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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks

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.

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

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

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".    Or even "sex".

Maybe because it favored their biases already?

Firm

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.

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.

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.

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 

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honsoku
Snip answer lacking anything but rumor

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 

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.

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?