So...Did Bush lie?

[Roddimus]

It sure as hell is looking more and more likely now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm

White House 'warned about Iraq claim'

The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned.

Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC.

On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January.

To keep the discussion on track, lets set aside whether or not the ends justified the means.
What interests me about this story has nothing to do with whether or not this discovery makes the Iraq war any more or less justified.
What interests me is whether or not Bush is dishonest.
If you vehemently hated Clinton for being purposefully deceptive about a BJ, I simply fail to see how you could be anymore leinent on Bush for being deceptive about the threat Iraq posed.

[ZupanGOD]

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins070903.asp

[ZupanGOD]

Timeline: 'Niger uranium' row
BBC News Online charts the escalation of arguments in a row over Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium from Niger.

24 September 2002

"There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civilian nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium."

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The assessment of the British Government

28 January 2003

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

US President George W Bush's State of the Union address

7 March 2003

"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic.

We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded."

UN nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei's report to the UN Security Council

3 July 2003

"It is very odd indeed that the Government asserts that it was not relying on the evidence which has since been shown to have been forged but that eight months later it is still reviewing the other evidence... We recommend that the Government explain on what evidence it relied for its judgement in September that Iraq had recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. We further recommend that in its response to this Report the Government set out whether it still considers the September dossier to be accurate in what it states about Iraq's attempts to procure uranium from Africa in the light of subsequent events."

House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report

6 July 2003

"It was highly doubtful that any such (Niger-Iraq) transaction had ever taken place."

Former US diplomat Joseph Wilson writing in the New York Times about his fact-finding visit to Niger in February 2002

8 July 2003

"The president's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake [uranium] from Niger.

So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement."

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer

8 July 2003

"The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called "forged" documents, they came from separate intelligence."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair testimony to the House of Commons Liaison Committee.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3051709.stm

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Roddimus
What interests me is whether or not Bush is dishonest.
If you vehemently hated Clinton for being purposefully deceptive about a BJ, I simply fail to see how you could be anymore leinent on Bush for being deceptive about the threat Iraq posed.

By all means, punish the fucker if he lied. I have no love for Bush, I'd love to see a president with rational views on drugs, abortion, and secular gov't come into office.


To keep the discussion on track, lets set aside whether or not the ends justified the means.
What interests me about this story has nothing to do with whether or not this discovery makes the Iraq war any more or less justified.


Unfortunately, it cannot be separated in the minds of many people. Some people will take proof of Bush lying as proof that the war was unjustified, which is in accurate since, IMHO, there was plenty of justification still.

[Mirko]

"If you blinked over the July 4th weekend, you might have missed the latest damning evidence that George W. Bush misrepresented the threat from Iraq as he guided the country into invasion and occupation in the Middle East."

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=800

[Ishkur]

I think for now on only people outside of the United States should be allowed to vote for the President, since they are the ones most affected by his decisions.

[bungle bliss]

Originally posted by Ishkur
I think for now on only people outside of the United States should be allowed to vote for the President, since they are the ones most affected by his decisions.

And the only ones who seem to think that lying about the reasons for going to war is NOT cool.



Hex, Bush said -

We are going to war to save ourselves from Saddam's WMD.

We would not use the military for nation-building.

He said both of those things.



Now, if pre-emptive war is all the rage now to rid the world of evil depsots, we have shown that we cannot go it alone. We also wouldnt have even TRIED to go it alone if we were going to war to rid the world of evil despots, we would have looked for and recieved much more backing and help, which we desperately need right now. And we will always desperately need it, because right now we can't even nation-build Iraq properly, without a good five or ten years.

But it doesn't matter, that isnt why we went to war, according to Bush.

HIS reasons for going to war were lies. The means do not justify the ends, since the "means" include the president lying to America, to us, during the State of the Union Address. No American deserves that, no matter how many fucking dictators exist in the world.

I'm sorry but, I'd rather have a presiden that says outright, "There are dictators in the world that we need to get rid of, we'll start with the smallest threats first and as we build alliances, move up the chain, until we have the world leaders working together" (and like it or not, that includes most of Europe.) Say what they mean. Not take advantage of American's ignorance (most Americans lump the entire ME together as if ther are no different cultures or tribes or forms of government there, just "Ay-rabs", and Bush plays into that).

Bush was anything but a straight-shooter in this situation. I want a man or woman who will tell me what is factual, not what I want to hear, and not what I need to hear to swallow his PNAC plan.

Now is the time to wake up and realize, this will rapidly become an excusable pattern if we don't nip it in the bud, NOW.

And, I would say, this pertains to ANY FUCKING SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE USA, I dont care who or what party, or if I love the president or not. America deserves not only BETTER, it deserves the best. We are supposed to be the pinnacle of many things.

Supposed to be anyway

Lying to me in the State of the Union, lying to me all year long about WMD...these people have truly forgotten who they work for. They are totally convinced they are there to serve the military-industrial complex.

I'd also like to add this 50-minute documentary about the Carlyle Group. I doubt any of you would watch it, but it is well-done, and works quite well on dial-up. http://informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm

The first minute and a half aren't in English, but the rest is. The Iron Triangle. The confluence of the military, big business, and politcs. Eisenhower warned against it, against creating a group of businesses built around defense and military, so powerful that it can influence the politcs and decisions of th USA and it's wars.

Watch the documentary, read everything you can about PNAC, and then tell me that Bush's goal was to relieve the world of Saddam. We helped Saddam. We don't get rid of many people. But the PNAC scheme is: Iraq, Iran/Syria, Saudi Arabia and "Egypt as the prize" <---their words, not mine.

Yes, it sounds impossible. And it probably is. But unfortunately, they are going to attempt it anyway. They (PNAC) have been salivating to do so for a decade. Oddly enough, Bush Sr refused to add his name publicly to the project, because he was unsure of whether or not it fit with true American ideals, and he didn't want to tarnish his name as one of our great presidents. Dubya has no such qualms.

Bush Sr has no qualms about doing it surreptitiously, however. (See: Carlyle Group)

Its not a conspiracy, since it's laid out for the world to see on the net, on their very own site. It's not even covert, it's just that it's leaders and everyone invloved are so intertwined with the mainstream media that it is not mentioned much...but with four cable news channels and four network news outlets, (most of which own the cable news networks), it's not surprising.

8 TV news channels isnt shit for a country such as ours. Maybe that's enough for Sweden or South Africa, but for America we really should have more choices than ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, msNBC, Fox News, CNN, and....that's about it.

I think we need a new saying. "Just because the mainstream media doesn't report it, doesn't mean it's far-fetched."

:-/

Anyway, to sum it all up, yeah, Bush lied. And America keeps taking it, like a battered wife who refuses to leave. "He loves me and I love him, he doesn't mean it when he lies, cheats, and slaps me in the face over and over." But hey, if it gets the bitch to cook breakfast every morning, then the ends justify the means, right? :rolleyes:

Bush lied, too many died.

This isn't a semen stain on a dress with a fat Jewish yenta. This is war, with our troops lives and morale and well-being (not to metion our entire fucking economy) at stake.

We need to get the man out of office.

[Effendi]

.
Bush is such a cheezy fuck, his bitches waited until he was in Africa until they admitted he lied to the World.....

And NOW that sorry sack of shit Rumsfield is talking about getting the UN into Iraq to clean up the mess we made.

He was asked yesterday if he thought that Russia and france should help clean up our mess and he said he was sure they were on the list. After ALL that HorseShit he talked to and About France.

Let's get rid of these traitor's who have stolen our country.

Just like Bungle, I am very willing to discuss just about anyone else who is prepared to take the Office of President and Take up the BEST INTEREST of the American People.

Bush Lied, People Died, He should be Tried, and then Fried!!

Scott!!

[186k\sec]

The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called "forged" documents, they came from separate intelligence.
if there is additional intelligence aside from the crap they tried to feed us via state of union, then why continue to withold it.?!?!

bring it on!

[Mirko]

If only Bush would give press conferences...

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Mirko
If only Bush would give press conferences...

yea, so we could hear even MORE of this blubbering idiot...like this:

We're laying the groundwork for a national campaign -- a national campaign that I believe will result in a great victory in November 2002.
-- Tampa, Florida, June 30, 2003

I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things.
-- aboard AirForce One, June 4 2003

I recently met with the finance minister of the Palestinian Authority, was very impressed by his grasp of finances.
-- Washington, DC, May 29, 2003

I think war is a dangerous place.
-- Washington, DC, May 7, 2003

I don't bring God into my life to -- to, you know, kind of be a political person.
-- interview with Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One, April 24, 2003

We're fighting an enemy ... that will wear civilian uniforms....
-- Washington, DC, March 25, 2003

We appreciate our own support for ensuring that the just demands of the world are enforced.
-- Washington, DC, March 13, 2003

I believe we can achieve peace at home....
-- Washington, DC, January 30, 2003

I'm the person who gets to decide, not you.
-- reacting to a reporter's statement in the lead-in to his question that "we're headed to war in Iraq," Crawford, TX, December 31, 2002


We need an energy bill that encourages consumption.
-- Trenton, NJ, September 23, 2002

There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.
-- East Literature Magnet School, Nashville, Tennessee, September 17, 2002. Couldn't quite get out "... fool me twice, shame on me."


I'm thrilled to be here in the breadbasket of America.
-- Stockton, CA, August 23, 2002. Stockton is 60 miles east of the Bay Area, and 25 miles west of the Sierra Nevada, known for watersports on the Sacramento Delta, perhaps, but not much grain production....

We hold dear what our Declaration of Independence says, that all have got uninalienable rights....
-- addressing community and religious leaders in Moscow, May 24, 2002

I'm not familiar with the anacronyms.
-- Ari Fleischer, White House press conference, Washington, DC, May 16, 2002

I don't intend to read it all.
-- referring to the education bill he had just signed, Hamilton, OH, January 8, 2002

We are working hard to convince both the Indians and the Pakis there's a way to deal with their problems without going to war.
-- Washington, DC, January 7, 2002. The term 'Paki' is considered an ethnic slur in Britain. "The President has great respect for Pakistan and for the Pakistani people," White House spokesman Scott McClellan later clarified.

Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes.
-- Ontario, CA, January 5, 2002

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Mirko]

What a coincidence, I was just about to start a "Post your favorite Bush quotes" thread, but you pre-empted me beautifully.

[186k\sec]

VIENNA, July 10 — A diplomat close to the U.N's nuclear watchdog said on Thursday Britain has never provided evidence to back up Prime Minister Tony Blair's continued insistence that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.

Blair has been accused of trying to boost support for the war in Iraq by exaggerating the threat it posed to the world and of using forged documents to back his charge that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons.
Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush both accused Iraq of having tried to buy uranium from Africa as part of a campaign to show that Iraq was an imminent threat to world stability.
''The U.N. followed up with Britain to obtain additional evidence they said they had, backing allegations Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa,'' a diplomat familiar with the International Atomic Energy Agency told Reuters. ''It was never provided.''
The White House National Security Council has since admitted that Bush's claim, made in a State of the Union address, was based on forged documents.
However, Blair's spokesman said on Wednesday that Britain had ''different knowledge'' from the United States to back up its charge, set out in Blair's September 2002 dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Nearly three months after U.S. and British forces invaded Iraq, no evidence of the Iraqi nuclear, biological or chemical weapons programmes loudly trumpeted as the reason for going to war have been found and pressure is growing on Blair to justify the loss of lives and an increasingly sticky occupation.
In March, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council that documents supporting U.S. and British claims that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger were clear forgeries.
An IAEA official said at the time the agency asked Washington and London if they had any other evidence proving Iraq had tried to buy uranium for making weapons. They said no.
However, Blair stands by his Niger allegations.
''Insofar as our intelligence services are concerned, they stand by that,''' Blair said on Wednesday.

CRUDE FAKES
Another official said Britain had genuine evidence.
''Our information comes from good, reliable sources -- not British sources, which is why we were never at liberty to pass anything to the Americans,'' a British official, who declined to be named, told Reuters in London.
Before the war, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate identified Congo and Somalia as two other countries where Iraq had sought uranium.
However, the diplomat said the IAEA had no reason to believe there was any existing evidence that Iraq tried to buy uranium from anywhere in Africa as Washington and London insist.
Diplomats familiar with the forged documents submitted as evidence Iraq had tried to buy two lots of 500 tons of uranium said the fakes were crude and amateurish and expressed surprise that anyone could have taken them seriously.
Two documents were particularly bad. One was a letter from the president of Niger which referred to his authority under a 1965 constitution. That constitution has been defunct since 1999.
There were other problems, including an unsuccessful forgery of the president's signature, about which an IAEA official said in March ''when I looked at it my jaw dropped.''
Another letter about uranium dated October 2000 purportedly came from Niger's foreign minister and was signed by a Mr. Alle Elhadj Habibou, who has not been foreign minister since 1989.

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters07-10-095835.asp?reg=MIDEAST

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by bungle bliss

And America keeps taking it, like a battered wife who refuses to leave. "He loves me and I love him, he doesn't mean it when he lies, cheats, and slaps me in the face over and over." But hey, if it gets the bitch to cook breakfast every morning, then the ends justify the means, right? :rolleyes:

But...but, you see, it's because he loves us SO MUCH that he HAD to hurt us.
He had no choice you see.
You don't know him like we do, we were asking for it.
*sobs*

That metaphor was beautiful bungle.

[Carley]

Powell: No Apologize on Uranuim Charged (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38886-2003Jul10.html)

PRETORIA, South Africa - Secretary of State Colin Powell defended the administration's handling of information about Iraq's weapons programs, saying Thursday that President Bush shouldn't have to apologize for statements that later proved false.

"There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people," Powell said. "The president was presenting what seemed to be a reasonable statement at that time."

Powell's remarks, in Africa where he is traveling with the president, were the administration's strongest defense yet of Bush's decision to include a line in his State of the Union speech that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium in Africa.

As weeks have passed with the American search turning up no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, criticism, especially by Democrats, has been building concerning assertions the administration made as justification for the war.

Powell said the issue was "overblown." The president's remarks in January reflected the best available intelligence at the time, Powell said. He said that as he prepared his own Feb. 5 speech to the United Nations, the information on uranium "was not standing the test of time" and he decided not to use it.

"I didn't use it, and we haven't used it since," Powell said. "But to think that somehow we went out of our way to insert this single sentence into the State of the Union Address for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the American people is an overdrawn, overblown, overwrought conclusion."

© 2003 The Associated Press

[186k\sec]

Powell's just trying to downplay the hot potato & apply some aloe vera spin..

bottom line is stil the same.

they were well informed the report was bogus, yet, they chose to use it anyway, as if it was the truth... . bush lied, and now his cabinet is trying to help with damage control..

"overblown"

could that be any more ironic?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by 186k\sec
Powell's just trying to downplay the hot potato & apply some aloe vera spin..

bottom line is stil the same.

they were well informed the report was bogus, yet, they chose to use it anyway, as if it was the truth... . bush lied, and now his cabinet is trying to help with damage control..

"overblown"

could that be any more ironic?

Damn Bush has psychic powers to see into the future? I had no idea, here I thought he was just an idiot. :rolleyes:

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Carley
President Bush shouldn't have to apologize for statements that later proved false.

"The president was presenting what seemed to be a reasonable statement at that time."


What the Fuck?

Clinton said "I did Not have relations with that little princess"

But you tried to IMPEACH him for statements that later proved false.....

In my book it was a VERY reasonable statement on Clinton's part at the time to say that he did Not have relations with her. No good could cum of it...lol

Very Logically the very exact statement could have been used in Clinton's defense:
""The president was presenting what seemed to be a reasonable statement at that time."

Scott!!

[bungle bliss]

The information was debunked and passed on to the American people months later anyway.

That is equivalent to lying in my book.

[186k\sec]

Damn Bush has psychic powers to see into the future?

quit reading Harry Potter ya bedwetting wacko. ;)

[Effendi]

Originally posted by 186k\sec


quit reading Harry Potter ya bedwetting wacko.

Bwahahahahahahahahha

Scott!!:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by 186k\sec


quit reading Harry Potter ya bedwetting wacko. ;)

Your the one saying Shrub can see the future and lied about. :p

-Jason

[Effendi]

.
EVERY other part of the Intelligence operation of the United States knew more than a YEAR before bush's speech, that the Niger connection was bogus.

Everyone KNEW it was false information including the President, but he used false information intentionally to further his own political agenda. If it was an honest mistake that would be one thing, but there is no way he did not know it was false, and he KNEW he was using false information to attack another soverign country..

Did you watch that show called "24" at all?
It is the exact same scenario. manufactured information used for justification to attack another Nation.

Scott!!

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Effendi
.
EVERY other part of the Intelligence operation of the United States knew more than a YEAR before bush's speech, that the Niger connection was bogus.

Everyone KNEW it was false information including the President, but he used false information intentionally to further his own political agenda. If it was an honest mistake that would be one thing, but there is no way he did not know it was false, and he KNEW he was using false information to attack another soverign country..

Did you watch that show called "24" at all?
It is the exact same scenario. manufactured information used for justification to attack another Nation.

Scott!!

I just posted the timeline and a past perspective on niger/iraq and uranium. Is there something I'm missing? Honestly if the documents were not prooved to be bogus untill March 7th when the IAEA determined so, and then Shrub cited some British intellegence in a State of the Union Speech on January 28th. I don't see how he could of seen into the future to know they were false and went ahead and used them anyways when the documents were not found to be forged untill March 7th. Honestly, help me out here.

-Jason

[burnt]

I can!

Zupan, we've discussed this before. see, you're an intelligent guy, right? unfortunately, your level of intellect, isn't any kind of standard for the rest of the nation...particularly with regard to volatile, sensitive subjects like "War".

there are 2 different kinds of intelligence, the Intellectual Intelligence (ability to do split an atom), and Emotional Intelligence (ability to explain to people how to split an atom, while ensuring that your idea is used to create alternative forms of energy, rather than used to create a big fuckin bomb)...

you see, its one thing to be able to do complex mathematical problems in your head, its another thing to be able to explain complex mathematical theories to a roomful of dorks who all failed their math class, and ensure the dorks comprehend the theory...

it seems to me that our Administration is seriously lacking in Emotional Intelligence.....too many times, the citizenry has "misunderstood" what the Administrators intended to convey.

this is why the remark about Niger/uranium cakes/Iraq was inappropriate.......sure, *YOU* Zupan, can understand that the potential for Iraq to have purchased illegal uranium exists, sure *YOU* can comprehend the detailed intracies of the black market, but can some non-raving schlep from Cheboygan??

its one thing to comprehend what "might" have happened, its another to intelligently explain that comprehension, without any of these vague, open-ended responses.....without any of this room for misinterpretation.

did Bush lie??? thats definitely debatable.......for sure though, a *LOT* of people misunderstood his intent, when he mentioned the uranium cakes, in his State of the Union...

perhaps the Bush Administration should begin taking Mr. Fleisher's advice, and "watch what they say" ? =)

its one thing for *you* to sit there and say, "well, *I* understood what the President meant!"

but point-counterpoint, bro.........a lot of people *didn't* understand what he meant. and its definitely not the first time that this degree of "misinterpretation" has occurred. muthafuckas need to learn to articulate themselves, before they inadvertently talk themselves into a corner...

[Mike S]

Interesting concept. With all that Saddam and his regime did on their own to convince us he was sitting on hidden piles of weapons, not to mention the other armistice/mandate violations and last but definitely not least the fact we all knew him to be a mass murderer..
All taken together that was more than enough justification to take the regime down.. No need to "spice up" anything. Yet its being assumed that in order to manifest in the public a sense of urgency over the matter..Bush et al told themselves they needed to use this uranium story that - was at the time plausible to some -yet questionable in the minds of others in the administration. Who - knowing the value of something like this in the event its proven to be false -wouldn't sign on to having it used. Its counterintuitive if what the are trying to do is maintain and expand power.

Hey..lets make this huge treasonous power grab and do so by using something we're pretty damn sure can come back and bite us in the ass..

Yeah... that works .. Lets see .. what the folks hanging ten off sanity's extreme left edge are implying is that while conspiring and colluding in activities that - if discovered doing - will absolutely have the guilty parties -very publicly I would hope - stand in front of a firing squad.
While supposedly co-ordinating what would be the worlds most sophisticated & successful exercise in mass manipulation ever.. they then chose - as a means to bolster their case to invade Iraq - to knowingly use a fabricated piece of intel. A piece of questionable intel that was known about by those who would -if given the chance - use it against the administration?



Ok..Mere human that I am I'll accept that as a possibility.. .the odds on it or long..real long.. but -stranger things have happened- like an asteroid hitting the earth and killing everything on it.. a long shot .. a real long shot.. but that if something like that can happen at random...
then

I guess this is possible too.

MS

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by burnt
I can!

Cool, I was hoping someone would. ;)

Zupan, we've discussed this before. see, you're an intelligent guy, right?

I get by. ;)

unfortunately, your level of intellect, isn't any kind of standard for the rest of the nation...particularly with regard to volatile, sensitive subjects like "War".

there are 2 different kinds of intelligence, the Intellectual Intelligence (ability to do split an atom), and Emotional Intelligence (ability to explain to people how to split an atom, while ensuring that your idea is used to create alternative forms of energy, rather than used to create a big fuckin bomb)...

you see, its one thing to be able to do complex mathematical problems in your head, its another thing to be able to explain complex mathematical theories to a roomful of dorks who all failed their math class, and ensure the dorks comprehend the theory...

it seems to me that our Administration is seriously lacking in Emotional Intelligence.....too many times, the citizenry has "misunderstood" what the Administrators intended to convey.

this is why the remark about Niger/uranium cakes/Iraq was inappropriate.......sure, *YOU* Zupan, can understand that the potential for Iraq to have purchased illegal uranium exists, sure *YOU* can comprehend the detailed intracies of the black market, but can some non-raving schlep from Cheboygan??

I see what your saying.

But hey!! I have family that lives near Cheboygan. :D

its one thing to comprehend what "might" have happened, its another to intelligently explain that comprehension, without any of these vague, open-ended responses.....without any of this room for misinterpretation.

did Bush lie??? thats definitely debatable.......for sure though, a *LOT* of people misunderstood his intent, when he mentioned the uranium cakes, in his State of the Union...

perhaps the Bush Administration should begin taking Mr. Fleisher's advice, and "watch what they say" ? =)

its one thing for *you* to sit there and say, "well, *I* understood what the President meant!"

but point-counterpoint, bro.........a lot of people *didn't* understand what he meant. and its definitely not the first time that this degree of "misinterpretation" has occurred. muthafuckas need to learn to articulate themselves, before they inadvertently talk themselves into a corner...

Well I agree, but that's the nature of intelligence sometimes. It was intelligence that seemed highly probale enough to use in a speech along with shit loads of other similar intelligence sources givin the nature of the regime of Saddam Hussain and past deals Iraq had with aquring this uranium "yellow cake", but this particular source turned out not to be accurate intelligence at all later on. Does this later to be found false intelligence illustrate that the regime did not seek to reconsitutute a weapons program. No. Was the case for war made on this one source of intelligence of Iraq seeking uranium from Niger. No. The US waged war for many many many reasons and on many many many sources of intelligence. Bush cited a inaccurate intelligence finding that's it. It's not like he bombed an asprin factory only on that intelligence. ;)

Take care,
Jason

[burnt]

bro, I agree with you, and further, if you look up hella old rants between you, me, MikeS, bungle, 186, and others, you'll see that I never, ever backed down from the perception that Saddam was, definitely, a "bad guy"...

all I'm saying is........well, fuck, people in positions of power, aren't alloted the freedom to be candid. I guess its another one of the reasons why its lonely at the top, you don't *really* get to speak your mind on the podium.

hell.......*especially* during a time when people were discriminating every word.....*especially* when getting chased by a failing political party ready to pounce on the first inaccurate statement.

and *especially* considering the historic significance of the U.S. declaring war all by themselves, against the support of the U.N........you'd have thought that the fool wouldn't have said anything that might be disagreed with so fervently. you'd have thought that he'd have - um - wordsmithed his words, with greater foresight.

he's Chief Executive of the United States, and former CEO of several corporations, right? so that whole "proactive" thing shouldn't be too hard for him to grasp.

stating that Iraq obtained yellow cakes from Niger, or even alluding to this, while so many others disagreed..........dude, it was just foolish.

and now we got this whole *other* fucking partisan debate, getting in the way of fixing our failing economy and stagnant jobs growth........just plain foolish, definitely the polar opposite of proactive. IMHO, anyway.

I mean, hell, look at what happened to the Iraqi Minister of Information, "I tell you, there are NO tanks bombing the fuck out of us!", he claimed.

Bush could potentially look just as foolish, in the near future. "I tell you, Iraq *HAS* weapons of mass destruction hidden *somewhere*!!!"

there's times to be candid. a State of the Union address is too historically significant for any of that sort of candor though, especially the 2003 State of the Union address.

[Ishkur]

Originally posted by Mike S
last but definitely not least the fact we all knew him to be a mass murderer..


http://www.terrorismanswers.com/images/photos/foreignaid_pic2.jpg
You see the guy on the left? That is Islam Karimov. He boils people alive.

Is the U.S. planning to invade Uzbekistan? (http://www.hrw.org/europe/uzbekistan.php) Hardly. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,963497,00.html) So I call shenanigans on the "he was a madman" argument until this Administration shows some certifiable consistency and some damn good, proactive gumption towards removing evil despots.

The reason why it doesn't, obviously, is because it is too costly. Human rights is always trumped by economic concerns. No one wants to foot the bill for a war. Unless, of course, you can guarantee a return on your investment. Such as Iraq.


Hey..lets make this huge treasonous power grab and do so by using something we're pretty damn sure can come back and bite us in the ass..


Why not? It's been done before. Several times, in fact. And only one incident that I can recall (Watergate) where someone actually lost his job. And still, that was willingly.


While supposedly co-ordinating what would be the worlds most sophisticated & successful exercise in mass manipulation ever..


three words: United Fruit Company.



but -stranger things have happened- like an asteroid hitting the earth and killing everything on it..


Or a President getting killed in public and no one figuring out who did it.


a long shot .. a real long shot.. but that if something like that can happen at random...
then
I guess this is possible too.



Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by burnt
bro, I agree with you, and further, if you look up hella old rants between you, me, MikeS, bungle, 186, and others, you'll see that I never, ever backed down from the perception that Saddam was, definitely, a "bad guy"...

all I'm saying is........well, fuck, people in positions of power, aren't alloted the freedom to be candid. I guess its another one of the reasons why its lonely at the top, you don't *really* get to speak your mind on the podium.

That's true. Clinton got it, now Bush is getting it. Yes both Clinton and Bush have done things I disagree with, and some of the critisism is worth merit but allot of the bullshit is just that bullshit. That's partisan politics for ya. ;)

hell.......*especially* during a time when people were discriminating every word.....*especially* when getting chased by a failing political party ready to pounce on the first inaccurate statement.

Exactly! This reminds me of the very same type of partisan maggots in the Republican Party who pounced on Bill Clinton for using faulty intel to bomb a asprin factory in the attempt to take out OBL. They said he lied about the accuracy of the intel to bomb the asprin factory to advert attention from his sexual harrassment and impeachment inquries. Now we have the partisan maggots on the other side pouncing on this shit. I agree it's pathetic.

and *especially* considering the historic significance of the U.S. declaring war all by themselves, against the support of the U.N........you'd have thought that the fool wouldn't have said anything that might be disagreed with so fervently. you'd have thought that he'd have - um - wordsmithed his words, with greater foresight.

Haha.. true. Shrub has plenty of political and partisan foes, shit they even wet the bed over Shrub's "bring em on" statement.

he's Chief Executive of the United States, and former CEO of several corporations, right? so that whole "proactive" thing shouldn't be too hard for him to grasp.

stating that Iraq obtained yellow cakes from Niger, or even alluding to this, while so many others disagreed..........dude, it was just foolish.

and now we got this whole *other* fucking partisan debate, getting in the way of fixing our failing economy and stagnant jobs growth........just plain foolish, definitely the polar opposite of proactive. IMHO, anyway.

I mean, hell, look at what happened to the Iraqi Minister of Information, "I tell you, there are NO tanks bombing the fuck out of us!", he claimed.

Bush could potentially look just as foolish, in the near future. "I tell you, Iraq *HAS* weapons of mass destruction hidden *somewhere*!!!"

there's times to be candid. a State of the Union address is too historically significant for any of that sort of candor though, especially the 2003 State of the Union address.

True.. I'm surprised that this now is an issue given the fact that the reports about these documents ending up being forged have been known now for months. This whole think stinks of desperation if you ask me.

Take care,
Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Ishkur
So I call shenanigans on the "he was a madman" argument until this Administration shows some certifiable consistency and some damn good, proactive gumption towards removing evil despots.

The reason why it doesn't, obviously, is because it is too costly. Human rights is always trumped by economic concerns. No one wants to foot the bill for a war. Unless, of course, you can guarantee a return on your investment. Such as Iraq.

What is the economic gain in Liberia? What was the economic gain in Kosovo, the Balkins, Haiti, Somolia and etc?

-Jason

[burnt]

This whole think stinks of desperation if you ask me.

*nods*

the only thing we seem to disagree on.........I'm saying the left *AND* the right stink of desperation, you seem to only see the left's desperation...

seriously bro.....its been almost ONE FULL YEAR since the American Republican Party started ranting about Iraq's WMD program, and still, ain't nobody found fuckall, yet we still hear about new "findings" every 3 or 4 days on CNN.....

its no different from an IndyMedia blogging dumbass sticking his bicycle in the middle of fucking traffic.....well, I dunno, smart-bombing a wedding in Afghanistan might be a *little* different, but um.......yea, at least we agree that the politics is pretty fuggin Partisan, petty, and pathetically desperate these days.

you know, one of the major reasons that I really dig on Howard Dean, is because both Democratic *and* Republican - um, Senators *and* Congresspersons, seem to *really* dislike the man....you'd almost think they're intimidated by his level of frankness... =)

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by burnt


*nods*

the only thing we seem to disagree on.........I'm saying the left *AND* the right stink of desperation, you seem to only see the left's desperation...

Yo look up man. I just gave an example of desperation by the repubs. ;)

I think Bush put to much faith in the British claim, and the Administration has retracted the claim since the State of the Union Address. Powell didn't even use it in his UN address. I dunno the british are standing behind their source. [shrugs]

seriously bro.....its been almost ONE FULL YEAR since the American Republican Party started ranting about Iraq's WMD program, and still, ain't nobody found fuckall, yet we still hear about new "findings" every 3 or 4 days on CNN.....

findings? You mean baathist fuckers trying to disrupt needed Iraq infustructure, police and the good guys in uniform everyday? To be honest, even if WMD turned up tomorrow I'd still be concerned about rounding up the bad guys than the WMD.

its no different from an IndyMedia blogging dumbass sticking his bicycle in the middle of fucking traffic.....well, I dunno, smart-bombing a wedding in Afghanistan might be a *little* different, but um.......yea, at least we agree that the politics is pretty fuggin Partisan, petty, and pathetically desperate these days.

Hey I guess I can't say it's as bad as I used to think, the more I became interested in politics the easier I found it to cut through the partisan bullshit to see the positive side of it all.

you know, one of the major reasons that I really dig on Howard Dean, is because both Democratic *and* Republican - um, Senators *and* Congresspersons, seem to *really* dislike the man....you'd almost think they're intimidated by his level of frankness... =)

So far the infighting between Dean and the DLC is getting heated, I havn't notice much Republicans talking about him, considering the fact the Republicans proabaly want Dean to win to setup another Mondale or McGovern landside election. [shrugs] But I like Dean's frankness.. reminds me of myself just with out the socialist politics. ;)

-Jason

[Roddimus]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/eveningnews/main560449.shtml

(CBS)_Senior administration officials tell CBS News the President’s mistaken claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was included in his State of the Union address -- despite objections from the CIA.

Before the speech was delivered, the portions dealing with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were checked with the CIA for accuracy, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

CIA officials warned members of the President’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.

The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: “Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that’s how it was delivered.

Bush is sounding more and more like Clinton everyday.
"Well, TECHNICALLY, I didn't lie because all I said was that the British had info on Saddam's recent attempts at getting uranium. Even tho I knew the info was probably false, as long the Brits are the one's attributed with the fuck-up, I'll be OK!"
Bush is such a dishonest little fucker.

[burnt]

Yo look up man. I just gave an example of desperation by the repubs. ;)

oops........heh......

To be honest, even if WMD turned up tomorrow I'd still be concerned about rounding up the bad guys than the WMD.

werd. guns don't kill, people do, huh?

Hey I guess I can't say it's as bad as I used to think, the more I became interested in politics the easier I found it to cut through the partisan bullshit to see the positive side of it all.

yea, thats my haterade for you.....I'll blame the Floridian sun vs the Oregonian cumulus...its the easiest explanation, if not a bit "elementary" </pun>

So far the infighting between Dean and the DLC is getting heated, I havn't notice much Republicans talking about him, considering the fact the Republicans proabaly want Dean to win to setup another Mondale or McGovern landside election. [shrugs]

sure, sure, but just like the whole "we're still in Japan", or "we're still in Germany", or "thats how its always been in the past" - type arguments, you're forgetting that we're living in a very historically important time. the internet's taken over, courtesy of a DARPA / PARC sociological experiment gone horribly wrong. communication's vastly different today, than it was in 1942, or even 1984........I dunno, mebbe an old school "landslide" can be over-analyzed, perhaps a crux or fulcrum or "turning point" can be found............mebbe a quick blog posted 18 hours prior to an election, can re-route your "landslide"....

heh.........I mean, if the Bush crew can hackmob the elections in Florida, there's no saying that some crew reppin like Mitnick couldn't do the same...

heh..........."can I please have your AIM password ma'am? how about your vote???" =)
*shrugs*

I like Dean's frankness.. reminds me of myself just with out the socialist politics.

werd. I really get bugged out on - um - too much socialism, I guess. seriously, this city bugs on me sometimes, folks are just soooooooooo fuggin Politically Correct 'round here. I just.......I dunno......lesser of 2 evils I suppose. =\

its too early to consider him for president, but at least he's making *some* peeps think outside the Partisan box......

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Roddimus
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/eveningnews/main560449.shtml



Dammit you beat me to it.. I just saw it on Drudge's website and had it copied and was ready to post. untill you did. Grrr.. ;)

-Jason

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD

So far the infighting between Dean and the DLC is getting heated, I havn't notice much Republicans talking about him, considering the fact the Republicans proabaly want Dean to win to setup another Mondale or McGovern landside election. [shrugs] But I like Dean's frankness.. reminds me of myself just with out the socialist politics. ;)

I'm really confused as to how Dean is a socialist. I hear that term thrown around so much nowadays its almost lost any and all definition.
Just because a person supports free healthcare doesn't make them a socialist, simply a supporter of welfare systems.
His beliefs and politics more closely resemble postindustrial Rawlsian liberalism than anything even close to Marxism.

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Dammit you beat me to it.. I just saw it on Drudge's website and had it copied and was ready to post. untill you did. Grrr.. ;)

-Jason
Heh, you gotta be quick on the draw 'round these parts, pardner.
:)

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by burnt


oops........heh......



werd. guns don't kill, people do, huh?

;)

yea, thats my haterade for you.....I'll blame the Floridian sun vs the Oregonian cumulus...its the easiest explanation, if not a bit "elementary" </pun>

Burnt *Touches zupangod's sunburn*

OUCH! :D

sure, sure, but just like the whole "we're still in Japan", or "we're still in Germany", or "thats how its always been in the past" - type arguments, you're forgetting that we're living in a very historically important time. the internet's taken over, courtesy of a DARPA / PARC sociological experiment gone horribly wrong. communication's vastly different today, than it was in 1942, or even 1984........

Word.. McGovern was 1972 If I remember correct.. anyhow.. yeah the internet is a big plus, but remember all candidates have internet campaign websites and all, right now I think your seeing a great plus for Dean amongst the support he's getting from progressive types on the internet.

I dunno, mebbe an old school "landslide" can be over-analyzed, perhaps a crux or fulcrum or "turning point" can be found............mebbe a quick blog posted 18 hours prior to an election, can re-route your "landslide"....

I'm sure some good scare mongering might do the trick. ;)

heh.........I mean, if the Bush crew can hackmob the elections in Florida, there's no saying that some crew reppin like Mitnick couldn't do the same...

heh..........."can I please have your AIM password ma'am? how about your vote???" =)
*shrugs*



LOL

werd. I really get bugged out on - um - too much socialism, I guess. seriously, this city bugs on me sometimes, folks are just soooooooooo fuggin Politically Correct 'round here. I just.......I dunno......lesser of 2 evils I suppose. =\

its too early to consider him for president, but at least he's making *some* peeps think outside the Partisan box......

True.. smack em up! :D

Just watch out for those cradle to grave policies, smacking up liberty isn't good. ;)

[bungle bliss]

Originally posted by Roddimus

I'm really confused as to how Dean is a socialist.

Dean is a socialist, HAHAHAHAHA!

Anyway, even if that retarded statement had any validity, which would you rather have, socialism or facism?

Luckily blanket labels like that aren't America's only two choices.

[burnt]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/sprj.irq.wmdspeech/index.html

sorry. nowhere in the article, does it actually state that the Administration just kinda reads whatever they stick in front of them... =)

[186k\sec]

Fri, 11 Jul 2003

ENTEBBE, UGANDA - The U.S. national security adviser says the CIA approved President George Bush's state of the union message, including a statement about Iraq's nuclear program.

"The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety," Condoleezza Rice told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday.

Her comments came after Bush administration officials admitted Wednesday that a statement Bush made about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger were based on forged documents.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Bush said in the Jan. 28 address.

In a related matter, The Washington Post reported Friday that the CIA tried unsuccessfully in September 2002 to persuade the British government to drop from an official intelligence paper a reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa.

A CIA official who went to the African nation to investigate the claim reported that it was highly doubtful such a transaction ever took place.

British officials learned of those doubts before the allegations were made public, and sent word to several agencies in the U.S. government.

But Rice said if the CIA director had any reservations about the statement in the president's speech, "he did not make them known" to Bush or his staff.

Rice said the CIA raised only one objection to the sentence on the allegation. "Some specifics about the amount and place were taken out," she said.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/11/us_rice020311

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

"In March (2002), I arrived in Washington and promplty provided a detailed breifing to the CIA. I later shared my conclusions with the State Dept. There was nothing secret in my report" . . . . ."There should be at least four documents in the US government archives confirming my mission. They should include the ambassadors report, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a CIA report summing up my trip, and an answer from the agency to the office of the vice president" Ambassador Wilson


Interviewed Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Wilson disputed the administration's contention that his report never reached high-level officials. He said Vice President Dick Cheney's office had inquired about the alleged link between Iraq and Niger.

"The question was asked of the CIA by the office of the vice president. The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked, and that response was based upon my trip out there,"

"It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war," he told the Washington Post. "It begs the question, what else are they lying about?" Wilson said

http://www.nwtekno.org/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=834904#post834904

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

[Mike S]

Scandal!
Bush’s enemies aren't telling the truth about what he said.


The president's critics are lying. Mr. Bush never claimed that Saddam Hussein had purchased uranium from Niger. It is not true — as USA Today reported on page one Friday morning — that "tainted evidence made it into the President's State of the Union address." For the record, here's what President Bush actually said in his SOTU: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Precisely which part of that statement isn't true? The British government did say that it believed Saddam had sought African uranium. Is it possible that the British government was mistaken? Sure. Is it possible that Her Majesty's government came by that belief based on an erroneous American intelligence report about a transaction between Iraq and Niger? Yes — but British Prime Minister Tony Blair and members of his Cabinet say that's not what happened.

They say, according to Britain's liberal Guardian newspaper, that their claim was based on "extra material, separate and independent from that of the US."

I suppose you can make the case that a British-government claim should not have made its way into the president's SOTU without further verification. But why is that the top of the TV news day after day? Why would even the most dyspeptic Bush-basher see in those 16 accurate words of President's Bush's 5,492-word SOTU an opportunity to persuade Americans that there's a scandal in the White House, another Watergate, grounds for impeachment?

Surely, everyone does know by now that Saddam Hussein did have a nuclear-weapons-development program. That program was set back twice: Once by Israeli bombers in 1981, and then a decade later, at the end of the Gulf War when we learned that Saddam's nuclear program was much further along than our intelligence analysts had believed.

As President Bush also said in the SOTU:

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Since Saddam never demonstrated — to the U.S., the U.N., or even to Jacques Chirac — that he had abandoned his nuclear ambitions, one has to conclude that he was still in the market for nuclear materials. And, indeed, many intelligence analysts long believed that he was trying to acquire such material from wherever he could — not just from Niger but also from Gabon, Namibia, Russia, Serbia, and other sources.

Maybe there was no reliable evidence to support the particular intelligence report saying that Saddam had acquired yellowcake (lightly processed uranium ore) from Niger. But the British claim was only that Saddam had sought yellowcake — not that he succeeded in getting a five-pound box Fedexed to his palace on the Tigris.

And is there even one member of the U.S. Congress who would say that it was on the basis of this claim alone that he voted to authorize the president to use military force against Saddam? Is there one such individual anywhere in America?

A big part of the reason this has grown into such a brouhaha is that Joseph C. Wilson IV wrote an op-ed about it in last Sunday's New York Times in which he said: "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Actually, Wilson has plenty of choices — but no basis for his slanderous allegation. A little background: Mr. Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA to verify a U.S. intelligence report about the sale of yellowcake — because Vice President Dick Cheney requested it, because Cheney had doubts about the validity of the intelligence report.

Wilson says he spent eight days in Niger "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people" — hardly what a competent spy, detective, or even reporter would call an in-depth investigation. Nevertheless, let's give Wilson the benefit of the doubt and stipulate that he was correct when he reported back to the CIA that he believed it was "highly doubtful that any such transaction ever took place. "

But, again, because it was "doubtful" that Saddam actually acquired yellowcake from Niger, it does not follow that he never sought it there or elsewhere in Africa, which is all the president suggested based on what the British said — and still say.

And how does Wilson leap from there to the conclusion that Vice President Cheney and his boss "twisted" intelligence to "exaggerate the Iraqi threat"? Wilson hasn't the foggiest idea what other intelligence the president and vice president had access to.

It also would have been useful for the New York Times and others seeking Wilson's words of wisdom to have provided a little background on him. For example:

He was an outspoken opponent of U.S. military intervention in Iraq.

He's an "adjunct scholar" at the Middle East Institute — which advocates for Saudi interests. The March 1, 2002 issue of the Saudi government-weekly Ain-Al Yaqeen lists the MEI as an "Islamic research institutes supported by the Kingdom."

He's a vehement opponent of the Bush administration which, he wrote in the March 3, 2003 edition of the left-wing Nation magazine, has "imperial ambitions." Under President Bush, he added, the world worries that "America has entered one of it periods of historical madness."

He also wrote that "neoconservatives" have "a stranglehold on the foreign policy of the Republican Party." He said that "the new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our world view are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme."

He was recently the keynote speaker for the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, a far-left group that opposed not only the U.S. military intervention in Iraq but also the sanctions — and even the no-fly zones that protected hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and Shias from being slaughtered by Saddam.

And consider this: Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Wilson did believe that Saddam had biological weapons of mass destruction. But he raised that possibility only to argue against toppling Saddam, warning ABC's Dave Marash that if American troops were sent into Iraq, Saddam might "use a biological weapon in a battle that we might have. For example, if we're taking Baghdad or we're trying to take, in ground-to-ground, hand-to-hand combat." He added that Saddam also might attempt to take revenge by unleashing "some sort of a biological assault on an American city, not unlike the anthrax, attacks that we had last year."

In other words, Wilson is no disinterested career diplomat — he's a pro-Saudi, leftist partisan with an ax to grind. And too many in the media are helping him and allies grind it.

— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

[Cedwyn]

I don't see how he could of seen into the future to know they were false and went ahead and used them anyways
and i don't see how you don't seem to grasp a very simple concept:

he didn't need to see into the future to know they were false. that's been firmly established. given that, shrubya's use of questionable intelligence as a justification for war is inexcusable. if there is the slightest doubt about a claim's veracity, it should not be part of the equation. we are talking about lives here, for fuck's sake.

All taken together that was more than enough justification to take the regime down.. No need to "spice up" anything
plenty of need...we are not allowed to wage war for the purpose of "regime change."

Haha.. true. Shrub has plenty of political and partisan foes,shit they even wet the bed over Shrub's "bring em on" statement.
and our beleagured troops send you a mighty "fuck off, asshole."

What is the economic gain in Liberia? What was the economic gain in Kosovo, the Balkins, Haiti, Somolia and etc?
exactly...and how eager were/are we to commit troops in those arenas? the two (financial gain and our zeal for involvement) are directly related.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD

True.. I'm surprised that this now is an issue given the fact that the reports about these documents ending up being forged have been known now for months. This whole think stinks of desperation if you ask me.

Take care,
Jason

Desperation for sure and right again on this story being old.

Let em keep at it though. What all these desperate attacks are doing is alienating the middle of the road voters that are considering voting for the left.

Where things are going to get interesting Jason is when the left gets handed its walking papers in 04. They've become so cult like and fanatical I doubt very much they are going to take their rejection in a sane manner. They are crazed there for they will act out in a crazed manner.

So.. I guess that night it would be wise to set up shop at home. Turn the TV on and root for the cops as they spend the evening on the streets beating fanatic ass.

I'll bring the popcorn..

MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Cedwyn


plenty of need...we are not allowed to wage war for the purpose of "regime change."
.

Why don't you say it like you mean it Cedwyn..

If it Gore were removing Saddam it would be hailed by hypocrites like you as a tremendous humanitarian act.

Yes we can and should go to war for regime change Cedwyn.. that is one of the primary reasons you go to war.

There was an over abundance of reasons to remove this guy and his regime. Anyone who says otherwise is not playing with a full deck.
Period.

The fact the guy was a mass murdering lunatic was enough for me ... and yes I'm all for removing the other mass murdering SOBs as well. One asshole at a time please.

The fact that obviously isn't enough for you f*cked up leftists really makes me sick and it grosses me out I have breathe the same air as anyone like that.

*shakes head*

You people really have lost your f*cking minds haven't you.



MS

[Cedwyn]

interesting tidbit from article 20 of the universal declaration of human rights (UN):

Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Mike S

You people really have lost your f*cking minds haven't you.
MS

It's just that kind of day....

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
interesting tidbit from article 20 of the universal declaration of human rights (UN):

Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.


Really? What law.. enacted by what elected legislature? Propaganda for war? What about propaganda against it? What is propaganda defined as?

Yeah interesting tidbit.. and totally meaningless.

MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Effendi


It's just that kind of day....

I think that is one of my favorite Scott posts ever. :)

MS

[Justin]

Posted by Mike S. I'm too lazy to go through the quote rigamorol (or to spell that word correctly) but here it is:

"'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'

Precisely which part of that statement isn't true? "


What is untrue about that statement?

1) Most obvious, it's a statement of unequivical fact about something that we knew wasn't true.

2) It wasn't that recent.

3) The CIA did it's own analysis. It discredited it. Hardly "learned from the British." It's just that by the time the SOTUA was made, the Brits lagged behind us in discrediting it, so they pretended it was all Brit info and analysis. That right there means they knew it was bullshit, but they threw in the Brit tack to add a layer of plausible deniabilty for those who live to make excuses for the administration like yourself, and for those who make lots of money beating in the heads of the weak minded with propaganda like Talk Radio.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/135236825_intel11.html

(The cited article is interesting in its own right, implying that the line was uneccesary because plenty of other more credible evidence existed. So why was it used? Currently, conservatives have, at best, incompetence to cite as an excuse.)

Edited to add the source, quote I'm replying to, and final paragraph.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
Posted by Mike S. I'm too lazy to go through the quote rigamorol (or to spell that word correctly) but here it is:

"'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'

Precisely which part of that statement isn't true? "


What is untrue about that statement?

1) Most obvious, it's a statement of unequivical fact about something that we knew wasn't true.

2) It wasn't that recent.

3) The CIA did it's own analysis. It discredited it. Hardly "learned from the British." It's just that by the time the SOTUA was made, the Brits lagged behind us in discrediting it, so they pretended it was all Brit info and analysis. That right there means they knew it was bullshit, but they threw in the Brit tack to add a layer of plausible deniabilty for those who live to make excuses for the administration like yourself, and for those who make lots of money beating in the heads of the weak minded with propaganda like Talk Radio.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/135236825_intel11.html

(The cited article is interesting in its own right, implying that the line was uneccesary because plenty of other more credible evidence existed. So why was it used? Currently, conservatives have, at best, incompetence to cite as an excuse.)

Edited to add the source, quote I'm replying to, and final paragraph.

Read.
"The president's critics are lying. Mr. Bush never claimed that Saddam Hussein had purchased uranium from Niger. "

"'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' "


Sought. Purchased.

Now as to the validity of the claims that Saddam was LOOKING to purchase uranium? Thats still an open question.

MS

[Justin]

Who cares if some of the president's critics are lying, or more likely, inaccurate.

I care if the president was lying, or inaccurate. Looks like he was, doesn't it?

[Ishkur]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD
Liberia? Kosovo, the Balkins, Haiti, Somolia and etc?


Hmmm.

Umm...not to trivialize your country's little humanitarian mission to rid the world of evildoers there, Zup, but those countries are like the Axis of Sometimes Kinda Bad. Relatively speaking.

The question to be asked isn't why is America invading some countries, but why ISN'T America invading others?

That's the realm of inconsistency that I want clarified.

[Mike S]

Looks...

That's a great word Doc.. because just about every time something LOOKS a certain way regarding this President the usual suspect insist it IS that way. No Doc .. it doesn't look like he's lying.. It looks like at times the right hand isn't keeping the left hand up to speed on what's going on.
It also looks like these pathetic people - and yes they are absolutely and totally pathetic excuses for human beings - are so desperate to prove themselves right on Iraq -must mean they really have doubts - that they will stoop to any low to achieve that.
It looks like they really don't care to focus on what best to do for the people of Iraq or how best to use this victory to further our gains in the war on terror ..none of that.. all it looks as though they can do is fixate on Bush.
These people are insane with hate in my opinion. Insane.
What I see from these people now is by far worse than anything I ever experienced from Clinton haters. This shit is spooky.

New twist on an old story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44949-2003Jul11.html


And of course from the usual suspects we will hear that it LOOKS like Tenet is taking a fall, which will later be morphed into the FACT that Tenet took a fall from these same people.

What it LOOKS like to me Doc is we have a whole lot of people - some of whom are not playing with a full deck - really wanting things to be a certain way in regards to this president. And no matter what the truth of the matter is, what it LOOKS like to them is what it will be for them.

I'll take the proven truth thank you very much.

MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Ishkur


Hmmm.

Umm...not to trivialize your country's little humanitarian mission to rid the world of evildoers there, Zup, but those countries are like the Axis of Sometimes Kinda Bad. Relatively speaking.

The question to be asked isn't why is America invading some countries, but why ISN'T America invading others?

That's the realm of inconsistency that I want clarified.


Yeah you are Ish.. quit lying. Snarky bastard...Part of your entire NWTKNO shtick is to trivialize.

Any way that is a valid question..After we get done or close to it in Iraq. If we are to remain consistent then yes, we should be doing what ever necessary to get rid of the N. Korean regime..then move on from there to who ever is next.
Invade everytime? Don't think so.

Different place.. Different strategy.

MS

[186k\sec]

CIA Chief Takes Responsibility for Iraq Clearance

Fri July 11, 2003 08:08 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - CIA Director George Tenet on Friday took responsibility for a faulty statement that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium from Africa included in President Bush's State of the Union address as the United States tried to gather support for war.

"I am responsible for the approval process in my agency," he said in a statement, marking the latest twist in the controversy dogging both the U.S. and British governments.

Critics have accused Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair of exaggerating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in trying to build a case for the invasion of Iraq in March.

Bush said in his January speech: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

"The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," Tenet said.

The White House recently acknowledged the statement was based on forged documents alleging an Iraqi-Niger uranium deal and should not have been included in the speech.

INCREASED SPECULATION

But since then, speculation erupted over how the statement passed a screening process and remained in the speech, with critics of Bush questioning whether the president had kept it in, knowing it was false.

Democrats have been trying to push the issue as a sign the Bush administration misled the public to gather support for the war against Baghdad.

On Friday, senior Republicans started publicly criticizing the CIA and Tenet.

The CIA director issued his statement hours after Bush, traveling in Africa, said the charge that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was approved by his "intelligence services." White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the specific wording was cleared by the CIA.

Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in unusually strong language, criticized the CIA for "extremely sloppy handling" of the information that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.

Roberts, who had not previously been a harsh critic of the agency or its director, specifically blamed Tenet for not serving the president well on this issue. But he stopped short of calling for the CIA director's resignation, saying that such a decision was the president's call.

BUSH VOICES CONFIDENCE IN TENET

CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said, "I have heard no discussion whatsoever" about Tenet resigning. And White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said: "The president has absolute faith and confidence in him and believes he is doing an excellent job."

Tenet, a holdover from the previous Democratic administration of President Bill Clinton, has had a close relationship with Bush and briefs him on intelligence developments most mornings.

In a three-page statement, the CIA director described the circumstances that resulted in the faulty statement on Iraq landing in the president's key annual speech.

The CIA received portions of a draft of the State of the Union speech shortly before the president delivered it.

At that time, the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries. However, CIA officials raised concerns about the "fragmentary nature" of the intelligence with White House National Security Council colleagues, Tenet said.

"Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct," he said.

It was technically correct because the British were reporting that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, he said.

"This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and the CIA should have ensured that it was removed," Tenet said.

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3077836

[Mike S]

Doc - With 186s post my point is proven.

MS

[186k\sec]

it only proves the administration has sucessfully cornered Tenet as a scapegoat. if you read his response carefully you will see he admits only that he is responsible for approval process within the agency, and that 'those 16 words should not have been included' - after finding they were forged. prior to this finding by the AEIA, the CIA had flagged the African/uranium reports as 'highly dubiuos' - but the administration wanted to use the uranium report in the state fo the union. They knew it was half-baked at best, so they chose to qualify the statement by pinning it to the British - just as they are now pinning this to Tenet.


bottom line is the same, they used fake information to deceptively bolster war support

[Mike S]

No 186 it proves everything in my post to Doc to a 'T'.

You have no idea as to the truth or accuracy of anything you claim to be true regarding what was known, by who and when.

Ironic - here is a story about bad intelligence making its way into the decision making process - and you criticizing that - yet you willingly base your opinion of these same people on information that is no more than an assumption.
Nothing proven. Nothing concrete. Bad intelligence
Just what it LOOKS like to you.

Maybe you should take a job at the CIA - you sound like their type of analyst.

MS

[Rev Bucky]

I'm greatly amused at the rhetoric people will believe to validate their own beliefs,and the deaths as a result of them. I'm also amazed that people will accept anything told to them, as long as it justifys them, and how people will keep spinning something until it means what they want to. Unfortunately, it seems like we are all twisting in the wind.

It doesn't matter that innocent people died (ON BOTH SIDES!!) It doesn't matter that the President of the United States uses misinformation, doesn't read all he signs, doesn't know who other world leaders are, let alone how the other political systems work. Nope Bush loves God and He loves us, enough to have us kill and die in his name, that's the kind of love you get from a God, and we have it in a man, our man, the Prez!

The whole idea of preemptive striking out against other countries who we feel aren't doing as we want them as a government policy is a brilliant idea. Go to another persons country with force, and start killing until you get your way, great policy for a government to have, don't ya think (and if you agree with what I just said, it's obvious you don't.) Gee people like Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Bin Laden think it's good policy, and it worked for them, albeit up until other parts of the World organized and destroyed their countries, could that happen to the US?

NOPE NEVER WE ARE THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD< EVERYBODY LOVES US< WE HAVE SO MANY COOL ALLIES AND STUFF< WE ARE JUST FINE< THE BEST...

(Hey, why are they flying planes into our buildings, they must be evil, they killed a bunch of innocent people, we'll show them, we'll go to whoever we can blame it on, and we will do the SAME DAMN THING to their people, whether the information validates it, whether the info itself is valid, but since we do it in the name of what's right, in the Name of the USA, it's OK. Hey wait, how come the rest of the World hates us, I mean all we are doing is making things better for the USA, and what we want for the World, why don't they get that what they want is irrelevant, it's whats in the Best intrest of The United States, and thats all that matters. Why do they think we are a bunch of ignorant noncaring thugs? Why do they think they should have a say in their own, and their peoples lives? Why those dirty bastards, how dare they ever question what we do, and how it affects them.

FUCK EM, we'll flex our cocks, drop the bombs, and kill em all, we don't need the rest of the World, we are the Great United States! Well except for their natural resources, cheap labor, and food growing capabilities, otherwise, we the Great United States can stand alone strong and tall!


Oh and to answer the topic, I will sarcastically say, a politician lying to get his own way, that never ever happens, but as long as actual people die, instead of sperm, hey thats OK!! After all, it's ok to lie if you do it to cover your own ass, whether its getting sex, or lining your bank account, or killing someone, thats what this last decade of politics (hell last century, HELL HISTORY OF HUMANITY) has taught me. Do what you want, and use any means neccessary to get what you want, and anything you can to validate it.

Hey people, if you have kids, prepare to kiss their future goodbye, but it's ok, we did it for our side, and thats all that matters, right?

[Justin]

Originally posted by Mike S
Looks...

That's a great word Doc.. because just about every time something LOOKS a certain way regarding this President the usual suspect insist it IS that way. No Doc .. it doesn't look like he's lying.. It looks like at times the right hand isn't keeping the left hand up to speed on what's going on.
It also looks like these pathetic people - and yes they are absolutely and totally pathetic excuses for human beings - are so desperate to prove themselves right on Iraq -must mean they really have doubts - that they will stoop to any low to achieve that.
It looks like they really don't care to focus on what best to do for the people of Iraq or how best to use this victory to further our gains in the war on terror ..none of that.. all it looks as though they can do is fixate on Bush.
These people are insane with hate in my opinion. Insane.
What I see from these people now is by far worse than anything I ever experienced from Clinton haters. This shit is spooky.

New twist on an old story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44949-2003Jul11.html


And of course from the usual suspects we will hear that it LOOKS like Tenet is taking a fall, which will later be morphed into the FACT that Tenet took a fall from these same people.

What it LOOKS like to me Doc is we have a whole lot of people - some of whom are not playing with a full deck - really wanting things to be a certain way in regards to this president. And no matter what the truth of the matter is, what it LOOKS like to them is what it will be for them.

I'll take the proven truth thank you very much.

MS

You're continual efforts to shift the topic from the President to some detractors you found on a website few read would confound me, if it wasn't so clear that conservatives are simply out of reasonable or plauable arguments that don't leave Bush seeming either dishonest, inept, or both.

"'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"

That statement was untrue. The administration knew it to be untrue. How much you hate liberals is totally irrelevant. The only relevant question is: is Bush simply incompetent for including false information, or is he an outright liar?

[Roddimus]

OoOoOoo...I haven't experienced this much executive level circular logic since 1998!
Ahhhh...The good 'ol days are back.

[Ishkur]

Originally posted by Mike S

we should be doing what ever necessary to get rid of the N. Korean regime..then move on from there to who ever is next.


And if we don't?

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem


You're continual efforts to shift the topic from the President to some detractors you found on a website few read would confound me, if it wasn't so clear that conservatives are simply out of reasonable or plauable arguments that don't leave Bush seeming either dishonest, inept, or both.

"'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"

That statement was untrue. The administration knew it to be untrue. How much you hate liberals is totally irrelevant. The only relevant question is: is Bush simply incompetent for including false information, or is he an outright liar?

Aaahh I see .. way to frame the discussion. Incompetent or a liar?

Hmm. Lets see. I vote neither.

Happy?

The guys detractors are relevant. Your post is good evidence of it.. is he a liar or incompetent? Oh gee .. lets see.. are there REALLY no other options.. hmm.


MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Ishkur


And if we don't?

Then Ish.. It'll give you year and years of things to bitch about..Damn those Americans ...damn Canada for being their lap dogs damn damn damn..

MS

[Ishkur]

You didn't answer the question.

What I think about it is totally irrelevent. But I guess I am wondering if it is at all possible for this administration to do anything at all that might make you think "whoa....what the fuck are you doing guys. You dropped the ball on that one." Because Lord knows there has been plenty of times where that's happened in the past.

It just seems that to you Bush and co. can do no wrong. They are conservative, you are conservative, therefore everything they do is right and just and honourable. If Ashcroft said "let's kill all the babies we deem might be capable of committing crimes in the future" you would say "great idea!!! All babies are socialists by virtue of the fact that they expect to be spoonfed everything anyway!" Even if you don't believe in it or would think its a horrific, repulsive thing to do, you would support it anyway, because the Liberals don't. Ah, reactionary politics: it's only good if the other side doesn't like it.

Now, I may be a half-assed, cheeky little bastard most of the time, but I would never vote with my feelings like that.

[Mike S]

Do no wrong? Hardly.

What I dont buy into are the cynical assumptions displayed by so many here. And thats all they are Ish.. assumptions.
Sure Ish.. there are plenty of times many things have happened in the past.
Judging one group of people or an administration on the past decisions or actions of another is rediculous.
I'll judge these people on what they do. That means instead of jumping to conclussions. I'll wait till I have enough information - of substance- to come to a reasonable decision regarding the truth.

Me. .. Reactionary? Yeah ...sure.
The conclussions you jump to are reactionary Ish.. They're cynical and a bit paranoid.


MS

[Ishkur]

enough information?

How much more information do you need? It still seems like nothing short of God himself coming down from the sky and telling you Bush fucked up is going to convince you that yes, he indeed has fucked up, and he IS fucking up.

The only real defence for Bush is to point out that hey--this has never happened to any administration in the past, so who's to say they would have reacted any more competently......whether it be Clinton, Reagan, or even Harry Truman.

But that's all speculation, and you can't size up the current government with "would Gore have done any better?" scenarios. That gets us nowhere.

So what are we stuck with (and by "we" I really mean you, of course, but I don't want to confuse this with muddy pronouns)? The worst case of nepotism in the modern, democratic world? A presidential term so rife with errors, bad judgment, underhanded maneuvering and fudging of intelligence that it makes Clinton's purgery seem like a harmless Sunday School confession? The most inexperienced, short-sighted, xenophobic international relations in the history of world politics? you honestly couldn't have alienated more countries if you bombed them....which, technically, you are.

What are you looking for, exactly? Whatever smoking gun evidence there is won't be revealed until long after this administration is gone and the people in power are dead, and by then it won't matter, will it? You make rash generalizations about a whole political class of people on the flimsiest of evidence, why do you demand such hardnosed, exact, "hand-caught-in-the-cookie-jar" evidence for this? Why the double standard Mike?

And even if that evidence does reveal itself, you're not going to admit it. There's always a scapegoat, always a backdoor, always a way out, and always someone to blame for your own shortcomings and the shortcomings of those of similar political alignment. You advocate personal responsibility, don't you? It's not hard to just say "Okay, I fucked up. My bad." Blaming others when things don't go your way? What are you, some kind of whiny liberal socialist?

Judging one group of people or an administration on the past decisions or actions of another is rediculous.

You do that time and time again, Mike. I'm sick of using these analogies by now but they sure are fun to come up with: Don't tell the Major League all-star how to play baseball when you have the lowest batting average on the AA minor league affiliate franchise.

I don't believe I've ever actually reached any conclusions, however. Oh, you mean concerning you? Heh. Well, then....that's not a difficult thing to do when you keep proving me right by shoving your foot in your mouth by way of your ass every time you post. I used to never come here. Now I'm bonafidely addicted. You make it possible. I just can't get enought of your delusional worldview. It's bloody entertaining to read.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Ishkur
enough information?

How much more information do you need? It still seems like nothing short of God himself coming down from the sky and telling you Bush fucked up is going to convince you that yes, he indeed has fucked up, and he IS fucking up.

The only real defence for Bush is to point out that hey--this has never happened to any administration in the past, so who's to say they would have reacted any more competently......whether it be Clinton, Reagan, or even Harry Truman.

But that's all speculation, and you can't size up the current government with "would Gore have done any better?" scenarios. That gets us nowhere.

So what are we stuck with (and by "we" I really mean you, of course, but I don't want to confuse this with muddy pronouns)? The worst case of nepotism in the modern, democratic world? A presidential term so rife with errors, bad judgment, underhanded maneuvering and fudging of intelligence that it makes Clinton's purgery seem like a harmless Sunday School confession? The most inexperienced, short-sighted, xenophobic international relations in the history of world politics? you honestly couldn't have alienated more countries if you bombed them....which, technically, you are.

What are you looking for, exactly? Whatever smoking gun evidence there is won't be revealed until long after this administration is gone and the people in power are dead, and by then it won't matter, will it? You make rash generalizations about a whole political class of people on the flimsiest of evidence, why do you demand such hardnosed, exact, "hand-caught-in-the-cookie-jar" evidence for this? Why the double standard Mike?

And even if that evidence does reveal itself, you're not going to admit it. There's always a scapegoat, always a backdoor, always a way out, and always someone to blame for your own shortcomings and the shortcomings of those of similar political alignment. You advocate personal responsibility, don't you? It's not hard to just say "Okay, I fucked up. My bad." Blaming others when things don't go your way? What are you, some kind of whiny liberal socialist?



You do that time and time again, Mike. I'm sick of using these analogies by now but they sure are fun to come up with: Don't tell the Major League all-star how to play baseball when you have the lowest batting average on the AA minor league affiliate franchise.

I don't believe I've ever actually reached any conclusions, however. Oh, you mean concerning you? Heh. Well, then....that's not a difficult thing to do when you keep proving me right by shoving your foot in your mouth by way of your ass every time you post. I used to never come here. Now I'm bonafidely addicted. You make it possible. I just can't get enought of your delusional worldview. It's bloody entertaining to read.

I judge this administration by the acts of others? No. I have judged the actions of certain regimes in certain countries by their own past actions.. bit of difference Ish.

As to the rest of your post..

Every assertion you make is strictly your conjecture Ish. Perception. It isn't fact. Its the world seen through your eyes, filtered through your prejudices and arrogantly presented as if its fact. Even I dont pretend to think I actually know what the facts are here.

Memo to Kent: Check yourself buddy.

How much do I need? Quite a bit more actually.

And it wouldn't matter if the bozo in the big chair were Bush or Bob Smith.
I have my feelings on what's happening sure.. but those don't tell me anything real.. they're just a product of my hopes, fears and political bias.

I refuse to SERIOUSLY pass judgment on something or someone when I honestly do not have the complete "picture" necessary to do so.

I have no way of really know what - if anything - motivates you to think and opine the way you do but it strikes me as intellectually lazy and/or dishonest for you or anyone to say with certainty you know the true nature regarding any of what's being discussed here. You don't.
None of us do at this point in time. There's only what we think is going on which is based on what we really want to happen - all a product of our personal political prejudices.

Petty shit in the grand scheme of things.

You wanna be convinced we're going to hell in a handbasket ..cool. enjoy the ride. You might just be right.
Until I know the facts - I'm going to cut these people some slack And spend a lot of time watching and listening to what THEY do and say as opposed to some right or left wing political hack hell bent on convincing me they can see much better than me.

Anything Else Ish?
MS

[Cedwyn]

mike, even the most conservative of media sources are questioning bush over this. and it's not based on emotional reactions...it's based on known facts from intelligence reports, etc. how much evidence *do* you need? how many facts are necessary to convince you?

even conservative lapdog fox news ran a story about it last night in which they reiterated that the cia director had motioned to have "those 16 words" stricken from a speech of bush's that was made three months before the state of the union address in which he did utter them.

[Mike S]

That he lied? I'll need a little more than conjecture or speculation. Believe it or not I'm like this when it comes to anybody being accused of something.
In this case there are individuals and organizations that have a vested interest in seeing this persons credibility tarnished.. if need be they will do what is necessary so that the mans name is successfully slandered.
With that in mind I think its better to take in what's being presented, consider the source, its bias or agenda and cross reference from there. If I get a tid bit outa the Nation I should logically head over to National Review to see what they have to say about it.. Get some balance by seeking the same story from a source politically opposite the original source.
Doing that I find my self less than convinced that there was intentional disinformation or lying involved. Someone in intelligence definitely screwed the pooch so far as keeping the CinC up to speed.
My guess - based on what I see so far- is that at its worse the intel lapse had Bush saying those 16 words during the SOTU ..helping this President stick his foot in his mouth....and inadvertently adding fuel to another fringe in origin conspiracy theory.

I also don't automatically write off anything the administration says as bogus or a lie. Nor do I blindly trust it. I'll take it at face value and put it in context with everything else. See what fits .. what doesnt.

Ask me this same question in a couple of weeks assuming more light is shed on the situation and my answer may be different .. but from where I sit now.. The whole thing looks like a cluster fuck of epic proportions.. but that can change..

Fair enough?

In this forum I may be quick to jump inthe middle of some political manuer fight ..Hell ..its fun.

But in reality, 'specially when its a serious matter, I'm alot more methodical & cautious when it comes to trying to find out whats true or not true.



MS

[Justin]

Originally posted by Mike S


Aaahh I see .. way to frame the discussion. Incompetent or a liar?

Hmm. Lets see. I vote neither.

Happy?

The guys detractors are relevant. Your post is good evidence of it.. is he a liar or incompetent? Oh gee .. lets see.. are there REALLY no other options.. hmm.


MS

I see. So putting something into his speech that he knew wasn't true was then part of some master plan of brilliance so great us mortals can't comprehend it.

I'm curious what other options there could be.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem


I see. So putting something into his speech that he knew wasn't true was then part of some master plan of brilliance so great us mortals can't comprehend it.

I'm curious what other options there could be.

Well doc - there is this concept called taking a persons word at face value. I know its a long shot in your world but have you ever considered the possibility that when Dub said he didn't have it inserted into the speech.. he really didn't have it put there? Whoa - here's an out there concept - someone in the CIA thought that the statement about Saddam seeking uranium in Africa was -according to their data (good or bad)-a valid statement based on the assumptions drawn from that data.. FYI -intelligence data - when collected, analyzed, associated then presented, with obvious exceptions, is rarely presented as being "fact" - its essentially what the intelligence community - with all their wisdom & technology- assumes to be true as it pertains to any given situation or subject.

Seriously Doc - its just as possible the truth is being told by them as it is that they are lying.

The problem with your statement, IMHO, is this phrase - "he knew wasn't true". Its possible sure. but its not proven. Its an assumption. If the evidence was specific enough to be so damning, or even if circumstantially it was enough to be beyond doubt then that assumption would be justifiable.
It may turn out to be Doc.. right now though I honestly don't see enough hard information to back that assumption up. One could in all honesty take the information available and come to several assumptions both incriminating and not. That's not the type of information that is conclusive IMHO Doc. If it were there'd be only one conclusion to come to .. wouldn't u agree?

For those who really want to see it as a lie purposely inserted into the SOTU by the Prez - its going look that way. Fine.. no harm I guess.

Obviously I hope otherwise but - as we've seen before - otherwise intelligent people can and will do some damn dumb things.
For the life of me I cant imagine why they'd bother purposely inserting something that - when compared to the plethora of other reasons to deep six Saddam - didn't rate as much of a reason at all. Nor would it rate as much in the mind of the average American. "yellow cake" just doesn't have the same visceral effect as "psychotic mass murderer" when it comes to rallying the public for war.


Anyway - You go and invest yourself in this "Bush lied" idea all ya want .. I think I'll watch it play out some more. If he lied .. then that's his ass.. if he didn't.. like that fact will matter to the usual suspects. They will - as usual - carry on as if he did so.



MS

[Rev Bucky]

So if he blindly reads anything placed in front of him, it's ok? As long as he is/was "honest" in his intentions, it's ok that he "lied" as all it was was a misstatement of fact. As long as he didn't mean to lie, it's ok.


TELL IT TO THE DEAD!!!!!!!!!

[Mike S]

Gladly. I'll start with the tens of thousands of dead in mass graves in Iraq. Lets you and I ask them, better yet, lets ask their families if - due to an intelligence goat screw- Bush mentioned that info in the SOTU? Think they'll be upset about it?
Hey lets assume that it WAS a big reason for our going in...lets ask em they think we shouldn't have invaded if it turns out the info was bad and/or it was planted?

Oh wait .. you're not speaking of those dead..are ya bucky. Conveniently you all forget the real victims here .. forget that the mass slaughter didn't occur during the US liberation but during Saddams rule.

Are those dead not good enough for you Bucky?
Have they not achieved "preferred victim" status in your book?

Damn if only they would have died as a direct result of some US action they'd be martyred as victims of US imperialism or hubris or what ever the "In" phrase is this week.

Tell it to the Dead? Actually now that we've assed out Saddam.. we can tell it to the living.

Bummer huh.

I may be wrong but I imagine if asked the survivors would tell you to kiss their collective asses and when your done.. to take your asinine objections to their liberation and shove it up yours.. but.. I could be wrong.


Tell it to the dead.. Bucky if you had your way there'd be a lot more dead in Iraq right now...


As to someone reading what's put in front of them.. It happens everyday Bucky .. you and I know it.

But that's irrelevant here isn't it.
There's a President that has got to be brought down.. and he better.. cause if he actually succeeds at what he's doing. If all that talk about liberation and positive transformation turn out to be true.

All that time and energy and investment you've pout into your world view-your post modern enlightenment- will have been for not.

It will cease to exist.


MS

[bungle bliss]

Originally posted by Rev Bucky
So if he blindly reads anything placed in front of him, it's ok? As long as he is/was "honest" in his intentions, it's ok that he "lied" as all it was was a misstatement of fact. As long as he didn't mean to lie, it's ok.


Actually, the CIA had enough doubt to remove it from an earlier speech Bush was to give last year. WHY they stuck this info back IN for the SOTU is beyond me, but I am leaning torward "we needed a reason to go to war whether it was true or not". I base this conclusion on the last two years of Bush's misadministration. And, if I am not mistaken, Tenet was appointed by Bush's father (I could be wrong), so perhaps that's why he felt too intimidated to pressure him to remove it a second time. But it shouldn't have been out into a speech a second time since it was already removed once. Cheney had paid a visit to CIA headquarters encouraging them to innocently "cook" the intelligence so that they could move right along with the PNAC agenda...er...I mean, PROTECTING AMERICA. I am guessing he assured them that the administration would do it's best to make sure no punitive action was taken against them, Tenet especially. The question was asked about a month ago, "Who would be the fall guy for Bush," and after dissecting the statements of the administration, it was obvious that the blame would fall on the CIA, of course. They are the intelligence, even if Bush and his cronies buck that intelligence (which they obviusly have, over and over). That is, if blame needed to be placed. I am sure they didn't expect the information to be debunked, or if it was, I am sure they thought it would just "blow over".

Anyway, I'll repost the link here- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48847-2003Jul12.html

[Justin]

Originally posted by Mike S


Well doc - there is this concept called taking a persons word at face value. I know its a long shot in your world but have you ever considered the possibility that when Dub said he didn't have it inserted into the speech.. he really didn't have it put there? Whoa - here's an out there concept - someone in the CIA thought that the statement about Saddam seeking uranium in Africa was -according to their data (good or bad)-a valid statement based on the assumptions drawn from that data.. FYI -intelligence data - when collected, analyzed, associated then presented, with obvious exceptions, is rarely presented as being "fact" - its essentially what the intelligence community - with all their wisdom & technology- assumes to be true as it pertains to any given situation or subject.

Seriously Doc - its just as possible the truth is being told by them as it is that they are lying.

The problem with your statement, IMHO, is this phrase - "he knew wasn't true". Its possible sure. but its not proven.

The first two paragraphs of your reply detail what I would consider "incompetence." A drastic failure to manage facts in the speech most heavily reviewed, rewritten and vetted by all parts of the administration is a sign of some failure.

In regards to the last paragraph quoted -- "The problem with your statement, IMHO, is this phrase - 'he knew wasn't true'. Its possible sure. but its not proven." -- that information was known to be based on forged documents at the time. The CIA sent a dude over there to evaluate the intelligence, and he found it all to be bunk.

Taken from http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm, which in turn took it (probably illegally) from the NYtimes. Excerpt:

What I Didn't Find in Africa
by Joseph C. Wilson 4th

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

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

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

. . .


I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.




I strongly encourage you to read the whole article. I only didn't paste it in full due to those annoying copyright laws, but the link is right there.

Back to the main point: the Bush administration knew at the time of the speech that the information was inaccurate.

Again, this leads back to a simple connundrum: incompetence or deciet. Either the administration dropped the ball, or they intentionally used false information in order to convince the American people that war was neccessary. If you think of any possibility for the facts that don't lead to either incompetence or deciept, please tell me. As it is, it seems those are the only two possibilities allowed by some very simple logical steps.

Given:
-Bush is responsible for his speech
-The speech was inaccurate

Then: the speech's inaccuracy was either unintentional (incompetence) or intentional (deceipt).

[Ishkur]

Originally posted by Mike S
That he lied? I'll need a little more than conjecture or speculation.


Okay, do you want the current issue at hand knocked over your head with the mighty mallet of "get a fucking clue" or shoved up your ass with the iron fist of "wake the fuck up"?


Believe it or not I'm like this when it comes to anybody being accused of something.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No you're not, you silly goof. If it was a Democrat in office, you'd nail him to the wall. And you know it, too. Quit lying to yourself, Mike. You have never shown an inkling of objectivity or consistency in 3000 posts, why would you insist on doing it now? You're a bipartisan. Bipartisans never see issues for what they are, they're too busy demonizing political opponents to really consider them in a constructive manner.


In this case there are individuals and organizations that have a vested interest in seeing this persons credibility tarnished.. if need be they will do what is necessary so that the mans name is successfully slandered.


I think he is quite capable of doing that all by himself, he doesn't need detractors to take him down. Give him enough time, and he'll trip over his own shadow.


I also don't automatically write off anything the administration says as bogus or a lie. Nor do I blindly trust it. I'll take it at face value and put it in context with everything else. See what fits .. what doesnt.


And after all this exhaustive, investigative researching, forsaking work, sleep, food, bathing to get to the TRUTH OF THE MATTER, you can still say with a straight face that this administration is not doing a bad job?

Wow. Just.....WOW. How ever did you become such a paragon of sensible, rational thought, Mike?

[Ishkur]

Originally posted by Mike S
Well doc - there is this concept called taking a persons word at face value. I know its a long shot in your world but have you ever considered the possibility that when Dub said he didn't have it inserted into the speech.. he really didn't have it put there? Whoa - here's an out there concept - someone in the CIA thought that the statement about Saddam seeking uranium in Africa was -according to their data (good or bad)-a valid statement based on the assumptions drawn from that data.. FYI -intelligence data - when collected, analyzed, associated then presented, with obvious exceptions, is rarely presented as being "fact" - its essentially what the intelligence community - with all their wisdom & technology- assumes to be true as it pertains to any given situation or subject.


And you agree with this assessment? ......yeah, because we all know how honest and truthful the CIA is, right?

You like to consider all the angles, let's consider this: this is the most powerful organization in the world. It is, for the most part, clandestine and unaccountable. It is made up of the best men, the best state of the art equipment, unlimited funds, and the power and scope to nearly do anything to anyone or find out whatever they wish if it so pleases to them. The power that this organization weilds must feel like God sometimes.

Now, here they are, gathering together the most important evidence to use in the most important speech to the free world, dealing with the most important subject of humankind: war. Now, I don't know about you, but if I was in charge of such a essential, bigtime important project, I'd make damn sure to be as thorough and complete and total to within a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent that all my intelligence was the unbridled, unmistakable, undeniable clear-cut, rock solid, smoking gun absolute TRUTH.

That means: NO ROOM FOR ANY MARGIN OF ERROR. NO ROOM FOR SPECULATION. NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION. NO ROOM FOR BEING HALPHAZARD OR LAZY WITH THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE. Come on!!! Pick up the ball here. This is the precent that's needed. Without this, we have NOTHING.

So with so much at stake, you're telling me that they.....didn't do their job. The best men in the world that are the best at what they do.....fanned the shot. Flubbed the field goal. Popped out. Dropped the ball. Threw an air ball.

Yes, it's true that no one is perfect. People make mistakes. But not when it comes to this. Data is being triple, quadriple, and octriple-checked, by many departments, because mistakes just are not allowed to be made. They just aren't. Especially with something as public as this, with such far-reaching consequences. There are thousand of people being paid 7-figure salaries to ensure that this does not happen. And I can't see it happening on their watch.

So I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that their evidence was flawed. If you're going to invade a country, you better have a written-in-stone reason, backed up with perfect evidence. There is absolutely no excuse for incompetence here. But there is plenty for cheating.

[Mike S]

You're right Ish .. If you're about ready to bring the final curtain down on some fascist bastard you better have your shit together. No time or need to fuck around. In fact why waste any time or effort putzin' around with some hair brained Idea like "Hey, just to make sure, lets toss in some bad intel about uranium so we can get everyone behind our efforts to remove the psychotic, murdering, fascist bastard". Just in case the bit about him pulling kids tongues out in front of their parents hasn't convinced someone and the "invades-rapes-murders his neighbors" fact suddenly slipped everyones mind .. . Right.

Gets back to a big problem with this whole "planted bad evidence" conspiracy...Its possible.. But it really wasn't needed.
At all.

MS

[Ishkur]

If he's such a psychotic, murdering, fascist bastard, why did we even need to fudge intelligence at all?

Bush should've just come out and said "look. We're attacking him because he's evil and the New World Order is not going to tolerate evildoers anymore."

Yes. That's right. All Evildoers must bow down before the mighty jackboot of freedom!!!!!

You starting to see the irony of this "psychopath" card you keep playing? Besides, as crazy go nuts as you want to paint Saddam to be (sure, he was bad, but in the grand history of evil villains, he was a lightweight. Polpot and Stalin laugh in his general direction), he'll never be as bad as your propaganda insists he is. Man, I can still hear the incessant ringing in my ears from Bush I "Hitler revisited" over and over again. God, how many fucking times did he say that? Hitler almost conquored the world. Saddam's never won a single war in his entire political career. Where's the fucking comparison? Talk about hyperbole.

Still don't agree? Here's another one, and I used this before:

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/images/photos/foreignaid_pic2.jpg
You see the guy on the left? That is Islam Karimov. He boils people alive.

See, the real kicker here Mike is that going after someone for being a "psychotic, murdering, fascist bastard" is a lot like going after a Fomula 1 race car for speeding. Where do you draw the line? Just at Saddam? Oh, how convenient.

So no, your argument is groundless on the fact that it's 1) inconsistent and 2) hypocritical. 1--There are a lot of evil people in this world, but that doesn't give us the right to pave them into parking lots and sell them happy meals. 2--It's not like we are any better. The only difference is that we've evolved to that civilized state where we kill people in other countries rather than in our own.

But hey, whatever makes you sleep at night. I never knew you cared so much about the welfare and absolute squalour of third world countries, Mike. How humanitarian of you to propose all their oppressive governments get ousted. Hey, you know what else would benefit them? Sell everything you own and move over there and help them rebuild. Because you living here for one day, in the most luxurious, opulent standard of living of all time, does more damage to them than ten Saddam regimes could ever do.

And that is why we are attacked by terrorists.




"and though you may find this slightly macabre,
we prefer your extinction to the loss of our job."

[Mike S]

Looks like they didnt fudge any intel at all Ish.
The statement was based on US NIE material and British intel that was and is true.

Not the Niger piece you're fixated on.

And as to the speech?

(Paraphrased from a Center for Security Policy piece.)
George Tenet last Friday revealed that the official U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraqi WMD published in October 2002 “cited reports that Iraq began ‘vigorously trying to procure’ more uranium from Niger and two other African countries, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons.” Since such reports were not universally accepted as authoritative by every component of our intelligence community, however, Tenet apologized for allowing reference to them to appear in the President’s State of the Union address.

This is a now a non issue.

MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Ishkur
If he's such a psychotic, murdering, fascist bastard, why did we even need to fudge intelligence at all?

Bush should've just come out and said "look. We're attacking him because he's evil and the New World Order is not going to tolerate evildoers anymore."

Yes. That's right. All Evildoers must bow down before the mighty jackboot of freedom!!!!!

You starting to see the irony of this "psychopath" card you keep playing? Besides, as crazy go nuts as you want to paint Saddam to be (sure, he was bad, but in the grand history of evil villains, he was a lightweight. Polpot and Stalin laugh in his general direction), he'll never be as bad as your propaganda insists he is. Man, I can still hear the incessant ringing in my ears from Bush I "Hitler revisited" over and over again. God, how many fucking times did he say that? Hitler almost conquored the world. Saddam's never won a single war in his entire political career. Where's the fucking comparison? Talk about hyperbole.

Still don't agree? Here's another one, and I used this before:

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/images/photos/foreignaid_pic2.jpg
You see the guy on the left? That is Islam Karimov. He boils people alive.

See, the real kicker here Mike is that going after someone for being a "psychotic, murdering, fascist bastard" is a lot like going after a Fomula 1 race car for speeding. Where do you draw the line? Just at Saddam? Oh, how convenient.

So no, your argument is groundless on the fact that it's 1) inconsistent and 2) hypocritical. 1--There are a lot of evil people in this world, but that doesn't give us the right to pave them into parking lots and sell them happy meals. 2--It's not like we are any better. The only difference is that we've evolved to that civilized state where we kill people in other countries rather than in our own.

But hey, whatever makes you sleep at night. I never knew you cared so much about the welfare and absolute squalour of third world countries, Mike. How humanitarian of you to propose all their oppressive governments get ousted. Hey, you know what else would benefit them? Sell everything you own and move over there and help them rebuild. Because you living here for one day, in the most luxurious, opulent standard of living of all time, does more damage to them than ten Saddam regimes could ever do.

And that is why we are attacked by terrorists.




"and though you may find this slightly macabre,
we prefer your extinction to the loss of our job."

Yeah Ish I guess we'll just let the world Hitlers,Stalins and Saddams do their thing. Comparison? What the fuck is wrong with your program? The guy filled pits with dead bodies. What the fuck ish.. is this "do nothing" attitude some sort of way to justify the fact your country is essentially a useless eunuch when it comes to even attempting to do something about this shit? Is this the philosophy of a nation emasculated? Fuck you make me sick ..really.

Crawl back under your rock and hide.

And if you don't like the fact someone else is doing the worlds heavy lifting maybe take all the energy you spend nattering at us and put it to good use.. like direct it at building a national backbone. Or maybe fixing your moral compas.

Your cynicism really knows no depths does it? What a pathetic excuse for a human being you've turned out to be.

Later Ish.. We can end this conversation here because you've totally grossed me out with that repugnant attitude of yours.

MS

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Mike S

What the fuck is wrong with your program?......
your country is essentially a useless eunuch.......
Fuck you make me sick ..really.........
Crawl back under your rock and hide.........
Your cynicism really knows no depths does it?........
What a pathetic excuse for a human being you've turned out to be.......
you've totally grossed me out with that repugnant attitude of yours.....
MS

please join us on next weeks program where we demonstrate how to light your enemies on fire and laugh...laugh...laugh..your way to the bank.

Scott!!

[186k\sec]

What the fuck is wrong with your program?......
your country is essentially a useless eunuch.......
Fuck you make me sick ..really.........
Crawl back under your rock and hide.........
What a pathetic excuse for a human being you've turned out to be.......
you've totally grossed me out with that repugnant attitude of yours.....


Your cynicism really knows no depths does it?........

that last one gets me. appearantly Mikes hipocracy know no depth.

[**4]

Originally posted by Mike S


Yeah Ish I guess we'll just let the world Hitlers,Stalins and Saddams do their thing. Comparison? What the fuck is wrong with your program? The guy filled pits with dead bodies. What the fuck ish.. is this "do nothing" attitude some sort of way to justify the fact your country is essentially a useless eunuch when it comes to even attempting to do something about this shit? Is this the philosophy of a nation emasculated? Fuck you make me sick ..really.


allowing both sides to speak and cuss at eachother is what america is all about. when all the sides are spoken, you can make a rational descision. if one side is ignored, then you still havn't proven the equation. no one can existt in a vacuum.

god bless america

[Ishkur]

Originally posted by Mike S
Yeah Ish I guess we'll just let the world Hitlers,Stalins and Saddams do their thing. Comparison? What the fuck is wrong with your program? The guy filled pits with dead bodies. What the fuck ish.. is this "do nothing" attitude some sort of way to justify the fact your country is essentially a useless eunuch when it comes to even attempting to do something about this shit? Is this the philosophy of a nation emasculated? Fuck you make me sick ..really.


Whoa....settle down there, cowboy. No need to get irate because you can't defeat me in an argument. Is it my fault I'm so much cleverer than you? You've gotta stop blaimg people for your own insecurities, y'know. I haven't seen jaw-jarring finger-pointing like that since Effendi's infamous Jew lashing. heh. You two should get stranded on an island together. It would make a great sitcom.

I mean, look at you. You're all over the place. You can't even decide what to insult me with, you just use everything and anything you can think of. How can you expect people on here to think of you as such a pragon of sensible, rational thought when you go off the deep end like that? With a shrill like that, you cold be O'Reilley's right-hand man (emphasis on "right")

Anyways, when you're done breathing through your mouth and slobbering your prattle all over everyone, can we please come back to my argument and why you choose to ignore it and instead voice idiotic obscenities about my country? Why do you fixate on that anyway? I haven't said anything about Canada, you treat it like it's your trump card. WTF?!?!? There's already a thread about this (you know which one it is), if you want to continue word-jousting with me, do it there. If you dare.

It appears your blood pressure is getting the best of you. Don't worry though, I've already called a waaaaaaaaaahmbulance. So don't ever say I don't care.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Ishkur


Whoa....settle down there, cowboy. No need to get irate because you can't defeat me in an argument. Is it my fault I'm so much cleverer than you? You've gotta stop blaimg people for your own insecurities, y'know. I haven't seen jaw-jarring finger-pointing like that since Effendi's infamous Jew lashing. heh. You two should get stranded on an island together. It would make a great sitcom.

I mean, look at you. You're all over the place. You can't even decide what to insult me with, you just use everything and anything you can think of. How can you expect people on here to think of you as such a pragon of sensible, rational thought when you go off the deep end like that? With a shrill like that, you cold be O'Reilley's right-hand man (emphasis on "right")

Anyways, when you're done breathing through your mouth and slobbering your prattle all over everyone, can we please come back to my argument and why you choose to ignore it and instead voice idiotic obscenities about my country? Why do you fixate on that anyway? I haven't said anything about Canada, you treat it like it's your trump card. WTF?!?!? There's already a thread about this (you know which one it is), if you want to continue word-jousting with me, do it there. If you dare.

It appears your blood pressure is getting the best of you. Don't worry though, I've already called a waaaaaaaaaahmbulance. So don't ever say I don't care.


Ish.. If the best you can offer the world is "do nothing" ..then what good are you? None. Its a position not just offered up by you but taken by your country while hiding behind someone else's skirt. Its all good that you critique this countries attempts to do something about terrorism - while yours hopes that if its quiet enough the bad guys will forget it exists.. Meanwhile - via insane Canadian asylum laws - they use you to get to us. Thanks and f*ck you.
You Ish are a product of where you live and as far as I can tell by interpreting the constructive input of both you and your country - you're both f*cking useless.

Time and again you come up with lots of cheeky ish-isms on how things are.. but when it comes to reality.. you offer up a big fat zero.

You're contributions to the world so far seem to be snark, apathy and cynicism.

Strong work. Maybe someday I'll find a good use for some of it.


MS

[bungle bliss]

It takes fifty+ posts to try to defend Bush, and only a couple of links/posts to completely and totally make the case for why he should be discredited. :D :D :D

Some people need to look up "reaching" in the dictionary.

[Ishkur]

Originally posted by Mike S
Ish.. If the best you can offer the world is "do nothing"

Wait. Whenever did I say "do nothing"? I'm merely postulating that what we're doing now is likely not helping anyone, except maybe the coffers of government contracters.

And besides.....since when did we decide that something oughta be done? Last year? After 9/11? 12 years ago? And why then, and not before? Why now? What's changed? That we have personally been attacked? If it takes something like that for us to actually care about humanity, we are going into this for the wrong reasons.

And to whom do we decide to do something to? Iraq? Korea? Iran? Uzbekistan? Liberia? Congo? Cambodia? .....France?

Lay it on me, Captain Knowledge. You know everything about foreign policy, after all, despite the fact that you've never held political office and with a platform like that it's highly unlikely you ever will.

[bungle bliss]

Cheney under pressure to quit over false war evidence
* Anger grows on both sides of Atlantic at misleading claims on eve of Iraq conflict *
The Independent, July 15 2003


Dick Cheney, the US Vice-President and the administration's most outspoken hawk over Iraq, faced demands for his resignation last night as he was accused of using false evidence to build the case for war.

He was accused of using his office to insist that a false claim about Iraq's efforts to buy uranium from Africa to restart its nuclear programme be included in George Bush's State of the Union address - overriding the concerns of the CIA director, George Tenet.

Mr Cheney was also accused of knowingly misleading Congress when the administration sought its authorisation for the use of force to oust Saddam Hussein.

The allegations against Mr Cheney have come most vocally from a group of senior former intelligence officials who believe that information from the intelligence community was selectively used to support a war fought for political reasons. In an open letter to President George Bush, the group have asked that he demand Mr Cheney's resignation.

...

As the clamour for a full inquest into the African uranium claims grew on both sides of the Atlantic, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, was accused by MPs of lacking "credibility" after he admitted knowing a month before the war that documents making the assertion were forgeries. Mr Straw said in a statement he had known that letters given to the UN nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, about the Niger claim were fake as early as February.

Mr Straw also claimed that the Government's case for military action was not based on "intelligence reports".

Labour MPs, including Tam Dalyell, the father of the House, asked why Mr Straw had not told MPs that the documents were fake in advance of the vote to approve military action on 18 March. "He now says the Government knew it was a forgery in February. Why didn't he tell us before Parliament voted for war?" he said. "Also if the case for war is not based on intelligence, what is it based on?"

more... http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=424786

.....

Resignations? Impeachment? BRING EM ON!!!

[HBK]

Bush lied. I don't know if he knew that he was lying, but still he lied.

[burnt]

Bush lied. I don't know if he knew that he was lying, but still he lied.

I disagree. see, and that's a tiny, tiny point of contention that I've been having with my 6 year old...just because he was "wrong", doesn't necessarily mean he was lying.

did he tell "not the Truth", on purpose? that's a lie..

was it on accident, because he really didn't know the truth? thats not a lie, thats just talking out his ass.......no different from any other accident.

look, if my kid spills the juice on the table because he was flaking off and staring at cartoons, he gets in a little trouble, and I shut the cartoons off so he pays attention a little more on purpose...but the juice spilling wasn't deliberate, wasn't malfeant.....just kinda dumb, bless his heart...

if he straight looks me in the eyes and defies me and pours juice on the floor......well, thats different. thats when I put the boot up his ass, heh....

I mean, by your logic? ok, say my kid points at the sky, says, "look, the sun goes in circles around the Earth, because it starts there, and ends there!" - cuz he's 6 and barely starting to learn and comprehend stuff.

he's not a liar....just misinformed, and talking like he's informed. not a good choice, to be sure, but definitely not malfeant. not deliberate and crafty and disrespectful. not a lie...do you see the difference? anyway...I digress...

[HBK]

He shot his mouth off about stuff he was unsure of. That's as good as lying. Get your facts straight Bush! You're the president for christ's sake.

Don't talk untill you KNOW.

[burnt]

true...fair enough...

[ZupanGOD]

Sorry I've been away for bit here, I have been working some mad hours.. anyways.. this is still an issue? I had no idea that we went to war over the yellow cake intel, and doesn't the Brit intel still stand behind it? I dunno it's not like we bombed an asprin factory or a chinese embassy over faulty intel here. I think I'll just fold my arms and watch you radicals and the partisan maggots in washington have a complete melt down. Should be interesting to watch.

Ta ta

-Jason

[Justin]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD
S I had no idea that we went to war over the yellow cake intel, and doesn't the Brit intel still stand behind it? I dunno it's not like we bombed an asprin factory or a chinese embassy over faulty intel here. I think I'll just fold my arms and watch you radicals and the partisan maggots in washington have a complete melt down. Should be interesting to watch.

Ta ta

-Jason

Translation: even though I'm presented with rock solid proof that the president is either 1) incompetent or 2) a lier, I don't care. He cuts taxes!

To save myself a later post where I restate my earlier posts in reply to the inevitable "what are you talking about, also, Marxists!" post. . .

Originally posted by Doc "Sexy" Mahem

Given:
-Bush is responsible for his speech
-The speech was inaccurate

Then: the speech's inaccuracy was either unintentional (incompetence) or intentional (deceipt).

[monki]

in corporations we trust

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem


Translation: even though I'm presented with rock solid proof that the president is either 1) incompetent or 2) a lier, I don't care. He cuts taxes!

To save myself a later post where I restate my earlier posts in reply to the inevitable "what are you talking about, also, Marxists!" post. . .



Yeah what are you talking about?

[ZupanGOD]

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/DesperatelySeekingScandal-X.gif

[Effendi]

.
I'm still amazed at what Americans react to and don't react to....

I feel that bush has said MANY more things and DID many more things much more damaging than getting caught hyping his TWAT.....but whatever....

fact is Jason it may not be all the press and everyone is making out of it, but it ain't exactly no dangling participle either....

The best end scenario of this will be bush being voted out of office because the American people (50% and rising) now believe this President lied......LOL

And if they made such a commotion a few years back out of lying about a blowjob...well bush's "warchest" might not get spent...hahahahahha

Scott!!

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Effendi
.
I'm still amazed at what Americans react to and don't react to....

Try looking in the mirror and repeating that one to yourself Scott, I dare you. ;)

I feel that bush has said MANY more things and DID many more things much more damaging than getting caught hyping his TWAT.....but whatever....

fact is Jason it may not be all the press and everyone is making out of it, but it ain't exactly no dangling participle either....

Well so far it is.

The best end scenario of this will be bush being voted out of office because the American people (50% and rising) now believe this President lied......LOL

:)

And if they made such a commotion a few years back out of lying about a blowjob...well bush's "warchest" might not get spent...hahahahahha

Scott!!

That commotion was a president that was investigated for sexual harrassment, were you not paying attention back then?

-Jason

[Cedwyn]

it was not sexual harrassment; monica stated many times that she was more than willing.

all that nonsense was about whether or not he lied about having relations with her.

[Roddimus]

Didn't the Monica scandal emerge from the Paula Jones sexual harassment case tho? Maybe that's what Jason was referring to.
But considering Monica had little to nothing to do with the Jones case--and also considering the Jones case had absolutely nothing to do with the White Water investigation Kenneth Star was supposed to be persuing--the whole situation got pretty absurd near the end anyway.

[bungle bliss]

Originally posted by Roddimus
the whole situation got pretty absurd near the end anyway.

"Pretty absurd" is the understatement of the century. ;)

[**4]

talking about harassment, i feel harassed when i'm on the street asking for a pad of paper and the store tells me to leave. who says that what they're doing is so much more important than what i'm doing? i was even playing a nice tune on the pennywhistle. it's like we just sweep our problems under the carpet instead of really listening and understanding. what's wrong with real trade? what about the lines between private and public property? it's like america is so sectioned off that we don't even remember what FREE SPEACH is. what's so free about the printing press?

[superkool]

The president's aides say they expect the flap to dissipate gradually, much as questions about his links to bankrupt oil giant Enron did last year after an initial firestorm.

The aides say they mishandled the current mess when it erupted. It took them several days to come up with a strategy. Bush was in Africa, some key aides were on vacation, and initial comments from the White House seemed defensive and sometimes unsure of the facts. The administration's vaunted discipline unraveled.

There is a strategy now, devised by White House communications director Dan Bartlett, Mary Matalin, a former aide to Vice President Cheney, and former Bush aide Karen Hughes. Both advise the White House as a consultants to the Republican National Committee.

The plan: Release all relevant information. Try to shift attention back to Bush's leadership in the war on terrorism. Diminish the significance of that single piece of iffy intelligence by making the case that Saddam was a threat for many other reasons. Put Republican lawmakers and other Bush allies on TV to defend him.