Tired of W. Bush, vol. 2

Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by max, Nov 11, 2005.

  1. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    Actually, for a lie by President Bush about the war with Iraq. And it is not "beyond the items I had already posted here." Nothing you have posted in this thread has even attempted to show that your President lied.

    And therin lies the problem. ChicagoJack accuses his President of being a liar, yet does not have any evidence to back up the claim. Most people have the evidence before making the accusation.

    Since the premise for your question was obviously false, as demonstrated by your own references.

    I suspect it had something to do with the fact that top Democrats, with access to the intelligence your President did, were saying the same kind of things:

    "The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda."
    -- Sen. Rockefeller, Feb 3 2003

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    Although the link between Saddam and al Qaeda was not the case for the war, it was WMD, Democratic senators with access to the intelligence were telling the American people there was a link. Maybe you "knew it was all smoke and mirrors", but that's probably because you didn't have the intelligence Hillary and Rockefeller did.

    As I said, politics is an adverserial system. One side puts forward the case for a proposition, the other side puts for the case against it. In the case of the war on Iraq, both sides were saying the same thing, so it is not surprising that many Americans thought that there was this connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, and some of them overestimated how strong the link was.
     
    #51
  2. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    It doesn't. "ChicagoJack" has no evidence of that. This appears to be some kind of distraction strategy. Just keep repeating "Bush lied", when challenged, change the topic.

     
    #52
  3. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    ChicagoJack then changed his "fact" from:

    "Fact: At the time of the 2004 elections, as much as 70% of the American voting public actually believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved with the 9/11 tragedy."

    to

    "Fact: In 2003, as much as 70% of the American public believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved with the 9/11 tragedy."

    My "concern" is that you don't check your "facts", or even the references for your "facts" before posting.

    When your President makes a misstatement, you call it a lie. You say "it at least shows complete disregard for the truth".

    You seem to apply a different standard to your own statements.
     
    #53
  4. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    You're completely deluded. Bush Lied. Here's just a few of his whoppers (and come back here and tell me that these are ALL lies, like your banned buddy Gary Britt):

    Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

    Speaker: Bush, George - President

    Date: 9/26/2002

    Quote/Claim:
    "You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam.” [Source: White House Web site]"

    Fact:
    "Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.” - National Journal, 8/9/03"


    Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

    Speaker: Bush, George - President

    Date: 9/23/2003

    Quote/Claim:
    "The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.” [Source: White House Web site -- Speech to UN]"

    Fact:
    "CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam. - NY Times, 1/15/04

    Nearly a year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq, no evidence has turned up to verify allegations of Saddam's links with al-Qaida, and several key parts of the administration's case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful. Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league. - Knight-Ridder, 3/02/04"

    Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

    Speaker: Bush, George - President

    Date: 9/17/2003

    Quote/Claim:
    "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” [Source: White House Web site]"

    Fact:
    "Declassified documents undercut Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to al Qaeda.” - LA Times, 7/19/03"

    Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

    Speaker: Bush, George - President

    Date: 6/18/2004

    Quote/Claim:
    "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. [Source: Washington Post, 6/18/04]"

    Fact:
    "The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no ‘collaborative relationship’ between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.” - Washington Post, 6/17/04

    We simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all. - Bush Weapons Inspector David Kay, Boston Globe, 6/16/04"

    Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

    Speaker: Bush, George - President

    Date: 6/17/2004

    Quote/Claim:
    "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda.” [Source: White House Web site]"

    Fact:
    "Bush and Cheney also have sought to tie Iraq specifically to the 9/11 attacks. In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 — the day the war in Iraq began — Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.' - USA Today, 6/16/04

    The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001. - President Bush, 5/1/03

    [Iraq is] the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” - Vice President Dick Cheney, 9/14/03"

    Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

    Speaker: Bush, George - President

    Date: 2/8/2004

    Quote/Claim:
    "[Iraq] had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network. [Source: Meet the Press transcript]"

    Fact:
    "This assertion belies the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate which told the White House that Iraq would most likely only coordinate with Al Qaeda if the U.S. invaded Iraq. As the NYT reported, [A] CIA assessment said last October: 'Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks' in the United States. The CIA added that Saddam might order attacks with WMD as 'his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.' Previously, the CIA had told the White House that Iraq has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups. And David Kay himself said, I found no real connection between WMD and terrorists in Iraq. - NIE, 2002; NY Times, 2/6/02, 1/29/03; NBC News, 1/26/02"

    Topic: Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

    Speaker: Bush, George - President

    Date: 2/8/2003

    Quote/Claim:
    "Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.” [Source: White House Web site] "

    Fact:
    "The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no ‘collaborative relationship’ between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.” - Washington Post, 6/17/04

    We simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all. - Bush Weapons Inspector David Kay, Boston Globe, 6/16/04"


    http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702

    Just the tip of the iceberg, little buddy. You want MORE lies, from Bush and his cronies. The most dishonest administration in our history. You're too stupid or brainwashed to admit it.
     
    #54
  5. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    Then present the evidence. The evidence needs to be in two parts. First, show the statement to be false, second show that the speaker knew the statement to be false when he made it. Presenting 7 quotes, none of which even attempt to show part two is no evidence of a lie.

    <list snipped>

    I don't need to see an iceberg, I'm just asking you to show me some ice. No evidence of a lie yet shown.

    Please choose one statement, and we can go from there.
     
    #55
  6. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Some more whoppers on Iraq-backpeddling lies by Bush and his staffers...

    Topic: Iraq - Revising History
    Speaker: Donald Rumsfeld
    Date: 9/25/2003

    Quote/Claim:
    "Never said that [U.S. troops would be welcomed in Iraq]. Never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. You can't find, anywhere, me saying anything like either of those two things you just said I said. [Source: DOD Web site]"

    Fact:
    "'Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?' Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS' The News Hour. 'There is no question but that they would be welcomed,' Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces. 'Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the al-Qaida would not let them do. Saddam Hussein has one of the most vicious regimes on the face of the earth. And the people know that.' - Hearst News Service, 11/8/03 "

    Speaker: Condi Rice, Condoleezza
    Date: 7/30/2003

    Quote:
    "Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year [that Iraq acquires nuclear weapons]. [Source: PBS Web site]"

    Fact:
    "[Iraq] could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. - President George W. Bush, 10/7/02"

    Speaker: GW Bush
    Date: 6/1/2004

    Quote/Claim:
    "I haven't had any extensive conversations with [Chalabi]...I don't remember anybody walking into my office saying, Chalabi says this is the way it's going to be in Iraq. [Source: White House Web site]"

    Fact:
    "They're not going to develop [an Islamic extremist government in Iraq]. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment. - President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/13/04"

    Speaker: Rumsfeld
    Date: 5/14/2003

    Quote:
    "I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons. [Source: Congressional Hearing, reprinted in Slate]"

    Fact:
    "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 3/16/03"

    Speaker: Rice
    Date: 4/8/2004

    Quote:
    "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons. [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony]"

    Fact:
    "Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner into the summit, prompting officials to close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport. - LA Times, 9/27/01; White House Release, 7/22/01"

    Speaker: Paul Wolfowitz, Dty. Sec. Defense
    Date: 4/29/2004

    Quote:
    "I didn't say that [oil revenues would offset costs in Iraq], Congressman Kaptur. What I said was that, unlike Afghanistan, which has no sources of income, Iraq has potentially very large sources of revenue in the form of oil revenue. [Source: Congressional Testimony, reprinted in Atlantic Monthly]"

    Fact:
    "There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. - Testimony to House Approriations Committee, 3/27/03 (Reprinted in The Atlantic Monthly) "

    Speaker: Cheney
    Date: 4/29/1991

    Quote:
    "I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq. [Source: Washington Institute Web site]"

    Fact:
    "The United States and its allies, rather than the United Nations, will play the central role in keeping the peace and maintaining security in postwar Iraq, Cheney said Wednesday. - CNN, 4/9/03

    Nearly two months after President Bush declared victory in dramatic fashion from the deck of an aircraft carrier, and the Q-word – 'quagmire' – is back in the headlines. - Alternet, 6/24/03"

    Speaker: Rice
    Date: 3/22/2004

    Quote/Claim:
    "Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side. [Source: CNN Web site]"

    Fact:
    "According to the Washington Post, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET' that directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq. This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq. - Washington Post, 1/12/03; CBS News, 9/4/02 "


    Speaker: Rumsfeld
    Date: 3/14/2004

    Quote/Claim:
    "You and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase 'immediate threat.' I didn't...It's become kind of folklore that that's what happened. [Source: CBS Web site]"

    Fact:
    "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq. -Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02"

    Speaker: Bush
    Date: 2/8/2004

    Quote:
    "I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests. [Source: White House Web site]"

    Fact:
    "The President made far more dire statements before the war. While Bush did call Iraq a grave and gathering threat, that was not all he said. On 11/23/02, he said Iraq posed a unique and urgent threat. On 1/3/03 he said Iraq is a threat to any American. On 10/28/02 he said Iraq was a real and dangerous threat to America. On 10/2/02 he said, The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency and that Iraq posed a grave threat to America. - Bush, 10/2/02, 10/2/02, 10/28/02 11/3/02, 1/3/03"


    Speaker: Rumsfeld
    Date: 2/6/2004

    Quote:
    "I never said imminent threat, and I don’t know anyone who did say imminent threat, but there are a lot of people running around saying that word, but it was not used by the people in the Administration except, I’m told, by one assistant press officer who used it.” [Source: DOD Web site]"

    Fact:
    "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons. -Rumsfeld Testimony to House Armed Services Committee, 9/18/02

    I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something? - Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
    "
    Speaker: Bush
    Date: 2/2/2005

    Quote:
    "Other nations around the globe have stood with us….In the next for years, my Administration will continue to build the coalitions that will defeat the dangers of our time.” [Source: White House Web site]"

    Fact:
    "The once heavily touted 45-member coalition of the willing” list has been scrapped and replaced with a smaller roster of 28 countries with troops in Iraq sometime after the June transfer of power to an interim Iraqi government.” - Reuters, 1/21/06"



    Speaker: Bush
    Date: 1/20/2004

    Quote:
    "If we failed to act in Iraq, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. [Source: White House Web site]"

    Fact:
    "A revised CIA report titled Iraq: No Large-Scale Chemical Warfare Efforts Since Early 1990s, will state that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein gave up his chemical weapons program after the 1991 Gulf War. - AP, 2/1/05"

    Speaker: Bush
    Date: 1/12/2004

    Quote:
    "And, no, the stated policy of my administration towards Saddam Hussein was very clear. Like the previous administration, we were for regime change. [Source: White House Web site]"

    Fact:
    "President Bush ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an official told ABCNEWS, confirming the account former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill gives in a book written by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind. That went beyond the Clinton administration's [policy], said the source. - ABC News, 1/13/04"
     
    #56
  7. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    There's A LOT of ice below and above...you won't read it, obviously even though they are from the horses' mouths...I'm positive that you won't. You don't really believe the Bush administration was so in the dark that they didn't KNOW anything...that would make them total incompetents, but possibly not liars. Which is it-complete incompetence or complete lying sacks of garbage? One's just as bad as the other, but in fact, they are BOTH. Do yourself a favor and actually READ this. I know it's a lot to digest for a zombified Bushite, but give it a try. America's all about second chances.
     
    #57
  8. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    It's pathetic that when making an accusation as serious as your President being a liar, you can't even make a correct quotation of the statement you think is a lie. You do end your quote with a full stop. Not an elipsis, which you should have used, since you were actually only quoting part of a sentence.

    Here is the official record:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html

    "Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive."

    This in no way shows your President's statement to be a lie.

    You claim to present an overwhelming mass of evidence, yet when examined, the first "evidence" is a misleading partial quotation (at both ends of the sentence), presented as if it were the whole sentence, and then no evidence is presented either that the statement was false, or that the speaker knew it to be false when he made it.

    I'm not going to go through lists of hundreds of "quotations" one by one and refute each of them in turn. If you can show your President lied, please present one statement, and show that your President knew it to be false when he made it. And please try to do your own work, and check your quotations before posting.
     
    #58
  9. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    Please read my post where I look at your first "evidence". I posted it before I read your post.


    If you think that the statements you reference could have been incompetence, not lies, then you should not be calling people liars.

    I think the administration knew lots of things. They were neither incompetent, nor did they lie.

    Please select one statement, show the statement to be false, and show that the speaker knew the statement to be false when he made it.
     
    #59
  10. dickbarney

    dickbarney New User

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    48
    It is a shame that on Veteran's Day, George Bush, who got special priviledges to get out of going to a war that he supported and then was AWOL from the National Guard, chose to attack a veteran who did go to Vietnam.
     
    #60
  11. RacquetDoctor

    RacquetDoctor Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    383
    getting a bit tiresome folks...there has been so much spin on this I'm getting dizzy.

    The fact is that the media appears to have a great disdain for our current president, and any story that shows him in an unflattering light get printed. The basic mantra is to tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. There are many things that I disagree with the president on, but I have no doubt that he didn't 'lie' about anything.

    There is a good article in the WSJ today...Couldn't have said it better myself.

    Here is a link...actually quite a good read.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540
    [FONT=Garamond, Times][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Times][/FONT]
     
    #61
  12. FedererUberAlles

    FedererUberAlles Professional

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,420
    Dang, Phil is laying it down.
     
    #62
  13. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    The statements all indicate either lies, incompetence, a cover-up (lies to shield other lies) or all three. After, oh, about 1,000 or so of these, it's not necessary to show that the speakers "Knew" the statements to be false. They just aren't that dumb or misinformed-just malicious. You're hanging by a thread with your pathetic statements-the shiate is HITTING YOU IN THE FACE and you're STILL in denial.

    This administration gives new meaning to the word incompetent. They are a failure-you know it and I know it. Tell me with a straight face that this administration has had ANY successes...they have not. But they HAVE done an incredible job of creating zombies like you. I have never lived through a US presidency that garnered such stubborn and idiotic "loyalty", even in the face of OVERWHELMING failure. I'm sure that when Bush puts the knife in your stomach, you'll be claiming that he's really a stand-up guy and you're not actually being screwed over, even as your intestines start seeping out of your naval. Incredible at the stupid blindness of you people.

    Really, my hats off to the Stalin-like Bush PR machine. Kinda like a cult of personality, only, more successful, because you don't even get shot if you voice a negative opinion. It's mind boggling. That a hack failed businessman, AWOL AF reserve officer, semi-literate nose candy and booze-loving frat boy who's only capable of speaking in two and three-word sentences, and a mama's boy can generate that kind of blind, boot-licking loyalty is, well, it's quite an achievement. But it doesn't do much for the USA.

    As an American, you should love your country more than this hack, admit that massive mistakes were made and move on, changing leadership at the ballot box, which is how it should, and used to work.
     
    #63
  14. dmastous

    dmastous Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,132
    Why is there this constant attempt at turning statements of opinion and comparison as factual lie. When GW makes a connection between Al Queda and Iraq I've always taken it to be in a more general sense. The (always ill fated) friend of my enemy is my enemy concept. Al Queada did use Iraq soil for training camps. Hussian knew about the attack on 9/11 though he probably didn't have a hand in them. I have never thought Hussian directly responsible for 9/11 but he does have a history of supporting terrorist networks such as paying off suicide bomber's families.
    I supported the Iraq incursion, but see it now as a mistake, but I don't see it as a "lie". If you want to insult my intelligence or bash me for that opinion you are welcome to it.
    There has been a level of incompetence in this administration. There is definatly a growing 'throw money at the problem' tendecy which is worrisome. In fact it's getting scary. But if you want to talk about lies, you only have to go back to Bill Clinton's "I didn't have sex" lie under oath to define what a lie is. A lie is saying something you know to be false. Perhaps Bush had aids telling him there are no WMD in Iraq. Perhaps he didn't believe that to be the case considering the mountain of evidence supporting the WMD after the Gulf War and from the inspectors. I don't think he felt Iraq directly responisble for 9/11, but related in that they supported terrorism. His is a (however misguided) "War on Terror" not on Al Queda. I don't think I've heard anyone describe a war on Al Queda.
     
    #64
  15. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Huessain didn't know about 9/11-where is that written? Prove it. All Arab dictators support terrorist networks, but Hussein chose NOT to support AQ. He's certainly not an angel, but his methods did not involve covert attacks on US interests outside of Iraq. If you can name me one terrorist operation aimed at the West that he was behind, please do so, with sources please...Good luck.

    How can a country conduct a "War on Terror"-the very phrase is flawed. Terror is a concept; until we are able to zap the inside of terrorists and would be terrorists very thoughts, it's not possible. Therein lies the problem-the very conception of this "War" is a mistake. It IS a war on Al-Qa'eda-that is exactly what it is, whether or not it's described that way. But the civilians running the "War" are chasing the wrong people in the wrong places. The invasion of Iraq has CREATED more terrorists than it has killed/captured. Iraq, thanks to GW's idiocy, is now the major breeding ground for terrorists.

    The Iraqi "Incursion" as you call it, was BASED on lies. Cheney and Bush "massaged" the "intelligence" and forced Powell to read that drivel about the yellow cake purchases in Niger in front of a UN general assembly-NO ONE, especially Powell, believed that. The PLANNING for Iraq occured BEFORE 9/11-the go ahead for the invasion occured shortly after 9/11. They needed excuses-a premise-A LIE, if you will, to hoodwink Congress and the American people. If Iraq had a PROVEN WMD capability, then against WHOM would it be used? Once WMD proved a sham, and the "terrorist" links to Saddam fell through also (more lies), the only thing left to do to salvage "The War" was to annoint the US mission "Operation Iraqi Freedom"-although the freedom of the Iraqi people was third down on the list of lies for the invasion, in reality, the administration doesn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. It's freedom allright...30,000 Iraqi civilians have been freely dispatched to meet their maker.

    And I see you resort to the classic, LAME right wing tendency, when you don't have any other option, to GO BACK TO CLINTON. Yeah, it's all Slick WIlly's fault. You people never learn. It's not about Clinton.
     
    #65
  16. dmastous

    dmastous Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,132
    If you want to resort to name calling and insults you can have your ball. You win. I won't go down that road.
    I agree the "war on terror" is a mistake. I called it misguided and I felt that way the day it was first unveiled. For the same reasons you state. But it has never be stated as a war on Al Queda. I think the administration knew how hard it would be to capture Bin Laden and purposly chose not to make him the specific target. The media did their own thing. The media made it against Al Queda, the media made Bin Laden the target.
    As for Saddam Hussien's knowledge of 9/11, I will take a part of that back. He knew something big was going to happen. According to Con Coughlin in is bio Saddam: King of Terror, Saddam put his military on it's highest alert since the Gulf War and he retreated to his bunker in Tikrit the day of the attack. He was given something that caused him to make those moves. I don't read this as Hussien's "Connection" with Al Queda. And I don't blame him for not warning the US about whatever he had heard. But, he know something and prepared for reprecussions.
    The WMD's were cataloged by the inspectors after the Gulf War. The inspectors eventually tired of Hussiens games and left in '98. Did he do that because he didn't have WMD? Did he destroy them and NOT keep proof while the inspectors were gone for 5 years? Why not destroy them and show proof of it? Why continue to play games with the UN if he had nothing to hide?
    It's all a mishmash of spin and intrigue from all sides, and I got tired of it after a year or so. I'm tired of the spin from the administration and I'm tired of the spin from the media, and I'm tired of the spin from "Bush Lied" camp. It's all about power and money no matter which way you turn.
     
    #66
  17. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Hussein apparently dismantled his chemical weapons and incipient nuclear weapons program in the early 90's. Why didn't he show proof of that and get the US/UN monkey off his back? This is Saddam-not necessarily a rational actor. One theory is it was his "ace in the hole"-if he could BLUFF that he still had some firepower, he could continue to intimidate his neighbors and keep the West on edge. He's proven to be a very BAD gambler, and this was no exception.

    Yes, it's a mishmash of spin and intrigue, but WHAT side has the most reason to spin and intrigue? Really, when you use that phrase, what you're saying, at least as I interpret it, is basically, that this whole thing is based on a web of lies. And, I agree. Only, I wish the lies weren't accompanied by a total lack of competence. Nixon was a liar too, but damn, at least he got something DONE once in a while.
     
    #67
  18. tennis-n-sc

    tennis-n-sc Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,261
    Guys, in the time it has taken all of you to post this massive amount of jibberish, you could have had s*x 20 times. There is something seriously missing in your lives if you can take the time to post all this on a tennis web site. Grab a bottle, grab a gal and get a life. I know darn well you'll really like it if you try it.
     
    #68
  19. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    It's taken me around 20 minutes total, tops, and I can STILL have the bottle AND the gal. How long did it take you? Silly boy...This is some good sh-t and there's nothing wrong with chatting it out in the ODDS AND ENDS section...that is, unless you feel it more worthwhile to go back and forth (and back and forth) about the relative merits of the 16 x 18 stringbed or the amount of polyesther blend in the new Nike poloneck. Now THAT'S some deep stuff...
     
    #69
  20. mark1

    mark1 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    517

    there is also nothing wrong with debating the merits of a 16*18 or even a 18*20 stringbed either, so im not too sure exactly what your point is. There is nothing wrong with discussing tennis on a tennis forum. The name of the forum is after all Talk Tennis.
     
    #70
  21. mark1

    mark1 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    517
    last time i checked there was no requirement to post "deep", philosophical, thought provoking comments in order to be a member...some people just wanna talk about tennis.
     
    #71
  22. dmastous

    dmastous Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,132
    There is nothing wrong with any of it. Of course tennis related discussions are what this forum is all about. Howerever there is an "Odds & Ends' and a "Rants & Raves" section for this type of discussion.
    It's all about choice. We have a choice to discuss this topic in this area of the forum, and you have a choice to ignore all Bush/politic/non tennis related posts or threads. No-one will think any less of you for it.

    I was able to hide my ignorance until I opened my mouth and showed it.
     
    #72
  23. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    ...while others don't want to JUST talk about tennis, hence the ODDS AND ENDS section was created, for those of us who, although we love tennis, are capbable of discussing other subjects, too. Get it. If you don't LIKE that, then stay off this part of the board.
     
    #73
  24. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    Pathetic.
     
    #74
  25. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    In other words, you have no answer to this trail of lies and deception? Yeah, just what I thought.
     
    #75
  26. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    The record is there for everyone to see.
     
    #76
  27. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Yeah, it is, and I cut-and-pasted a small PIECE of it above. A failed war and a president and administration FLOUNDERING in its own pool of lies and deception. Tell me this War was done right, and tell me why, and then, if you can actually do that, I'll LMAO. Let's hear some more SPIN from the Bushite camp...

    "Mission Accomplished"
     
    #77
  28. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    I see you have studied Joseph Goebbels:

    "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
     
    #78
  29. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    I have studied him a bit-enough to know how badly this administration has LIED to the American people. Did you even READ what I posted? Dick-head Cheney is a good example... Even after the Saddam-9/11 connection had been debunked, he was making the connection in his speeches (in certain parts of the country), and, of course, getting cheers for mentioning it.

    I'm not at the point of comparing Bush to the Nazis, yet. That's just insulting to all those who were murdered by the Nazis, and unnecessary. I will say that you and your ilk are a bunch of sheeptards-you'll believe anything that Bill O'Reilly, Rush and Bush shove down your gullet. Too bad that the rest of us have to go down with the ship too-in fact, it sucks.

    It must be all Clinton's fault.
     
    #79
  30. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    I see you have studied Joseph Goebbels:

    "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

    When challenged to produce the evidence for your claims that your President lied, you refuse. Yet, knowing that there is no evidence for your claim, you repeat it in every post you make in this thread.
     
    #80
  31. GRANITECHIEF

    GRANITECHIEF Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,750
    Location:
    Santa Barbara
    Someone should do a poll on how many times they think Bush has ever strayed from the truth, LMAO!!!!

    In my unsubstantiated personal opinion, i cannot see or hear that joker without thinking what a complete idiot and buffoon he is and can't believe that there were enough conservative red staters to elect him for his last term (after he lost the first election, but managed to weasel in anyway).

    Hey Bush, how are your Saudi Arabian buddies doing these days? Any good terrorist attacks lately?
     
    #81
  32. andfor

    andfor Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    4,862
    The GOP has a good video they just put out about how the Dems are dishonest about Iraq. Take a listen and be an honest judge for yourself. Of course I am sure many leftwingers here won't believe a word just because it comes from the Republicans.

    http://www.gop.com/Default.aspx

    Enjoy
     
    #82
  33. thejerk

    thejerk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    472
    Saddam wasn't a danger because we believed he would launch missiles at us. He was a danger because he could hand money and or materials to enemies of the US. Are you people really arguing that Saddam Hussein was no threat. It's funny that you people are suddenly on Saddams side. I hear he needs some lawyers. Maybe yall can hold a fundraiser and call it the Bush Lied People Died Legal Fund. All preceeds go to the Saddam legal defense fund. Afterall, we are in an illegal war, isn't it your solemn duty to protect the victim here, Saddam Hussein.

    You people sound like Clinton and M. Halfbright arguing that North Korea is no threat as you help them build nuclear power plants. I hope you are comfortable in Japan Phil while Kimmy boy aims his Clinton supplied missiles at Japan. Remember Clinton also supplied the IBM tech to them as well. No wait, I guess he only supplied them to the chinese my bad.

    If you libs know so much about the terrorists why is it they managed to hit the US and US holdings so many times. Leftists around the world have given Bush a nuclear armed N. Korea, Pakistan, and Iran to deal with. What credibility have you in these matters anyway. Maybe we should hit Serbia again. That ought to make lefties happy. Hitting the serbs because they dare fight muslim expansionists ought to make them stop hating us, it worked last time right. Talk about "wag the dog."
     
    #83
  34. thejerk

    thejerk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    472
    Great post. Shows how silly you are. You are probably a democrat. You'd vote for the jokers that the "complete idiot and buffoon" could so easily dupe. What does that say about you and those you'd vote for? If you are so easily duped, your opinions on the war are meaningless.
     
    #84
  35. GRANITECHIEF

    GRANITECHIEF Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,750
    Location:
    Santa Barbara
    Yes, I am silly since i don't believe Bush is great. I am an independent, but i would vote on the Demo side anytime a buffoon like Bush was the other choice. You are making ASSumptions as to how i would vote? Have i duped myself? I form my opinions on what i see and experience, not by what others say. I haven't given any opinions on the "war".
     
    #85
  36. Camilio Pascual

    Camilio Pascual Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,825
    Good posts.
    I call this the "Fool or a Liar?" question. In this case, your answer of "both" seems correct.
    I supported the war and trusted the President's statements (which made me a fool) so I am partly responsible, I am appalled at the wrong information we were given.
    To me, the real question about Iraq is..."What should we do now?"
     
    #86
  37. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,265
    General Zinni speaks for me

    General Zinni speaks for me, I can't explain it any better than he can.

    General Anthony Zinni, Former Commander in Chief U.S. Central Command, Entire Middle East.

    Bio:From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen.Tommy Franks after. Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts -- special envoy to the Middle East. General Zinni joined the Marine Corps in 1961 , his assignments included service on battalion, regimental, division, base, special operations, and counter-terrorism. He has also been a tactics and operations instructor at several Marine Corps schools and was selected as a fellow on the Chief of Naval Operations Strategic Studies Group. He has made deployments to the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, the Western Pacific, Northern Europe and Korea. He has also served tours in Okinawa and Germany. His operational experiences include two tours in Vietnam, emergency relief and security operations in the Philippines, Operation Provide Comfort in Turkey and northern Iraq, Operation Provide Hope in the former Soviet Union, Operations Restore Hope, Continue Hope, and United Shield in Somalia, Operations Resolute Response and Noble Response in Kenya, Operations Desert Thunder, Desert Fox, Desert Viper, Desert Spring, Southern Watch and the Maritime Intercept Operations in the Persian Gulf, and Operation Infinite Reach against terrorist targets in the Central Region. He was involved in the planning and execution of Operation Proven Force and Operation Patriot Defender in support of the Gulf War and noncombatant evacuation operations in Liberia, Zaire, Sierra Leone, and Eritrea. He has also participated in presidential diplomatic missions to Somalia, Pakistan, and Ethiopia-Eritrea and State Department missions involving the Arab-Israeli conflict and conflicts in Indonesia. General Zinni's decorations include: the Defense Distinguished Service Medal; the Defense Superior Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters; the Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V" and gold star; the Purple Heart; the Meritorious Service Medal with gold star; the Navy Commendation Medal with Combat "V" and gold star in lieu of a second award; Navy Achievement Medal with gold star in lieu of a second award; the Combat Action Ribbon; the Vietnamese Honor Medal; the French National Order of Merit; and the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic. General Zinni holds a bachelor's degree in economics, a master's in international relations, and a master's in management and supervision.
    http://www.usmc.mil/genbios2.nsf/0/65AB0DA17487377285256A40007188D3

    General Zinni Quote 1
    “ The third mistake was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to create a false rationale for going in, to get public support. The books were cooked, in my mind. I mean the intelligence was just not there. I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations committee one month before the war, Senator Luger asked me... “General Zinni, Do you feel the threat from Saddam is eminent?” I said - No, not at all, Saddam is not an eminent threat, not even close, not eminent, not gathering, not grave, severe, not.... mildly upsetting....you know, none of those.” ( sound of laughter from audience )
    Zinni’s Speech to the Center For Information Board of Directors
    www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1912641

    General Zinni Quote 2
    “Much has been made, which confuses me, about un-manned arial vehicles. We monitored the L-29 program which was a trainer that he was trying to put chemical tanks on. He never once flew it, even manned. He usually crashed it, even manned. And in order to even hit Kuwait, he would have to bring it into the no fly zone, and launch it from an air base where we did’nt allow him to operate out of... and we would have taken it out, pre-emptively. We bombed him almost at will. No one in the region felt threatened by Saddam.
    Zinni’s Speech to the Center For Information Board of Directors
    www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1912641

    General Zinni Quote 3
    “The sixth mistake, and maybe the biggest one, was propping up and trusting the exiles .The infamous Gucci guerrillas from London. You know, we bought into their intelligence reports, to the credit of the CIA they didn’t buy into it, so I guess the Defense Department created its own boutique intelligence agency to vett them...these exiles did not have credibility inside the country, inside the region. Not only did they not have credibility, it was clear many times that the information they were providing to us was not correct, was not accurate. We also brought em with us and beamed em in to the governing counsel. The reception to this by Iraquis has, to say the least, not been great."
    -- Zinni’s Speech to the Center For Information Board of Directors
    www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1912641

    General Zinni Quote 4
    “And we contained Saddam, we watched his military shrink to less than half it’s size, from the beginning of the Gulf war intil the time I left command. Not only shrinking in size, but dealing with obsolete equipment, Ill trained troops, dissatisfaction in the ranks, alot of absenteeism. We didn’t see the Iraqis as a formidable force, we saw them as a decaying force. We couldn’t account for all the weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors that were in there had to assume that the weapons of mass destruction that were in the original inventory, that we could not account for, might still be there. So that was always a planning factor. But when you looked hard at that..these were artillery shells, rocket rounds, that he would have to be hiding somewhere.. that were getting old. If he had to bring ‘em out and us them...I mean think about this, he’s got to move them to artillery positions, to battery postions. Under total dominance of the air by the United States. I sure as hell would’nt want to be that battery Commander that got word that tommorrow you are going to get a truckload of chemical weapons to be stored in your area to shoot. Not under the air power we brought down."
    -- Zinni’s Speech to the Center For Information Board of Directors
    www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1912641

    General Zinni Quote 5
    “I think the first mistake that was made was the mis-judging the success of containment. I heard the President say not too long ago, I think it was on the Tim Russert Show... at some point I heard the President say that containment did not work. That’s... not true. I was responsible, along with everybody from General Schwartzkpf, his two sucessors and my successor, General Franks. We were responsible for containing him. And I’d like to explain a little bit about that containment because I thought we did it pretty well, under the circumsatances. And it began with Bush 41, accepting the U.N. Resolution to conduct the war, staying within the framework of the U.N. Resolution."
    -- Zinni’s Speech to the Center For Information Board of Directors
    www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1912641

    General Zinni Quote 6
    “The seventh problem was lack of planning. I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, right behind the panel from the State Department and the Department of Defense. And I listened to them describe a...quote ”plan”. I understood and knew that General Franks would do their part. I knew damn right well the security piece would be taken care of. I didn’t hear anything that told me they had the scope of planning for the political reconstruction, the economic reconstruction, the rebuilding of infrastructure. I think that lack of planning, the idea that you can do this by the seat of your pants, to make decisions on the fly - to beam in, just a handful of people at the last minute to do it was patently ridiculous. I my time at centcom we actually developed a plan, because I thought we the military would eventually get stuck with it. I my mind we needed formidable teams at every provincial level, eighteen teams. The size of the entire CPA is about the size we felt we needed for one province, let alone the entire country.
    -- Zinni’s Speech to the Center For Information Board of Directors
    www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1912641

    General Zinni Quote 7
    “In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."
    -- excerpt from the book “Battle Ready” co-authored by Zinni and Tom Clancy

    General Zinni Quote 8
    “I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there certainly -even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs, then they should bear the responsibility,”
    -- Zinni, during a nationally televised interview, CBS news, May 24, 2004
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

    - Jack
     
    #87
  38. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,265
    ...And a Little food for thought

    "We rarely think people have good sense unless they agree with us."
    -Francois de La Rochefoucauld, Maximes
    French author & moralist (1613 - 1680)

    [..]

    "If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the thinking."
    -Lyndon B. Johnson, 36th president of US (1908 - 1973)

    [..]

    "Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making."
    -John Milton, English poet (1608 - 1674)

    [..]

    Say not, 'I have found the truth,' but rather, 'I have found a truth.'
    -Kahlil Gibran Lebanese artist & poet in US (1883 - 1931)

    [..]

    "I think it would be a good idea."
    -Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization
    Indian ascetic & nationalist leader (1869 - 1948 )

    [..]

    "When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. "
    --Anais Nin

    [..]

    "Every two years the American politics industry fills the airwaves with the most virulent, scurrilous, wall-to-wall character assassination of nearly every political practitioner in the country - and then declares itself puzzled that America has lost trust in its politicians."
    --Charles Krauthammer

    [..]

    "Political chaos is connected with the decay of language... one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. "
    -- George Orwell

    [..]

    "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
    --John Kenneth Galbraith

    Best regards to all,
    -Jack
     
    #88
  39. tennis-n-sc

    tennis-n-sc Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,261
    Jack, I can't believe you are quoting LBJ instead of having sex. Good ole LBJ got about 60,000 young men and women killed with the great Gulf of Tonkin lie. All politicians are pieces of crap. I am a middle of the road independent that voted for W. becuse he had a pair and wanted to kill terroists. Can you imagine where we would be now if Kerry had been elected. I'm not happy with Georgie and wish we weren't in Iraq because Americans are being killed and maimed. No one can be happy to be in a war. However, we owe it to the men and women who have been there to establish our goals, attain them and get the hell out. But it doesn't matter when we leave, we'll be back. Syria and Iran will have to be handled, especially after France, Russia and Germany give them all the nucleur expertise they need to set off a weapon somewhere. But go ahead and try appeasment. It worked well Europe 60 years ago. I don't care who is president, I want my family's security honored. And if we have to go to war, I want the sons and daughters of all the members of the House and Senate to lead the lead the charge. Actually, every member of the House and Senate under 50 years of age should go as well. I'm sick of all of them. Whatever happened to decency and honor and doing what's right, no matter what the polls indicate? It hasn't been around since Harry Truman.
     
    #89
  40. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    I have studied ABOUT him-the history of **** Germany, of which he played a large role. And I have laid out a lot of information to back my claims, while you have produced NOTHING. It's easy to just say it's all "lies", but you cannot validly refute anything I've put down, because it is irrefutable-quotes from the principal actors themselves. The ball is in YOUR court now, spanky. You can't just blow it off and call ME the liar. Admit that you backed a loser and move on-that's the way to DEAL with it, rather than calling the people who merely point out the obvious, liars.

    The Goebbels quote is a perfect application to what the Bushwipes did to America-they lied about Iraq, among other things. They misled this country, and for that, over 2,000 brave Americans and 30,000 Iraqi civilians are dead and we're $250 billion further into the hole. What is ridiculous is that people are still hanging on to this Bushwipe fantasy. We're not going anywhere for the next 3 years, and the hole is just getting deeper and deeper.
     
    #90
  41. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Thanks, Camilio. I would disagree in labelling you a fool for supporting the president's statements. You believed your president, his closest advisors and the evidence they presented, which, on the surface, looked valid. How is anyone outside that circle supposed to know for sure? Your only "mistake" was believing in your leaders, people supposedly entrusted with US national security. They lied, and they handled the aftermath incompetently-their worst crime was betraying all of our trust.
     
    #91
  42. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    What kind of bizarre fantasy world do you live in?

    You made the claim that your President lied about Iraq. The burden of proof is on you to show a lie. I asked for one statement, and the proof that the statement was a lie. You posted a long, long, list. Not one. It's an old conversational terrorism technique: When asked for one example, post hundreds, knowing that the amount of work to check all the examples is prohibitive, and giving the impression to observers that when you do spend the time to take the issues one by one, that even if the one you're arguing about is not true, surely one of the others must be.

    I checked the first example, and posted the results:

    The first example was an incorrect quotation. In the original form, the statement is not even a statement that can be true or false per se. And the "proof" that the incorrect quotation was wrong did not even address the incorrect quotation.

    You should have checked the accuracy of the things you post yourself. If you didn't bother to check the first example, what are the chances you checked any of the others?

    I will not spend immense amounts of time going through lists of statements you cut and paste from the internet refuting each one in turn. If you have one statement you can show to be a lie, post it. Otherwise it will be clear to everyone reading this thread what you are full of.
     
    #92
  43. thejerk

    thejerk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    472
    Are you guys still arguing that Saddam was a good guy? Thank g*d for W. He is the only western leader that has the *alls to take the fight to the enemy. You guys would do Chamberlain proud. Why don't you liberals leave the foreign affairs to people that don't believe what communist thugs tell them. Perhaps Chirac has some ideas about keeping the homeland safe. Hell, why not go back to Carter who got this whole ball rolling by deposing the Shah. Don't wanna go back that far? Ok then lets go back to Uncle Bill the ******* you'd never leave your daughter alone with. He helped build the power plants in N Korea, and allowed Pakistan and Iran to become nuclear powers.

    What is all the cut and paste crap anyway? If you are trying to prove Saddam wasn't a threat all you'd have to do is pretend that he'd never hand money and equipment off to terrorists. Well, that might be kind of hard to pretend. Instead, let's pretend that we could have tracked his money. Well, that might be a little hard too. Instead, let's pretend that we could not only monitor his money but the money of his two demon spawn children as well. Are you lemmings actually pretending that Saddam was no threat to anyone.

    Why do you guys hate W so much? I think we should pull out of Iraq and show the world that we really were wrong. Let's give up. Why not? Why only promote general what's his name? Saddam was a general too. He told us he had no weapons didn't he? We should have listened before this hairbrained liberation happened. Now look at the mess. Coming up on 3 elections and what do we have to show for it. Just because a larger percentage of Iraqis show up to vote under threat of death than most western societies under no threats means nothing. Down with Churchill up with Chamberlain.

    Pascual, what wrong info? Please don't tell me Saddam sent envoys to africa to by onions and livestock from Uranium exporting countries. If you didn't have an opinion on Hussein before W assumed office, where have you been? How have the quizzlings managed to turn thinking people upside down? I'll have to admit that the dems are awful easy to fool though. Before Bush the North Koreans claimed they'd never build nukes with the plants we built for them. Why on earth would anyone believe the quizzlings who claim to be so easily duped?

    Give war a chance. Appeasement has never worked.
     
    #93
  44. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    That's right, Jerk...it's all Clinton's fault. No surprises there. Now tell us what has gone RIGHT about this war and why it is such a success.
     
    #94
  45. thejerk

    thejerk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    472
    Ok I have two things to start with. Although the twin towers are no longer standing they haven't been hit again. Like I mentioned before. We are coming up on 3rd Iraqi election. Ok just for the hell of it, I will give a 3rd. How many dictators do you think want to f**k with Bush or even flirt with Al Queda.

    Now I know someone will say, "Saddam had nothing to do with 911", they will have to admit those that did have something to do with it are busy else where.

    Phil, I'm sure you are aware that occupation is always one of the most dangerous parts of a war.

    Still in Japan Phil? Why don't I ever see you calling for the pullout of troops from Japan? I say pull out of germany, that ***** is no longer a danger. Socialism has pretty much made german's men impotent. Don't believe me, look up their birth rate. We are there now as a total welfare giveaway anyway right? Good for their shriveled economy, ya know? Call for the pullout of Germany Phil. We won't need to fight them again for 30 or 40 more years. Just enough time for the peace loving religion to take over. Power to Alucia(sp).

    Why don't we show them our bellies Phil? Like France Phil.
     
    #95
  46. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Do you even know why there is a US presence in Japan, Jerk? And do you know that JAPAN is paying for the US military bases as per its TREATY OBLIGATIONS? Some welfare-WHOSE welfare? As for Germany, we ARE pulling out-the US has closed a number of bases and is in the process of relocating them to more strategically positioned areas, like the former East Block countries. We'll NEVER need to fight Germany again.

    If you're calling me an "appeaser" than you are about as far off the mark as you can get-and for you that's very far. The US should take the fight to the agressor-always. But, dumbasses that the Bushwipes are, they attacked a country that posed little threat to it. Why aren't YOU calling for an all out invasion of N. Korea? Why aren't you, the classic fatass armchair general, decrying the criminal WASTE of military resources in Iraq that could have been used in other places-i.e. pursuing terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Western Europe?

    As for dictators who are "scared" of Bush, tell that to the new Iranian president, or Kim Jong Il-contrary to them being scared, they ARE f-ing with the US because the US is too engaged in a useless war elsewhere to really do anything about it.

    Dude, before you make idiotic statement, please try to brush up on your current affairs. But then again, you have all the information you need-you're a Bushwipe, so whatever the administration says, MUST be true. What a sucker.
     
    #96
  47. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,265
    [..]

    UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

    MINORITY STAFF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION

    IRAQ ON THE RECORD: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ

    (excerpt from page 20)

    "3. Claims about Mobile Biological Laboratories In April and early May 2003, military forces found mobile trailers in Iraq. [84] Although intelligence experts disputed the purpose of the trailers, Administration officials repeatedly asserted that they were mobile biological weapons laboratories. In total, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice made 34 misleading statements about the trailers in 27 separate public appearances.

    Shortly after the trailers were found, the CIA and DIA issued an unclassified white paper evaluating the trailers. [85] The white paper was released without coordination with other members of the intelligence community, however. It was disclosed later that engineers from DIA who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. [86] A former senior intelligence official reported that “only one of 15 intelligence analysts assembled from three agencies to discuss the issue in June endorsed the white paper conclusion.” [87]

    Despite these doubts within the intelligence community, the five officials repeatedly misled Congress and the public about the trailers by asserting without qualification that they were proof of Iraq’s biological weapons program. President Bush made perhaps the most prominent misleading statement on this matter when he proclaimed:

    "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them." [88] "


    -Source
    United States House of Representatives. Iraq on the Record, See page 20
    http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

    -Jack
     
    #97
  48. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    1. "Misleading statement" is not the same thing as "lie".
    2. Where does the quote say the trailers were proof of Iraq's biological weapons program?
    3. Which statement in your quote do you think is a lie?
     
    #98
  49. mucat

    mucat Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,072
    Location:
    king size donut bed
    Hence the problem here, you can't attack other country because the country COULD hand money and or materials to enemies of the US. If every country follow this rule, we will be fighting WWIII right now. Reminded me of the southpark episode shooting at wide animals as long as you scream they are coming at you.
     
    #99
  50. winks

    winks Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    279
     

Share This Page