wholearmor

July 22nd, 2003, 11:48 PM

Eireann

July 22nd, 2003, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by wholearmor
Dished, Eireann? The word is dissed.
No, the word I sought is "dished." As in "dished out."

wholearmor

July 22nd, 2003, 11:50 PM

You're not telling the truth again, Eireann. I've already spoken to you about that. Naughty, naughty.

Is it possible?

July 22nd, 2003, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Eireann
Isn't it funny how quick they are to label any media press as "Liberal," solely because they dish against a Republican President. I guess they never noticed that they also dished against liberal Presidents, too. So, what, were they conservatively biased back then, but suddenly liberally biased now? Gotta love those conservative boobs and their campaign to stereotype everyone!

Eiranne I will tell you how liberal this media is...you have people who dished a white female Christian, Kathrine Harris, because she wants to follow the law and do her job. And do you know who dished her..liberal female reporters. Yes and not on the basis of what is valid but on her looks. these kind of women give women a bad name. So do not talk to me about how people sterotype. By the way gusty lady and I look up to her.

I can go on forever about the LIBERAL media.

rfburnhertz

July 23rd, 2003, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by Eireann
British officials said they "stand behind" the original allegation. They note they never mentioned "Niger," the subject of the forged documents, and imply, but do not say, that there was other information, about another African country. But an informed U.N. official said the United States and Britain were repeatedly asked for all information they had to support the charge. Neither government, the official said, "ever indicated that they had any information on any other country."

I don't know where you collected the above, I also don't care. It is however untrue.

The above is simply nothing more than a lie.

Did we listen to Mr. Blair last week?

His government did say and still does say that there was information beyond the forged documents.

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by BillyBob
Eireann;
WHAT WEAPONS?!?!?

Billy;
-quote-
Remember this Clinton quote from 1998: "If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction...he will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction.... Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." Do any of those words sound like Clinton thinks Saddam doesn't have an arsenal?

More Clinton Quotes - They're All Right Below, Cited for Your Convenience

On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..." February 17, 1998, Bill Clinton: "Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan." Here are just some of the things this defection forced Iraq to admit, as cited by Clinton: "[A]n offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum...2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled scud warheads, and 157 aerial bombs."

In President Bush's January 28, 2003 State of the Union he specifically cited the information gathered by the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and Bill Clinton as a basis for his conclusion that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. In my view, Saddam either hid them or destroyed them prior to the end of months of diplomacy and dithering with the UN. Maybe he shipped them out of the country - perhaps to Syria's Bekáa Valley. So if you conclude that Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney lied, you have to add all these other folks into the list.

More from Clinton: "And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production." Of course, Saddam's son-in-law was killed when he returned to Iraq. Now, I know that everybody on the right said Clinton was using Iraq to distract from his impeachment scandal. You have a point, but screw it. This is what Clinton said, and I think someone should point it out to his supporters who are now out there saying there were never any WMD in Iraq. Regardless of what Clinton and others have said, the president of the United States should not launch a full-scale preemptive invasion of a country unless there is a clear and imminent threat from WMD whose existence can be clearly demonstrated by pointing to their real-time location, strength and numbers. Bush did not have that, as he was using (probably knowingly) vague, outdated, and false intelligence.

Is it possible?

July 23rd, 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Regardless of what Clinton and others have said, the president of the United States should not launch a full-scale preemptive invasion of a country unless there is a clear and imminent threat from WMD whose existence can be clearly demonstrated by pointing to their real-time location, strength and numbers. Bush did not have that, as he was using (probably knowingly) vague, outdated, and false intelligence.

It was already established Skeptic that Saddam broke UN sanctions (thanks to Clinton) and they were firing on us in the no fly zone. So keep spining your heels. People have such short memories.

God bless guys

RogerB

July 23rd, 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Regardless of what Clinton and others have said, the president of the United States should not launch a full-scale preemptive invasion of a country unless there is a clear and imminent threat from WMD whose existence can be clearly demonstrated by pointing to their real-time location, strength and numbers. Bush did not have that, as he was using (probably knowingly) vague, outdated, and false intelligence.

Did Osama and his clan possess WMD? Look what they accomplished. So you think we should let someone with KNOWN biological and checmical weapons (and hopes of creating nuclear weapons) just sit there until we can pinpoint the weapons? :kookoo:

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
BillyBob, did Bush lie or mislead the American public about the alleged uranium from Niger using those 16 words?

Billy;
Absolutely not. He sited British intel who still claim that the intel was correct. The British have not satisfactorily and publicly backed up their claim. Blair is toast (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030722/323/e4p4x.html).

What's a matter Skeptic, don't you know that saddam has been amassing weapons for 20 years? What's the matter, BillyBob, don't you know that Saddam destroyed most of his weapons after 1991?

Skeptic;
Isn't it reasonable to assume that the president of the U.S. would have known about the CIA's position regarding that false information?

Billy;
Doesn't matter. He had evidence from the British and had to make a decision. What evidence? A statement, or hard evidence?

Skeptic;
The CIA asked that a similar uranium/Niger statement be removed from another speech three months prior to the State of the Union Address!

Billy;
So? It doesn't mean that Bush lied. Either he lied, or his closest advisers lied to him, and he believes whatever they say. Why would he use the uranium/Niger statement when the CIA says they would have asked him not to use it, just like they did three months prior to the State of the Union?

Skeptic;
Don't you think the president and his closest advisers would know this? Everything points to Bush knowingly lying about the truthfulness of this.

Billy;
No, everything points to Bush being a great leader who does not take crap from a terrorist. [unlike your hero, Bill Clinton]

It points to a President who did the right thing even after the UN backed down from their empty threats.

It points to a free Iraq and a threat to terrorism worldwide. You continue to incorrectly believe that Iraq is now "free" and that Iraq was a terrorist threat to the world. Wrong! And, even if you were right about Iraq's threat to the world, it is wrong for a U.S. president or his administration to lie to the American public about intelligence in order to gain support from Congress and the public, even to stop a threat to the world.

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by wholearmor
I don't know for sure and neither do you. That's why we need a full bipartisan public investigation into this issue! Don't you agree?

Is it possible?

July 23rd, 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
That's why we need a full bipartisan public investigation into this issue! Don't you agree?

The rhetoric of a liberal

translated: yes lets just sit on our honches

RogerB

July 23rd, 2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
That's why we need a full bipartisan public investigation into this issue! Don't you agree?

The last thing we need to do is waste money investigating a man elected to lead and make decisions based on top secret intelligence. Don't like the job he's performing? Vote against him in 2004.

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Skeptic,

First, the mere fact that you would referance Howard Dean is proof that you, while perhaps educated, are an idiot. This is equal to someone who calls themselves conservative referancing David Duke.

Both are nutts.

Secondly, the fact that you believe Dean is proof that you, while perhaps educated, are an idiot. What makes me an idiot?

The Bristish still stands by it claim concerning Niger and Saddams attempt to buy uranium.

The forged document everyone keeps referancing to was NOT the only evidence they had/have.

Bush, in his speech, never claimed this evidence was our eveidence. He said "the Bristish have..." Have the British backed up their claim with hard evidence, or just more words? Bush said "the British have learned..." If I were president, I would not simply take the word of the British, without independently verifying the alleged hard evidence behind the claim.

Another little bit of history is that pre-Gulf War 1 Saddam it is a known established fact that Saddam did in fact buy uranium from Niger. Which makes it fairly believable that he might had tried again. Suspicions alone do not justify a full-scale preemptive military invasion of a country.

Your rabid with hatred.
You are a typical leftist, you fear good and defend evil. :yawn:

RogerB

July 23rd, 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Suspicions alone do not justify a full-scale preemptive military invasion of a country.

Suspicions alone do not justify a full bipartisan public investigation into this issue.

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Did we listen to Mr. Blair last week?

His government did say and still does say that there was information beyond the forged documents. Where's the hard evidence? More words will not suffice.

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Is it possible?
It was already established Skeptic that Saddam broke UN sanctions (thanks to Clinton) and they were firing on us in the no fly zone. Breaking UN sanctions and firing on planes in the no-fly zone does NOT justify a massive full-scale preemptive invasion, which is opposed by a vast majority of countries on the planet!

RogerB

July 23rd, 2003, 09:49 AM

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
Did Osama and his clan possess WMD? Look what they accomplished. So you think we should let someone with KNOWN biological and checmical weapons (and hopes of creating nuclear weapons) just sit there until we can pinpoint the weapons? :kookoo: What "KNOWN biological and chemical weapons"? Do you mean the ones Iraq destroyed years earlier? Did Bush know the location, strength and numbers of such weapons, before he launched his full-scale preemptive invasion? Such weapons have not been found. Most UN weapons inspectors said they would not likely be found.

Try again.

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
The last thing we need to do is waste money investigating a man elected to lead and make decisions based on top secret intelligence. Ahhh, now we don't really need to know whether Bush was lying, because we aren't supposed to know! Right? The information Bush used was "top secret"! Well, shut my mouth!! :chuckle:

RogerB

July 23rd, 2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Ahhh, now we don't really need to know whether Bush was lying, because we aren't supposed to know! Right? The information Bush used was "top secret"! Well, shut my mouth!! :chuckle:

That's the best idea you've had all year!

Here's a picture of Skeptic giving a speech in Detroit....

http://www.theologyonline.com/photopost/data/500/2029skeptic.jpg

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
Suspicions alone do not justify a full bipartisan public investigation into this issue. Oh, but we have more than mere suspicions! We have contradictory statements and lack of any hard evidence for WMD, that Bush and his administration claimed posed an imminent threat to America and the world! A full bipartisan public investigation is very warranted!!

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
That's the best idea you've had all year!

Here's a picture of Skeptic giving a speech in Detroit....
Resorting back to humor and personal attacks? ...Typical. :chuckle:

RogerB

July 23rd, 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Oh, but we have more than mere suspicions! We have contradictory statements and lack of any hard evidence for WMD, that Bush and his administration claimed posed an imminent threat to America and the world! A full bipartisan public investigation is very warranted!!

:kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo:

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
:kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo: That's your response? :chuckle:

Is it possible?

July 23rd, 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Breaking UN sanctions and firing on planes in the no-fly zone does NOT justify a massive full-scale preemptive invasion, which is opposed by a vast majority of countries on the planet!

It does if you are amassing nuclear wepons and you also support and aliebet terrorists in your counrty. Hey we are trying to round up the terrorists here in America from when Clinton let the flood gates open to every Tom, Dick and Harry. What does Saddam do? He invites them to dinner.

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Is it possible?
It does if you are amassing nuclear wepons and you also support and aliebet terrorists in your counrty. Bush and the Pentagon have presented no evidence to support the notion that Iraq was "amassing nuclear weapons" or that Iraq significantly supported international terrorists - definitely not significant enough to warrant an illegal full-scale preemptive invasion!

Is it possible?

July 23rd, 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Bush and the Pentagon have presented no evidence to support the notion that Iraq was "amassing nuclear weapons" or that Iraq significantly supported international terrorists - definitely not significant enough to warrant an illegal full-scale preemptive invasion!

Excuse me of course not you are too busy critising your own president from protecting your ability to eat at McDonalds, drink beer with your friends, and yell sexual overtones out the widow of your car at women walking down the road to notice. Have you not learned anything? Bush never lets out information until just the right time to make his opponnents look like a****. He is a smart man unlike our former President who left Yasar Arafat waiting while he and his little intern whooped it up in the oval office.

By the way they have found things but of course liberals only believe what they want.

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 06:18 PM

Bush is gonna fall!!

=============================
WASHINGTON, July 23 — The White House on Wednesday defended a senior aide who took blame for U.S. President George W. Bush's now-discredited charge that Iraq sought African uranium, but Democrats said Bush must accept responsibility.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush remained confident in his deputy national security adviser, Stephen Hadley. Hadley said on Tuesday he had overlooked CIA memos casting doubt on the intelligence underlying the uranium charge, which Bush used to bolster his case for invading Iraq.

''Steve Hadley is someone with great experience and expertise and the president has great confidence in the job he's doing,'' McClellan told reporters.

Democratic criticism continued, however, with calls for Bush to clear up public ''confusion'' and for Hadley to resign.

''Now might be a good time for the president to hold a press conference simply to answer all these questions,'' said Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.

Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean insisted that anyone who misled Bush should resign and urged an independent investigation of the disputed charge in Bush's January State of the Union address that Iraq tried to buy African uranium.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, also seeking the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, said Bush must take responsibility for using ''flawed intelligence.''

''George W. Bush's credibility gap is growing,'' Kerry said.

McClellan dismissed the criticism from Democrats, saying Bush ''takes responsibility for the case he outlined'' against Iraq.

Hadley is responsible for reviewing security issues in Bush's speeches. He said Tuesday he had recently rediscovered two CIA memos he received ahead of a Bush speech in October. The memos asked that the African uranium charge be removed.

The passage was struck, but Hadley said he forgot the CIA objections when reviewing the State of the Union speech.

In the run-up to the U.S-led invasion, Bush cited Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs in making the case for war, though no such weapons have been found since Saddam's government was toppled April 9.

Earlier this month, CIA Director George Tenet said his agency had cleared the State of the Union speech and should have removed the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons.

Documents backing the claim were shown to be forged, although Britain, cited by Bush in speech as the source for the accusation, has said it had additional sources substantiating the claim.

''Those who included this faulty information in the president's address know who they are and should resign immediately,'' Dean said in a statement on Tuesday night.

Hadley said one of the CIA memos was also addressed to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was not clear whether Rice read the memo but she also feels responsible, Hadley said. ''The national security adviser also wants ... it clearly understood that she feels a personal responsibility for not recognizing the potential problem presented by those 16 words.''

White House communications director Dan Bartlett said Hadley had spoken with Bush, who expressed his confidence in the aide. Hadley declined to say whether he had offered to resign.

Former Democratic President Bill Clinton said the controversy should be dropped. ''We ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now,'' Clinton said on CNN's ''Larry King Live'' on Tuesday night.

From: http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters07-23-093221.asp?reg=MIDEAST
=============================

If you were the President of the United States, and you were asked to tell Congress, the nation and the world that Iraq tried to buy African uranium, wouldn't you say to your aides something like: "What? Iraq tried to buy African uranium? You'd better show me hard evidence of this, before I include this statement in the State of the Union Address! I want photos. I want details, folks! Specifics!! I'm not going to tell the American people this just because the British claim it's true. Can anyone verify this?"

That's what I'd do - take full responsibility for making such a bold statement to justify a massive full-scale invasion of Iraq! Then, if I found out later that the CIA or my aides gave my unverified intell, but claimed it was true, their butt would be canned fast!! Then, I would apologize to the American people. I don't see Bush taking responsibility for this. Did you hear his denial of responsibility for it the other day. Sad. Very sad.

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 06:39 PM

I have less respect for Bill Clinton, now that he said the controversy should be dropped.

This controversy is FAR more important than Clinton lying about sex!!

Bush must take responsibility, and he must go!!

Is it possible?

July 23rd, 2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I have less respect for Bill Clinton, now that he said the controversy should be dropped.

This controversy is FAR more important than Clinton lying about sex!!

Bush must take responsibility, and he must go!!

Is this where you get your news? MSNBC and the BBC...oh my Lord I thought you were smarter than that Skeptic. Guess you proved me wrong. Oh well.

Is it possible?

July 23rd, 2003, 06:48 PM

Here is a link for you guys. I was just discussing this very thing with Knight. Postsed a thread about the dating game. God you are just too good to me:

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0026988.cfm

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Is it possible?
Here is a link for you guys. I was just discussing this very thing with Knight. Postsed a thread about the dating game. God you are just too good to me:

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0026988.cfm What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Is it possible?

July 23rd, 2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Nothing really. Just thought I would throw it in as a freebie. :chuckle:

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 10:48 PM

As no one responded to this, I'm going to post it again.

If you were the President of the United States, and you were asked to tell Congress, the nation and the world that Iraq tried to buy African uranium, wouldn't you say to your aides something like: "What? Iraq tried to buy African uranium? You'd better show me hard evidence of this, before I include this statement in the State of the Union Address! I want photos. I want details, folks! Specifics!! I'm not going to tell the American people this just because the British claim it's true. Can anyone verify this?"

That's what I'd do - take full responsibility for making such a bold statement to justify a massive full-scale invasion of Iraq! Then, if I found out later that the CIA or my aides gave my unverified intell, but claimed it was true, their butt would be canned fast!! Then, I would apologize to the American people. I don't see Bush taking responsibility for this. Did you hear his denial of responsibility for it the other day. Sad. Very sad.

wholearmor

July 23rd, 2003, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
As no one responded to this, I'm going to post it again.

If you were the President of the United States, and you were asked to tell Congress, the nation and the world that Iraq tried to buy African uranium, wouldn't you say to your aides something like: "What? Iraq tried to buy African uranium? You'd better show me hard evidence of this, before I include this statement in the State of the Union Address! I want photos. I want details, folks! Specifics!! I'm not going to tell the American people this just because the British claim it's true. Can anyone verify this?"

That's what I'd do - take full responsibility for making such a bold statement to justify a massive full-scale invasion of Iraq! Then, if I found out later that the CIA or my aides gave my unverified intell, but claimed it was true, their butt would be canned fast!! Then, I would apologize to the American people. I don't see Bush taking responsibility for this. Did you hear his denial of responsibility for it the other day. Sad. Very sad.

Yes, Septic. Whatever YOU say. Whatever YOU want. You have ALL the answers. No one else has ANY answers. Dubya is ALL wrong and you are ALL right. The Iraqi people should listen to YOU and hate Dubya for freeing them.

If Bill Clinton were never impeached, no one would be talking about impeaching George W. now. Sour grapes by any other name are still sour grapes.

Skeptic

July 23rd, 2003, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by wholearmor
Yes, Septic. Whatever YOU say. Whatever YOU want. You have ALL the answers. No one else has ANY answers. Dubya is ALL wrong and you are ALL right. The Iraqi people should listen to YOU and hate Dubya for freeing them. I'm just trying to make sense of it. What makes sense to you about the African uranium issue?

If you were president, and saw the African uranium statement in your prepared State of the Union speech, and rehearsed it several times, as I'm sure Bush did, how would you have dealt with it? Would you have at least questioned your staff about the authenticity of this claim, before addressing Congress? Or would you simply read to the American public and the world whatever was shoved in your face, no questions asked?

What kind of president does not insist on verification of every detail of the State of the Union Address? Especially about such a significant claim that relates to possible Iraqi nuclear weapons!! Bush MUST have asked someone, before giving his speech, if there was any truth to the African uranium claim! That is, unless he already knew it was false.

wholearmor

July 23rd, 2003, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I'm just trying to make sense of it. What makes sense to you about African uranium issue?

If you were president, and saw the African uranium statement in your prepared State of the Union speech, and rehearsed it several times, as I'm sure Bush did, how would you have dealt with it? Would you have at least questioned your staff about the authenticity of this claim, before addressing Congress? Or would you simply read to the American public and the world whatever was shoved in your face, no questions asked?

What kind of president does not insist on verification of every detail of the State of the Union Address? Especially about such a significant claim that relates to possible Iraqi nuclear weapons!! Bush MUST have asked someone, before giving his speech, if there was any truth to the African uranium claim! That is, unless he already knew it was false.

I can't make any more sense out of it than you can and, since I have a life, I choose not to try to make sense out of something that's impossible to make sense out of.

RogerB

July 24th, 2003, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I'm just trying to make sense of it. What makes sense to you about the African uranium issue?

If you were president, and saw the African uranium statement in your prepared State of the Union speech, and rehearsed it several times, as I'm sure Bush did, how would you have dealt with it? Would you have at least questioned your staff about the authenticity of this claim, before addressing Congress? Or would you simply read to the American public and the world whatever was shoved in your face, no questions asked?

What kind of president does not insist on verification of every detail of the State of the Union Address? Especially about such a significant claim that relates to possible Iraqi nuclear weapons!! Bush MUST have asked someone, before giving his speech, if there was any truth to the African uranium claim! That is, unless he already knew it was false.

I assume that there is other corroborating evidence regarding Sadam's efforts to purchase uranium from Africa. Evidence you have no right or need to see.

Gerald

July 24th, 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
I assume that there is other corroborating evidence regarding Sadam's efforts to purchase uranium from Africa. Evidence you have no right or need to see.
You do know what happens when you assume, right...?

RogerB

July 24th, 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Gerald
You do know what happens when you assume, right...?

No, but I do know what happens when you doubt everything....:kookoo: :baby: :zakath:

Gerald

July 24th, 2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
No, but I do know what happens when you doubt everything...
Oh? What?

A healthy skepticism has never caused me any hardship; indeed, it has kept me out of trouble. If someone's feelings have been hurt because of it, that is hardly my problem...

RogerB

July 24th, 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Gerald
A healthy skepticism has never caused me any hardship

:chuckle: Check your mirror.

Gerald

July 24th, 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
:chuckle: Check your mirror.
::looks in mirror::
I see a healthy, well-adjusted, extremely handsome specimen of manhood, who doesn't need an invisible sky-daddy to help him get through life. Your point?

Typical. Resort to insult when you have nothing of substance to offer...

Is it possible?

July 24th, 2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Gerald
::looks in mirror::
I see a healthy, well-adjusted, extremely handsome specimen of manhood, who doesn't need an invisible sky-daddy to help him get through life. Your point?

Typical. Resort to insult when you have nothing of substance to offer...

o so sad Gerald...you can not be a man without GOD. You may be handsome I have no idea but to be perfectly honest with you so are a million other people who walk this planet...some more handsome than you I am afraid.

God bless!

Gerald

July 24th, 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Is it possible?
you can not be a man without GOD.Kindly demonstrate the truth of this assertion. I was born with the correct plumbing; I've been a man all my life!
...some more handsome than you I am afraid.
You're in no position to make a call like that; you've never met me...:chuckle:

Is it possible?

July 24th, 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Gerald
Kindly demonstrate the truth of this assertion. I was born with the correct plumbing; I've been a man all my life!

Are you sure about that? I think you are exaggerating. All of your life? Really? I think you pooped in your pants at one time and someone had to change you because you couldn't do it for yourself. :)

You're in no position to make a call like that; you've never met me...:chuckle:

Why not it is quite true. No matter how intelligent, good looking, talented, whatever the case maybe, there is always someone better, faster, and quicker than you. If this is all you have to baost in is your looks, you are worse off than I thought. Looks fade and it happens to all of us.

"As Long as I hold office I will never risk the lives of American citizens by assuming the good will of dangerous enemies."
~President George W. Bush

What do you say Paleo?

"Swell! :D"

~Quote by Paleo the Reformed

Brellix

July 24th, 2003, 01:30 PM

Really? So you're saying it was actually Clinton, not Bush, who sent hundreds of thousands of our troops to the Gulf, who lied to the American people about having irrefutable proof of Saddam's WMD program, and who started an extremely costly war? Hmmm, I didn't know that.

No Eireann, Bill Clinton did not send troops to Iraq in order to put an end to a murderous regime. All Saddam ever got from Clinton was a few volleys of tomahawk missiles. Note the liberal approach of treating the symptoms versus applying an available cure. Instead, Clinton sent troops to Somalia in 1994 in order to cover up(wag the dog) his scandals in the White House. This human piece of garbage and waste of good oxygen that we had to once call president, was responsible for the deaths of many ill-equipped American special forces members. All for what? So he could cover up his own immoral actions? Where is your attack on Clinton for wrongful deaths or does his being a pervert make up for it in your eyes? I can not nor will I accept his perversion of the highest office in the land.

This draft dodging, dope smoking, womanizing fool should have never been elected in the first place. That just proves how stupid and gullible the average liberal is. But to beat all else that is foolish, moronic liberals such as yourself continue to idolize Clinton as your own personal hero. I guess it's fitting considering that liberals in mass are all for sexual immorality and probably even want to high-five mr. zippergate for scoring with another tramp, eh?

Your perversion of truth will eventually lead to your destruction. All of your little imps and witch friends will not be able to save you. There is only ONE who is capable of giving you salvation and even though you refuse to acknowledge Him, He still loves you enough to give you your chance. What made you become infatuated with witchcraft anyway? Watch too much "Wizard of Oz" when you were a kid? I 'll bet you cried when the evil witch got crushed by the house didn't you? Well guess what, evil lost in that movie and evil will lose in reality as well. Repent now while you still can or you will wish that you only had to look forward to being crushed by a house. For if you do not repent, the Lord Jesus Christ will grind you to powder.:dead:

Brellix

Gerald

July 24th, 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Brellix
Repent now while you still can or you will wish that you only had to look forward to being crushed by a house. For if you do not repent, the Lord Jesus Christ will grind you to powder.:dead:
You say that like you don't want it to happen to him. What does it cost you if he winds up in hell? It's no skin off your back.

It isn't like your eternity of bliss will be made less blissful by his absence...

Brellix

July 24th, 2003, 03:58 PM

Gerald believe me when I say that I would much rather see Eireann, you, and all other nonbelievers end up on the winning team come judgement day. But if you and others like you choose to reject Christ and go to Hell, I will not feel sorry for you. You will have made your own bed that you will then be forced to lay in. The time for pity is now for when the end is at hand, there will be no acceptable excuses. Don't create your own prison by basing your views of Christianity on the failures of some televangelist. I know that the majority of those guys are nuts as well and are all about making a dollar but I also know that their fallacies as men do not represent the message of Christ. If the aforementioned reason is why you hate God then please reconsider the source of your anger. If not, do you care to explain why you hate Him?

Gerald

July 24th, 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Brellix
If the aforementioned reason is why you hate God then please reconsider the source of your anger. If not, do you care to explain why you hate Him? I'm not going down that road, except to say this:

I cannot hate that which which has yet to be demonstrated to exist. End of discussion.

(I considered regaling you with some c o c k-and-bull story about me asking for the ability to transmute base metals to gold, but decided not to...)

Skeptic

July 25th, 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by RogerB
I assume that there is other corroborating evidence regarding Sadam's efforts to purchase uranium from Africa. Why do you assume this? Do you really think we should kill thousands of people, and lose hundreds of troops, based on assumptions?

Evidence you have no right or need to see. How can Americans ensure that our leaders and military are not lying to us and are doing the right thing, if we have "no right or need to see"? We do not live in a non-democratic police state! ....Yet! .... But, if Bush gets elected next year, we will be one step closer to a right-wing fascist police state!

....not all forms of fascism have to equate precisely to the classic form represented by Hitler or Mussolini. Fascism doesn't have to involve mass genocidal slaughter, nor does it have to be equal in degree to the fascism practiced by members of the Axis powers. Traits of classic fascism include: strong nationalism, expansionism, belligerent militarism, meshing of big business and government with a corporate/government oligarchy, subversion of democracy and human rights, disinformation spread by constant propaganda and tight corporate/government control of the press.

Today all of those conditions exist in our country to a degree.

---------------
Read to full essay here (http://www.onlinejournal.com/Media/040703Binion/040703binion.html) .
Bush and the neo-conservatives (neo-fascists) need to be stopped!

Gerald

July 25th, 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
...if Bush gets elected next year, we will be one step closer to a right-wing fascist police state!

Bush and the neo-conservatives (neo-fascists) need to be stopped!Not that the True Believers™ around here particularly care; guess who would benefit the most from such a police state...

The TBs have every intention of riding the BushCo gravy train to the very last stop.

Skeptic

July 25th, 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Gerald
Not that the True Believers™ around here particularly care; guess who would benefit the most from such a police state...

The TBs have every intention of riding the BushCo gravy train to the very last stop. I'm sorry, but they know not what they do!

If Bush does go for another term, the TBs will eventually wish he hadn't.

BillyBob

July 25th, 2003, 08:46 PM

Gerald;
Not that the True Believers™ around here particularly care; guess who would benefit the most from such a police state...

Billy;
C'mon Gerald. Most Christians are conservative and the last thing they want is a police state. You know that!

Gerald;
The TBs have every intention of riding the BushCo gravy train to the very last stop.

Billy;
I think you are very mistaken in your assesment about the 'Right Wing'.

Is it possible?

July 25th, 2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I'm sorry, but they know not what they do!

If Bush does go for another term, the TBs will eventually wish he hadn't.

Skeptic,

I really do like you skeptic but do you know who the other choice is? Hillary yes the are primping her for pres. for 2004. I will take my chances with Bush. I surely do not agree with all that he has done but gosh look what he has to try to clean up after Clinton.

God bless!

Skeptic

July 26th, 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Is it possible?
I will take my chances with Bush. I surely do not agree with all that he has done but gosh look what he has to try to clean up after Clinton. I would take a hundred presidents who lied about sex, than one who lied about why we should go to war!

I would rather have a president having sex with animals in the White House, than one who sends hundreds of troops unnecessarily to their deaths, and kills thousands of Iraqis, for economic and strategic advantage!

Is it possible?

July 26th, 2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I would take a hundred presidents who lied about sex, than one who lied about why we should go to war!

EDITED FOR THE EYES OF CHILDREN READING HERE

Is this all you think Clinton did? Boy not only are you niave but indoctrinated.

Skeptic

July 27th, 2003, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Is it possible?
Is this all you think Clinton did? Boy not only are you niave but indoctrinated. Here is a resume for Bush. Why don't you make one for Clinton, then we'll compare.

---------------------------------------------
April 23, 2003
George W. Bush's Resume

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by Kelley Kramer

I recently had an email exchange with a right-winger from my local newspaper, and of course the war with Iraq came up pretty quick. But he said something in defense of George Bush that really surprised me. In defense of the attack on Iraq he said 'between Hussein and Bush, Hussein is the bad guy'.

My first response was ... So your guy is better than a third world dictator, Wow! what an accomplishment! Does he put that on his resume?

And with that in mind, I started wondering ... what would a George W. Bush resume look like exactly?

Listed below is what I came up with,

Best!

Kelley Kramer

-------------

George W. Bush Resume

Past work experience:

Ran for congress and lost.

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.

With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

Attacked and took over two countries.

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)

Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

First US president to establish a secret shadow government.

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

First US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.

In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Records and References:

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.

For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)
---------------------------------------------

:chuckle:

There are things I don't like about Clinton, but I'd take him over Bush any day!