View Full Version : Bush Bashing
Azi Tohak
08-01-2005, 13:31
I bet you were surprised to see me with a title like that huh? ~:)
Anyway, here is another article for your perusal:
Bush Bashing Fizzles By Michael Barone
Wed Jul 27, 4:59 PM ET
This summer, one big story is replaced by another--the London bombings July 7, the speculation that Karl Rove illegally named a covert CIA agent, the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, more London bombings last week. But beneath the hubbub, we can see the playing out of another, less reported story: the collapse of the attempts by liberal Democrats and their sympathizers in the mainstream media--the New York Times, etc., etc.--to delegitimize yet another Republican administration.
This project has been ongoing for more than 30 years. Richard Nixon, by obstructing investigation of the Watergate burglary, unwittingly colluded in the successful attempt to besmirch his administration. Less than two years after carrying 49 states, he was compelled to resign. The attempt to delegitimize the Reagan administration seemed at the time reasonably successful. Reagan was widely dismissed as a lightweight ideologue, and the rejection of his nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 contributed to the impression that his years in office were, to take the title of a book by a first-rate journalist, "the Reagan detour." As time went on, as the Berlin Wall fell and Bill Clinton proclaimed that the era of big government was over, it became clear that Reagan was a successful transformational president--something the mainstream media grudgingly admitted when he died in 2004 after a decade out of public view.
You think they'd learn. But for the past five years, the same folks have been trying to undermine the presidency of George W. Bush. The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore was denounced as an outrage, and Democrats noted, accurately, that Bush did not win a plurality of the popular vote in 2000. The nation rallied to his support after September 11, but Democrats held up his judicial and other nominations even if they had to violate Senate tradition to do so. Coverage of Bush during the 2004 campaign was heavily negative; for months the mainstream media mostly ignored the swift boat vets' charges against John Kerry and broadcast accusations against Bush based on forged documents eight weeks before the election. News of economic recovery in 2003 and 2004 was pitched far more negatively than it had been when Bill Clinton was president in 1995 and 1996.
Now the unsupported charges that "Bush lied" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have been rekindled via criticism of Karl Rove. A key witness for the Democrats and mainstream media was former diplomat Joseph Wilson. Unfortunately for his advocates, he turned out to be a liar. A year after his famous article appeared in the New York Times in July 2003 accusing Bush of "twisting" intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a bipartisan report, concluded that Wilson lied when he said his wife had nothing to do with his dispatch to Niger and Chairman Pat Roberts said that his report bolstered rather than refuted the case that Saddam Hussein's Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa. So despite the continuing credulousness of much of the press, it appears inconceivable at this point that Karl Rove will be charged with violating the law prohibiting disclosure of the names of undercover agents. The case against Rove--ballyhooed by recent Time and Newsweek cover stories that paid little heed to the discrediting of Wilson--seems likely to end not with a bang but a whimper.
Court intrigue. So, too, with the political left's determination to defeat Bush's first nominee to the Supreme Court. Democrats, with much help from the press, argued successfully in 1987 that Robert Bork was out of the mainstream and in 1991 brought up spectacular charges that cast a pall on Justice Clarence Thomas. They seem almost certain not to have such success against the obviously highly qualified John Roberts. They may try to argue that Roberts is "out of the mainstream." But the vote on Roberts's nomination to the appeals court was 14 to 3 in the judiciary committee. Who is in the mainstream now?
The bombings and attempted bombings in London have brought home to the American public that we face implacable enemies unwilling to be appeased by even the most emollient diplomacy. Yet, mainstream media coverage of Iraq has been mostly negative. But mainstream media no longer have a monopoly; Americans have other sources in talk radio, Fox News, and the blogosphere. Bush's presidency is still regarded as illegitimate by perhaps 20 percent of the electorate. But among the rest, the attempt to delegitimize him seems to be collapsing.
at http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/bushbashingfizzles;_ylt=AhD9Y.8ixLGSPC5HdQTWabOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-
I'm glad it is not just me, living in a box (i.e. no TV), that has seen this.
Azi
Productivity
08-01-2005, 14:56
Re. the title. Bush bashing is stupid. I don't like a lot of the things he does, but I criticise things that are serious. Those who bash him for anything, no matter how frivulous only diminish the effect of the serious claims against him, which is stupid.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-01-2005, 15:14
Clinton lies about banging a chick, he gets impeached."
Well Clinton is a proven liar all you have against Bush is accusations.
Well Clinton is a proven liar all you have against Bush is accusations.
Clinton is a proven liar about is private life...
Bush is a proven liar on military and state matters.....or are you still accepting the "fact" that iraq had WMDs? ~D
now you can pick and choose which one you think is worse.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-01-2005, 15:55
Bush is a proven liar on military and state matters.....or are you still accepting the "fact" that iraq had WMDs?
Now that is a lie. So you are the liar here not Bush.
Now that is a lie. So you are the liar here not Bush.
do tell...... ~;)
still waiting for those massive stockpiles of WMD´s tough....
oh were, oh were
have those wmd´s gone
oh were, oh were
can they be?
but he´s not a liar?....riiiiight ~D
Gawain of Orkeny
08-01-2005, 16:06
do tell......
still waiting for those massive stockpiles of WMD´s tough....
What has that got to do with anything. If what you claim could be PROVEN Bush would certainly be impeached. Dont hold you breath waiting because it aint going to happen. Again you need to check the definition of lying.
Productivity
08-01-2005, 16:10
Gawain is right, for him to be lying he must have known that what he was saying is false. There may be a case for negligence, but I don't think there is one that he lied.
Gawain is right, for him to be lying he must have known that what he was saying is false. There may be a case for negligence, but I don't think there is one that he lied.
ok...ok....not lying
let´s see if i can come up with a better term.
"alternative truth", uhm..let me think of another one..."veracity empaired" ~D
I agree that if you are going to bash him, it has to be something serious. Less "Bush is stoopid!" and more "Bush lied to congress and started a war--nothing happens. Clinton lies about banging a chick, he gets impeached."
Well that's cause it's the USA where violence, destruction, and death are not only acceptable but recomended. But sex is dirty bad and evil and should never be spoken of in public.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-01-2005, 16:53
Downing Street Minutes (www.afterdowningstreet.org)
Once more if you could prove that Bush sent us to war under false pretexts then he could and should be impeaced. I dont see it happening.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-01-2005, 16:55
Richard Nixon, by obstructing investigation of the Watergate burglary, unwittingly colluded in the successful attempt to besmirch his administration. Less than two years after carrying 49 states, he was compelled to resign.
LOL! Poor Nixon, driven out of office by an unjust smear campaign.
I'm not in favor of bashing, but I'm not in favor of hypocrisy either.
Byzantine Prince
08-01-2005, 17:16
What has that got to do with anything. If what you claim could be PROVEN Bush would certainly be impeached. Dont hold you breath waiting because it aint going to happen. Again you need to check the definition of lying.
The only reason it's not hapening is that there were CIA "reports" saying that Iraq had WMD's, which were, how shall I say, enhanced by the administration, in order to start a war and so they make all the money money from the oil and war contracts. In my opinion that's not really lying either, because we'll never know for sure if Bush was in on the scam.
But I mean there is some pretty unmistakable PROOF that he and Cheney are getting filthy rich from the war that they started for the wrong(as far as we are concerned) reasons. How does one reconcile with that? IMO that's reason enough to put them all in jail for crimes. Need I remind you that 1700+ americans are dead because of Bush's aledged f-up?!?!
As an American, i'll sorta agree with that.
IMO, both should be acceptable. ~:cheers: Wage war on our neighbors, and free porn for all.
~:cheers:
As a Canadian I'm down with that. Pass the ammunition and the porn mags this way.
~:cheers:
Also Bush will never go through the same shit that Clinton did as to use a french term Bush isn't cohabitating and Clinton was. The french say cohabitating when the president is of a different political party than the prime minister. And during Clintons impeachment the congress was controlled by the republicans
Strike For The South
08-01-2005, 19:05
As an American, i'll sorta agree with that.
IMO, both should be acceptable. ~:cheers: Wage war on our neighbors, and free porn for all.
~:cheers:
Thats been my postion on our country my whole life ~:cheers:
Al Khalifah
08-01-2005, 20:07
I don't see why anyone thinks George Bush is stupid.
This guy was (according to the same people who like to call him stupid) able to mastermind a conspiracy on a previously unheard of scale to put himself in the Whitehouse despite not winning the most votes.
And then he was able to win again!
If George Bush is so stupid, all these supposedly intelligent people should be President of the Universe by now or something.
George W. Bush was thrilled at finally being able to spend his first night in the White House, but something very strange happened.
On the very first night, he was awakened by George Washington’s ghost. Bush asked the ghost, “President Washington, what is the best thing I could do to help the country?”
“Set an honest and honorable example, just as I did,” advised Washington.
With all the excitement of the White House, Bush still couldn’t sleep well, and then, later on that night, the ghost of Thomas Jefferson moved through the dark bedroom. “Tom, what is the best thing I could do to help the country?” Bush asked.
“Cut taxes and reduce the size of the government,” Jefferson answered.
Bush still couldn’t sleep well, so much later, on the same night he saw another ghostly figure moving in the shadows.
It was Abraham Lincoln’s ghost.
“Abe, what is the best thing I could do to help the country?,” Bush asked.
Lincoln replied, “Go see a play.”
George, Laura, and Jenna Bush are flying on Air Force One. George looks at Laura, chuckles and says, "You know, I could throw a thousand-dollar bill out the window right now and make someone very happy."
Laura shrugs her shoulders and says, "Well, I could throw ten $100 bills out the window and make ten people very happy."
Jenna says, "Of course then, I could throw one hundred $10 bills out the window and make one hundred people very happy."
The pilot rolls his eyes, looks at all of them and says to his co-pilot, "I could throw all of them out the window and make 56 million people very happy."
George W. Bush recently went to a primary school in Sedgefield to talk to the children about the war. After his talk he offered "question time." One little boy put up his hand, and the President asked him his name.
"Billy!"
"And what is your question, Billy?"
"I have three questions: First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? And third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?"
Just then the bell rang for lunchtime. George W. Bush informed the kiddies that they would continue after lunch.
When they resumed, the President said, "OK where were we? Oh that’s right, question time. Who has a question?"
A different little boy put up his hand and George pointed him out and asked his name.
"Steve!"
"And what is your question, Steve?"
"I have five questions: First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? Fourth, why did the lunch bell sound 20 minutes early? And fifth, what happened to Billy?"
Don Corleone
08-01-2005, 23:04
I don't see why anyone thinks George Bush is stupid.
This guy was (according to the same people who like to call him stupid) able to mastermind a conspiracy on a previously unheard of scale to put himself in the Whitehouse despite not winning the most votes.
And then he was able to win again!
If George Bush is so stupid, all these supposedly intelligent people should be President of the Universe by now or something.
Oh come on now, Al Khalifah. Republicans are simultaneously insipidly stupid and malevolent masterminds of evil. Example? Ronald Reagan was the dumbest man ever born (or since the last Republican leader) yet simultaneously managed to secretly negotiate with the Iranian terrorists, while governor of California, mind you, and convinced them to hold the hostages for 3 extra months to win the election. :dizzy2:
Say what you want to about Republicans, at least they're consistent. Clinton was, is and always will be a dirtbag and dishonorable cur of the first order. Snappy dresser though.
Oh come on now, Al Khalifah. Republicans are simultaneously insipidly stupid and malevolent masterminds of evil. Example? Ronald Reagan was the dumbest man ever born (or since the last Republican leader) yet simultaneously managed to secretly negotiate with the Iranian terrorists, while governor of California, mind you, and convinced them to hold the hostages for 3 extra months to win the election. :dizzy2:
You know it is interesting to look back. I was a child when Reagan was president and I knew little of politics. Yet, I knew from what I heard that the man was actually a blithering idiot who was probably incapable of tying his shoes. Honestly, the amount of spinning that went on back then was incredible. To me, at least, it speaks to the influence of the MSM.
I don't see why anyone thinks George Bush is stupid.
This guy was (according to the same people who like to call him stupid) able to mastermind a conspiracy on a previously unheard of scale to put himself in the Whitehouse despite not winning the most votes.
And then he was able to win again!
If George Bush is so stupid, all these supposedly intelligent people should be President of the Universe by now or something.
anyone that has head dubya speak for more than 5 minutes knows he is one of 2 things:
1- a total moron
2- the greatest actor on the world...because he can pull nº 1 perfectly 24/7
i can´t really see any advantage that a smart guy could gain from playing dumb for so long(except to make the nascar dads like him) so i´m going out on a small limb and assuming nº1 is the truth.
as for how he did all that...
you think any presidential candidate or president do everything themselves?
ever heard of publicists? speech-writers? puppeteers?(ups...vice-presidents..my bad) ~D
Azi Tohak
08-02-2005, 00:07
anyone that has head dubya speak for more than 5 minutes knows he is one of 2 things:
1- a total moron
etc...
Well, to be honest, I can't speak in public either (good thing this is all written isn't it). So, if not being able to speak is the sign of being 'a total moron', time for me to join the Left Wing Club and get everything I'll ever need (decided for me by my intellecuamacal superiors from Ivy league skools [since as everyone knows, those graduates are some of the brightest minds in the world]). All I have to do is give up my rights to speak anything other than the party line, my paycheck (wait, since I'm a moron, can't I just go on welfare?), and any sense or right or wrong.
Sweet, sign me up!
Azi
Don Corleone
08-02-2005, 00:36
Well, to be honest, I can't speak in public either (good thing this is all written isn't it). So, if not being able to speak is the sign of being 'a total moron', time for me to join the Left Wing Club and get everything I'll ever need (decided for me by my intellecuamacal superiors from Ivy league skools [since as everyone knows, those graduates are some of the brightest minds in the world]). All I have to do is give up my rights to speak anything other than the party line, my paycheck (wait, since I'm a moron, can't I just go on welfare?), and any sense or right or wrong.
Sweet, sign me up!
Azi
YOU MORON!!!! :furious3:
Just kiddin. ~D I don't know why, but ever since I played Vice City, that has become one of my favorite phrases (from where Lance Vance is yelling at the flunky who forgot to set the detonators on the bombs at the mall in 'Copland').
PanzerJaeger
08-02-2005, 02:57
Plenty of propaganda in this thread. Not only is there the typical "bush is dumb" rhetoric, but you guys have worked in some anti-americanism in there too.. nicely done. :bow:
#1
Bush is a proven liar on military and state matters.....
#2
Well that's cause it's the USA where violence, destruction, and death are not only acceptable but recomended. But sex is dirty bad and evil and should never be spoken of in public.
#3,4
The only reason it's not hapening is that there were CIA "reports" saying that Iraq had WMD's, which were, how shall I say, enhanced by the administration, in order to start a war and so they make all the money money from the oil and war contracts. In my opinion that's not really lying either, because we'll never know for sure if Bush was in on the scam.
But I mean there is some pretty unmistakable PROOF that he and Cheney are getting filthy rich from the war that they started for the wrong(as far as we are concerned) reasons. How does one reconcile with that? IMO that's reason enough to put them all in jail for crimes. Need I remind you that 1700+ americans are dead because of Bush's aledged f-up?!?!
Bush constantly outplays liberals and it pisses them off. They tried the same hack job on Reagan and Bush 1. It never works, because most Americans realize liberal propaganda for what it is - BS. In fact, the only reason Clinton won wasnt because America wanted to turn to a democrat, but because Ross Pero split conservatives.
Oh, and anyone who thinks public speaking is the bench mark for intelligence shows their own lack of it. :no:
Byzantine Prince
08-02-2005, 03:04
Not only is there the typical "bush is dumb" rhetoric, but you guys have worked in some anti-americanism in there too.. nicely done.
Panzer where was I anti-american and where did I say that Bush is dumb? Seriously I just pointed out the FACTS. And the FACTS are that Bush has made more then 200,000,000 dollars(some documentery I saw on CBC) from the war contracts and building contracts. Not to mention Dick Cheney did trade with Iraq and Iran through the Cayman islands and is still profiting from that.
Yeah! :egypt:
KukriKhan
08-02-2005, 03:04
Let's go easy on the personal insults, even as a joke...you know how I get.
Azi Tohak
08-02-2005, 05:09
Panzer where was I anti-american and where did I say that Bush is dumb? Seriously I just pointed out the FACTS. And the FACTS are that Bush has made more then 200,000,000 dollars(some documentery I saw on CBC) from the war contracts and building contracts. Not to mention Dick Cheney did trade with Iraq and Iran through the Cayman islands and is still profiting from that.
And you know what? You know what? I saw a documentary that Clinton eats live chickens! Wait...or was that Ozzie?
Anyway, saying you saw something matters about as much as consulting with the local witch-doctor and then writing a post on here in blood. I want you to prove your accusations. (Or at least a reputable link to check out.)
a la:
http://www.providence.edu/polisci/students/clinton_pardons/high_profile.html
http://www.mishalov.com/Clinton_IndefensiblePardon.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010120/aponline135239_000.htm
(Mmm..sleazy)
But I don't mean this (which is actually funny and scary):
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/billclintonscriminalbackground.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8425/CLINROCK.HTM
http://www.republicanandproud.com/hysteria.htm
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/politics/clintondraft.asp
(It is amazing what you can find when you type: bill clinton dirty money into yahoo.)
My point is that you can make anything sound good. So now, prove this:
But I mean there is some pretty unmistakable PROOF that he and Cheney are getting filthy rich from the war that they started for the wrong(as far as we are concerned) reasons.
Azi
Byzantine Prince
08-02-2005, 05:33
And you know what? You know what? I saw a documentary that Clinton eats live chickens! Wait...or was that Ozzie?
Anyway, saying you saw something matters about as much as consulting with the local witch-doctor and then writing a post on here in blood. I want you to prove your accusations. (Or at least a reputable link to check out.)
Ok, gladly!
link (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/video.html)
Click on video where it says:
THE UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY OF DICK CHENEY
Watch it! It'll open your eyes to that beloved administration. Mark my words: one day if there is any justice in the world they will all be sitting in jail or be dead from execution.
There is rarely a trial where you have inconclusive proof. That's why we have juries, who decide based on the available evidence. And that's what the Senate does in an impeachment, IMO. Presidents have been impeached for less than this, and I have no doubt that if there wasn't so much corruption in the white house right now, he'd be out on his ass.
Just a bit of historical fact - no President has ever been impeached. Two have been given an impeachment trails by the senate and accquited in 1868 and 1999- and one resigned before he could be impeached - 1973.
http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm
Azi Tohak
08-02-2005, 05:58
Watch it! It'll open your eyes to that beloved administration. Mark my words: one day if there is any justice in the world they will all be sitting in jail or be dead from execution.
Dead for what? Being a scum bag? (Sorry, I could only watch 20 minutes, time for bed.) All politicians are, BFD. Your hatred of Bush and Cheney springs from the war? The fact that they are wealthy? The fact they could use their positions to increase their wealth?
And I am getting really tired of hearing about Halliburton (I stopped right after that portion). They are the best in the world at what they do. They were contracted to do something no one else could. So be it. Cheney was smart enough to get himself rich by manipulating events when he was out of the White House? Good for him. Where do you think money comes from?
But also, this guy is the Canadian (I'm assuming that is what the CBC.ca is) equivalent of our National Enquirer. You're a fool to believe he and what he shows is the whole truth. But I needn't say any more on that.
I am looking forward to the third movie down, the one about Right vs Left here. But tomorrow. I'll try and stomach the rest of this, but I don't know if I can. Maybe he is right about everything. Maybe he is the most honest man since Jesus (or if you don't believe in him, Clinton), but because of what he does, I cannot believe him as much as you seem to.
Thank you for your source though.
Azi
PanzerJaeger
08-02-2005, 06:56
LoL BP, the CBC told you Bush made 200 million dollars off the iraq war and you believed it!? :wreck:
Do you really think if the CBC had any credible evidence of any of the corruption they scream about the US media would pick it up and run with it? Do you know how hostile most of the MSM is toward republicans?
Im not even going to go into the bias of the CBC.. Id just like you to offer any evidence of your claims besides "I saw it on the TV".
Ps. After having a look at that CBC site, its no wonder so many Canadians are so anti-conservative.. Moyers would die to be able to show such bs on PBS. :shame:
KafirChobee
08-02-2005, 08:11
Hmmmm, think something got lost in the mail here.
Bush makes himself an easy target for bashing, playing emperor and ignoring the rules of our democracy (or bending them a tad - 'til they are shaped into what he wants; or using measures originally put inplace for a president to fill a vacancy in an emergency versus fulfilling a political promise) allows the bashing to be that much easier. Admit, he's not the brightest bulb on the tree. He is our president, however (stolen or not), and that makes him fair game for anyone to evaluate the motives behind the actions he perpetrates or sponsors (for his sponsors).
Taking a $200billion (yearly) surplus and turning it into a +350billion deficit (a year - not including the cost for Iraq over the next century) is quite a remarkable feat. That Cheney's (and his) old cronies are making a killing financially - well, that is true. After all, Haliburton has been guaranteed a contracts to build 14 permanent military bases in Iraq (that btw is known knowledge and if you don't know it, then you have ignored the news - USN&WR, reported on CBS, and ABC ... not sure about NBC - NoBodyCares).
We are talking about a spoiled child (BushII), someone who has everything in his favor, and when someone disagrees with one of his "policies" - he throws a hissy fit and sends his goon squad out to attack them. In a personal and christian manner of course.
Look at his record. What has he actually done for the USA? Other than weaken us. BTW, I gotta bunch of references, will go correlate and post'em tomorrow. Still, anyone with his eyes open must see the "slippery slopes" he has put us on (rendition, the approval of torture, classification of "all" documents in "all" agencies, the defence of criminals that support him [Rove, Rush, DeLay, etc.] ... must be nice to be king.
~:handball:
Don Corleone
08-02-2005, 12:30
Sorry, I really didn't mean anything by that. He said 'well if being bad at public speaking makes somebody a moron, sign me up as a moron'. I couldn't resist. Azi, please, take no offense, and if I had any idea how to get the little vignettes off of the Vice City CD's, I'd post it so we could all get a chuckle at Lance Vance coming unglued.
Going to trial is being impeached. Being impeached is not the actual act of being kicked out, it's the act of being brought to trial.
Yes, your are right I am off on the defination of impeachment - but then I was going off of the basis of how the impeachment process and its conviction are defined.
Impeachment by the United States Constitution consists of two phases the levying of an impeachment process by the house and the trail by the Senate.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm
Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate. The vice president presides over the Senate proceedings in the case of all officials except the president, whose trial is presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. This is because the vice president can hardly be considered a disinterested party—if his or her boss is forced out of office he or she is next in line for the top job!
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html
The article above lists the details in easy to read format for what the United States House of Representives charged the President for in the Impeachment document - and why the Senate failed to convict the President of an Impeachable offense.
Your comment of Presidents have been impeached for less than this, and I have no doubt that if there wasn't so much corruption in the white house right now, he'd be out on his ass.
Was primarily what I was responding to - since you claimed Presidents have been impeached for less. For the impeachment to be complete the process must end in a conviction by the Senate. That was the historical fact was what I was responding to - not just the leving of an impeachment by the House. If we want to be completely accurate - only two presidents have been impeached by the house and no presidents have been convicted of impeachment by the Senate. Edit: By the way it does not matter how much corruption is in the white house - since its the House that must pass the articles of impeachment. So part of your statement should be directed at the House of Representives - not the white house.
Johnson was impeached by the House because he challenged the constitutionality of a lawed by by Congress when he attempted to fire the Seceratary of War without the approval of the Senate. That latter in time by about 50 years the law that was passed by Congress was ruled unconstitutional and repealed makes for an interesting discussion about the constitutionality of Johnson's impeachment and trail. But his impeachment was the result of a direct conflict of interests between Congress and the office of the President. Not as you alledged Presidents have been impeached for less than this
Clinton was impeached because he committed perjury on the stand along with a few other charges. Notice how the history of impeachment proceding is written for his trail.
The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment.
Once again Clinton was impeached by the House because he committed perjury in a court of law - an act of intentional lying in fact. Which again is not as you alledged Presidents have been impeached for less than this
Now if your arguing about the impact of his actions - then we can discuss that direction. However making bad decisions is not an impeachable offense by the defination of the Constitution. Making decisions off of information that latter shows to be inaccurate or incorrect is not an impeachable offense by the constitution.
However if you want to discuss the history of impeachment - by all means start a new thread - about why President Bush should be impeached because of the impact of his decisions - however to claim Presidents have been impeached for less is slightly disengenous [SP?) of you is it not?
From the United States Constitution.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
.......
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law
Bush lied in front of congress, and brought a nation to war as a result. I fail to see how Clinton's charge could be anywhere close to that.
First you have to prove that President Bush lied - making statements that he knew were false intentionally. That has not been shown.
President Clinton has been shown to make statements in the court of law that were intentionally false - ie a lie.
Once again, the judicial process is pretty straightforward. Congress can look at the available evidence and decide whether or not it is conclusive.
Sure it is - and why hasn't Congress done this exact thing - prove that he lied?
Its not because of corruption in the White House as you alledged - its either because it does not exist in enough evidence to support an impeachment vote in the house - or its because the House of Representives - like the Senate - have failed in their responsiblities.
Which ever one it is - once again - the to be impeached one must first prove that President Bush lied - something that has yet to be proven.
It's because the Senate has to be led around by the nose these days. They don't take their own initiative, and this is in large part due to corruption. A competent senate would have looked at the evidence thus far and come to a conclusion, for good or ill.
The senate does not bring charges of impeachment - that is the house's responsiblity.
The Senate and the House allow themselves to be lead around by the nose - and its been done - as stated in another thread - long before the current administration.
Thats why I am disappointed that Congress could not impose term limits on themselves when it came to a vote several years back. And those who ran on self-imposed term limits have been proven to be lairs - and they still get voted in by thier constitutes.
The article has no credibility, it is based on the premise that Dems are out to get W, but it neglects two important facts.
First, W has made no attempt to work in a bi-partisan manner. His legacy will be that of power politicals, one side beats all. The Dems have no interest in supporting a President who has clearly demonized them, worked to undermine Dem successes, worked to ensure that Dems have little to no say in our future.
Second, the Republicans spent all 8 years of the Clinton Admin bashing him. The cacophony was so loud that he was sometimes unable to focus national attention on important issues, always getting dragged back into whitewater or the blue dress.
This is politics. Unfortunately American politics has become an exercise in power not cooperation. Special interests now dominate our decision-making process, which has become ridden with waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption.
But this guy won't report on that. He'll write a stroy that makes it look like the Dems are the only ones who have ever criticized a sitting President, and that they are wrong to disagree with such a noble man as W.
This is another propaganda piece, with little credibility.
ichi :bow:
The article has no credibility, it is based on the premise that Dems are out to get W, but it neglects two important facts.
Yes the article has no credibility - except in one point. Which admittly the author went above the actual reality of it to make a point.
we can see the playing out of another, less reported story: the collapse of the attempts by liberal Democrats and their sympathizers in the mainstream media--the New York Times, etc., etc.--to delegitimize yet another Republican administration.
Yes indeed both parties are out to demonize the other side.
First, W has made no attempt to work in a bi-partisan manner. His legacy will be that of power politicals, one side beats all. The Dems have no interest in supporting a President who has clearly demonized them, worked to undermine Dem successes, worked to ensure that Dems have little to no say in our future.
I would however state that the democratic party has done this to themselves just as much or more so then anything the President and the adminstration has done to them.
Second, the Republicans spent all 8 years of the Clinton Admin bashing him. The cacophony was so loud that he was sometimes unable to focus national attention on important issues, always getting dragged back into whitewater or the blue dress.
Yep - and like you have alreadly notice that the Republicians are doing the same thing that the Democrates were doing during Clinton's adminstration. Dirty demonizing politics from both sides. Look at the first election where everyone was saying President Bush stole the election. Both sides are being hypocrits on this. Pointing out the Republician hypocrisy while ignoring the Democratic hypocrisy is just as bad as the author of this article in my opinion.
This is politics. Unfortunately American politics has become an exercise in power not cooperation. Special interests now dominate our decision-making process, which has become ridden with waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption.
Yes indeed we need to fire all the politicians and start over.
But this guy won't report on that. He'll write a stroy that makes it look like the Dems are the only ones who have ever criticized a sitting President, and that they are wrong to disagree with such a noble man as W.
This is another propaganda piece, with little credibility.
ichi :bow:
Yep it sure is - that is way I focused on the arguements used in the thread and not the hyrocrisy in the article.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-02-2005, 17:03
A competent senate would have looked at the evidence thus far and come to a conclusion, for good or ill.
A competent senate would have thrown Clinton out of office.
Why's that? The man was a good president. Many of his failings can be blamed on the Republicans who wouldn't let him do his job.
Using another one of your arguements in this thread to prove a point.
How many people died because Bush lied about WMDs? Over 1200 americans, and alot more Iraqis and Afghans. How many people died because Clinton lied about boning Lewinski? None, that I know of.
and
A competent senate would have looked at the evidence thus far and come to a conclusion, for good or ill.
Well take a look about what was happening in Europe at the same time the scandel about Lewinski was going on. There were some Americans killed in preparing to go to Kosovo, and then there were some bombings done on the China Embassy - among others.
So let me see if I have this right. Lets Impeach and convict Bush for doing something that has not been proven as a lie, but give Clinton a pass and say its the Congress fault for his problems in office, for basically doing the same thing (if the lie part is proven) because the matter of degree is different?
Yes. You don't run a country on principle; degree is everything. Circumstance is everything.
A lie is a lie - no matter what the circumstances. An abuse of power is an abuse of power - no matter what the circumstances. If you find Presidnet Bush at fault for a lie (which is not proven - but only an allegation by some) and give President Clinton a pass for telling a proven lie - then your arguement is hypocritical.
Don't do as I do, do as I say. The oldest hypocritical arguement in the world.
Edit: The variance in degree equates to how much the individual is punished for his actions - but the actual activity is still the actual activity. Extenuating and midigating(SP on both words) is what you are talking about. The principle is exactly what laws are based upon - and yes indeed the principles of law is what runs the country.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-02-2005, 17:25
The man was a good president.
One of the worst in US history.
Many of his failings can be blamed on the Republicans who wouldn't let him do his job.
The only things he did right and gets credit for were those bills that he was forced to sign kicking and screaming by congress. If not for congress he would have no accomplishments to speak of at all.
Sorry, maybe I'm just missing something here but.. how can you argue that circumstances don't matter? Bush's lies aren't just a wee bit worse than Clinton's, their of such more severity that it is like comparing ants and elephants.
Edit: Again Bush has not been shown to be a lair - that is only opinion as of right now. So yes indeed we are comparing ants and elephants. Bush supposed lies (ant) CLinton proven lies (elephant).
Circumstances matter only in how the punishment will be dealt out for the actions of the President once he is impeached and convicted . So no circumstances do not matter for imposing the impeachment or the conviction. Because the principle of the activity - ie the crime that warrants an impeachment is based upon set conditions being meet. Clinton meet those conditions in the eyes of the Congress at the time as was impeached - the Senate did not convict him.
Circumstances, the situations, and how to midigate the punishment comes into being after the trail and conviction take place. Circumstances can be used to state an aquital of a crime. For instance the individual under prosecution shows that in order to defend their life they had to kill in self defense. Clinton can not show that type of circumstance now can he?
However you seem to be wanting to give Clinton a complete pass on his behavior - while saying Bush is wrong for (in your opinion) for doing the exact same thing Clinton was proven to have done. That is a hypocritical arguement - or in this case do what I say to do, not as I do.
I don't think Clinton's "crime" was worth an impeachment, no. A predident's sexual habits have no bearing on his ability to hold office.
Clinton's impeachable offense was lying on the stand in a civil trail and to a grand jury. Those are impeachable offensives under the the Constitution. And Clinton did the the exact same thing that you are accusing President Bush of - and Clinton was proven to have lied.
Your basing your arguement purely on relativity - not the actual principle of the law. If you believe Bush should be impeached for telling what you believe is a lie - but give Clinton a pass for actually lying - then your arguement is hypocritical and based upon partisan politics.
Clinton lied and was impeached. Prove Bush lied beyond any reasonable doubt and I will call for his impeachment. The Downing Memo might be a good start - but its hearsay evidence which must be investigated by going to the parties involved and then going to the sources which were at the actualy State Department meeting which the memo is refering to. Without that type of investigation - the Downing Street memo is nothing but hearsay. And any attorney could get it dismissed from a hearing or a trail.
Edit: I by no way think he is a great president - neither Bush or Clinton - but an impeachable offense must be something that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt before it gets pass the House and into the Senate for a Trail. Your accusations of Bush Lied and should be impeached is just that an accusation that has not been proven.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-02-2005, 18:23
I don't think Clinton's "crime" was worth an impeachment, no. A predident's sexual habits have no bearing on his ability to hold office.
Perjury however is a crime. Also if a presidents sexual habits include rape I would suggest that is a crime worthy of impeachment. You guys are always trying to pass this off as we think sex is why he should be impeached. He could have taken the 5th but he chose to look the american people and congress straight in the eye and LIE.
Perhaps I'm just a believer in relativity then. The law should not be followed to the letter when it becomes obstructive to it's own purpose.
The law should be followed to the intent of the law - the punishment for breaking the law should be based upon the relativity of the situation, circumstances, and the reasoning behind the individuals breaking of the law.
Azi Tohak
08-03-2005, 05:18
Sorry, I really didn't mean anything by that. He said 'well if being bad at public speaking makes somebody a moron, sign me up as a moron'. I couldn't resist. Azi, please, take no offense, and if I had any idea how to get the little vignettes off of the Vice City CD's, I'd post it so we could all get a chuckle at Lance Vance coming unglued.
No, you're quite alright with me. I rather liked my little tirade. But I know I'm not the easiest person in the world to understand when I speak, so claiming someone is an idiot when they cannot speak in public really pisses me off.
But I must admit, I almost feel bad breaking up that lovely little menage-a-trois with GC, RedLeg and Gawain... but then... methinks that part is over for now.
Anyway, it is nice to hold up person X as the exemplar of great politics... but lets be honest, politics has always been about power. Why else play? You want to make lives better? Great. Good luck getting into office. Sad but true.
Azi
Red Harvest
08-03-2005, 15:45
Can't say that I really see the point of the original article. Dubya is amazing, his whole life he has gotten a pass on everything he has done. It gets brought up, but is ignored. Dubya is a poster child for the excesses of children of extreme privilige, connections and money keeping them out of real trouble that he's gotten himself into. Makes for a lousy president though...
More important than the bashing is Dubya's record. I can't see any major initiative he has had that wouldn't have been done far better by someone else--especially when looking at numbers like the deficit, and in Iraq. He has polarized the nation and his administration has the credibility level of Nixon, perhaps less internationally. He is downright neanderthal on energy policy and climate change and has not done anything I can identify to stimulate direct investment in areas that will help this country move forward. It's an administration being run by looking in the rear view mirror.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-03-2005, 15:50
Well if your looking for a Bush basher you cant beat Red Harvest. All you spout is opinions not backed up by facts. Bye the way Im still waiting for a list of Clintons accomplishments in the Nixon-vs Clinton thread. Maybe you can find 1 ~;)
Red Harvest
08-03-2005, 15:57
One of the worst in US history.
You mean Dubya, right? When we look back on this administration, history will be quite unkind to it, and for very good reasons. Historians already rank Dubya near the bottom of U.S. presidents...
The only things he did right and gets credit for were those bills that he was forced to sign kicking and screaming by congress. If not for congress he would have no accomplishments to speak of at all.
Clinton did quite a lot right. He was moderate, despite efforts to paint him differently. The nation was properous under Clinton.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-03-2005, 16:01
You mean Dubya, right? When we look back on this administration, history will be quite unkind to it, and for very good reasons. Historians already rank Dubya near the bottom of U.S. presidents...
Again this is merely your opinion the same as mine on Clinton. I however have manty facts to back mine up.
Clinton did quite a lot right. He was moderate, despite efforts to paint him differently. The nation was properous under Clinton.
Please go to the Clinton vs Nixon thread. That has all been covered. Thats hardly an accomplishment of his. He was only seen as moderate because he had a republican congress.
PanzerJaeger
08-03-2005, 16:07
Historians already rank Dubya near the bottom of U.S. presidents...
Who?
Red Harvest
08-03-2005, 16:12
Again this is merely your opinion the same as mine on Clinton. I however have manty facts to back mine up.
:dizzy2: Having seen some of the things you posted from blogs as "facts" you would be on very shakey ground. Opinion or not, I can point to hard numbers and indisputable fact: No WMD, no Omar or Osama in custody/or dead, a 2 trillion dollar error (and counting) on the budget, energy prices (remember that "energy policy?"), etc.
Please go to the Clinton vs Nixon thread. That has all been covered.
A humor thread? Hardly, LOL.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-03-2005, 17:50
Having seen some of the things you posted from blogs as "facts" you would be on very shakey ground.
Maybe you could be a bit more specific. I dont agree with everything in every article I post.
Opinion or not, I can point to hard numbers and indisputable fact: No WMD,
False
no Omar or Osama in custody/or dead, a 2 trillion dollar error (and counting) on the budget, energy prices (remember that "energy policy?"), etc.
This hardly backs your claims.
A humor thread? Hardly, LOL.
Humor? Read it I doubt you wil be laughing or is this just a dodge to avoid the question?
Alexander the Pretty Good
08-03-2005, 20:44
I'm seriously curious, Harvest: what did Clinton do to make the US prosperous during his terms?
Azi Tohak
08-04-2005, 00:13
I'm seriously curious, Harvest: what did Clinton do to make the US prosperous during his terms?
Well... he paid hookers, his VP invented the internet, his brilliant monetary sense got the investments going in the internet and we all know how well THAT worked out. But that was Bush's fault right? The DOW and NASDAQ suddenly dropped what... 10000 points the day he was inagurated right?
Azi
Uh, gawain, you're being unecesarrily contrary now. There are no WMDs in Iraq, and there were none when we invaded. Clinging to that justification is just reactionary.
None - so explain the Sarin Gas Artillery shell that was used as an IED and failed to actually work correctly for several reasons- the first being that the sarin was over 10 years old - the second reason being that the two agents did not mix - because the shell is designed to mix the agents in flight.
Or can you explain the precruser that was found in serval locations, or how about the Duefer Report findings.
Was it in the amounts necessary to justify the President's and PM Blair's reasons for invading - well that is up to the individuals personal opinion.
However since the cease fire treaty and the UN resolutions stated that Iraq was to have No WMD - even the one round is by defination enough to techincially justify the invasion.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-04-2005, 02:04
Then you are seriously out of touch and should be more careful of what you post. Its all quite common knowledge. If yiu had daud tey didnt find the stockpiles of WMDs that were supposed to be there then I wiuld have had to agree with you but to say there were none is just wrong
Hers one. If you would like more just let me know.
Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq
Monday, May 17, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.
Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered.
Two people were treated for "minor exposure" after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News.
"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy."
The round detonated before it would be rendered inoperable, Kimmitt said, which caused a "very small dispersal of agent."
However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war.
Click to Read the Weapons of Mass Destruction Handbook
A senior Bush administration official told Fox News that the sarin gas shell is the second chemical weapon discovered recently.
Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an IED. Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) — a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction — and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."
They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas.
It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News.
An official at the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) headquarters in New York said the commission is surprised to hear news of the mustard gas.
"If that's the case, why didn't they announce it earlier?" the official asked.
The UNMOVIC official said the group needs to know more from the Bush administration before it's possible to determine if this is "old or new stuff. It is known that Iraq used sarin during the Iraq-Iran war, however.
Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam's government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war (search). Experts believe both the sarin and mustard gas weapons date back to that time.
"It was a weapon that we believe was stocked from the ex-regime time and it had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell set up to explode like an ordinary IED and basically from the detection of that and when it exploded, it indicated that it actually had some sarin in it," Kimmitt said.
The incident occurred "a couple of days ago," he added. The discovery reportedly occurred near Baghdad International Airport.
Washington officials say the significance of the find is that some chemical shells do still exist in Iraq, and it's thought that fighters there may be upping their attacks on U.S. forces by using such weapons.
The round was an old "binary-type" shell in which two chemicals held in separate sections are mixed after firing to produce sarin, Kimmitt said.
He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited.
The shell had no markings. It appears the binary sarin agents didn't mix, which is why there weren't serious injuries from the initial explosion, a U.S. official told Fox News.
"Everybody knew Saddam had chemical weapons, the question was, where did they go. Unfortunately, everybody jumped on the offramp and said 'well, because we didn't find them, he didn't have them,'" said Fox News military analyst Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.
"I doubt if it's the tip of the iceberg but it does confirm what we've known ... that he [Saddam] had weapons of mass destruction that he used on his own people," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News. "This does show that the fear we had is very real. Now whether there is much more of this we don't know, Iraq is the size of the state of California."
But there were more reasons than weapons to get rid of Saddam, he added. "We considered Saddam Hussein a threat not just because of weapons of mass destruction," Grassley said.
Iraqi Scientist: You Will Find More
Gazi George, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist under Saddam's regime, told Fox News he believes many similar weapons stockpiled by the former regime were either buried underground or transported to Syria. He noted that the airport where the device was detonated is on the way to Baghdad from the Syrian border.
George said the finding likely will be the first in a series of discoveries of such weapons.
"Saddam is the type who will not store those materials in a military warehouse. He's gonna store them either underground, or, as I said, lots of them have gone west to Syria and are being brought back with the insurgencies," George told Fox News. "It is difficult to look in areas that are not obvious to the military's eyes.
"I'm sure they're going to find more once time passes," he continued, saying one year is not enough for the survey group or the military to find the weapons.
Saddam, when he was in power, had declared that he did in fact possess mustard-gas filled artilleries but none that included sarin.
"I think what we found today, the sarin in some ways, although it's a nerve gas, it's a lucky situation sarin detonated in the way it did ... it's not as dangerous as the cocktails Saddam used to make, mixing blister" agents with other gases and substances, George said.
Officials: Discovery Is 'Significant'
U.S. officials told Fox News that the shell discovery is a "significant" event.
Artillery shells of the 155-mm size are as big as it gets when it comes to the ordnance lobbed by infantry-based artillery units. The 155 howitzer can launch high capacity shells over several miles; current models used by the United States can fire shells as far as 14 miles. One official told Fox News that a conventional 155-mm shell could hold as much as "two to five" liters of sarin, which is capable of killing thousands of people under the right conditions in highly populated areas.
The Iraqis were very capable of producing such shells in the 1980s but it's not as clear that they continued after the first Gulf War.
In 1995, Japan's Aum Shinrikyo (search) cult unleashed sarin gas in Tokyo's subways, killing 12 people and sickening thousands. In February of this year, Japanese courts convicted the cult's former leader, Shoko Asahara, and sentence him to be executed.
Developed in the mid-1930s by Nazi scientists, a single drop of sarin can cause quick, agonizing choking death. There are no known instances of the Nazis actually using the gas.
Nerve gases work by inhibiting key enzymes in the nervous system, blocking their transmission. Small exposures can be treated with antidotes, if administered quickly.
Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat.
Fox News' Wendell Goler, Steve Harrigan, Ian McCaleb, Liza Porteus, James Rosen and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
I never heard about any of those. Got something to back that up?
Yes In fact I do - Here is just the first article from a google search titled "Sarin Gas IED Iraq"
http://cshink.com/sarin_mustard_gas_discovered.htm
The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy."
From the same article.
Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an IED. Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group ? a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction ? and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."
They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas.
There are others available also since the search had over 4000 hits.
There are others - this one claims to be an investigative report which mentions the precuser and other violations of the ceasefire and UN resolutions as it relates to WMD - but take it with a grain of salt since I suspect its more of an editorial then an investigative report
http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml
A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and "that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N." Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn't have a biological-weapons program?
"Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"
New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.
A line of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."
"Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N."
"Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] - well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates]."
In addition, through interviews with Iraqi scientists, seized documents and other evidence, the ISG learned the Iraqi government had made "clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-kilometer-range [807 miles] ballistic missiles - probably the No Dong - 300-kilometer-range [186 miles] antiship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment," Kay reported.
And then this one - again more baised then I like to use as a reference - but it links the reports I have read from other sites and remember from news broadcasts in 2004 when I happen to watch them.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/18/115119.shtml
Tuesday's Wall Street Journal reports that U.S. inspectors have found within the last few months "warehouses full of commercial and agricultural chemicals," which, if mixed and packaged properly, "could quickly become chemical weapons."
U.S. forces in Karbala have also recently uncovered 55-gallon drums loaded with chemicals that were said to be "pesticide," some of which were stored in what military sources described as a "camouflaged bunker complex."
Red Harvest
08-04-2005, 02:20
I wish I had a dollar for every time Fox news quoted some military source as saying they had evidence of WMD's in Iraq since the invasion began. I have yet to hear of one that wasn't repudiated later. Many of the screening tests kicked out false positives.
As it is, none of the official reports have found such evidence, and the Whitehouse backed off of its claims and admitted WMD wasn't found. Even if a single old round (or two) is found that isn't going anywhere to back the claims Dubya made before the invasion. Saddam's record keeping has been shown to be sloppy, and combined with secrecy and compartmentilization it is part of what made the U.N. verification of destruction nearly impossible. A round or two evading destruction wouldn't surprise me anymore than our (U.S) own problems with verifying the location of every last non-conventional warhead we have--an issue that arises from time to time.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-04-2005, 02:38
I wish I had a dollar for every time Fox news quoted some military source as saying they had evidence of WMD's in Iraq since the invasion began.
My you are such an idealog. So all those threads Redleg and I posted have been refuted have they. For once can you back up your claims or as usual are we to just belive your telling the truth here. I didnt know the AP worked for Fox News.
Azi Tohak
08-04-2005, 02:40
Ahem... gentlemen... I did not mean for this thread to actually follow its name...
Ah what the heck, this is fun!
Get all sorts of great links to actual facts (as opposed to theories [I love the CBC thing by the way])... I like this.
Azi
Red Harvest
08-04-2005, 02:59
My you are such an idealog. So all those threads Redleg and I posted have been refuted have they. For once can you back up your claims or as usual are we to just belive your telling the truth here. I didnt know the AP worked for Fox News.
From your own post
Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered.
Two people were treated for "minor exposure" after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News.
A senior Bush administration official told Fox News that the sarin gas shell is the second chemical weapon discovered recently.
You might want to do an internet search on recipes for crow.
I watched Fox quite a bit during the invasion and for months afterward. I was expecting confirmation of WMD (although I had some doubts after the Powell UN briefing revealed so little.) I wish I had counted all the excited reports I heard. It was raw, unfiltered stuff, certainly not given the scrutiny expected of the rest of the media. It all proved to be incorrect once better analysis was conducted.
Being that your link is well over a year old, it could be hard to even find any corresponding correction/retraction. Believe whatever you like, it is a free country...well, for now anyway.
P.S. Wouldn't know about Redleg's links. Who is that?
P.S. Wouldn't know about Redleg's links. Who is that?
Now that is very childish - its one thing to ignore - but since you decided to ignore no need to get stupid now is there.
But then when your a blinded idealog that is what is expected from some even though when they claim not to be.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-04-2005, 03:06
You might want to do an internet search on recipes for crow.
Why? I still havent seen any dispelling of what they reporeted by you or anyone else. I never said that Fox didnt report i, I said the AP also reported it as did every news program in the US. All your proving here is that you hate Bush. Fox News and conservatives and are a very biased person and far from the moderate you proport to be.
P.S. Wouldn't know about Redleg's links. Who is that?
Do you read these threads even before you post or only my replies? Look at the post before your last one for the answer.
Being that your link is well over a year old, it could be hard to even find any corresponding correction/retraction. Believe whatever you like, it is a free country...well, for now anyway.
In other words its your turn to eat crow. ~;)
Do you read these threads even before you post or only my replies? Look at the post before your last one for the answer.
Don't worry about it Gawain Red Harvest is just being childish it is really rather amusing since he has me on ignore and can't read my posts.
Red Harvest
08-04-2005, 03:23
Why? I still havent seen any dispelling of what they reporeted by you or anyone else. I never said that Fox didnt report i, I said the AP also reported it as did every news program in the US.
No, you said, "I didnt know the AP worked for Fox News." Since I was responding to your post, and you know I have Redleg on ignore, it should have been obvious.
In other words its your turn to eat crow. ~;)
"On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded that, "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability."
The date is after your links. Have fun with your crow. Haven't seen Redleg's posts, nor do I care to.
If you are going to go on sticking to the WMD claim, you are only deluding yourself. The evidence simply isn't there.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-04-2005, 03:33
No, you said, "I didnt know the AP worked for Fox News." Since I was responding to your post, and you know I have Redleg on ignore, it should have been obvious.
Your right the forst thing that popped into my mind is that you have Redleg on ignore. It just shows you immaturity. It truly amazes me how you made senior member while I havent. I guess it used to be easier. ~:) How you can out such a reasoned person as Redleg on ignore is beyond me.
"On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded that, "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability."
So then you admit you were wrong? Youve just said the same thing Fox did. Have you been paying attention at all to whats been posted here?
Posted by me just a few posts back.
If you had said they didnt find the stockpiles of WMDs that were supposed to be there then I wiuld have had to agree with you but to say there were none is just wrong
If you are going to go on sticking to the WMD claim, you are only deluding yourself. The evidence simply isn't there.
You too can learn to read. ~;)
Devastatin Dave
08-04-2005, 03:37
Red has Releg on ignore? What's up with that. I thought Red Harvest that you told us right wingers to be more open minded and look at other sources? Seems kind of, dare I say, hypocritical. You never know, reading opposing views instead of just preaching about how we on this side of the political spectrum are nothing more than Rush Zombies could even broaden your already incredible intelligence... ~:)
Red Harvest
08-04-2005, 03:58
How you can out such a reasoned person as Redleg on ignore is beyond me.
Funny, I failed to see reason coming from him. If he is with you on this WMD thing, then I rest my case.
So then you admit you were wrong? Youve just said the same thing Fox did. Have you been paying attention at all to whats been posted here?
You too can learn to read. ~;)
I'm still waiting for you to get to the reading comprehension side. The report itself says that of anything that *might* have been found, none of it was significant. The whole WMD invasion basis was false. It was already known that he had WMD before the first war, and that he had used them. That was not in doubt. The WMD invasion basis claims were that he was retaining them and/or producing/preparing to produce others. Finding a defective old round or two doesn't prove anything--even assuming that these two initial reports were never disproven (which is very hard to do a year later.)
Cling to your theory of justification based on the possibility of a couple of old/defective rounds after a nationwide search. Very few others are buying it. I'm certainly not. I certainly would have liked for the US to have found WMD in Iraq. While I support the removal of Saddam, the justification given was inaccurate. I find it shameful that we could not back our claims, and I hold our president responsible for that. Truman would have said "the buck stops here."
Devastatin Dave
08-04-2005, 04:06
Well Red, let me honor you with this response, my 4000 post!!!
We know he had them because we have the receipts!!! Thank you, goodnight!!! ~:)
4000!!!
4000!!!
Yes, i made 4000 post even though I've been warned and banned more than anyone except maybe BP!!! Hooray for the little guy!!!
Gawain of Orkeny
08-04-2005, 04:11
I'm still waiting for you to get to the reading comprehension side.
Ive never seem amyone accuse another so much of his own faults.
The report itself says that of anything that *might* have been found, none of it was significant.
Did I ever claim anything any different?
The whole WMD invasion basis was false. It was already known that he had WMD before the first war, and that he had used them.
Well I guess if you say so we all have to believe you. You certainly no more than the CIA and all the intelligence agencies around the world who stated the opposite.
The WMD invasion basis claims were that he was retaining them and/or producing/preparing to produce others.
And if that was what was stated you would be correct. Again the statement i replied to was that NO wmds were in Iraq.
Cling to your theory of justification based on the possibility of a couple of old/defective rounds after a nationwide search. Very few others are buying it. I'm certainly not.
I never said that it did. Your so hung up on this you dont even realise what Im saying.
While I support the removal of Saddam, the justification given was inaccurate
Thank you . You seem to be coming out of your stupor. Inaccurate is the right word not lie.
I find it shameful that we could not back our claims, and I hold our president responsible for that.
Maybe you never noticed but almost every one of us conservatives said that he went too far and that the WMD issue was not needed to invade Iraq. There was plenty of justification without it.
Funny, I failed to see reason coming from him. If he is with you on this WMD thing, then I rest my case.
LOL - that is funny - he got upset because I was using the same rhetoric style that he was using - and he cried foul when his own style was being used to counter his arguement. When you get so blinded by your own idealogical view point that you lose perspective - well then your just another pot calling the kettle black.
I'm still waiting for you to get to the reading comprehension side.
A prime examble - now if you do this back to him - he will claim you are being unreasonable.
The report itself says that of anything that *might* have been found, none of it was significant.
Depends how you want to define significant - one canister was a violation of the cease fire. Does not matter if it was old and stored incorrectly - the physical presence is evidence that the resolution and the cease fire was not honored.
The whole WMD invasion basis was false. It was already known that he had WMD before the first war, and that he had used them. That was not in doubt. The WMD invasion basis claims were that he was retaining them and/or producing/preparing to produce others.
The report by Duefer shows clearly that Saddam and his regime were maintaining the illusion that they were going to maintain WMD, and the capablity to produce them. However lets just ignre Duefer's conclusions.
Finding a defective old round or two doesn't prove anything--even assuming that these two initial reports were never disproven (which is very hard to do a year later.)
They haven't. The rounds were tested and the reports are out there for anyone to see.
Cling to your theory of justification based on the possibility of a couple of old/defective rounds after a nationwide search. Very few others are buying it. I'm certainly not. I certainly would have liked for the US to have found WMD in Iraq. While I support the removal of Saddam, the justification given was inaccurate. I find it shameful that we could not back our claims, and I hold our president responsible for that. Truman would have said "the buck stops here."
You might want to actually read the cease fire and the United Nations Resolutions - they clearly state that Iraq was to halt and destroy all chemical munitions. The presence of even one round - shows that the treaty was not honored to its full extent. Coupled with the other reasons stated by President Bush in not one but several speeches that were ignored by the media then the reasoning for war is there. Now justification is a different story - however it seems that many Democrates before the war were stating that it was necessary given the intelligence reports they had access to. (Many of these reports came from before 2001 - so claiming President Bush had them "sexed up" is not an honest arguement?)
President Clinton even believed Iraq had Chemical Weapons and is on record stating so. And he had access to the same intel as President Bush.
Again Blind hate and idealogical positions are the downfall of everyone.
bmolsson
08-04-2005, 04:20
Depends how you want to define significant - one canister was a violation of the cease fire. Does not matter if it was old and stored incorrectly - the physical presence is evidence that the resolution and the cease fire was not honored.
Come on, not even you believe that..... ~:grouphug:
Sasaki Kojiro
08-04-2005, 04:25
I've gotten lost. Is the debate still on whether Bush knew or did not know that there were no WMD in Iraq?
Red Harvest
08-04-2005, 04:46
Well I guess if you say so we all have to believe you. You certainly no more than the CIA and all the intelligence agencies around the world who stated the opposite.
Is that why they've admitted they screwed up? Not sure what the heck you are trying to say. He had WMD before Gulf War 1 and had used them against both Iraq and the Kurds. He did apparently destroy them as required by the treaty following the war. Many didn't believe it, and I was skeptical as well. However, "evidence" that was presented to the UN was startingly weak and actually introduced some doubt for me and my friends (including conservatives.) All of us agreed Saddam had it coming regardless, but that is a seperate matter.
And if that was what was stated you would be correct. Again the statement i replied to was that NO wmds were in Iraq.
So you are going to hide behind a couple of almost anecdotal finds--I've never seen real official verification--to state the WMD case wasn't false. As the official group stated, they didn't find anything significant. That is an admission that the WMD claims were not valid.
Thank you . You seem to be coming out of your stupor. Inaccurate is the right word not lie.
I believe that Dubya had the whole thing manufactured on flimsy evidence. Proving he knew it was a lie would be extremely difficult since every single point would have to be proven. Personally, it reeks of a lie to me. I don't think it really mattered to Dubya one way or another whether it was true. He has shown no real remorse over it.
Regardless of whether it was a lie or a screw up. The problem was at the top and he should be held accountable for it.
Maybe you never noticed but almost every one of us conservatives said that he went too far and that the WMD issue was not needed to invade Iraq. There was plenty of justification without it.
Maybe you never noticed but conservatives never had full ownership of that view either. Being the noisiest doesn't make you the sole representatives of that view.
Come on, not even you believe that..... ~:grouphug:
Of course I don't - but its a nice counter to the Bush lied arguement -
Azi Tohak
08-04-2005, 06:01
I've gotten lost. Is the debate still on whether Bush knew or did not know that there were no WMD in Iraq?
~D
Yes. And it will be until the Democrats win a presidential election.
Whoopeee! Another 20 years (okay 19) of hearing about this... sheesh.
Azi
Gawain of Orkeny
08-04-2005, 06:22
Is that why they've admitted they screwed up?
Well I would imagine so.Stupid Bush listening to the CIA and foriegn intelligence.
He did apparently destroy them as required by the treaty following the war.
Here you could not be more wrong. According to the treaty he had to demonstrate exactly what he destroyed and how and provide evidence that he did so. None of this was ever done by him. He was playing a dangerous game. Heres what I believe. He did destroy them but not untill after the first gulf war. He however didnt want his neighbors,Iran in particular to know that he had done so. Because of the oil for food scandal he never thought the US would launch an attack upon him as he had bribed the UN security council not to do so. gain though dont let the fact that your statement is totaly eronious bother you. It never seems to anyway.
Many didn't believe it, and I was skeptical as well.
But Bush knew better and lied right?
All of us agreed Saddam had it coming regardless, but that is a seperate matter.
No that is the main matter.
So you are going to hide behind a couple of almost anecdotal finds
No Im not I was perfectly clear. I said if you want to claim that the stockpiles of WMDs were not there as advertized you would be correct but to say that there were no WMDs in Iraq after the 1st Gulf war or that there were NONE in Iraq when we invaded is an outright lie.
That is an admission that the WMD claims were not valid.
Thanks for that information. I always thought we found millions of them there. Thanks for straightening me out. :dizzy2:
I believe that Dubya had the whole thing manufactured on flimsy evidence. Proving he knew it was a lie would be extremely difficult since every single point would have to be proven. Personally, it reeks of a lie to me. I don't think it really mattered to Dubya one way or another whether it was true. He has shown no real remorse over it.
In other words as usual all you have is your beliefs and a bunch of rhetoric with little or insufficient facts to back up what you claim.
Maybe you never noticed but conservatives never had full ownership of that view either.
So then what are you bitching about we agree?
Being the noisiest doesn't make you the sole representatives of that view.
Well I hear a lot of noise from you but I cant make any sense of it. ~D
bmolsson
08-04-2005, 16:50
Of course I don't - but its a nice counter to the Bush lied arguement -
Even if I am not a Bush fan, I don't think he lied with intent. I am pretty sure that he is a man that do what he believes in, even if it sometimes is wrong.....
Even if I am not a Bush fan, I don't think he lied with intent. I am pretty sure that he is a man that do what he believes in, even if it sometimes is wrong.....
That is something I can agree with ~:grouphug:
Sasaki Kojiro
08-04-2005, 17:09
I've gotten lost. Is the debate still on whether Bush knew or did not know that there were no WMD in Iraq?
Yes.
Ugh. I'm not psychic and that is the only way to know. How pointless.
Personally I think that:
To become president you have to have a drive to do what you think is best for your country.
No politician wants to say something and be proven wrong.
This makes it extremely unlikely that he knew.
Red Harvest
08-04-2005, 18:50
Gawain, none of your last response makes any sense, neither do any of your other statements on the WMD issue. FACT is that the basis given for invasion was FALSE. Play stupid semantics games all you like but 99% of the world and a large majority of Americans also realize the truth.
As for your continuing SPIN. I never said Saddam's record keeping was good and I've continually said that he was trying to keep the paper threat out there while complying with the requirement to destory the weapons. Go on all you like about it, but saying that the reason given for invasion was that his record keeping was insufficient.
You can try SPINNING this all you want, but it just makes you look ridiculous. The WMD menace was absent (no, a couple of lost rounds do NOT qualify as a significant threat), the justification given was false. Doesn't matter if you and I believe there was plenty of other justification, the fact is that our president went before the nation and the world with a false justification for a war. That is gross incompetence at best, and with downright deceit being likely based on statements that have been made by those involved. Perhaps it was only self deception, but the push made to the various intelligence communities was to help him make a case, NOT to uncover the truth.
Play stupid semantics games
Ah the pot calling the kettle black again it seems.
As for your continuing SPIN. I never said Saddam's record keeping was good and I've continually said that he was trying to keep the paper threat out there while complying with the requirement to destory the weapons. Go on all you like about it, but saying that the reason given for invasion was that his record keeping was insufficient.
Someone is so blinded by their own rhetoric that they can not see the truth any longer. By keeping the paper threat out there - by denying that the weapons were destoried - Saddam's regime was setting the conditions for the belief that the WMD still existed. And in fact your words show that you understand that Saddam was not complying with the ceasefire nor the United Nations Resolutions. And it seems again another case of the pot calling the kettle black - ie Spinning.
You can try SPINNING this all you want, but it just makes you look ridiculous. The WMD menace was absent (no, a couple of lost rounds do NOT qualify as a significant threat), the justification given was false. Doesn't matter if you and I believe there was plenty of other justification, the fact is that our president went before the nation and the world with a false justification for a war.
A false justification for war - oh boy - lets continued to spin the truth. For the justificiation to be false one must prove that the information used to support the case for the invasion was made up. Note: See your above quote - where you agree that Saddam and his regime were trying to show that Iraq still had the WMD. That in hindsight it has been shown that the WMD were most likely destroied - there is still plenty of unaccounted for materials.
Talk about Spin - someone needs to read their own posts before accusing others of spin. Its really rather funny don't you think?
That is gross incompetence at best, and with downright deceit being likely based on statements that have been made by those involved. Perhaps it was only self deception, but the push made to the various intelligence communities was to help him make a case, NOT to uncover the truth.
So are we going to blame Clinton for having the same intelligence estimates? Do we now forget that Clinton in the 1998-2000 time frame had the exact same conclusion about WMD as George Bush. You can rightly point out that President Bush might have been set on going to war with Iraq - but when the Intelligence community of not only the United States - stated that they beleived Iraq still had WMD or concluded that they just did not know. These reports exist back to the 1998 inspections when the inspectors were thrown out.
This is so funny - accusing others of spin when you don't have all the facts.
Oh by the way a quote to show that once again you are over generalizing the information in your blind idealogical rhethoric. Whats even funnier is that you wont read this because you have me on ignore - or even if you do read - you wont respond because I suspect you realize your arguement is full of contradiction and the pot callin the kettle black. Its been humorous however.
Gawain, none of your last response makes any sense, neither do any of your other statements on the WMD issue. FACT is that the basis given for invasion was FALSE. Play stupid semantics games all you like but 99% of the world and a large majority of Americans also realize the truth.
Even if I am not a Bush fan, I don't think he lied with intent. I am pretty sure that he is a man that do what he believes in, even if it sometimes is wrong.....
I know mods - I am right on the line of breaking the rules - and might have even crossed it - but this was just to good to pass up. Especially given that Red Harvest won't ackownledge this post anyway. Somebody that is so blinded by their idealogical hate, that I just could not resist showing the contradictions in his own post.
scooter_the_shooter
08-04-2005, 19:14
and a large majority of Americans
wrong most americans support the war but not the way its being fought (we need to be less PC is what they basically say)
Gawain of Orkeny
08-04-2005, 21:47
ell red Harvest I made a long reply to your post but my comp crashed . So ll just post what anoter member posted to refute you.
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Play stupid semantics games
Ah the pot calling the kettle black again it seems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red (blind Idealog) Harvast
As for your continuing SPIN. I never said Saddam's record keeping was good and I've continually said that he was trying to keep the paper threat out there while complying with the requirement to destory the weapons. Go on all you like about it, but saying that the reason given for invasion was that his record keeping was insufficient.
Someone is so blinded by their own rhetoric that they can not see the truth any longer. By keeping the paper threat out there - by denying that the weapons were destoried - Saddam's regime was setting the conditions for the belief that the WMD still existed. And in fact your words show that you understand that Saddam was not complying with the ceasefire nor the United Nations Resolutions. And it seems again another case of the pot calling the kettle black - ie Spinning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red (blind Idealog) Harvast
You can try SPINNING this all you want, but it just makes you look ridiculous. The WMD menace was absent (no, a couple of lost rounds do NOT qualify as a significant threat), the justification given was false. Doesn't matter if you and I believe there was plenty of other justification, the fact is that our president went before the nation and the world with a false justification for a war.
A false justification for war - oh boy - lets continued to spin the truth. For the justificiation to be false one must prove that the information used to support the case for the invasion was made up. Note: See your above quote - where you agree that Saddam and his regime were trying to show that Iraq still had the WMD. That in hindsight it has been shown that the WMD were most likely destroied - there is still plenty of unaccounted for materials.
Talk about Spin - someone needs to read their own posts before accusing others of spin. Its really rather funny don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red (blind Idealog) Harvast
That is gross incompetence at best, and with downright deceit being likely based on statements that have been made by those involved. Perhaps it was only self deception, but the push made to the various intelligence communities was to help him make a case, NOT to uncover the truth.
So are we going to blame Clinton for having the same intelligence estimates? Do we now forget that Clinton in the 1998-2000 time frame had the exact same conclusion about WMD as George Bush. You can rightly point out that President Bush might have been set on going to war with Iraq - but when the Intelligence community of not only the United States - stated that they beleived Iraq still had WMD or concluded that they just did not know. These reports exist back to the 1998 inspections when the inspectors were thrown out.
This is so funny - accusing others of spin when you don't have all the facts.
Oh by the way a quote to show that once again you are over generalizing the information in your blind idealogical rhethoric. Whats even funnier is that you wont read this because you have me on ignore - or even if you do read - you wont respond because I suspect you realize your arguement is full of contradiction and the pot callin the kettle black. Its been humorous however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red (blind Idealog) Harvest
Gawain, none of your last response makes any sense, neither do any of your other statements on the WMD issue. FACT is that the basis given for invasion was FALSE. Play stupid semantics games all you like but 99% of the world and a large majority of Americans also realize the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
Even if I am not a Bush fan, I don't think he lied with intent. I am pretty sure that he is a man that do what he believes in, even if it sometimes is wrong.....
Your becoming a standing joke amoung us conservatives it seems. Maybe this kind of rhetoric sufficed at TWC but theres no liberal gang banging going on here at the org.
I know mods - I am right on the line of breaking the rules - and might have even crossed it - but this was just to good to pass up. Especially given that Red Harvest won't ackownledge this post anyway. Somebody that is so blinded by their idealogical hate, that I just could not resist showing the contradictions in his own post.
That doesn't justify it. Who are you and Gawain to accuse someone of idealogical hate or describe someone as a laughing stock? IMO this thread is off topic, insulting to the intelligence of all and going no where. I despair of the Org moderators sometimes.......
Papewaio
08-05-2005, 01:19
BTW Bush Bashing is a term in Australia for going 4WD off road driving... as the Outback is termed The Bush as well, so you drive a 4WD throught the bush hence bashing it.
That doesn't justify it. Who are you and Gawain to accuse someone of idealogical hate or describe someone as a laughing stock? IMO this thread is off topic, insulting to the intelligence of all and going no where. I despair of the Org moderators sometimes.......
Didn't say it to justify it - I stated what I did so the Moderators understand that I know I might be playing on the edge of the rules and that is perfectly okay for them to sanction, ban, or otherwise do what they feel is necessary regarding my statement. It seems you misunderstood what the statement says because of your own views - that is your problem not mine.
However I don't see you criticising his over use of demonizing buzzwords now do we?
I find his attempts at buzzword demonization of the opposing viewpoint worthy of contempt and ridicule. In fact the response if perfectly fitting within the topic of this thread - since its about the Bashing of Bush.
If the mods want to give me a warning for doing so - I completely understand. If they close the thread because they feel they must - then I perfectly understand - however maybe some will see how stupid using demonizing words are - because those words do not discuss the subject - but are used to create hostility toward the opposing view point.
BTW Bush Bashing is a term in Australia for going 4WD off road driving... as the Outback is termed The Bush as well, so you drive a 4WD throught the bush hence bashing it.
Thats okay I got a Brush Guard on my truck so I can push bushes and cattle out of my way.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-05-2005, 03:48
That doesn't justify it. Who are you and Gawain to accuse someone of idealogical hate or describe someone as a laughing stock?
I wish being called an idealog was all I ever suffered here. This hasnt been a one way street you know. But just look at his posts. Its pretty self evident. As far as the laughing stock I didnt say that. But the pms from other conservatives watching his constant hypocracy cant help but bring a smile to our faces. As Ive said over and over he is what he claims to hate the most.
I call that irony not insullt.
Red Harvest
08-05-2005, 04:29
wrong most americans support the war but not the way its being fought (we need to be less PC is what they basically say)
How was what I said wrong? :dizzy2: I didn't say that most Americans don't support the war. We are in and that's that. However, folks are not pleased with the reasons given for it.
In retrospect, Dubya should never have been given the authority to launch the war--he simply wasn't competent for the task. Doesn't change the fact that we have to try to finish it properly now that we are there. Some conservatives don't seem to be able to make that distinction.
Red Harvest
08-05-2005, 04:34
Your becoming a standing joke amoung us conservatives it seems. Maybe this kind of rhetoric sufficed at TWC but theres no liberal gang banging going on here at the org.
Haven't read the quote you made. I would consider becoming a standing joke among the extremists among the conservatives to be a high compliment. Thank you I am quite honored.
Not sure what you are talking about with TWC. (Shouldn't you have inserted [WARNING: Gratuitous Redirect] in there somewhere?) Got any other personal insults you want to hurl my way because I disagree with you politically. Get a grip.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-05-2005, 07:23
Haven't read the quote you made. I would consider becoming a standing joke among the extremists among the conservatives to be a high compliment. Thank you I am quite honored.
I knew you would see it that way as it was intended. ~;)
In retrospect, Dubya should never have been given the authority to launch the war--he simply wasn't competent for the task.
Blame congress then .
Not sure what you are talking about with TWC.
Im not sure and I maybe wrong but werent you a member there? I seem to remember libs over there flooding conservatives with nasty replies and making fun of them. If not you have my apologies. Im still a little shell shocked from my experiences there ~D
Got any other personal insults you want to hurl my way because I disagree with you politically
I have no insults personal or other to hurl at you. Your a very intelligent man. I ask you back up what you say and stop telling people who dont agree with you their daft.
Aurelian
08-05-2005, 08:14
Oy vay. I can't believe that you guys are still on about a couple of degraded and useless Iraqi chemical rounds from the 1980's.
I'm on my way to bed, so I'll make this short and succinct:
1) Due to poor production processes, all Iraqi chemical stockpiles would have degraded LONG before 2002. The US Department of Defense made this clear in published reports printed prior to 9/11. Iraqi chemical and biological weapons only had a shelf life of a few years at most. Since production ended prior to Gulf War I, that means that all of the 'unaccounted for' stockpiles that the administration was touting were known to be harmless well before the invasion of Iraq.
2) In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, General Hussein Kamal, defected to the West. Kamal was in charge of Iraq's WMD programs. Prior to the invasion, the administration used Kamal's testimony to suggest the size and scope of Iraq's WMD programs. However, the administration hid the fact that Kamal had testified to personally overseeing the destruction of Iraq's WMD arsenal and the dismantling of its programs.
3) Iraq was under a tight UN embargo for over ten years by the time of the invasion. During that time, the US and Britain oversaw import restrictions on Iraq guaranteed to keep all of the precursors and components for the construction of WMDs out of Saddam's hands.
4) Before the invasion, UN inspectors were allowed back in Iraq, and they followed up on every lead given to them by the US. Despite the administration's claims that they had solid evidence of weapons storage and production, they could not direct the inspectors to a single iota of evidence, and the inspectors frequently expressed their disgust at being sent on 'wild goose chases' by the administration.
Of course, there is more; but even just those four points indicate that the administration should have had a clear understanding that there was almost no likelihood that the things they were saying about Iraqi WMD stockpiles were true.
Yet they invaded anyway, because the reasons they gave were just flimsy pretexts that they trotted out to try to scare the American people into support for war. The decision to invade had been made previously, and all the WMD nonsense was just to get the American people lathered up to send their sons to war.
To me, that's dishonest, because they had information that went counter to what they were publicly proclaiming.
Oy vay. I can't believe that you guys are still on about a couple of degraded and useless Iraqi chemical rounds from the 1980's.
I'm on my way to bed, so I'll make this short and succinct:
Not very short - but is succinct -
1) Due to poor production processes, all Iraqi chemical stockpiles would have degraded LONG before 2002. The US Department of Defense made this clear in published reports printed prior to 9/11. Iraqi chemical and biological weapons only had a shelf life of a few years at most. Since production ended prior to Gulf War I, that means that all of the 'unaccounted for' stockpiles that the administration was touting were known to be harmless well before the invasion of Iraq.
That does not excuse Iraq from not abiding by the cease fire agreement and the UN resolutions. Nor does it give Iraq a pass for not destroying the all WMD and providing the required proof as agreed upon in the Ceasefire agreement and futher passed down by the United Nations Resolutions.
2) In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, General Hussein Kamal, defected to the West. Kamal was in charge of Iraq's WMD programs. Prior to the invasion, the administration used Kamal's testimony to suggest the size and scope of Iraq's WMD programs. However, the administration hid the fact that Kamal had testified to personally overseeing the destruction of Iraq's WMD arsenal and the dismantling of its programs.
Got proof?
3) Iraq was under a tight UN embargo for over ten years by the time of the invasion. During that time, the US and Britain oversaw import restrictions on Iraq guaranteed to keep all of the precursors and components for the construction of WMDs out of Saddam's hands.
Care to explain how the missles got developed? Care to explain how the precursors that have been found got there? Care to explain the other information that is covered in the Duefer Report?
4) Before the invasion, UN inspectors were allowed back in Iraq, and they followed up on every lead given to them by the US. Despite the administration's claims that they had solid evidence of weapons storage and production, they could not direct the inspectors to a single iota of evidence, and the inspectors frequently expressed their disgust at being sent on 'wild goose chases' by the administration.
Sure - however once again care to explain the Duefer Report and the other unaccounted for materials and documents concerning the Iraq WMD program? And why those documents that was looked at by Duefer and his team were not made available to the previous inspectors?
Of course, there is more; but even just those four points indicate that the administration should have had a clear understanding that there was almost no likelihood that the things they were saying about Iraqi WMD stockpiles were true.
Care to explain why the Duefer Report states that the Iraqi government did its upmost to give the illusion that the programs were still in place and that some material was still around?
Yet they invaded anyway, because the reasons they gave were just flimsy pretexts that they trotted out to try to scare the American people into support for war. The decision to invade had been made previously, and all the WMD nonsense was just to get the American people lathered up to send their sons to war.
WMD was only one of several reasons for going back into Iraq because of its violations of the Ceasefire agreement and the United Nations resolutions.
To me, that's dishonest, because they had information that went counter to what they were publicly proclaiming.
What they had was two conflicting sets of data - one they wanted to discount and one that they wanted to believe. The Duefer Report clearly states that the Regime in Iraq wanted to maintain the illusion of having a viable WMD program. Its kind of interesting once again to note that President Clinton came to the same conclusions that President Bush did about the Iraq WMD programs.
But your right there was a lot of dishonesty about the WMD program - the problem is that most of it was done by the Saddam Regime so that it could remain in power.
What they had was two conflicting sets of data - one they wanted to discount and one that they wanted to believe. The Duefer Report clearly states that the Regime in Iraq wanted to maintain the illusion of having a viable WMD program. Its kind of interesting once again to note that President Clinton came to the same conclusions that President Bush did about the Iraq WMD programs.
But your right there was a lot of dishonesty about the WMD program - the problem is that most of it was done by the Saddam Regime so that it could remain in power.
That first paragraph is the typical political dishonesty, and that in itself should see heads a-rolling in any administration. But it will not, either in the States or the UK, because the electorate are fools and the politicians knaves.
I suspect the illusion of WMDs was maintained as a defence against local hostiles eg Iran and internal groups such as the Kurds. As you say, so that Saddam could stay in power. However this is to be expected of a tin-pot dictator. When the elected leaders of democracies engage in similar dishonesty, well......
It doesn't matter which President was in power at the time. This is not about petty party politics or left against right, no matter what the Org's patrons twisted sense of priorities may lead them to believe. It is about deceiving your nation and sending your citizens out to die needlessly. It is about maintaining belief in that lie (for it is a lie depite the sophistry used here) despite the evidence rather than admitting to your mistakes and doing the honourable thing.
Small wonder that election turn-outs are so small when our leaders are seen to be self-servers, unapologetic of their mistakes and tellers of half-truths and lies in order to manipulate the people.
That first paragraph is the typical political dishonesty, and that in itself should see heads a-rolling in any administration. But it will not, either in the States or the UK, because the electorate are fools and the politicians knaves.
Sure it is typical - and to use demonizing words against one side of the spectrum - for what both sides of the politicial spectrum does - is nothing but hypocrisy.
The problem with the WMD scenerio and explanitions concerning Iraq - is that the government just did not know either way, the adminstration chose a path of action that they thought was best for reasons that might come forth as self-serving or not. That is not politicial dishonesty as you are alluding to here. What it is is a bad decision making process - dishonesty would entail that the adminstration knew that there was absolutely no evidence of WMD and that they manfactured reasons to go to war.
What has been shown by the events and the information coming out of Iraq is that President Bush made some wrong decision, has shown some bad leadership, and continues to allow knuckleheads to run programs and departments that should have been fired. Poor decisions does not make it an lie or a dishonest attempt - it makes it only a bad decision.
I suspect the illusion of WMDs was maintained as a defence against local hostiles eg Iran and internal groups such as the Kurds. As you say, so that Saddam could stay in power. However this is to be expected of a tin-pot dictator. When the elected leaders of democracies engage in similar dishonesty, well......
That is politics for you - however it seems when people criticise Bush for coming to his decision - they fail to account for why did President Clinton come to the same conclusion about the WMD. Complain about the decision to go to war - but to make accusations of dishonesty and lying when a previos president had the same conclusion - and chose a different course of action - is disengous (SP) in the arguement.
It doesn't matter which President was in power at the time. This is not about petty party politics or left against right, no matter what the Org's patrons twisted sense of priorities may lead them to believe. It is about deceiving your nation and sending your citizens out to die needlessly. It is about maintaining belief in that lie (for it is a lie depite the sophistry used here) despite the evidence rather than admitting to your mistakes and doing the honourable thing.
Again the pot calling the kettle black it seems. Again two different president had the same information - both reached the same conclusion - the difference is they chose to act on that information differently.
Small wonder that election turn-outs are so small when our leaders are seen to be self-servers, unapologetic of their mistakes and tellers of half-truths and lies in order to manipulate the people.
Kind of like President Clinton - Senator Kenndy and many other.
Red Harvest
08-05-2005, 15:50
Im not sure and I maybe wrong but werent you a member there? I seem to remember libs over there flooding conservatives with nasty replies and making fun of them. If not you have my apologies. Im still a little shell shocked from my experiences there ~D
I've been a member of several Total War sites...haven't been in ANY political discussions on the other sites that I can recall. Unless you want to count discussions of ancient historical Greek non-acceptance of Macedonians as being truly "Greek" until after Alexander... That was just historical context of the time.
At any rate, I'm not reading the political discussions on the other Total War sites so I don't know what you are going on about.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-05-2005, 15:53
At any rate, I'm not reading the political discussions on the other Total War sites so I don't know what you are going on about.
Ithought I explained I was blowing off steam. Again I apologise.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.