RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

subtee -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 12:27:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Subtee, but that is indeed what the Duefler report, as well as the Kay report found. That Saddam was gaming the Oil for Food program is widely known and not denied by anyone. Or is someone going to step up and say it was all lies, and the Oil For food program was clean. I quoted Bush and Cheney there in reference to the WMD question (and to illustrate their knowledge about the lack of them), not about the Oil for Food program. This was in response to Firm's post in which he stated: quote: 1. It is not "without dispute" that Iraq had "no" weapons of mass destruction. It certainly wasn't "without dispute" prior to the war. He is right that I should have cited the source. It is: http://www.public-action.com/911/no-wmd-sdut/index.html I apologize

BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 12:31:16 PM)
Until we find some politicans that don't view getting elected as a goldmine,a big cookie jar full of goodies with no bottem we shall suffer...To think that I spent 25 years of my life defending the American way pisss me off at times

DomKen -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 12:34:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 2. No "meaningful ties with Al Qaeda" is a subjective call, and not the primary link that the administration made about Saddam's ties to terrorism. "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Both from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html Here is a letter where Bush indicates to the congressional leadership that Iraq was involved in 9/11 (no evidence that this is correct has ever been presented): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html More quotes, especially from Cheney are available if you want more.

DomKen -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 12:38:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Honsoku quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There is no statute of limitations on murder so put up your evidence or shut up. Such hostility. Can you seriously say that you can objectively look at those events and say they don't stink to high heaven? I've looked into both in depth and found not a single hint of evidence that these were anything but a suicide and an accidental plane crash. Once again put up some evidence admisable in court or shut up.

Gwynvyd -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 12:39:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Gwyn Remember it was Clinton that was the totem carrier for WMD Bush inherited that view. I think you hit it on the head when you mentioned his Dad… I think he thought his dad mad a mistake not removing Hussein and decided to finish the job and used 9/11 as an excuse. I don’t think money or oil had anything to do with it. Pursuing this war was strictly a way to make a place in history. He believed Iraq and Al Qaida were in it together and figured the proof would be revealed at a later time. When and as the truth came out rather then admit their mistakes they decided to try and cover them up. Because they are not too smart they are doing just as poor a job of cover up as they do running the war. Butch actualy Clinton said they were dangerous, and had terrorist cells, and to watch them. He did not state the huge load of shit about WMD's in Iraq, and he cautioned about Bin Laden. Bin Laden had been a well known player on the field by then. Regardless of what Bill did or didnt do.. it is currently the BS Dubbya has done that has gotten us where we are now. How many more things do we need to over look in this administration and go.. oh well it's Dubbya.. he can get away with it. Secret prisons that torture inmates around the globe, Lies about WMD's, Leaking a CIA agent's name because her hubby uncovers a lie. I could go on.. but I want to keep down my lunch. There has to come a point when you say enough is enough. Clinton had a girl suck his dick.. big deal... Nixon had Watergate. Watergate is nothing compared to the crimes this administration has commited. Gwyn

FirmhandKY -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 1:01:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 2. No "meaningful ties with Al Qaeda" is a subjective call, and not the primary link that the administration made about Saddam's ties to terrorism. "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Both from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html Here is a letter where Bush indicates to the congressional leadership that Iraq was involved in 9/11 (no evidence that this is correct has ever been presented): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html More quotes, especially from Cheney are available if you want more. You are doing exactly what I said in my earlier post: reading and seeing what you want to see. Here, your source says: While not* explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks* And this link is an interesting study of intrepretation: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html March 18, 2003 Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that: (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. You can interpret it "ah ha!" he says Iraq was the cause of 9/11! Which is the one you prefer, and supports your own biases. Or you can add the phrase as it is written "is consistent with ... continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations " as saying it is part and parcel of an overall "War on Terror" (hate that title, btw). The fact that you can parse your own source to support your beliefs, when they say the exact opposite of what you are trying to prove is ... simply amazing. Firm PS ... almost forgot ... The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda ... goes right back to my point number 2. I take it that you claim there was no links whatsoever, between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Or between terrorist organizations and Iraq? For, if you say that, then you are incorrect. The question becomes the degree of culpability that Saddam might have directly had for the events of 9/11 (likely low) versus the possibilities of Saddam developing deeper ties with terror organizations (open to debate, but I believe fairly high).

FirmhandKY -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 1:22:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtee He is right that I should have cited the source. It is: http://www.public-action.com/911/no-wmd-sdut/index.html I apologize No apologies necessary, subtee. A minor faux pas at most. You have shown admirable politeness so far. But ... on reading your link, I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you are changing the subject. If I'm reading the article correctly, and your interpretation, then you are saying that Bush and Cheny did indeed admit that they found no WMD's in Iraq ... after the war and the US's inability to find massive amounts of WMDs, correct? Does this then put paid to all the people who say "If Bush would just admit there aren't any WMD's in Iraq."? It appears that you are confusing factual discoveries after the war, with statements of belief before the war. Which goes right to my comment of defining "lie". Does anyone on the "Bush lied" side of the house understand the difference between "intentionally deceived" and "was mistaken"? Clintonistas had no problem with the definition of "is". [:D] Or even "sex". [:)] Maybe because it favored their biases already? Firm

subtee -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 1:34:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY [snip] Which goes right to my comment of defining "lie". Does anyone on the "Bush lied" side of the house understand the difference between "intentionally deceived" and "was mistaken"? Clintonistas had no problem with the definition of "is". [:D] Or even "sex". [:)] Maybe because it favored their biases already? Firm Yes I understand the difference between intentional deception and making a mistake. Goes directly to my point; the report is not reporting that mistakes were made, errors, misconceptions, misinformation none of that. It is detailing 935 lies. I think the Clintons had quite a bit of trouble with the definitions both of "is" and "sex." Each was equivocal and convenient, but again, misused and ultimately used in obfuscation because of a blowjob. Questions that should never have been asked were answered with lies. [Edited for a typo.]

Jeffff -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 1:35:16 PM)
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong H.L Mencken This what the American people generally ask for.........and this is what we generally get Jeff

mnottertail -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 1:39:16 PM)
Well, your bias shows quite plainly. There are many here that would impute a certain decieving rhetoric to Mr. Bush that would at least equate to that you impute to Mr. Clinton. Horse apiece, and on to more adversarial descanting by you and I, as is the purpose of this forum, there is no other tour de force that will have a commerce here. Ron

Honsoku -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 1:57:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Honsoku quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There is no statute of limitations on murder so put up your evidence or shut up. Such hostility. Can you seriously say that you can objectively look at those events and say they don't stink to high heaven? I've looked into both in depth and found not a single hint of evidence that these were anything but a suicide and an accidental plane crash. Once again put up some evidence admisable in court or shut up. False argument approach. No one on this board has such evidence unless they were directly involved in an investigation. Anything else that I, or anyone else, could find would be hearsay. Instead we have someone who was closely involved in whitewater, the travel department scandal, and probably too friendly with Hillary (wink, wink nudge, nudge), ending up dead in a national park. While suicide was the likely reality, it was damn convenient for the Clintons. Similar for Ron Brown who, under investigation for corruption, is flying in a relatively remote part of the world (Croatia), on a plane which doesn't have flight or cockpit recorders, when the plane crashes trying to land using methods that they shouldn't have been using. All generally accepted information. These are things that if you look at who had the most to gain by their occurrence, seem really fishy. The point, which was rather missed, was that this fodder is just as good as most of the current allegations and accusations against the Bush administration. People will only develop conspiracy theories that support their own agendas. Besides, in any good conspiracy, the straightforward answer is the wrong one and there is no court worthy evidence to support it [;)]

FirmhandKY -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 2:03:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtee Yes I understand the difference between intentional deception and making a mistake. Goes directly to my point; the report is not reporting that mistakes were made, errors, misconceptions, misinformation none of that. It is detailing 935 lies. So ... the supposed "935 lies" ... were these statements made before or after the administration invaded and found no massive stockpiles of WMDs? quote: ORIGINAL: subtee I think the Clintons had quite a bit of trouble with the definitions both of "is" and "sex." Each was equivocal and convenient, but again, misused and ultimately used in obfuscation because of a blowjob. Questions that should never have been asked were answered with lies. shrugs ok I just thought the mirror image example of how some anti-Clintonites saw things then, with how some anti-Bushites see things now was illustrative of what I see as the real main issue here - biased thinking. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 2:12:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, your bias shows quite plainly. There are many here that would impute a certain decieving rhetoric to Mr. Bush that would at least equate to that you impute to Mr. Clinton. Horse apiece, and on to more adversarial descanting by you and I, as is the purpose of this forum, there is no other tour de force that will have a commerce here. Ron We all have biases, Ron. I've never stated otherwise. If I were posting on a hardcore, pro-Republican website, I'd like be pilloried for the questions I asked on the other side of things. It's just that on this forum, the vocal majority are often lost in their illusions, and they then tag me as some kind of "Bush lover" Neo-conic, right wing fascists. Which just proves their biases, at least in my mind. Occasionally I find intelligent life, though. That makes it worthwhile. Firm

subtee -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 2:12:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY So ... the supposed "935 lies" ... were these statements made before or after the administration invaded and found no massive stockpiles of WMDs? Firm You read the article? A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks. The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

FirmhandKY -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 2:17:42 PM)
Ok, so now I'm confused about what you are saying, because: 1. You say you know the difference between "intentional deception" and "mistaken beliefs" (or however I phrased it earlier). 2. The Bush Administration made claims that WMD's existed in Iraq prior to the invasion, 3. After we invaded and found no massive WMD stockpiles, Bush admitted it. 4. The article only looks at quotes prior to the invasion, before the facts were established. This somehow makes any Bush statements about Iraqi WMD's prior to the invasion "lies"? Firm

mnottertail -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 2:18:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY We all have biases, Ron. I've never stated otherwise. If I were posting on a hardcore, pro-Republican website, I'd like be pilloried for the questions I asked on the other side of things. It's just that on this forum, the vocal majority are often lost in their illusions, and they then tag me as some kind of "Bush lover" Neo-conic, right wing fascists. Which just proves their biases, at least in my mind. Occasionally I find intelligent life, though. That makes it worthwhile. Firm And some here think that I am a far-left bomb throwing anarchist, when I hold some very fundamental and conservative values. So we both are victims of unwarrented misunderstanding. Oh well, WTF....tomorrow we begin anew. Ron

DomKen -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 2:19:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Honsoku Snip answer lacking anything but rumor So IOW words you've got nothing but since you dislike somebody there must be something there. Let's try this on for size and see how absurd it can get. William Casey died of a brain tumor or did he? It sure was convenient that he fell ill just as he was being called to testify on Iran-contra and possibly if he, as Reagan's campaign chair, had treasonously negotiated with the Iranians on behalf of the then candidate Reagan on holding teh hostages till after the election. So did the elder Bush or Reagan have him killed? He might have been about to implicate them in offences where simple impeachment would have been the least of their worries. Of course this speculation is absurd. No matter what Casey knew he remained a very loyal Reagan supporter and there is no doubt his testimony would have contained the same "I don't remember" and flat out lies as characterized all the other principles testimony till Bush's xmas eve pardons ended the entire investigation. So will you mind terribly if all leftists everywhere start referring to Reagan and Bush I as murderers?

FirmhandKY -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 2:23:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And some here think that I am a far-left bomb throwing anarchist, when I hold some very fundamental and conservative values. So we both are victims of unwarrented misunderstanding. Oh well, WTF....tomorrow we begin anew. Ron sniffle sniffle .... Can't ... can't we .... just all get along? [:D] Firm

DomKen -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 2:33:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. You can interpret it "ah ha!" he says Iraq was the cause of 9/11! Which is the one you prefer, and supports your own biases. Or you can add the phrase as it is written "is consistent with ... continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations " as saying it is part and parcel of an overall "War on Terror" (hate that title, btw). The fact that you can parse your own source to support your beliefs, when they say the exact opposite of what you are trying to prove is ... simply amazing. Sorry no. The phrase "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." isn't something made up for this letter it is the exact language of public law 107-243 "The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" which was written by the White House as the official authorization for going to war. Found here. It is quite clear the language was considered important enough to embed it in the official requirements for invading Iraq.

Honsoku -> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths (1/23/2008 2:56:38 PM)
How generous of you to totally ignore the point of my post and just go railing away. Familiarity with conspiracy theories does equate belief in them. Of course you had to edit my post down, because otherwise your reply looks asinine and pointlessly argumentative. Instead, you are counting on people not back checking what was written. So I shall repeat my last paragraph; quote: The point, which was rather missed, was that this fodder is just as good as most of the current allegations and accusations against the Bush administration. People will only develop conspiracy theories that support their own agendas. Besides, in any good conspiracy, the straightforward answer is the wrong one and there is no court worthy evidence to support it [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Honsoku Snip answer lacking anything but rumor So IOW words you've got nothing but since you dislike somebody there must be something there. Let's try this on for size and see how absurd it can get. William Casey died of a brain tumor or did he? It sure was convenient that he fell ill just as he was being called to testify on Iran-contra and possibly if he, as Reagan's campaign chair, had treasonously negotiated with the Iranians on behalf of the then candidate Reagan on holding teh hostages till after the election. So did the elder Bush or Reagan have him killed? He might have been about to implicate them in offences where simple impeachment would have been the least of their worries. Of course this speculation is absurd. No matter what Casey knew he remained a very loyal Reagan supporter and there is no doubt his testimony would have contained the same "I don't remember" and flat out lies as characterized all the other principles testimony till Bush's xmas eve pardons ended the entire investigation. So will you mind terribly if all leftists everywhere start referring to Reagan and Bush I as murderers? Not at all, go right ahead.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875