[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by TheMosco

Isn't the whole point of memo saying that bush only went through the UN to gain a legal base for invading iraq?

Um, what else do you go through the UN for?

Clinton didn't even do that. Didn't even TRY. Said he had enough authority to do it the way it was. No one said squat.

Like the cnn article says above, Iraq wasn't much of a threat. Bush knew that he wanted to invade iraq regardless of what any evidence said. They then manipulated the UN in order to gain a shaky legal base for invading iraq because they knew none of the other evidence held up. Seems pretty dishonest to me.

Iraq wasn't much of a threat, easy to say that now. That wasn't what was being said before the war. From not only America.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Um, what else do you go through the UN for?

Clinton didn't even do that. Didn't even TRY. Said he had enough authority to do it the way it was. No one said squat.

Iraq wasn't much of a threat, easy to say that now. That wasn't what was being said before the war. From not only America.

I just love how you keep saying not only from America. I remmeber France, Germany, Russia, CANADA, China, Iran, most the the African nations being totally against the war, and several more countries in Europe that where not in favor or opossed.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Athens

I just love how you keep saying not only from America. I remmeber France, Germany, Russia, CANADA, China, Iran, most the the African nations being totally against the war, and several more countries in Europe that where not in favor or opossed.

Pay attention Athens. I never said they were for the war.

I was speaking about countries that believed Iraq was a threat, and had WMDs.

Before the war, there was TONS of countries that believed this. America was just one of them.

This was going on way before Bush was in office.

So for you that are buying that this is one big conspiracy from the Bush Administration, you have been had.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Pay attention Athens. I never said they were for the war.

I was speaking about countries that believed Iraq was a threat, and had WMDs.

Before the war, there was TONS of countries that believed this. America was just one of them.

This was going on way before Bush was in office.

So for you that are buying that this is one big conspiracy from the Bush Administration, you have been had.

Every country is a threat, just a matter of how creditable of a threat and what kind of threat. Every one had no doubts that Iraq couldnt even invade Libia let a long the US.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Um, what else do you go through the UN for?
Iraq wasn't much of a threat, easy to say that now. That wasn't what was being said before the war. From not only America.

Reading comprehension much ?

If you read the memo (did you get that memo ?), it was was apparently "easy to say" that Iraq wasn't much of a threat in 2002 as well. The clue is the part of the memo that states:
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

In other words, it was EXACTLY what was being said before the war, just not to the public. The fact that "lots of other people" were saying it is irrelevant. "Lots of other people" believed it because that's what we told them.

You've spent quite a lot of energy diverting from the main topic to all of your usual trite "logic" arguments and are missing the core implication of this memo.

If the memo is true, then the Bush administration was intentionally lying about Iraq WMDs (yes ... lying, with all of the intent that is implied in the word). In past threads before this memo , you regularly reverted to semantic hair-splitting on the term "lie" vs "say something that is false" etc. based on the notion of intent and that nobody could prove intent to deceive.

This memo is significant in that it erases any ambiguity. If the memo is true, the Bush administration was lying. Plain and simple. Right now we have officials in British government saying that it is true and no refutation of its factuality coming from anyone.

1) The memo accurately reflects the Bush Administration's views on Iraq's WMDs
2) The Bush Admin believed they were telling the truth when they said Iraq had WMDs

These two statements are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true at once. All this nonsense about what Clinton/Europe/whomever has zero relevance to the core implication of this memo. You can say "Clinton believed it too" ... but you can't say "Clinton knew it was false when it was coming out of his lips". (and, in fact, we now know in hindsight that it wasn't false in 1998 ... that is apparently right around the time the final weapons were actually destroyed so his belief was borne out by the truth of the matter). If this memo is true, than we can say that the Bush administration knew that it was false even as they were selling it as truth in the State of the Union Address, to the UN, etc.

I'll be interested to see what lame axiom you whip out from obscure Greek philosophy to avoid the issue this time.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Pay attention Athens. I never said they were for the war.

I was speaking about countries that believed Iraq was a threat, and had WMDs.

Before the war, there was TONS of countries that believed this. America was just one of them.

This was going on way before Bush was in office.

So for you that are buying that this is one big conspiracy from the Bush Administration, you have been had.

Ever played hide and seek? When kids are afraid of the dark and looking for their mate inside a dark room, what's one of the first things they do? "I know you're in there Sammy-Joe. Why don't you just come out." It's called bluffing. Best case scenario, Sammy-Joe gives up. Worst case scenario, you have to go in there and look for her anyway. Win-win.

Most countries on the planet realised that it was impossible to KNOW whether Saddam had WMD or not. You simply can't know that any country doesn't have WMD. Do we know that Zimbabwe doesn't have them? If so, how? Proving a negative like that is impossible. The weapons inspectors, when they left Iraq after the first war said Iraq had PERHAPS retained some WMD but if they had any weapons, the weapons represented less than 5% of its original capacity. That information was all most countries had to go on. No one but the weapons inspectors (and American spies that infiltrated them) had actually been into Iraq and looked at WMD and no had any hard proof of WMD since the inspections had ended. The UN had questions that were still unanswered in respect of the other less than 5% and other countries correctly assumed the worst case scenario - that the weapons actually did ever exist and that they hadn't been destroyed or expired in the meanwhile. They were shouting into the room, "Sammy Joe, we know you have WMD so just throw them out." You used the word "believe", as in many countries believed that Iraq had WMD and tThat's probably accurate. Most countries suspected and believed that Iraq might have WMD.

But there is a massive chasm between belief and knowledge. Only when you have crossed that chasm are most people prepared to start slaughtering each other. That is, when you're sitting on the belief side, with nothing but unsubstantiated faith in Iraq's guilt, you're far, far less willing to take military action in case you wind up wasting lives and money than you are when you're sitting on the side where you KNOW they have them.

America didn't just BELIEVE that Iraq had WMD; it said it KNEW that Iraq had WMD. It said they were sitting under palm trees in Western Iraq waiting to be fired. It said they were in trucks and trains waiting to be deployed. They said they knew this because they had information that went beyond the UN's reports. They claimed to have satellite evidence, informer evidence and other evidence they couldn't disclose (but hint hint nudge nudge, it's very convincing) proving that Iraq had WMD. What did George Tenet say two weeks ago? "Slam dunk case" were the stupidest three words he ever uttered in his life! Agreed. The Bush Administration's incompetence is virtually without precedence. That is, if you believe that it was just incompetence which I frankly don't. Frankly, I don't believe they cared if Iraq had WMD or not. But that is another debate.

Most of the world refused to conduct a war on the basis of the evidence of WMD that they had seen. THAT is where the US diverged from the rest of the world. The USA has wasted tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars and all this time Sammy Joe wasn't even in the dark room.

[Zimphire]

Man the excuses.

Troll prove that there was no WMD at said place when they said there was.

you guys act like it could have NEVER BEEN MOVED!!1

This is clearly a case of bait and switch.

Tell me Troll, what happened to all the weapons Iraq had?

And Krusty, you'd have a point if our only reason for going into Iraq was because we thought they could harm another country with WMD.

There was many other reasons given and were indeed valid (Big thread on this, yes, it was proven, do a search)

I know the left like to throw up the big "THERE WAS ONLY ONE REASON !@11" nonsense.

That crap was smacked down long ago.

[budster101]

Hey, the UN was on the take for the OIL FOR FOOD scandal, what makes you all think they were not with the WMD's?

You'd rather believe the UN and SADDAM INSAIN. Whatever. This is a non-issue.

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Um, what else do you go through the UN for?

Clinton didn't even do that. Didn't even TRY. Said he had enough authority to do it the way it was. No one said squat.

Iraq wasn't much of a threat, easy to say that now. That wasn't what was being said before the war. From not only America.

Read the CNN article again. You said its easy to say that iraq wasnt much a of threat now? They were saying this in 2002 in the memo:

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance."

and

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

No where does it mention democracy in the middle east. The memo mentions them wanted to remove sadam because of terrorism and WMD and how the evidence was being FIXED around that.

SO lets recap again:

Bush wanted to go to war with iraq because he "desired" a regime change. Iraq wasn't much a threat to anyone according to the memo in 2002. So Bush planned to remove him because of "terrorism and WMD" and fixed what "evidence" they did have around that plan. Then, they realized this wasn't going to be enough evidence and so the US went to the UN even though they didn't want to but only went because the UK wanted to. At the UN, they put in a half assed effort to gain a shacky legal justification for the invasion even though they were invading them for completely different reasons. Did i miss anything?

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

zigzag, you claimed that what Clinton did was somehow different. Just because he didn't invade.

No, not "just because he didn't invade." The Clinton and Bush administrations did a number of things differently. Invading is just the most obvious one.

Note that I didn't say one was right or the other wrong - I just said different.

The only reason I mentioned Clinton at all is because you keep bringing him up. But he's not President any more. The current president is responsible for his own administration's actions, for the planning and execution of the invasion and occupation. That is where many of the problems lie.

So, what you are upset about? The invasion? Or all the dead Iraqi people?

I've discussed my concerns about the Bush administration's approach to the invasion - if not the idea of invading itself - in boring detail here for over two years. I'm not going to repeat myself. Do a search if you really want to know, but I suspect that you don't really want to know.

One more time: it's intellectually possible to approve of an action in principle while questioning the execution.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by zigzag

I didn't say he was wrong - I tend to think he was right. I only said that he might have exaggerated the numbers in order to defend it.

Please forgive eynstyn. I no say you are silly liberal. You sound like serious man with good brain.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

You can say it 100 more times. Don't matter how many times you say it. If that is all that takes you to make you feel better about it then hey, go ahead with your bad self. I am not that easy.

It also doesn't matter what Clinton DIDN"T DO, you are making apologetic excuses for him bombing and killing Iraqis without UN approval. And then, saying Bush doing it is somehow worse. At least Bush made an attempt to go through the UN. Clinton snubbed them and said he had all the authority he needed (Where was all the outraged liberals then?)

And the only difference between what Clinton did and Bush did, is Bush at least made an attempt to do something about the things going down there.

You do realize Clinton said himself that the only way for Iraq to be truely free and not a threat was to dismantle the Gov and topple Saddam right?

He KNEW what needed to be done, and didn't do it.

Yet Bush knew what needed to be done also, and did it.

So yeah, Bush is the bad guy here.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by TheMosco

Isn't the whole point of memo saying that bush only went through the UN to gain a legal base for invading iraq?



Like the cnn article says above, Iraq wasn't much of a threat. Bush knew that he wanted to invade iraq regardless of what any evidence said. They then manipulated the UN in order to gain a shaky legal base for invading iraq because they knew none of the other evidence held up. Seems pretty dishonest to me.

In California we have a law that goes, 3 strikes and you are out for career criminals. For somebody
who robs a store, drives while drunk and sells a bag of weed he could go to jail for life. At least I guess that's how it works.

But for Saddam it would be called 500,000+ strikes and you go to trial but hundreds of thousands of dummies defend you and condem the forces and procedure that took you away.

I see a bumper sticker that goes, think globally but act locally. When it comes to Saddam and whether Bush did the right thing, some of you should do the opposite thing, which is, act globally after thinking locally.

Local in Israel.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

In California we have a law that goes, 3 strikes and you are out for career criminals. For somebody who robs a store, drives while drunk and sells a bag of weed he could go to jail for life. At least I guess that's how it works.

But for Saddam it would be called 500,000+ strikes and you go to trial but hundreds of thousands of dummies defend you and condem the forces and procedure that took you away.

I see a bumper sticker that goes, think globally but act locally. When it comes to Saddam and whether Bush did the right thing, some of you should do the opposite thing, which is, act globally after thinking locally.

Local in Israel.

In 1998, Clinton was IMPEACHED for lying. Bush LIED about something far more serious. Bush denies responsibility for actions by his minions and himself. California has a stupid law that doesn't differentiate between serious and non serious crimes. You also do not differentiate between the seriousness of a lie. No one is defending Saddam. Only liberals opposed supporting dictators in the past. Now you think that you invented it. Republicans were the main supporters of isolationism. Republicans supported the military coups in Guatemala and Iran that eliminated democracies. Republicans insisted on training the secret police in dictatorships to contain "communism" and to protect corporate interests. Rove's Universal Robots such as yourself should consider that someday a bill will come due. sam

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by SVass

In 1998, Clinton was IMPEACHED for lying. Bush LIED about something far more serious. Bush denies responsibility for actions by his minions and himself. California has a stupid law that doesn't differentiate between serious and non serious crimes. You also do not differentiate between the seriousness of a lie. No one is defending Saddam. Only liberals opposed supporting dictators in the past. Now you think that you invented it. Republicans were the main supporters of isolationism. Republicans supported the military coups in Guatemala and Iran that eliminated democracies. Republicans insisted on training the secret police in dictatorships to contain "communism" and to protect corporate interests. Rove's Universal Robots such as yourself should consider that someday a bill will come due. sam

Ha! You jealous because Rove has good robots like Apple has good computers. You are Terry Macolif
liberal robot, like Microsoft! Hahahaha! You pay bill everyday of republican Bush rule. Hahahah!!!!

Clinton lie for peddy naughty thing like bad little boy. Bush lie to change world. He see big picture very good. Make better for you. He know better than you and me.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Um, what else do you go through the UN for?

Clinton didn't even do that. Didn't even TRY. Said he had enough authority to do it the way it was. No one said squat.

Iraq wasn't much of a threat, easy to say that now. That wasn't what was being said before the war. From not only America.

Here is a reminder of what was being said before the war for example on (SFX: Thunderclap from on high) "60 MINUTES!"

This was in the late fall of 2002.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberal...20021210.asp#5

60 Minutes Dismissed, But Iraq Was
“Tantalizingly Close” to Nuke

The day after 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon mocked President Bush for the supposedly baseless claim that in 1991 Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime was only six months away from building a nuclear weapon, Simon’s CBS News colleague Mark Phillips marveled at how an Iraqi official “admitted there not only were plans to build a nuclear device, the Iraqis were tantalizingly close to having one."

Phillips checked in from Baghdad and ominously began his December 9 CBS Evening News story: "The Iraqi declaration now being analyzed in Washington and elsewhere has put a new sense of urgency into the inspection process. Not just because of what was in the documents, but also because in describing their illicit weapons history the Iraqis bordered on boastfulness. In a surprisingly frank and brash admission, the man who has run Iraq's prohibited weapons programs admitted there not only were plans to build a nuclear device, the Iraqis were tantalizingly close to having one."
General Amir al-Sa'adi, Iraqi presidential advisor: "We haven't reached the final assembly of a bomb nor tested it, so if you want to follow that, there's no guarantee that you will succeed. It's for the IAEA to judge how close we were."

Now contrast that to the derisive tone, dismissive of any imminent treat from Iraq getting nukes, taken by Bob Simon on the December 8 60 Minutes, as recounted in the December 9 CyberAlert:

In a Sunday night 60 Minutes story, CBS News reporter Bob Simon contended that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat from Iraq by selectively and misleadingly citing reports of Saddam Hussein’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon....

MRC analyst Brian Boyd took down what Simon claimed on the December 8 60 Minutes. Simon’s first example:

"It's generally assumed that Saddam does have chemical and biological weapons, but is he also on the verge of producing a nuclear bomb as the President says he's tried to do in the past?"

George W. Bush, date not noted: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access a report came out of the Atomic, the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

David Albright: "There is no such report as far as I know."

Simon: "Physicist David Albright was a weapons inspector in Iraq during the 1990s and now directs a Washington think tank called the Institute for Science and International Security. He says contrary to what the President claimed, neither the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, nor any other investigative body has ever reported that Iraq was only six months
away from the bomb.”

END of Excerpt of earlier CyberAlert

For how Simon contradicted an August CBS Evening News story by David Martin, how the time frame cited by Bush was an accurate estimate according to a 1991 IAEA report and how Simon had at least twice previously made clear his personal disagreement with Bush’s Iraq policy, see the December 9 CyberAlert: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberal...20021209.asp#2

Simon’s promotion from Middle East correspondent to 60 Minutes has an up side: Phillips and not Simon is in Iraq where Phillips seems a bit more interested in reality than potshots at those trying to protect the world from Saddam Hussein.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Troll

Ever played hide and seek? When kids are afraid of the dark and looking for their mate inside a dark room, what's one of the first things they do? "I know you're in there Sammy-Joe. Why don't you just come out." It's called bluffing. Best case scenario, Sammy-Joe gives up. Worst case scenario, you have to go in there and look for her anyway. Win-win.

Most countries on the planet realised that it was impossible to KNOW whether Saddam had WMD or not. You simply can't know that any country doesn't have WMD. Do we know that Zimbabwe doesn't have them? If so, how? Proving a negative like that is impossible. The weapons inspectors, when they left Iraq after the first war said Iraq had PERHAPS retained some WMD but if they had any weapons, the weapons represented less than 5% of its original capacity. That information was all most countries had to go on. No one but the weapons inspectors (and American spies that infiltrated them) had actually been into Iraq and looked at WMD and no had any hard proof of WMD since the inspections had ended. The UN had questions that were still unanswered in respect of the other less than 5% and other countries correctly assumed the worst case scenario - that the weapons actually did ever exist and that they hadn't been destroyed or expired in the meanwhile. They were shouting into the room, "Sammy Joe, we know you have WMD so just throw them out." You used the word "believe", as in many countries believed that Iraq had WMD and tThat's probably accurate. Most countries suspected and believed that Iraq might have WMD.

But there is a massive chasm between belief and knowledge. Only when you have crossed that chasm are most people prepared to start slaughtering each other. That is, when you're sitting on the belief side, with nothing but unsubstantiated faith in Iraq's guilt, you're far, far less willing to take military action in case you wind up wasting lives and money than you are when you're sitting on the side where you KNOW they have them.

America didn't just BELIEVE that Iraq had WMD; it said it KNEW that Iraq had WMD. It said they were sitting under palm trees in Western Iraq waiting to be fired. It said they were in trucks and trains waiting to be deployed. They said they knew this because they had information that went beyond the UN's reports. They claimed to have satellite evidence, informer evidence and other evidence they couldn't disclose (but hint hint nudge nudge, it's very convincing) proving that Iraq had WMD. What did George Tenet say two weeks ago? "Slam dunk case" were the stupidest three words he ever uttered in his life! Agreed. The Bush Administration's incompetence is virtually without precedence. That is, if you believe that it was just incompetence which I frankly don't. Frankly, I don't believe they cared if Iraq had WMD or not. But that is another debate.

Most of the world refused to conduct a war on the basis of the evidence of WMD that they had seen. THAT is where the US diverged from the rest of the world. The USA has wasted tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars and all this time Sammy Joe wasn't even in the dark room.

Dennis Miller talking to Jay Leno after mid-term elections 2002 about the perceived threat from terrorists or Saddam or anyone for that matter:

Miller: “And you know what, what? Jay what, what are the Democrats really offering? You know I consider both sides in an election before I vote. I looked at what the Democrats are saying. They’re saying, 'Listen we want more of your money and we’re not really keen on preemptively protecting you from bad guys.' You know what folks? I don’t want the bad guys to have the next move. I don’t want to see two more big buildings blown up.”

Miller took on liberal wimpiness: “You know I find our approach to the, the war on terrorism to be amazingly non-chalant. I mean the simple fact is we are not being protective enough of ourselves. I think that was a mandate yesterday saying, 'Listen! We don’t want these morons trying to croak us!’

Nobody can be calm when facing the possibility or real BELIEF a cocked and loaded weapon is aimed at them. I don't pay the president of the USA to take chances with my safety.

Saddam was the fool for not coming clean or else he might have kept his country. It's lucky for us that he didn't.

[SVass]

The whole WMD argument sounds the same as Adolf claiming that Poland threatened him. Nuclear weapons are EXPENSIVE to build and only an ass or an RUR believes in them. Biological and chemical weapons are much simpler and cheaper. Any brewery or medical lab can produce them. Quoting Dennis Miller is like quoting Karl Rove. Remember that the president is NOT paid to lie to us. He is not in charge of starting wars. Back to the two buildings, they were blown up for a lot of reasons-ultimately because 19 humans took orders from a fanatic. We supported the fertile soil for the fanatic to thrive. Down with the swift boat texan. (PS Next he will quote Dan Rather as authoritative.) sam

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

In California we have a law that goes, 3 strikes and you are out for career criminals. For somebody
who robs a store, drives while drunk and sells a bag of weed he could go to jail for life. At least I guess that's how it works.

But for Saddam it would be called 500,000+ strikes and you go to trial but hundreds of thousands of dummies defend you and condem the forces and procedure that took you away.

I see a bumper sticker that goes, think globally but act locally. When it comes to Saddam and whether Bush did the right thing, some of you should do the opposite thing, which is, act globally after thinking locally.

Local in Israel.

You guys always claim that we are the blind ones and that we are blinded by our hatred of bush that we can't admit that "bush was right". Listen, We all know that Saddam was a horrible man that killed his own people. We all know that. Do I think its a bad thing that saddam isn't in power? No. There are harsh dictators all over the world along with civil wars where this same murdering is going on. There are countries where women are still treated as second class citizens. There are regions where 10 year children are forced to pick up a machine gun and fight and the ones that don't are forced to flee and get slaughted. There are places in the world where kids make 10 cents a day so that we can't get some cheep shoes. There are places in the world where people go hungry because their leaders own all the resources. There are places in the world where the WMD far exceed anything that Iraq had. Why haven't we invaded them, why haven't we put an end to that injustice? Its called picking your battles. The reason I don't like bush is because he didn't access the other threats, he didn't do what was best for america. He had his mind made before the so called "evidence" even came up. This memo is just further proof of what other former officials have been saying. They realized then (not just now), that Iraq wasn't much of a threat. They then "fixed" the evidence. Then realizing that they needed a legal base for invading they went to the UN. They didn't invade iraq because iraq violated UN rules, they went to the UN to invade iraq. There is a huge difference in that. This is what I get so angry about. I get accused of letting off some horrible murderer in some kind of smear campaign when I am just trying to look at the larger picture. They wanted to invade Iraq no matter what. Where does that leave us now? We have an unstable iraq, and a not to so stable Afghanistan and now people are talking about Iran being next? Then there is north korea. Before the war they knew Iran and north korea where more important threats but they already had their mind made up on iraq.

And then there is Clinton thing. GIVE IT A REST. HE ISN"T STILL THE PRESIDENT. Post as many quotes as you want saying that CLINTON thought that there were WMD and that iraq was a threat, it doesn't matter. The point is that Bush knew that they weren't that big of a threat and we still went to war because Bush had his mind made up before the evidence was even presented.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by SVass

The whole WMD argument sounds the same as Adolf claiming that Poland threatened him. Nuclear weapons are EXPENSIVE to build and only an ass or an RUR believes in them. Biological and chemical weapons are much simpler and cheaper. Any brewery or medical lab can produce them. Quoting Dennis Miller is like quoting Karl Rove. Remember that the president is NOT paid to lie to us. He is not in charge of starting wars. Back to the two buildings, they were blown up for a lot of reasons-ultimately because 19 humans took orders from a fanatic. We supported the fertile soil for the fanatic to thrive. Down with the swift boat texan. (PS Next he will quote Dan Rather as authoritative.) sam

It sounds like you are unable to correctly interpret history until 66 years after the fact. We'll consider (spelled: ignore) your premature udderances as bovine methane until you can plop a patty when you will be thought of as out standing in a field in the year 2071.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by TheMosco

You guys always claim that we are the blind ones and that we are blinded by our hatred of bush that we can't admit that "bush was right". Listen, We all know that Saddam was a horrible man that killed his own people. We all know that. Do I think its a bad thing that saddam isn't in power? No. There are harsh dictators all over the world along with civil wars where this same murdering is going on. There are countries where women are still treated as second class citizens. There are regions where 10 year children are forced to pick up a machine gun and fight and the ones that don't are forced to flee and get slaughted. There are places in the world where kids make 10 cents a day so that we can't get some cheep shoes. There are places in the world where people go hungry because their leaders own all the resources. There are places in the world where the WMD far exceed anything that Iraq had. Why haven't we invaded them, why haven't we put an end to that injustice? Its called picking your battles. The reason I don't like bush is because he didn't access the other threats, he didn't do what was best for america. He had his mind made before the so called "evidence" even came up. This memo is just further proof of what other former officials have been saying. They realized then (not just now), that Iraq wasn't much of a threat. They then "fixed" the evidence. Then realizing that they needed a legal base for invading they went to the UN. They didn't invade iraq because iraq violated UN rules, they went to the UN to invade iraq. There is a huge difference in that. This is what I get so angry about. I get accused of letting off some horrible murderer in some kind of smear campaign when I am just trying to look at the larger picture. They wanted to invade Iraq no matter what. Where does that leave us now? We have an unstable iraq, and a not to so stable Afghanistan and now people are talking about Iran being next? Then there is north korea. Before the war they knew Iran and north korea where more important threats but they already had their mind made up on iraq.

And then there is Clinton thing. GIVE IT A REST. HE ISN"T STILL THE PRESIDENT. Post as many quotes as you want saying that CLINTON thought that there were WMD and that iraq was a threat, it doesn't matter. The point is that Bush knew that they weren't that big of a threat and we still went to war because Bush had his mind made up before the evidence was even presented.

Just because we can't solve ALL the world's ills you whine that we shouldn't solve ANY of them? Especially when it DOES benefit US?

YES, YOU SHOULD PICK YOUR BATTLES WISELY!

If macnn is our representation of the world and I consider you and svass and athens and ole pigeon threats but only svass has really hurt me (this is hypothetical) with his words, threatened my standing here or violated macnn rules or attacked my family or friends and if svass is gone I can have his computer gear and not have him to worry about any more, you bet he will be on my (s) hit list...even if you too hurt me with your words, you aren't as big a pain in my ass. I'll deal with you later after the big prick is gone.

(THIS WAS A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE AND DOES NOT REPRESENT A THREAT OF VIOLENCE. NOR DO I FEEL ANY ANIMOSITY TOWARD ANYONE HERE. I simply use parables to make a point.)

And you don't remember that EVERYBODY was in doubt about the threat Saddam posed.


60 Minutes Dismissed, But Iraq Was
“Tantalizingly Close” to Nuke

The day after 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon mocked President Bush for the supposedly baseless claim that in 1991 Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime was only six months away from building a nuclear weapon, Simon’s CBS News colleague Mark Phillips marveled at how an Iraqi official “admitted there not only were plans to build a nuclear device, the Iraqis were tantalizingly close to having one."

Phillips checked in from Baghdad and ominously began his December 9 CBS Evening News story: "The Iraqi declaration now being analyzed in Washington and elsewhere has put a new sense of urgency into the inspection process. Not just because of what was in the documents, but also because in describing their illicit weapons history the Iraqis bordered on boastfulness. In a surprisingly frank and brash admission, the man who has run Iraq's prohibited weapons programs admitted there not only were plans to build a nuclear device, the Iraqis were tantalizingly close to having one."

General Amir al-Sa'adi, Iraqi presidential advisor: "We haven't reached the final assembly of a bomb nor tested it, so if you want to follow that, there's no guarantee that you will succeed. It's for the IAEA to judge how close we were."

Now contrast that to the derisive tone, dismissive of any imminent treat from Iraq getting nukes, taken by Bob Simon on the December 8 60 Minutes, as recounted in the December 9 CyberAlert:

In a Sunday night 60 Minutes story, CBS News reporter Bob Simon contended that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat from Iraq by selectively and misleadingly citing reports of Saddam Hussein’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon....

MRC analyst Brian Boyd took down what Simon claimed on the December 8 60 Minutes. Simon’s first example:

"It's generally assumed that Saddam does have chemical and biological weapons, but is he also on the verge of producing a nuclear bomb as the President says he's tried to do in the past?"

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Troll prove that there was no WMD at said place when they said there was.

you guys act like it could have NEVER BEEN MOVED!!1

There's just no point in arguing with this tripe. If you honestly believe that in the face of an invasion by the most powerful army on earth and mere hours before the country was invaded, Iraq voluntarily made it's best chance of victory in the war disappear by moving their WMD out of the country and managed to move them through a war zone without a trace without a single witness of the said evacuation, then I don't know what to say. It's like arguing with someone that believes despite all of the evidence to the contrary that the world is flat - just because there's a miniscule chance that it might be. The chances that there were WMD in Iraq at the time Powell said they were sitting under palm trees in Western Iraq ready to go is so absolutely minisculy remote that you'd have to be utterly biased to even entertain it. And if you did, you'd need to explain why, after being prepared to use WMD without provocation before the invasion, Saddam suddenly changed tack and not only decided not to use when he was provoked but actually gave them away.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Tell me Troll, what happened to all the weapons Iraq had?

There is a plethora of UN documentation explaining what happened to them. Every WMD that anyone ever saw in Iraq was destroyed before the inspectors left the first time, or tagged and destroyed the second time the inspectors went in. That's what happened to the WMD! The other less than 5% does not represent WMD that anyone had ever actually seen. No one knows whether those WMD ever actually existed. The UN extrapolated from evidence like purchasing records to say that if Iraq had been efficient, it could have produced more weapons than they had accounted for. You will recall that during the second set of inspections, with better technology, many of the statements that Iraq had previously made, and were considered unreliable, were proven to be correct. Read up on Anthrax.

Point is, every WMD we KNOW Iraq had was accounted for before the invasion.

But you're missing the point here. The point is that the Bushies said over and over again that they had information that showed that Iraq was a grave threat to international peace. They rejected the suggestion that the cart was before the horse and that the intelligence was being shaped to justify the war. Now all of that is being revealed as false. Point of fact, there were no WMD in Iraq nor are there any witnesses to an evacuation of WMD or any records of such evacuation taking place. No photographs of convoys of weapons lab crossing the borders, no trace samples of liquids or gasses or radiation. A big fat nothing. And what's worse is that it's now emerging that the Administration KNEW that they had a weak case. While they were presenting the case as a slam dunk, behind the scenes they were telling the British their case was weak.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Troll

There's just no point in arguing with this tripe.

That's what I thought. You might has well stopped there. The rest of your post was side-skirting and full of excuses.

Originally Posted by Troll

Point is, every WMD we KNOW Iraq had was accounted for before the invasion.

Oh Really! ? Then what was Iraq supposed to destroy?

Got any proof on that?

Troll the facts are, You DON'T KNOW what the real truth is.

No one here does.

To say one person lied, or something wasn't factual without you yourself having the facts, is pretty weak.

At least I can admit I have no clue what went down there.

All I know is, Saddam had WMD. he admitted it. The UN tagged some.

Now, no one knows what happened to said WMD. No one knows where it went. No one is answering any questions, or giving up any proof of what happened to them.

So no one knows what anyone had or has.

Give it up bro, you just aren't going to win this.

I do know this though, Saddam was a bad guy He was murdered and was continuing to murder his people. Saddam threatened the US with retaliation. Iraq was a breeding ground of terrorists.

In other words, enough reason for me, to go into Iraq and smack the taste out of his mouth.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Oh Really! ? Then what was Iraq supposed to destroy?

Iraq wasn't supposed to destroy anything!!!

You are showing a lack of the most basic knowledge of what the whole process was about. Iraq was supposed to ACCOUNT for weapons, not destroy weapons. It had to prove that it had destroyed weapons that no one had ever seen and it had to prove that it hadn't manufactured weapons which it could have manufactured given the ingredients it bought.

You say that we know that Saddam had WMD, that the UN tagged some and we don't know what happened to the rest. That is just patently false and your insistence on repeating that lie over and over suggests that you aren't interested in any form of the truth. No one ever saw a single WMD that was not either destroyed immediately or tagged and destroyed later. Not one single WMD that was ever identified by the UN ever went missing. We know where every single verified WMD that Iraq ever had is.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Troll the facts are, You DON'T KNOW what the real truth is.

Yeah, well there's the problem. You believe that there is a distinction between the truth and the real truth.

Nothing is provable in the absolute. Even if you had a photograph of the very group of trees in Iraq that Powell was talking about on the very day he made his statement plus a thousand witnesses saying there was nothing under them, that wouldn't be absolute proof would it? Just as, all of the photos I have showing that the planet is round and all the astronauts and scientists I can call as witnesses doesn't prove that the earth is actually round. Sane people accept the best proof they have and it becomes the truth. Personally (and I think I speak for the large majority of people on the planet), that Iraq had no WMD when the US invaded is as frickin close to the damn absolute 100% pure truth that you can get.

Only days after they were accused of having them, the country was overrun by the fastest military advance in the history of warfare. The borders were shut. Within weeks, every installation suspected of housing WMD had been searched top to tail with the most advanced equipment known to man, capable of picking up trace elements that might suggest WMD had been there months before and been moved. Within months the whole country had been scoured for WMD. Not one trace element, not one truck, not one disused laboratory, not one anthrax lined barrel or beaker, not one witness to mobile labs disappearing or rockets being disassembled and moved, not one scientist, not one witness to mysterious train laboratories being moved ever emerges. Every single person interviewed, captured says that Iraq destroyed all of its WMD way before the war. You are clearly able to dismiss all of that and focus on the highly, highly unlikely (although that word flatters the level of plausibility that exists) possibility that the Administration was actually not wrong.

Of course, if the weapons did get smuggled out of Iraq at the time, then who do we blame for putting those weapons into hands unknown? Huh? Thank you George W. for scattering WMD.

But as I said previously. Whether Iraq did or did not have WMD is not the point right now. The point is that the Administration said the case was slam dunk. For years we've been saying that this Adminisitration is either extraordinarily incompetent for getting it so darn wrong or it knew that there was a high probability that Iraq had no WMD. Whilst I don't feel that negligence or incompetence are defensible, they were the best defence the Administration had up to now. But now it is emerging that they KNEW that they did not have a slam dunk case. They presented it as such when they knew it not to be true. That is the issue this memo raises.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Iraq was a breeding ground of terrorists.

Yeah, you'd think that the US would have put pressure on the Kurds or used its overfly rights to shut down the only terrorist camp in Iraq (located in US controlled territory). Right under American noses and they did nothing about it. I'll bet Saddam would have done a better job of dealing with terrorists if he'd been governing that part of Iraq. Or are your going to raise your famous Salman pak joke again?

Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists right now. 300 people have been killed by terrorists in 13 days of May. Three hundred! Thanks to America's "liberation" of Iraq, Iraqis are being slaughtered pretty darn effectively. Meanwhile the US Army cowers in the Green Zone unable to secure a third world country the size of California.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

So for you that are buying that this is one big conspiracy from the Bush Administration, you have been had.

And if that memo/letter is real?

Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice... don't get fooled again. Or however he said it.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Troll

Point is, every WMD we KNOW Iraq had was accounted for before the invasion.

CBS (SEE B.S.?) is at BEST a knowledgeable and reliable news source and at WORST a biased liberal spin organization. Their well-regarded (by them) 60 Minutes correspondent, Bob Simon disagrees with your revisionist hystoria (history + hysteria).

In this account by the MRC of a story which highlights Simon's bias in criticizing the Bush administration re: the existence or NON existence of Iraqi nukes and/or chemical/biological weapons, Simon says:

"It's generally assumed that Saddam DOES HAVE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, but is he also on the verge of producing a nuclear bomb as the President says he's tried to do in the past?"

You can't change the documented facts of this matter to suit your debating points. If CBS 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon (on Dec. 8, 2002) said, "it is generally assumed that Saddam does have chemical and biological weapons" then how can you possibly try to convince anyone (unless you think the readers are all stupid) that all the WMD's were accounted for before the war???

Your statement is not true and you know it is not true!

Admit it, at the time it was "generally assumed that Saddam [did] have chemical and biological weapons!"

[SVass]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Admit it, at the time it was "generally assumed that Saddam [did] have chemical and biological weapons!"

Do you understand hyperbole? Some say that at the time Darwin wrote his book that it was generally believed that Biblical creation was true. Hogwash! Aside from the fact that Americans were only a small percentage of the world's population, educated people believed in other origins or had no idea. If you mean a majority of intelligence analysts, that has been disproven. If you mean that a majority of uneducated Americans, say so. The comment was very poor jounalism as Simon should have been specific as to who assumed what. None of us care what the president "assumes" to be true as he assumes that Social Security will go bankrupt in 2042 which is a low ball projection and not a fact. SAM

[budster101]

SS according to the Democrats during Bill Clinton's administration were all yelling that Social Security was going bankrupt. What year did they say it was going to crash? Anyone? Anyone?

I'm sad to say, they may have been correct, and yet they are now changing their story? Just politicing at the cost of taxpayers and people who are going to retire, especially the baby boomers.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by SVass

Do you understand hyperbole? Some say that at the time Darwin wrote his book that it was generally believed that Biblical creation was true. Hogwash! Aside from the fact that Americans were only a small percentage of the world's population, educated people believed in other origins or had no idea. If you mean a majority of intelligence analysts, that has been disproven. If you mean that a majority of uneducated Americans, say so. The comment was very poor jounalism as Simon should have been specific as to who assumed what. None of us care what the president "assumes" to be true as he assumes that Social Security will go bankrupt in 2042 which is a low ball projection and not a fact. SAM

Ha! SVass, you make me learn. Good new words!

hyperbole, noun: exaggeration
obfuscate, verb: make obscure or unclear

You obfuscate little bit all over post. Ha!!! You good for CBS spinner job!

"Some say that at the time Darwin wrote his book" Who is SOME? CBS???

"educated people believed in other origins or had no idea." There is more Americans in world then and less amount of educated people, No?

"If you mean a majority of intelligence analysts, that has been disproven. If you mean that a majority of uneducated Americans, say so." Ha! I no mean nothing only what Mr. BIG CBS 60 Minutes Liberal Hero man say is what I say. Why you no have big words for mr. Simon when he say this big hyperbole??? You have big words for Mr. Rather when he is hyperbole in kerry memo, yes?

Reason why no big words for Mr. Simon is because every body agree. Or they Do not know. Like Mr. Zimphire say. Maybe no one know for sure. I believe Mr. Simon more than Mr Zimphire on Dec 8, 2002. Mr simon say, "It's generally assumed that Saddam DOES HAVE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS." He has cbs news department and millions dollrs and many reporters with experience.

He say, "It's generally assumed that Saddam DOES HAVE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS."

You say hyperbole. I say HA!

Generally assumed by all. Not only educated. Not only Americans. Not only uneducated. Not only cbs. Every body! You. Me. President.

You not worried about social security? You are ole to like ole pigeon. Good thing president is conservative. He worry for bankrupt maybe to early. Give slow minds time for thinking about problem. Maybe they ready for action in ten years. If they is smart they fix social security today. Mr. Bush know better than you and me.

But remember on Dec. 8, 2002 it was " generally assumed that Saddam DOES HAVE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS."



"It's generally assumed that Saddam DOES HAVE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS."

[SVass]

Eynstyn, let me make this perfectly clear. I believe now and I believed then that George W. Bush did NOT believe and does not believe anything that he says. I believe that he is an amoral LIAR who will say anything to get what he wants. I did NOT believe that they had any particular weapons at that time. He, I, and most people who understand arithmetic know that Social Security is not in significant trouble. He merely wants to steal the money and continue to give it to his friends and to divert attention from the originating thread. He ignored the original intelligence and lied. He continues to lie every day. sam

[budster101]

Clinton's own people said Saddam had WMDs.
He used chemical weapons on the Kurds.
He was a clear and present threat to his neighbors. Remember Kuwait? Why we didn't go back and push him into a grave then is beyond me. The Iraqis wanted us to, and when we didn't he butchered THOUSANDS OF THEM.. hey Athens how about a demonstration of THOUSANDS again. Add a zero to your 1,600.

You and the world knew he was a sick bas tard.
The UN and certain countries were guilty of the OIL FOR FOOD scandal and wanted it covered up so they didn't suppor the invasion... guess what? It was uncovered and more and more corruption in the UN is being discovered and attempts at quashing the mounting evidence is happening.

Social Security is in danger. The democrats said so back when they were tyring to keep a hold of the power, and yet now they are playing a different tune. What have you to say to that?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by budster101

Clinton's own people said Saddam had WMDs.
He used chemical weapons on the Kurds.
He was a clear and present threat to his neighbors. Remember Kuwait? Why we didn't go back and push him into a grave then is beyond me. The Iraqis wanted us to, and when we didn't he butchered THOUSANDS OF THEM.. hey Athens how about a demonstration of THOUSANDS again. Add a zero to your 1,600.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Saddam isn't a bad guy, he's horrible. Years back I even said that it's not the invasion of Iraq that's got me so pissed, it's that Bush & Co. lied to us for the reasons to go there. What's even worse is that he used the victims and the victims' families of the September 11th attacks to gain support for his war in Iraq.

The immediate threat to the U.S. was not there. I can't say what would've happened, but I think Bush could've gotten a lot more support from the international community if he had been straight up with us.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by budster101

Clinton's own people said Saddam had WMDs.
He used chemical weapons on the Kurds.
He was a clear and present threat to his neighbors. Remember Kuwait? Why we didn't go back and push him into a grave then is beyond me. The Iraqis wanted us to, and when we didn't he butchered THOUSANDS OF THEM.. hey Athens how about a demonstration of THOUSANDS again. Add a zero to your 1,600.

You and the world knew he was a sick bas tard.
The UN and certain countries were guilty of the OIL FOR FOOD scandal and wanted it covered up so they didn't suppor the invasion... guess what? It was uncovered and more and more corruption in the UN is being discovered and attempts at quashing the mounting evidence is happening.

Social Security is in danger. The democrats said so back when they were trying to keep a hold of the power, and yet now they are playing a different tune. What have you to say to that?

All that you say about Saddam is true. He and many other dictators (Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt, Belarus, Ethiopia, etc) are sick bas tards. We made money off his oil sales through Jordan and Turkey and they were our allies, so what. Foreign subsidiaries (whose income paid Cheney's salary) made money repairing oil wells through Halliburton.

Don't confuse me with someone who thinks that Democrats can't be as evil or stupid or reactionary as Republicans. I have already provided the numbers showing that privatization is pure bs. A conservative trustee report assumes a 1.9% economic growth rate leading to 74 cents on the dollar in 2041 for Social Security. Bush says cut benefits, borrow 10 trillion and get 80 cents on the dollar. Second point, in 1950 per Bush there were 16 people between 21 and 65 for every retiree. Now there are 3.3 wage earners for every retiree. What he didn't say was that because many people (state and federal workers, railroad or whomever) weren't eligible, there were 3.3 wage earners in 1950 for every retiree drawing social security same as now. Third point If the population drop to 2 earners per retiree and the longer lives anticipated are both true, then in another 75 years later, there will be no one left. Projections of current trends to infinity are bs. If you want to look at ridiculous projections, then check Medicare and vote for Perot. Sam

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by SVass

Eynstyn, let me make this perfectly clear. I believe now and I believed then that George W. Bush did NOT believe and does not believe anything that he says. I believe that he is an amoral LIAR who will say anything to get what he wants. I did NOT believe that they had any particular weapons at that time. He, I, and most people who understand arithmetic know that Social Security is not in significant trouble. He merely wants to steal the money and continue to give it to his friends and to divert attention from the originating thread. He ignored the original intelligence and lied. He continues to lie every day. sam

It's funny how you can get all your information from the biased liberal media, base all your thoughts and decisions on the mis-information from the biased liberal media and spew the same biased liberal media party line tripe on these pages every day and every post I've ever seen. But then when it is necessary you will conveeeeniently disavow anything you've ever said, done or believed if that will help you win your little debating points.

Alright, have it your way. After all, no one present can attest to anything you might have said or done or believed. For you this can be like Las Vegas. Whatever happens at macnn stays at macnn!

MacVegas! (Actually someone here should create a good online poker room suitable for mac users. Victoria Poker works with macs but is not quite ready to compete at the Party Poker or Poker Stars level. "MacVegas" would be a GREAT name. I want a cut for coming up with the name. Real $$ or playing credits will do. PM me and ask for O'Mackie.)

Now, where was I... oh yes.

That's called weasling.

But enough of your trying to get into this argument. It was Troll who said, "Point is, every WMD we KNOW Iraq had was accounted for before the invasion."

He was wrong. In the days before the invasion everyone "generally assumed that Saddam DOES HAVE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS."

Troll was wrong. You want to be wrong with him??? You side with losers all the time, do ya?

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I don't think anyone is arguing that Saddam isn't a bad guy, he's horrible. Years back I even said that it's not the invasion of Iraq that's got me so pissed, it's that Bush & Co. lied to us for the reasons to go there. What's even worse is that he used the victims and the victims' families of the September 11th attacks to gain support for his war in Iraq.

The immediate threat to the U.S. was not there. I can't say what would've happened, but I think Bush could've gotten a lot more support from the international community if he had been straight up with us.

Hey, I think it's time to change records. Let's hear the one about the hanging chads and selected not elected. We haven't heard that one for a while.

[Eynstyn]

double post

[SVass]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

He was wrong. In the days before the invasion everyone "generally assumed that Saddam DOES HAVE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS."

Troll was wrong. You want to be wrong with him??? You side with losers all the time, do ya?

You repeat yourself! Only RUR believed. You are trying to divert attention again and save Budster101 and yourself. You run away across the threads to post elsewhere.

Don't confuse me with someone who thinks that Democrats can't be as evil or stupid or reactionary as Republicans. I have already provided the numbers showing that privatization is pure bs. A conservative trustee report assumes a 1.9% economic growth rate leading to 74 cents on the dollar in 2041 for Social Security. Bush says cut benefits, borrow 10 trillion and get 80 cents on the dollar. Second point, in 1950 per Bush there were 16 people between 21 and 65 for every retiree. Now there are 3.3 wage earners for every retiree. What he didn't say was that because many people (state and federal workers, railroad or whomever) weren't eligible, there were 3.3 wage earners in 1950 for every retiree drawing social security same as now. Third point If the population drop to 2 earners per retiree and the longer lives anticipated are both true, then in another 75 years later, there will be no one left. Projections of current trends to infinity are bs. If you want to look at ridiculous projections, then check Medicare and vote for Perot. Sam

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by SVass

You repeat yourself! Only RUR believed. You are trying to divert attention again and save Budster101 and yourself. You run away across the threads to post elsewhere.

Don't confuse me with someone who thinks that Democrats can't be as evil or stupid or reactionary as Republicans. I have already provided the numbers showing that privatization is pure bs. A conservative trustee report assumes a 1.9% economic growth rate leading to 74 cents on the dollar in 2041 for Social Security. Bush says cut benefits, borrow 10 trillion and get 80 cents on the dollar. Second point, in 1950 per Bush there were 16 people between 21 and 65 for every retiree. Now there are 3.3 wage earners for every retiree. What he didn't say was that because many people (state and federal workers, railroad or whomever) weren't eligible, there were 3.3 wage earners in 1950 for every retiree drawing social security same as now. Third point If the population drop to 2 earners per retiree and the longer lives anticipated are both true, then in another 75 years later, there will be no one left. Projections of current trends to infinity are bs. If you want to look at ridiculous projections, then check Medicare and vote for Perot. Sam

What the heck is RUR???

Are you doing a Scooby Doo impression?

Republicans Un-Reashed???

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Hey, I think it's time to change records. Let's hear the one about the hanging chads and selected not elected. We haven't heard that one for a while.

What the hell are you talking about?

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

What the hell are you talking about?

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I don't think anyone is arguing that Saddam isn't a bad guy, he's horrible. Years back I even said that it's not the invasion of Iraq that's got me so pissed, it's that Bush & Co. lied to us for the reasons to go there. What's even worse is that he used the victims and the victims' families of the September 11th attacks to gain support for his war in Iraq.

The immediate threat to the U.S. was not there. I can't say what would've happened, but I think Bush could've gotten a lot more support from the international community if he had been straight up with us.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Saddam isn't a bad guy, he's horrible. Years back I even said that it's not the invasion of Iraq that's got me so pissed, it's that Bush & Co. lied to us for the reasons to go there.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Saddam isn't a bad guy, he's horrible. Years back I even said that it's not the invasion of Iraq that's got me so pissed, it's that Bush & Co. lied to us for the reasons to go there.

I have read that sooooooo many times from you the past few days it sounds like a broken record.

Maybe that helps explain why the obvious wisdom of President Bush's actions elude you. You have a very short attention span or your long-term memory is impaired. Or you need to repeat things many times before it gets through to you. Or it's a mantra or a mind track you are on and can't help yourself stop. Or maybe you are simply unable to accurately assess the possible ramifications of certain actions.

You know that when someone (Saddam) regularly breaks the law and gets away with it he becomes less inclined to obey the law.

You know that when someone kills people and likes it and has no one to answer for the killings, he is likely to do ANYTHING, including killing and invading and starting wars again whenever he feels like it.

You know that a man with limitless power and one who enjoys killing, when he is brought down a peg or two and is made to suffer and be humiliated before the world by a President of the United States in 1991, he is likely to want revenge. (Attempt to kill GHW Bush & family)

You know when the man with unlimited power and lots of money wants revenge and wants to gain more power and money and popularity he will attempt to befriend those who might help him achieve his ambitions. ($$ to palestinian terrorist families) (Attempts to goad israel into war with scuds.)

You know in 2003 when the war on terror went very far along this man would attempt to help the terrorists even more than when he gave the Palestinian terrorist families the $$.

You know when there are a few million people in a region who are easily persuaded to follow a radical Muslim madman and volunteer to become martyrs against the western powers and if you don't neutralize the areas where these people by the hundreds of thousands might have been trained, financed, supported, encouraged and sent on terrorist operations courtesy of a secular madman with unlimited power in his own country but who wants more power, esteem and riches in the region...

that it could mean YOUR OWN ASS IS IN DANGER AND COULD MAKE 9/11 LOOK LIKE A PICNIC BY COMPARISON UNLESS SOMEONE SMARTER AND BRAVER THAN YOU MADE A TOUGH DECISION TO KEEP YOU FAT, SASSY AND SAFE BY USING ANY REASON NECESSARY TO NEUTRALIZE THE SECULAR MADMAN BEFORE HE HAD A CHANCE TO SUCKER PUNCH US!!!!!!!!

You vulgar, ignorant liberal!

[SVass]

(PS. RUR by Karel Capek-Rove's Universal Robots, read War With the Newts about the Bush vision for the world by the same author.)

I can add that he didn't get nominated for a Nobel prize because he was a virulent anti-fascist and a great satirical writer and they feared that it would antagonize Hitler. His works are still relevant and as I continue to say, YOU, Eynstyn, are one of Rove's Universal Robots. Your cowardly hero continues to lie everytime he opens his mouth as you do when you and your fellow Swift Boat Assholes spew your vitriol. Recall that it was BUSH and friends who supported murderous dictators as long as it brought profits to their firms and themselves. It is Republicans who say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. sam

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by SVass

(PS. RUR by Karel Capek-Rove's Universal Robots, read War With the Newts about the Bush vision for the world by the same author.)

I can add that he didn't get nominated for a Nobel prize because he was a virulent anti-fascist and a great satirical writer and they feared that it would antagonize Hitler. His works are still relevant and as I continue to say, YOU, Eynstyn, are one of Rove's Universal Robots. Your cowardly hero continues to lie everytime he opens his mouth as you do when you and your fellow Swift Boat Assholes spew your vitriol. Recall that it was BUSH and friends who supported murderous dictators as long as it brought profits to their firms and themselves. It is Republicans who say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. sam

Speaking of Nobel recipients, it is Mr. Carter and friends who cost HUNDREDS of fine American athletes the chance to compete in the Olympics!

And as far as robots are concerned, wouldn't those just a tad left of you say that EVERY American is a robot of the bourgeoisie? Being called a robot in defense of liberty is no vice. Being a stand up kind of guy for the forces that would allow our system of government to erode and our people and property to be attacked is no virtue.

You condemn the noble Bush family and the stalwart and illustrious Republicans who have been good and faithful servants such that YOUR bacon is still pink, fresh and in-place???

You are the epitome of classless and the definition of an ingrate!

No sir...the ones who live by the creed of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" are indeed the enemy of YOUR enemies...the al Queda who consider the REPUBLICANS their enemy. And they consider YOU and the bleeding heart liberal democraps the enemy of the GREAT GOD FEARING PATRIOTIC REPUBLICANS.

Ergo, you are considered friends of...well I can't even write it it is so distasteful.

So why don't you simply agree with us and we'll all play nice and the al Quedas will stop trying to get between us to woo you further?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Your statement is not true and you know it is not true!

Admit it, at the time it was "generally assumed that Saddam [did] have chemical and biological weapons!"

How is what CBS said inconsistent with what I said? I said exactly what they said. You do understand what an ASSUMPTION is, don't you? Assuming Iraq had WMD is not the same as KNOWING that Iraq had WMD. Everyone assumed he had them because it was the safe thing to do. Iraq didn't have a very convincing story. The US and UK took it one step further and said they KNEW that Iraq had WMD. The rest of the world was not prepared to start slaughtering tens of thousands of people on the basis of an assumption.

The fact that many countries ASSUMED that Iraq had WMD does not change the fact that every actual WMD ever identified, every weapon that we KNOW existed in Iraq was accounted for. And many of the assumptions made were proved false during the second round of inspections.

Now, you might be prepared to kill tens of thousands of people on a hunch, but at least be big enough to admit that and to admit that that's what the Bush Administration was doing even though it was claiming that it wasn't.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Troll

How is what CBS said inconsistent with what I said? I said exactly what they said. You do understand what an ASSUMPTION is, don't you? Assuming Iraq had WMD is not the same as KNOWING that Iraq had WMD. Everyone assumed he had them because it was the safe thing to do. Iraq didn't have a very convincing story. The US and UK took it one step further and said they KNEW that Iraq had WMD. The rest of the world was not prepared to start slaughtering tens of thousands of people on the basis of an assumption.

The fact that many countries ASSUMED that Iraq had WMD does not change the fact that every actual WMD ever identified, every weapon that we KNOW existed in Iraq was accounted for. And many of the assumptions made were proved false during the second round of inspections.

Now, you might be prepared to kill tens of thousands of people on a hunch, but at least be big enough to admit that and to admit that that's what the Bush Administration was doing even though it was claiming that it wasn't.

Everyone assumed he had them because it was the safe thing to do.

THAT, my dear Troll, is THE 'smoking gun!'

Because we all assumed he had them only a FOOL or a negligent FOOL of a president (neither of which accurately describes President George Bush) would take NO ACTION against him, especially (ESPECIALLY!!!!!!!) in light of the 9/11 attacks.

Game. Set. Match.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Everyone assumed he had them because it was the safe thing to do.
Because we all assumed he had them only a FOOL or a negligent FOOL of a president (neither of which accurately describes President George Bush) would take NO ACTION against him, especially (ESPECIALLY!!!!!!!) in light of the 9/11 attacks.

Game. Set. Match.

Everyone isn't stupid. Everyone is not a Republicass. The 9/11 attacks occurred because Bush ignored his warnings, airlines hired the lowest bidder to check passengers, Republicasses accepted bribes to ignore building codes, and no one other than a Swift Boat Asshole thought he had nukes. We aren't everyass. Half the country did not believe him! 80% of the world did not believe him! You do sound like an ***. Do NOT ever again include me in your EVERYONE. That clearly makes you a liar. sam

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by SVass

Everyone isn't stupid.

Enough are!

Everyone is not a Republicass.

Tis THEIR pitty.

The 9/11 attacks occurred because Bush ignored his warnings

Wrong.

airlines hired the lowest bidder to check passengers

True.

Republicasses accepted bribes to ignore building codes

You are out of your mind.

and no one other than a Swift Boat Asshole thought he had nukes.

SPLASH!!! YOU WENT OFF THE PIER!

We aren't everyass.

YOU are!

Do NOT ever again include me in your EVERYONE.

You love it! Don't pretend you don't!

That clearly makes you a liar. sam

WRONG...

Again.

You vile vulgar low life! Imagine, telling me to go back and breast feed from my own mother! How depraved of you!!!!

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Everyone assumed he had them because it was the safe thing to do.

THAT, my dear Troll, is THE 'smoking gun!'

Because we all assumed he had them only a FOOL or a negligent FOOL of a president (neither of which accurately describes President George Bush) would take NO ACTION against him, especially (ESPECIALLY!!!!!!!) in light of the 9/11 attacks.

Game. Set. Match.

People like Zimphire and you are trying to turn the assumption into knowledge. The rest of the world did NOT know that Iraq had WMD. That was my point. Every WMD ever identified in Iraq was accounted for. You challenged that point and now you're changing tack.

The difference between George Bush and the rest of the world is that he was prepared to kill on the basis of that assumption. There was a procedure for dealing with an ASSUMED threat - inspections. War is only ever justifiable if there is a REAL threat - international law codifies that moral.

No one except George Bush and his cronies were prepared to kill tens of thousands of people on the basis of a suspicion and Bush never presented it as such. Bush didn't stand up and say, "We don't have any actual, reliable information that he has WMD. We are still assuming that he does on the basis of the information the UN supplied. Now, we think that's suffficient to invade." He didn't say that because he knew that he would have been going to war on his own with the world against him. In fact, he wouldn't be going to war at all because Congress wouldn't have supported a war on that basis - nothing had changed in 13 years. So the Bush Admin told the world that it wasn't just a suspicion, that WMD were sitting under palm trees in Western Iraq waiting to be fired, that their were mobile train and truck labs all over Iraq, that Iraqis had been trying to build nuclear weapons and had bought the components in Africa. He upped the stakes by claiming KNOWLEDGE. All of that turned out to be rubbish. Which means that either the Bush Administration is extraordinarily incompetent or they were purposefully manipulating the public by lying.

This memorandum goes one step further to proving that the Administration was purposefully lying. It shows that they had no more information. That they had no new information. That is what is important here. No one is denying that Bush wouldn't have been entitled to and shouldn't have invaded if Iraq had been a threat but everyone was telling him that it wasn't, that his information was unreliable and that he was going to impose a massive toll on the Iraqi people for nothing. He ignored that and lied to everyone.

[bubblewrap]

Europe ignored all of the warning signs.
Sat around and did nothing.
Only the British(as usual) had the balls to do anything.
As did America. Even the Russians were fooled.
Then it rolled into Paris all but unopposed.
Then embraced the conquorer.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by bubblewrap

Europe ignored all of the warning signs.
Sat around and did nothing.
Only the British(as usual) had the balls to do anything.
As did America. Even the Russians were fooled.
Then it rolled into Paris all but unopposed.
Then embraced the conquorer.

Yes, very true.

Saddam was well on his way to marching back into Kuwait and then on to Saudi Arabia, all while invading Iran on Iraq's Eastern front. All to gain control of the Middle East's oil.

Could you be any more wrong with this comparison? NO!

[dcmacdaddy]

Eynstyn and bubblewrap,

Troll's point, which is also complementary to the points made by Zigzag, is that the Bush Administration made decisions to go to war on ASSUMPTIONS about Iraq's current weapons capabilities, not hard data and KNOWLEDGE about what was going on in Iraq.

The assumptions have been proven, on the ground in Iraq, to be totally and consistently wrong. Over 1600 American soldiers have died, as well as tens of thousands of Iraqi's civilians, because of ASSUMPTIONS. That is what so many of us are horrified by, that this President could commit to such a serious cause as making war based on ASSUMPTIONS.

There is no doubt Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator but that is not cause enough to invade his country and depose him from power. These memos confirm for me that the decision to invade Iraq was made as a fait accompli, that the decision was made to invade and that justifications would be found to support the invasion.

What I want to know is why? Why was the invasion of Iraq such an important cause to the Bush Administration?