lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
Just spreading knowledge so that one is not offended
Pundits escalate attacks against Obama
- Thread starter 04SCTLS
- Start date
Just spreading knowledge so that one is not offended
No, we are not forgetting those mistakes. If you go back through past threads you would see that. However, it is a matter of debate on many of those issues as to what was and was not a mistake.
However, you have to keep in mind that the MSM in this country is intentionally trying to downplay the mistakes that this administration makes. They did the same thing when Clinton was president. The Lewinsky thing had to be broken by the Drudge Report because either ABC, NBC or CBS (I don't remember which) was sitting on the story to protect Clinton.
Basically, the MSM in this country is a quazi-propaganda machine for the DNC, but they dishonestly claim to be unbias and objective. So, many relevant stories about democrats are suppressed and minor things about Republicans are grossly exaguranted. While the Framers gave the media special privileges in the First Amendment so that they could function as a "watchdog" on the government, today, the MSM basically function as propagandists for the DNC and attack dogs against the GOP. The difference in coverage of Obama and Palin during the campaign is a prime example of that.
There is a one sided presentation of Obama in the MSM and these posts help counter that as well as promote debate on these issues. If you don't have that debate and don't get exposed to those more negative stories, you are only presented a one sided, cherry picked presentation of Obama that is not realistic.
Do these threads (as the originally start out) not promote honest debate? There is nothing dishonest about any of these "anti-Obama" threads. They are above board and honest. Is this not a legitimate point of view? What is your problem here? Can you not have an honest debate sparked by a negative story about the president?
In fact, if you look at the article that starts this thread, you will see that it is actually an attempt to counter the negative claims against Obama.
I have to ask, were you as outraged when the MSM was actively working to smear Bush (manufacturing stories, etc)?
There is a profound difference in worldview in the ideologies here, as well as a profound difference in rhetorical techniques and methodology in implementation of agenda's. Should one side sacrifice their core principles to appease the other side and end the "partisan bickering"?
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
How does that have any relevance to this debate? Ever hear the term "two wrongs don't make a right"? What you are doing is making a fallacious tu quoque argument of sorts. It is a deceitful and dishonest attempt to misdirect. If all you are going to do is come in here and misdirect, then only hinder any honest debate. Seems to be consistent with the history of trollish behavior you have established here.
Also, have any proof that is was a lie? The Clinton administration said that Iraq had WMD's before Bush took office. Where they lying too? If you wanna argue that Bush went in on bad intel, that is one thing, but to claim that he (or his administration) lied is hyperbole to the point of distortion.
SMH.
He's just giving some contrast.
SMH?
The "contrast" serves as a distraction to the debate and is irrelevant to it. It is an effective way to avoid any honest debate on the subject that he is supposedly trying to "contrast" from.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Your numbers are wrong, as is your claim that the war was based on lies. Both have been thoroughly debunked here in the past. Get current, please.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
CNN accuses the Jews of being terrorists, both obliquely and directly. It doesn't matter the substance or the degree of the demonization. My statement still stands.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
And yet you just dishonestly tried to beat up former President Bush by using false data and calling him a liar.
Pot, meet kettle.
Also, you just admitted that you have only followed a few threads. Some of us have been posting for years. So what you're doing is making a snap judgment. That's typical.
And as far as our 'credibility on the world stage,' you worry about you, and we'll worry about us. By all means, give up hope, I personally don't give a crap.
I was making a quip and couldn't think of a better example.
Indoctrinating children is despicable but negative claims against Obama range from honest to outrageous.
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
SMH = Smack my head
He's not derailing it, just offering some contrast to widen the debate.
I can see why you're thinking the way you are, and in a way you're right, but still, grasping at straws.
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
Excuse me MF? I only see 2 TV shows that are liberal, and 1 network.
Against the president? EVERYONE.
And in any matter, it's the blind leading the blind guy. You should know this.
clinton's time was also still with un inspector's within the country.
proof of it as a lie? are you serious?
Colin Powell, February 2001: "[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq."
Condoleeza Rice, July 2001: "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
George W Bush, March 2002: "F___ Saddam. we're taking him out."
there was no WORLD intelligence to prove wmd's.
Ministers were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-
led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article532480.ece
Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’
Michael Smith
MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.
The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.
This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.
“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.
The paper was circulated to those present at the meeting, among whom were Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The full minutes of the meeting were published last month in The Sunday Times.
The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.
“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.
The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.
The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it.
There has been a growing storm of protest in America, created by last month’s publication of the minutes in The Sunday Times. A host of citizens, including many internet bloggers, have demanded to know why the Downing Street memo (often shortened to “the DSM” on websites) has been largely ignored by the US mainstream media.
The White House has declined to respond to a letter from 89 Democratic congressmen asking if it was true — as Dearlove told the July meeting — that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” in Washington.
The Downing Street memo burst into the mainstream American media only last week after it was raised at a joint Bush-Blair press conference, forcing the prime minister to insist that “the facts were not fixed in any shape or form at all”.
John Conyers, the Democratic congressman who drafted the letter to Bush, has now written to Dearlove asking him to say whether or not it was accurate that he believed the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. He also asked the former MI6 chief precisely when Bush and Blair had agreed to invade Iraq and whether it is true they agreed to “manufacture” the UN ultimatum in order to justify the war.
He and other Democratic congressmen plan to hold their own inquiry this Thursday with witnesses including Joe Wilson, the American former ambassador who went to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore for its nuclear weapons programme.
Frustrated at the refusal by the White House to respond to their letter, the congressmen have set up a website — www.downingstreetmemo.com — to collect signatures on a petition demanding the same answers.
Conyers promised to deliver it to Bush once it reached 250,000 signatures. By Friday morning it already had more than 500,000 with as many as 1m expected to have been obtained when he delivers it to the White House on Thursday.
AfterDowningStreet.org, another website set up as a result of the memo, is calling for a congressional committee to consider whether Bush’s actions as depicted in the memo constitute grounds for impeachment.
It has been flooded with visits from people angry at what they see as media self-censorship in ignoring the memo. It claims to have attracted more than 1m hits a day.
Democrats.com, another website, even offered $1,000 (about £550) to any journalist who quizzed Bush about the memo’s contents, although the Reuters reporter who asked the question last Tuesday was not aware of the reward and has no intention of claiming it.
The complaints of media self-censorship have been backed up by the ombudsmen of The Washington Post, The New York Times and National Public Radio, who have questioned the lack of attention the minutes have received from their organisations.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article527701.ece
Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.
A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
"The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning", the president told Mr Blair. The prime minister is said to have raised no objection. He is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".
The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.
The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:
· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".
· Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".
· Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an "insurance policy", providing "international cover, including with the Arabs" if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.
· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.
The revelation that Mr Blair had supported the US president's plans to go to war with Iraq even in the absence of a second UN resolution contrasts with the assurances the prime minister gave parliament shortly after. On February 25 2003 - three weeks after his trip to Washington - Mr Blair told the Commons that the government was giving "Saddam one further, final chance to disarm voluntarily".
He added: "Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN. I detest his regime - I hope most people do - but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully."
On March 18, before the crucial vote on the war, he told MPs: "The UN should be the focus both of diplomacy and of action... [and that not to take military action] would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other single course that we could pursue."
The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair, attended by six close aides, came at a time of growing concern about the failure of any hard intelligence to back up claims that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction in breach of UN disarmament obligations. It took place a few days before the then US secretary Colin Powell made claims - since discredited - in a dramatic presentation at the UN about Iraq's weapons programme.
Earlier in January 2003, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, expressed his private concerns about the absence of a smoking gun in a private note to Mr Blair, according to the book. He said he hoped that the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, would come up with enough evidence to report a breach by Iraq of is its UN obligations.
Downing Street did not deny the existence of the memo last night, but said: "The prime minister only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House of Commons in a vote on March 18, 2003." It added the decision to resort to military action to ensure Iraq fulfilled its obligations imposed by successive security council resolutions was taken only after attempts to disarm Iraq had failed. "Of course during this time there were frequent discussions between the UK and US governments about Iraq. We do not comment on the prime minister's conversations with other leaders."
Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat acting leader, said last night: "The fact that consideration was apparently given to using American military aircraft in UN colours in the hope of provoking Saddam Hussein is a graphic illustration of the rush to war. It would also appear to be the case that the diplomatic efforts in New York after the meeting of January 31 were simply going through the motions.
"The prime minister's offer of February 25 to Saddam Hussein was about as empty as it could get. He has a lot of explaining to do."
Prof Sands says Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's UN ambassador at the time, told a foreign colleague he was "clearly uncomfortable" about the failure to get a second resolution. Foreign Office lawyers consistently warned that an invasion would be regarded as unlawful. The book reveals that Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the FO's deputy chief legal adviser who resigned over the war, told the Butler inquiry into the use of intelligence during the run-up to the war, of her belief that Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, shared the FO view. According to private evidence to the Butler inquiry, Lord Goldsmith told FO lawyers in early 2003: "The prime minister has told me that I cannot give advice, but you know what my views are".
On March 7 2003 he advised the prime minister that the Bush administration believed that a case could be made for an invasion without a second UN resolution. But he warned that Britain could be challenged in the international criminal court. Ten days later, he said a second resolution was not necessary.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/03/iraq.usa
A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
"The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning", the president told Mr Blair. The prime minister is said to have raised no objection. He is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".
The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.
The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:
· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".
· Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".
· Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an "insurance policy", providing "international cover, including with the Arabs" if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.
· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.
The revelation that Mr Blair had supported the US president's plans to go to war with Iraq even in the absence of a second UN resolution contrasts with the assurances the prime minister gave parliament shortly after. On February 25 2003 - three weeks after his trip to Washington - Mr Blair told the Commons that the government was giving "Saddam one further, final chance to disarm voluntarily".
He added: "Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN. I detest his regime - I hope most people do - but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully."
On March 18, before the crucial vote on the war, he told MPs: "The UN should be the focus both of diplomacy and of action... [and that not to take military action] would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other single course that we could pursue."
The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair, attended by six close aides, came at a time of growing concern about the failure of any hard intelligence to back up claims that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction in breach of UN disarmament obligations. It took place a few days before the then US secretary Colin Powell made claims - since discredited - in a dramatic presentation at the UN about Iraq's weapons programme.
Earlier in January 2003, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, expressed his private concerns about the absence of a smoking gun in a private note to Mr Blair, according to the book. He said he hoped that the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, would come up with enough evidence to report a breach by Iraq of is its UN obligations.
Downing Street did not deny the existence of the memo last night, but said: "The prime minister only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House of Commons in a vote on March 18, 2003." It added the decision to resort to military action to ensure Iraq fulfilled its obligations imposed by successive security council resolutions was taken only after attempts to disarm Iraq had failed. "Of course during this time there were frequent discussions between the UK and US governments about Iraq. We do not comment on the prime minister's conversations with other leaders."
Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat acting leader, said last night: "The fact that consideration was apparently given to using American military aircraft in UN colours in the hope of provoking Saddam Hussein is a graphic illustration of the rush to war. It would also appear to be the case that the diplomatic efforts in New York after the meeting of January 31 were simply going through the motions.
"The prime minister's offer of February 25 to Saddam Hussein was about as empty as it could get. He has a lot of explaining to do."
Prof Sands says Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's UN ambassador at the time, told a foreign colleague he was "clearly uncomfortable" about the failure to get a second resolution. Foreign Office lawyers consistently warned that an invasion would be regarded as unlawful. The book reveals that Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the FO's deputy chief legal adviser who resigned over the war, told the Butler inquiry into the use of intelligence during the run-up to the war, of her belief that Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, shared the FO view. According to private evidence to the Butler inquiry, Lord Goldsmith told FO lawyers in early 2003: "The prime minister has told me that I cannot give advice, but you know what my views are".
On March 7 2003 he advised the prime minister that the Bush administration believed that a case could be made for an invasion without a second UN resolution. But he warned that Britain could be challenged in the international criminal court. Ten days later, he said a second resolution was not necessary.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/03/iraq.usa
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Name callling. Good argument. Not.
I guess this is what Joey was asking people to stop doing.
Oh well.
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
Lol. In 1985 that was name calling but now n days it's more of a greeting.
But, you're always telling people to do their research, a typical conservative argument, it seems that "hrmwrm" has done more than that and presented what could be a good argument, and instead you dodge that to come after me.
Lets talk about maturity.
But, you're always telling people to do their research, a typical conservative argument, it seems that "hrmwrm" has done more than that and presented what could be a good argument, and instead you dodge that to come after me.
Lets talk about maturity.
i'll use real data and call him a liar.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm not interested in the least in anything that little troll has to say. But if you're going to whine and be a victim, I'll leave you alone. Don't cry.
So what? Something changed between then and when Bush went in?
Here is what Clinton said on December 16, 1998 after ordering military strikes on certian targets in Iraq:
The mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.....Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors r the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
Carl Levin, John Kerry (who served in Vietnam), Tom Daschle and other Democrat senators sent Clinton a letter on October 6, 1998 saying:
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missle strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program.
On the same day as Clinton's statement, Nancy Pelosi said:
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process
The head of the team investigating in Iraq during the Clinton years, Richard Butler, said the following:
The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction
Butler later wrote in a book:
It would be foolish in the extreme not to assume that [Saddam Hussein] is developing long-range missile capabilities, at work again on building nuclear weapons and adding to the chemical and biological warfare weapons he concealed during the UNSCOM inspection period
So, again, what changed after the Clinton years that would allow for Clinton to be telling the truth, but Bush to be lying? Oh, right, Bush was a Republican!
Do you have a link or source for those quotes so they can be verified? What was the context, especially of the last two quotes in particular?
I already showed what Richard Butler, the head of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) tasked with weapons inspections in Iraq during said about Hussein's addiction to WMD's. By the way, here is something he said to keep in mind:
Iraq never kept its side of the bargain by: not making honest disclosure statements of its prohibited weapons and weapons capability; unilaterally destroying weapons in order to ensure that the Commission would never know the full nature and scope of what it had held and this, under circumstances where the law required that all destruction be conducted under international supervision; and, through the pursuit of an active policy and practice of concealing weapons and proscribed components from the Commission.
In addition to the Butler Report there was another British Parliamentary report that concurred with the findings of the Butler Report that "there was credible intelligence" that Iraq had tried to acquire 500 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1999. As the the idea that these findings were "discredited" through Joseph C Wilson's finds later, the Butler report in 2002 pointed out that had been a disinformation campaign of forged documents in order to make the truth appear to be a lie. That ties back to what Butler, himself said in 1999:
I like to refer to the existence of the "anti-UNSCOM industry." They have an enormous bureaucracy, established for the purpose of defeating UNSCOM, run by a high government committee, with a government ministry, called the National Monitoring Directorate. I mean, Tariq Aziz directs this. And there's no question that for every person we would put into the field, they would have ten. I mean, I wonder whether it's not the second largest industry in Iraq, after the oil industry. I mean, it's a very big show. They have been extremely active in seeking to defeat our work. That's been a big problem for us
As to the three articles you cite, they all base their claims and findings on the Downing Street Memo. Here is something to keep in mind when reading those articles:
The so-called Downing Street Memo - which was presumed to be authentic when Bush administration critics began touting it last month as evidence the president committed impeachable crimes - is actually a manually recreated copy - with the source of the memo now admitting he retyped the document before destroying the originals.
British reporter Michael Smith, who broke the memo story in the London Times on May 1, revealed to The Associated Press over the weekend that "he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals."
Smith's admission means there's now no independent way to determine the accuracy of the Downing Street Memo, i.e., whether he made any typos or transcription errors that could have changed the memo's meaning.
British reporter Michael Smith, who broke the memo story in the London Times on May 1, revealed to The Associated Press over the weekend that "he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals."
Smith's admission means there's now no independent way to determine the accuracy of the Downing Street Memo, i.e., whether he made any typos or transcription errors that could have changed the memo's meaning.
Even ignoring that fact, you need to keep this in mind; the memo was written by and aide to Tony Blair and, as such, is simply one man's analysis of the meeting and interpretation of the info given in that meeting. It is hearsay; anecdotal evidence, at best.
So, all you have provided is lies (no WORLD intelligence), misdirection (Clinton's time was...with UN inspector's within the country) unverified (and possibly out of context) quotes and speculation based in anecdotal evidence that could very well have been forged.
And even then, none of it proves him a liar. It is all tangential to that claim. So when you claim that you will, "use real data and call him a liar [emphasis added]", that is arguably all you have done. You have used evidence (some of which may be real) and called him a liar. None of the evidence logically points to Bush being a liar. How about you try using evidence to prove Bush a liar.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
*owned*So what? Something changed between then and when Bush went in?
Here is what Clinton said on December 16, 1998 after ordering military strikes on certian targets in Iraq:The mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.....Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors r the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
Carl Levin, John Kerry (who served in Vietnam), Tom Daschle and other Democrat senators sent Clinton a letter on October 6, 1998 saying:[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missle strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program.
On the same day as Clinton's statement, Nancy Pelosi said:Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process
The head of the team investigating in Iraq during the Clinton years, Richard Butler, said the following:The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction
Butler later wrote in a book:It would be foolish in the extreme not to assume that [Saddam Hussein] is developing long-range missile capabilities, at work again on building nuclear weapons and adding to the chemical and biological warfare weapons he concealed during the UNSCOM inspection period
So, again, what changed after the Clinton years that would allow for Clinton to be telling the truth, but Bush to be lying? Oh, right, Bush was a Republican!
Do you have a link or source for those quotes so they can be verified? What was the context, especially of the last two quotes in particular?
I already showed what Richard Butler, the head of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) tasked with weapons inspections in Iraq during said about Hussein's addiction to WMD's. By the way, here is something he said to keep in mind:Iraq never kept its side of the bargain by: not making honest disclosure statements of its prohibited weapons and weapons capability; unilaterally destroying weapons in order to ensure that the Commission would never know the full nature and scope of what it had held and this, under circumstances where the law required that all destruction be conducted under international supervision; and, through the pursuit of an active policy and practice of concealing weapons and proscribed components from the Commission.
In addition to the Butler Report there was another British Parliamentary report that concurred with the findings of the Butler Report that "there was credible intelligence" that Iraq had tried to acquire 500 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1999. As the the idea that these findings were "discredited" through Joseph C Wilson's finds later, the Butler report in 2002 pointed out that had been a disinformation campaign of forged documents in order to make the truth appear to be a lie. That ties back to what Butler, himself said in 1999:I like to refer to the existence of the "anti-UNSCOM industry." They have an enormous bureaucracy, established for the purpose of defeating UNSCOM, run by a high government committee, with a government ministry, called the National Monitoring Directorate. I mean, Tariq Aziz directs this. And there's no question that for every person we would put into the field, they would have ten. I mean, I wonder whether it's not the second largest industry in Iraq, after the oil industry. I mean, it's a very big show. They have been extremely active in seeking to defeat our work. That's been a big problem for us
As to three articles you cite, they all base their claims and findings on the Downing Street Memo. Here is something to keep in mind when reading those articles:The so-called Downing Street Memo - which was presumed to be authentic when Bush administration critics began touting it last month as evidence the president committed impeachable crimes - is actually a manually recreated copy - with the source of the memo now admitting he retyped the document before destroying the originals.
British reporter Michael Smith, who broke the memo story in the London Times on May 1, revealed to The Associated Press over the weekend that "he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals."
Smith's admission means there's now no independent way to determine the accuracy of the Downing Street Memo, i.e., whether he made any typos or transcription errors that could have changed the memo's meaning.
Even ignoring that fact, you need to keep this in mind; the memo was written by and aide to Tony Blair and, as such, is simply one man's analysis of the meeting and interpretation of the info given in that meeting. It is hearsay; anecdotal evidence, at best.
So, all you have provided is lies (no WORLD intelligence), misdirection (Clinton's time was...with UN inspector's within the country) unverified (and possibly out of context) quotes and speculation based in anecdotal evidence that could very well have been forged.
And even then, none of it proves him a liar. It is all tangential to that claim. So when you claim that you will, "use real data and call him a liar [emphasis added]", that is arguably all you have done. You have used evidence (some of which may be real) and called him a liar. None of the evidence logically points to Bush being a liar. How about you try using evidence to prove Bush a liar.
What "2 shows" and what "1 network"? What qualifies those shows and/or networks as "liberal" in your view?
What about newspapers? Any of them that you think are leftists?
What about shows, networks and/or newspapers you think are conservative?
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm not interested in the least in anything that little troll has to say. But if you're going to whine and be a victim, I'll leave you alone. Don't cry.
Yea, that's real mature there lol.
So pretty much your taking the left's way of arguing and just saying shut up? I'm not prepared for this, but i think i'll give it a go.
Are you sure you're not getting that middle age, male PMS thing? Cause, if you are, my woman can offer some newage tampons for you. They work wonders.
Powell Admits False WMD Claim posted by David Corn on 05/17/2004 @ 3:31pm
It would be a foolish endeavor to call for this Republican Congress to mount a thorough investigation of this Republican administration. But what else is there to do in response to the comments made by Secretary of State Colin Powell this past weekend?
Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell acknowledged--finally!--that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons. That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. (Remember the drawings he displayed.) Yet Powell said on MTP, "it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading." Powell did not spell it out, but the main source for this claim was an engineer linked to the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, who is now part of the Iraqi Governing Council.
Powell noted that he was "comfortable at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community." In other words, the CIA was scammed by Chalabi's outfit, and it never caught on. So who's been fired over this? After all, the nation supposedly went to war partly due to this intelligence. And partly because of this bad information over 700 Americans and countless Iraqis have lost their lives. Shouldn't someone be held accountable? Maybe CIA chief George Tenet, or his underlings who went for the bait? Or Chalabi's neocon friends and champions at the Pentagon: Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle? How do they feel about their pal, the great Iraqi leader, now?
For months after the invasion, George W. Bush told the public that he had based his decision to invade Iraq on "good, solid intelligence." Does he still believe that? Has anyone told him that his government was hornswoggled by Chalabi, who was once convicted of massive bank fraud in Jordan. (Since Bush has said he does not read the newspapers or pay much attention to conventional media, he may not have heard about Powell's remarks unless an aide bothered to brief him on them.) And in January, Dick Cheney said that there was "conclusive evidence" that Saddam Hussein had manufactured bioweapons labs on wheels. Is he willing to say he was wrong?
For his part, Chalabi has not shown any regret. In February, he told the London Telegraph, "we are heroes in error....As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important." [UPDATE: On May 20, Chalabi's compound in Baghdad was raided by US forces while Chalabi was present. Iraqi police, who participated in the raid, seized documents and a computer belonging to Chalabi. Several members of his entourage were taken away. Other offices of Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress were raided. A senior coalition official told Associated Press the raids were conducted pursuant to warrants issued by an Iraqi judge. And US officials in Iraq have complained that Chalabi has interfered with an investigation into corruption in the UN-run oil-for-food program. "I am America's best friend in Iraq," said Chalabi.]
Perhaps the previous--and apparently fraudulent-- allegations made by the Chalabi gang are no longer "important" for him. But Powell--fronting for Bush--placed his credibility on the line before the war. A Powell associate told The New York Times that Powell is "out there publicly saying this now because he doesn't want a legacy as the man who made up stories to provide the president with cover to go to war." But if Powell did not make up the stories himself, he was none too reluctant to peddle them. And he has displayed little outrage in public that he was turned into a fibbing pimp for the war.
In fact, at the time of his UN presentation, there was reason for Powell and the administration to be suspicious of the claims Powell were hurling. After his UN speech, several experts in the field of bioweapons said that it was possible for Hussein to develop mobile bioweapons labs but not likely that he could. "This strikes me as a bit far-fetched," observed Raymond Zilinskas, a former weapons inspector. Why did Powell and the CIA trust the word of a biased source that could not be confirmed more than the expertise of independent scientists? The answer is all too obvious. (There were plenty of other problems with Powell's UN performance. For instance, he maintained that one Iraqi military official had ordered another to "clean out" an ammunition site that was about to be inspected; but the official translation of this intercepted conversation, which was posted on the State Department website, did not contain that order. Powell also claimed there was a direct and close connection between Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist operating in northern Iraq, which was an area outside of Baghdad's control. But Powell provided sketchy evidence regarding what is probably a complicated, perhaps even competitive, relationship and one that apparently had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.)
On Meet the Press, Powell said of the bioweapons claim, "I am disappointed and I regret it." But that's not good enough. Powell provided cover for Bush's case for war. And he's still providing cover for the Bush administration overall. Why is he not angrily calling for an inquiry into how Chalibi flim-flammed the CIA and the administration? Why is Powell sticking around and helping Bush get reelected, when it's expected he will resign after that and leave the public with an administration that is not moderated (to the extent that it is) by the presence of this presumably sage grown-up?
Think about it. The secretary of state revealed that he, the CIA and the administration were conned (perhaps too easily) by exiles supported by the Pentagon, and this fraud helped set the stage for a war and a bloody and difficult occupation that still is claiming the lives of Americans. If this is not cause for investigations, dismissals, and angry statements from congressional leaders and administration officials, then what is?
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames/1442
It would be a foolish endeavor to call for this Republican Congress to mount a thorough investigation of this Republican administration. But what else is there to do in response to the comments made by Secretary of State Colin Powell this past weekend?
Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell acknowledged--finally!--that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons. That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. (Remember the drawings he displayed.) Yet Powell said on MTP, "it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading." Powell did not spell it out, but the main source for this claim was an engineer linked to the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, who is now part of the Iraqi Governing Council.
Powell noted that he was "comfortable at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community." In other words, the CIA was scammed by Chalabi's outfit, and it never caught on. So who's been fired over this? After all, the nation supposedly went to war partly due to this intelligence. And partly because of this bad information over 700 Americans and countless Iraqis have lost their lives. Shouldn't someone be held accountable? Maybe CIA chief George Tenet, or his underlings who went for the bait? Or Chalabi's neocon friends and champions at the Pentagon: Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle? How do they feel about their pal, the great Iraqi leader, now?
For months after the invasion, George W. Bush told the public that he had based his decision to invade Iraq on "good, solid intelligence." Does he still believe that? Has anyone told him that his government was hornswoggled by Chalabi, who was once convicted of massive bank fraud in Jordan. (Since Bush has said he does not read the newspapers or pay much attention to conventional media, he may not have heard about Powell's remarks unless an aide bothered to brief him on them.) And in January, Dick Cheney said that there was "conclusive evidence" that Saddam Hussein had manufactured bioweapons labs on wheels. Is he willing to say he was wrong?
For his part, Chalabi has not shown any regret. In February, he told the London Telegraph, "we are heroes in error....As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important." [UPDATE: On May 20, Chalabi's compound in Baghdad was raided by US forces while Chalabi was present. Iraqi police, who participated in the raid, seized documents and a computer belonging to Chalabi. Several members of his entourage were taken away. Other offices of Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress were raided. A senior coalition official told Associated Press the raids were conducted pursuant to warrants issued by an Iraqi judge. And US officials in Iraq have complained that Chalabi has interfered with an investigation into corruption in the UN-run oil-for-food program. "I am America's best friend in Iraq," said Chalabi.]
Perhaps the previous--and apparently fraudulent-- allegations made by the Chalabi gang are no longer "important" for him. But Powell--fronting for Bush--placed his credibility on the line before the war. A Powell associate told The New York Times that Powell is "out there publicly saying this now because he doesn't want a legacy as the man who made up stories to provide the president with cover to go to war." But if Powell did not make up the stories himself, he was none too reluctant to peddle them. And he has displayed little outrage in public that he was turned into a fibbing pimp for the war.
In fact, at the time of his UN presentation, there was reason for Powell and the administration to be suspicious of the claims Powell were hurling. After his UN speech, several experts in the field of bioweapons said that it was possible for Hussein to develop mobile bioweapons labs but not likely that he could. "This strikes me as a bit far-fetched," observed Raymond Zilinskas, a former weapons inspector. Why did Powell and the CIA trust the word of a biased source that could not be confirmed more than the expertise of independent scientists? The answer is all too obvious. (There were plenty of other problems with Powell's UN performance. For instance, he maintained that one Iraqi military official had ordered another to "clean out" an ammunition site that was about to be inspected; but the official translation of this intercepted conversation, which was posted on the State Department website, did not contain that order. Powell also claimed there was a direct and close connection between Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist operating in northern Iraq, which was an area outside of Baghdad's control. But Powell provided sketchy evidence regarding what is probably a complicated, perhaps even competitive, relationship and one that apparently had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.)
On Meet the Press, Powell said of the bioweapons claim, "I am disappointed and I regret it." But that's not good enough. Powell provided cover for Bush's case for war. And he's still providing cover for the Bush administration overall. Why is he not angrily calling for an inquiry into how Chalibi flim-flammed the CIA and the administration? Why is Powell sticking around and helping Bush get reelected, when it's expected he will resign after that and leave the public with an administration that is not moderated (to the extent that it is) by the presence of this presumably sage grown-up?
Think about it. The secretary of state revealed that he, the CIA and the administration were conned (perhaps too easily) by exiles supported by the Pentagon, and this fraud helped set the stage for a war and a bloody and difficult occupation that still is claiming the lives of Americans. If this is not cause for investigations, dismissals, and angry statements from congressional leaders and administration officials, then what is?
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames/1442
Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11
Book Says President Called Secrecy Vital
Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to a new book on the origins of the war.
The intensive war planning throughout 2002 created its own momentum, according to "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward, fueled in part by the CIA's conclusion that Saddam Hussein could not be removed from power except through a war and CIA Director George J. Tenet's assurance to the president that it was a "slam dunk" case that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html
face it, bush wanted saddam out of power whether he was a terrorist threat or not. and all evidence points to the latter.
Book Says President Called Secrecy Vital
Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to a new book on the origins of the war.
The intensive war planning throughout 2002 created its own momentum, according to "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward, fueled in part by the CIA's conclusion that Saddam Hussein could not be removed from power except through a war and CIA Director George J. Tenet's assurance to the president that it was a "slam dunk" case that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html
face it, bush wanted saddam out of power whether he was a terrorist threat or not. and all evidence points to the latter.
Bush decided to remove Saddam 'on day one'Former aide says US president made up his mind to go to war with Iraq long before 9/11, then ordered his staff to find an excuse
Julian Borger in Washington The Guardian, Monday 12 January 2004 02.48 GMT Article historyIn the Bush White House, Paul O'Neill was the bespectacled swot in a class of ideological bullies who eventually kicked him out for raising too many uncomfortable questions. Now, 13 months later at a critical moment for the president, the nerd is having his revenge.
Mr O'Neill's account of his two years as Treasury secretary, told in a book published tomorrow and in a series of interviews over the weekend, is a startling tale of an administration nominally led by a disengaged figurehead president but driven by a "praetorian guard" of hardline rightwingers led by vice president Dick Cheney, ready to bend circumstances and facts to fit their political agenda.
According to the former aluminium mogul and longstanding Republican moderate who was fired from the US Treasury in December 2002, the administration came to office determined to oust Saddam and used the September 11 attacks as a convenient justification.
As Mr O'Neill, who sat in countless national security council meetings, describes the mood: "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this'."
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," Mr O'Neill told the CBS network programme, 60 Minutes. In the book, based largely on his recollections and written by an American journalist, Ron Suskind, Mr O'Neill said that even as far back as January 2001, when President Bush took office, no one in the NSC questioned the assumption that Iraq should be invaded.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/12/usa.books
Julian Borger in Washington The Guardian, Monday 12 January 2004 02.48 GMT Article historyIn the Bush White House, Paul O'Neill was the bespectacled swot in a class of ideological bullies who eventually kicked him out for raising too many uncomfortable questions. Now, 13 months later at a critical moment for the president, the nerd is having his revenge.
Mr O'Neill's account of his two years as Treasury secretary, told in a book published tomorrow and in a series of interviews over the weekend, is a startling tale of an administration nominally led by a disengaged figurehead president but driven by a "praetorian guard" of hardline rightwingers led by vice president Dick Cheney, ready to bend circumstances and facts to fit their political agenda.
According to the former aluminium mogul and longstanding Republican moderate who was fired from the US Treasury in December 2002, the administration came to office determined to oust Saddam and used the September 11 attacks as a convenient justification.
As Mr O'Neill, who sat in countless national security council meetings, describes the mood: "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this'."
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," Mr O'Neill told the CBS network programme, 60 Minutes. In the book, based largely on his recollections and written by an American journalist, Ron Suskind, Mr O'Neill said that even as far back as January 2001, when President Bush took office, no one in the NSC questioned the assumption that Iraq should be invaded.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/12/usa.books
trolling again
More rude, dishonest and deceptive hrmwrm "wall 'o' text" posts. When you remove signatures and links there are 1522 words over the three posts. Of those 1522 words, only 23 are written by hrmwrm. Only 1.51% of the words in the three posts are written by hrmwrm.
From those three posts, hrmwrm concludes the following...
The funny thing is, hrmwrm, the evidence does not point to the latter [that Hussein was not a terrorist threat].
While I could go into the context of the articles and find examples that suggested at the time that Hussein was a terrorist threat, that would take too much time and be overwhelming (which I am sure you were counting on to avoid any response). So, for the sake of argument, lets assume that there is nothing in those articles that suggested at the time that Hussein was a terrorist threat. That doesn't prove that he wasn't a terrorist threat. To say that it does is to make a fallacious negative evidence argument:
Here are some facts that, at the time, showed that Hussein was a terrorist threat:
And your claim still doesn't prove that Bush lied, which was the original claim you were attempting to prove. You have cherry picked evidence to claim that Hussein wasn't a threat, but Bush was gonna get him anyway. I have provided evidence that counters your claim that Hussein wasn't a threat, and you have yet to provide any verifiable and/or reliable evidence that Bush wanted to get Hussein regardless of the facts. You still haven't backed up the quotes you have in post #36 and the Downing Street Memo is hearsay and a possible forgery; not a reliable source.
From those three posts, hrmwrm concludes the following...
The funny thing is, hrmwrm, the evidence does not point to the latter [that Hussein was not a terrorist threat].
While I could go into the context of the articles and find examples that suggested at the time that Hussein was a terrorist threat, that would take too much time and be overwhelming (which I am sure you were counting on to avoid any response). So, for the sake of argument, lets assume that there is nothing in those articles that suggested at the time that Hussein was a terrorist threat. That doesn't prove that he wasn't a terrorist threat. To say that it does is to make a fallacious negative evidence argument:
negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.
All you have shown is an absence of evidence in these articles that Hussein was a terrorist threat. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a terrorist threat. You need to show evidence that specifically suggests that he wasn't a terrorist threat, not a lack of evidence that suggests the opposite. the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.Here are some facts that, at the time, showed that Hussein was a terrorist threat:
- I have already cited the Butler report which was based in UN inspections conducted during the Clinton year that concluded that Hussein was trying to get yellowcake and was being deceptive and uncooperative with the inspectors.
- Butler himself said, "It would be foolish in the extreme not to assume that [Saddam Hussein] is developing long-range missile capabilities, at work again on building nuclear weapons and adding to the chemical and biological warfare weapons he concealed during the UNSCOM inspection period."
- The Clinon Admin. put Iraq on a list of nations that were supportive of terrorism in 1999
- Senator Clinton said, "[Saddam] has given aid, comfort and sanctuary to the terrorists, including al Qaeda members"
- Hussein had a policy of paying out $25,000 to families of Palestinian homicide bombers
- Hussein harbored Al Queda terrorists
- Hussein had even harbored one of the terrorists who bombed the WTC in 1993
- Hussein was training terrorists from other countries in Salman Pak
And your claim still doesn't prove that Bush lied, which was the original claim you were attempting to prove. You have cherry picked evidence to claim that Hussein wasn't a threat, but Bush was gonna get him anyway. I have provided evidence that counters your claim that Hussein wasn't a threat, and you have yet to provide any verifiable and/or reliable evidence that Bush wanted to get Hussein regardless of the facts. You still haven't backed up the quotes you have in post #36 and the Downing Street Memo is hearsay and a possible forgery; not a reliable source.