For those with military background

[yellow_crane]

Lady Jeaneen last night on bill mahr gave a moving moment of illustrating the tragic pathos that when, on the single day Powell addressed the UN, he had at that moment the chance to respond to his conscience and  to change history.

Instead he lied, knowing he lied.  Astoundingly, he lied before the largest audience in the world with glib disregard.

Powell was like the Black Eisenhower.  No other Black had such potential for national achievement.

He blew it for the backing of Bush and the loose cannon Neocons.

The one thing that Blacks in America need is for a role model that does not do a harikari at the big picnic.  Black writers refer to this a lot.  

[sirs]

OR....................... He didn't

[Michael Tee]

<<BZZZZZZZ, NOOOO, that was not the question.  Sorry you can't seem to play by the rules, but why am I not surprised.  The question was on the intel present, and conclusions made by that intel.....that being did Saddam still have his WMD stockpiles.  Everyone you listed, outside of Canada & China since I din't read those reports, was that he did.

<<NOT what they should do as a result of believing Saddam had WMD.  Don't try that lie again, is my suggestion>>

Back to basics, sirs.  The BIG BUSH LIE was that the WMD that Saddam had represented such an imminent threat to America that there was no more time to be wasted in UN inspections, diplomacy or UN efforts.  The threat required the immediate use of force, and America prepared its diplomats to as the UN Security Council to authorize that force. 

The case FOR the immanency of the threat and the need for immediate military action was based on phony intelligence, and moreover on intelligence which few outside the Bush administration and nobody inside it believed.  So your lying bullshit about "intel" that "most everyone" believed is just that - - pure BS, lying crap which the war criminal Bush and his war criminal administration used to lie the U.S. into war.

I'd like to tell YOU not to try that lie again, but experience teaches that such an admonition would be useless.  You'll be back at it, and all your other lies (Tee claims, without a shred of evidence . . . ") as soon as you think this exchange will be forgotten.

[Amianthus]

to lie the U.S. into war.

Actually, according to you, we're not at war. Bush is just using his authorization from Congress to use military force in Iraq. It's not a real war, since Congress didn't say "Declaration of War."

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, according to you, we're not at war. Bush is just using his authorization from Congress to use military force in Iraq. It's not a real war, since Congress didn't say "Declaration of War.">>

Whatever you want to call what he lied them into, it's the biggest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history and it hasn't worked out too well for the people of Iraq either.

Actually, "lied them into war" is a pretty good description of what he lied them into.  It's not war in the technical or legal sense, but it's "war" in the popular sense in that there are groups of armed men torturing and killing one another on a fairly large scale and at least one of the groups of killers is armed and uniformed by a national government.  It's an informal, as opposed to a formal, war.

[sirs]

<<BZZZZZZZ, NOOOO, that was not the question.  Sorry you can't seem to play by the rules, but why am I not surprised.  The question was on the intel present, and conclusions made by that intel.....that being did Saddam still have his WMD stockpiles.  Everyone you listed, outside of Canada & China since I din't read those reports, was that he did.  NOT what they should do as a result of believing Saddam had WMD.  Don't try that lie again, is my suggestion>>

The BIG BUSH LIE was that the WMD that Saddam had represented such an imminent threat to America that there was no more time to be wasted in UN inspections, diplomacy or UN efforts.  

no, that's YOUR lie again, though you do seemed to have moved on from the previous one, that he, and he alone lied about WMD, while apparently most everyone else simply got it wrong.  Even though that's been shown to be a sham for all these years, now you seem to be focusing on to the next lie, that "imminent threat of Saddam to America".  That has also been shown to be the bald faced lie that it always was.  But for you to try and twist it by claiming I was lying about the other countries, because they didn't take the same actions as the U.S., so therefor they must have not believed in the "imminence of the threat", again lays bare your desperate tactics, since IT WAS NEVER ABOUT HOW IMMINENT HE WAS, so the whole asanine notion that other countries didn't see this Saddam imminence is moot, since BUSH DIDN'T EITHER

The threat required the immediate use of force, and America prepared its diplomats to as the UN Security Council to authorize that force. 

If you want to focus on one particluar lie of yours, please do.  The "threat" of Saddam's WMD getting into hands of terrorists, who had killed 3000+ with simple box cutters is what prompted our military action.  NOT the lie that Saddam was about to blow up Boston.  The intel conclusions of the UN, France, Germany, Russia, the NIE, Austrialia, England, and probably China & Canada, was that Saddam still had his stockplies.  We as a country, defending ourselves from that threat did not require UN authorization, yet we received it anyway in 1441.  Now you can play your word games and tee-leaf logic that the UN, France, Germany, etc., didn't agree with the force and there-fore must have changed their minds that Saddam no longer had WMD, point being that at the time we went in, they all did believe it, we simply, with the help of other coaliton forces, did something about it

[Michael Tee]

no, that's YOUR lie again, though you do seemed to have moved on from the previous one, that he, and he alone lied about WMD, while apparently most everyone else simply got it wrong.  Even though that's been shown to be a sham for all these years, now you seem to be focusing on to the next lie, that "imminent threat of Saddam to America".  That has also been shown to be the bald faced lie that it always was.  But for you to try and twist it by claiming I was lying about the other countries, because they didn't take the same actions as the U.S., so therefor they must have not believed in the "imminence of the threat", again lays bare your desperate tactics, since IT WAS NEVER ABOUT HOW IMMINENT HE WAS, so the whole asanine notion that other countries didn't see this Saddam imminence is moot, since BUSH DIDN'T EITHER


<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 10:24:56 AM
The threat required the immediate use of force, and America prepared its diplomats to as the UN Security Council to authorize that force.

<<If you want to focus on one particluar lie of yours, please do.  The "threat" of Saddam's WMD getting into hands of terrorists, who had killed 3000+ with simple box cutters is what prompted our military action.  NOT the lie that Saddam was about to blow up Boston.  >>

I assume that when Condoleeza Rice said that the U.S. could not afford to wait until the smoking gun turned into a mushroom cloud, she was talking about atomic box cutters.  Or non-existent nukes in the hands of "terrorists" whose only proven weapons-handling ability was the ability to handle box cutters.  Leaving aside the total absurdity of someone like Saddam or anyone first of all getting WMD and then totally abdicating control over them to a bunch of crazies who would then have a lifetime power of nuclear blackmail over him.  Sure, THAT makes sense - - to a fruit-bat.

<<The intel conclusions of the UN, France, Germany, Russia, the NIE, Austrialia, England, and probably China & Canada, was that Saddam still had his stockplies. >>

(a) that's a crock, (b) even if they were dumb enough to believe that, it proves only that they were piss-poor intelligence gatherers, and the "President" was a piss-poor evaluator of intelligence for accepting it and (c) you have absolutely no way of knowing what foreign intelligence really thought about this, just as you have no way of knowing what your own intelligence services really think about this or anything else.  The day the director of the CIA decides to take you into his confidence and tell you what he really thinks, please let us know.  Until then, we go on circumstantial evidence, plus whatever leaks out through non-official sources, such as the stories that opinions which did not fit the Bush administration's pre-cooked plans for Iraq was sent back for re-thinking, and the total absurdity of the idea advanced that Iraq with or without WMD was a "threat" to the U.S.A. and an imminent threat to boot.

<< We as a country, defending ourselves from that threat  . . . >>

There was no threat and you were not defending yourselves, you were carrying out a pre-arranged policy.

<< . . . did not require UN authorization>>

Then why plan to apply for it and why abandon the application only the night before when it was apparent you wouldn't get the votes?

<< yet we received it anyway in 1441.  >>

More lies, because why would you prepare to ask for what you already had.  Aren't you embarrassed to be caught so many times i lie after lie?

<<Now you can play your word games and tee-leaf logic that the UN, France, Germany, etc., didn't agree with the force and there-fore must have changed their minds that Saddam no longer had WMD, point being that at the time we went in, they all did believe it . . .>>

Why?  Simply because you continue to assert that ridiculous bullshit in the face of all evidence to the contrary?

<<we simply, with the help of other coaliton forces >>

which amounted roughly to a hill of beans

<< . . .  did something about it>>

About what?  About a threat that never existed, that your own administration KNEW never existed, that your own administration had to lie about repeatedly, then and now to the American people and to the world?

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is safe to say that the European Community and the members of NATO did not deem Saddam to be a great enough threat to join in on Rummy's, Dummy's and Juniorbush's clever plan to conquer Iraq.

The likelihood of Saddam dropping any atomic device was akin to the probability of Condoleeza giving birth to a herd of Capybaras or perhaps a green iguana with telekinetic powers.

The likelihood of Saddam dropping a nuclear device on the US was akin to an "Aliens" type monster erupting from Dick Cheney's chest, ofr perhaps a covey of Flying Monkeys from OZ dressed in Zouave uniforms emerging from Rummy's rectum.
 

 

[sirs]

I assume that when Condoleeza Rice said that the U.S. could not afford to wait until the smoking gun turned into a mushroom cloud, she was talking about atomic box cutters. 

Actually for those not with reading comprehension problems, what she has always meant was not allowing Saddam to eventually have the means from nuking a neighbor, such as Israel.  Though I realize that's the ONLY reference you have to anyone mentioning anything atomic, so obviously (being Bush and how evil he's supposed to be) that translated thru your skewed prism as imminent nuking of someplace like New Orleans, if we didn't go in right then and there.  EVERY OTHER reference to any WMD was in reference to his chemical & biological weapons & their being obtained and used by terrorists on the U.S. 

<<The intel conclusions of the UN, France, Germany, Russia, the NIE, Austrialia, England, and probably China & Canada, was that Saddam still had his stockplies. >>

(a) that's a crock,

Actuallly those are the facts, demonstrated by the famous tee tacic of.....

(b) even if they were dumb enough to believe that, it proves only that they were piss-poor intelligence gatherers, and the "President" was a piss-poor evaluator of intelligence for accepting it

....the "even if...." redirection, of bascially saying, "So what that I'm wrong, I'm really right because...*fill in the blank*",  in this case that they were all bad at intel gathering, which surprise, is not LYING about them, which you seem to be tripping all over yourself in claiming Bush did.  But of course he couldn't because then they'd ALL be lying

and (c) you have absolutely no way of knowing what foreign intelligence really thought about this,

ONLY what's been reported by folks who actually have intimate knowledge of such, like Kevin Pollack, who was part of Clinton's National Security Council & initiate with intel related deciphering.

What you have is ZIP evidence that any intel was manufactured to push us into war.  All you factually have is the notion that we should have waited longer, let the inspectors back in, etc.  But the intel conclusions that Saddam had them, AND that Bush didn't invent any intel or push any Intel Agents into manipulating their conclusions is FACTUAL.  Every official report, including the 911 commission, (which was not kind to the Bush administration), has made that finding.  Every official report from a Governmental body in England, came to the same conclusions with Blair.  With of course the famous Tee comeback being the baseless and factless claim that they're all just trying to cover their asses.  Sorry, but I'm taking the plethora of official conclusions, including Pollack's, over your asanine BDS alternative reality version

just as you have no way of knowing what your own intelligence services really think about this or anything else.  

"Slam Dunk", as factually on record by Clinton's CIA director, who was quoted such while speaking with Bush, regarding "what they thought" of Saddam's WMD stockpile situation.  They were wrong, as was everyone else, but those were their offical & unofficial conclusions.  Next?

<< We as a country, defending ourselves from that threat  . . . >>

There was no threat and you were not defending yourselves, you were carrying out a pre-arranged policy.

Well, since you're now just going into willdy unproven, factless opinion, time to move on to more substantive matters.  I can't imagine what Xo is envisioning now?  Naaaa, best not even try     

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . what she [Condi] has always meant was not allowing Saddam to eventually have the means from nuking a neighbor, such as Israel. >>

Well, now that's really novel.  Why didn't she or Bush just tell the American people, "Folks, the possibility of Saddam eventually nuking Israel requires America (not Israel) to invade Iraq in the immediate future?"  LMFAO.  He'd probably be lynched for even suggesting it, let alone sacrificing American lives for such craziness.


<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 01:05:13 PM
. . .

<There was no threat and you were not defending yourselves, you were carrying out a pre-arranged policy.> >>

<<Well, since you're now just going into willdy unproven, factless opinion,. . . >>

Wildly unproven, factless?  Try these facts:  Cheney's, Wolfowicz's and Perle's and Feith's PNAC plan calling for the invasion of Iraq was cooked up years before the invasion, before the "discovery" of the "threat" of "WMD" and before the Bush administration had even come into being; the intelligence, as I have demonstrated, was being cooked to justify an invasion of Iraq; Bush lied about the threat of WMD; pressured intelligence officers to provide evidence justifying invasion; and cherry-picked intelligence data to justify the invasion.

Of course, that is EXACTLY the kind of opinion that in right-wing fruitbat circles WOULD be described as "factless, wildly unproven," etc.   As I said before, don't ever argue with the evidence.  Just deny that it exists, over and over again.  Who knows, maybe somewhere, you can find some dumb schmuck who will believe your pathetic lies that evidence doesn't exist, even as the evidence is waved in front of his face.  One thing I gotta admire about you sirs:  you are persistent.  You will repeat the same shit over and over again, as if the repetition makes it somehow all come true.  You are certainly not a quitter.

[sirs]

<< . . . what she [Condi] has always meant was not allowing Saddam to eventually have the means from nuking a neighbor, such as Israel. >>

Why didn't she or Bush just tell the American people, "Folks, the possibility of Saddam eventually nuking Israel requires America (not Israel) to invade Iraq in the immediate future?" 

Because, as has already been noted, anyone with over a 3rd grade reading comprehension could have figued that out from either of them, since A) Saddam didn't have nukes, and there was no intel presented that claimed he on the verge of getting them, B) no one's comments weren't specific to ONLY Isreal, and C) he had no means of getting one here even if he did have one.  It's that dreaded common sense component, springing it's ugly head yet again.  Personally, waiting 12yrs was plenty for me, for Saddam to get his act together, so how you jump to "immediate", well, that's not surprising coming from your world

<There was no threat and you were not defending yourselves, you were carrying out a pre-arranged policy.> >>

<<Well, since you're now just going into willdy unproven, factless opinion,. . . >>

Wildly unproven, factless?  Try these facts:  ....

You mean the ones you just completely ignored regarding Pollack??  The ones presented by Inspector David Kay?  The ones presented by the Robb-Silverman Commission, and a Bipartisan Senate Investigation??  Yea, thought so.

LMFAO.

Precisely

[Michael Tee]

<<[Condi didn't tell the American people that they had to invade Iraq immediately because it MIGHT eventually nuke Israel] because, as has already been noted, anyone with over a 3rd grade reading comprehension could have figued that out from either of them, since A) Saddam didn't have nukes, and there was no intel presented that claimed he on the verge of getting them, B) no one's comments weren't specific to ONLY Isreal, and C) he had no means of getting one here even if he did have one.  It's that dreaded common sense component, springing it's ugly head yet again. >>

OK, so that's what "We can't wait till the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud" means to you?  You interpret this as, "well, Saddam doesn't have any nukes now and he's not on the verge of getting them, but he might eventually nuke Israel or eventually gas somebody else or eventually wage germ warfare on somebody, so we can't wait any longer, we can't even wait for the UN inspectors to finish looking for WMD in Iraq, we have to strike now?"  This comes back to a problem I have long had with you, sirs:  ordinary words just don't mean what they say with you.  Whatever the plain words are, you just twist them into meaning whatever you need them to mean to support your absurd and ridiculous theories.  It's starting to wear pretty thin by now.

<< Personally, waiting 12yrs was plenty for me, for Saddam to get his act together . . . >>

Well, if in 12 years the guy had not "gotten his act together" as you put it, where was the immediacy at that point in time to spring to violence?  You're destroying your own case as you speak.  Personal pique at someone's alleged stalling and delaying - - particularly in view of the fact that Saddam had just delivered as requested a voluminous accounting of all his WMD to the UN - - is not one of the generally recognized legitimate reasons for going to war.

<<so how you jump to "immediate", well, that's not surprising coming from your world>>

It was immediate since the sudden emergence of Iraq's WMD as a front-page issue and possible cause for war surfaced right at the end of the 12 years and moved very rapidly to an actual invasion.  For 12 years, no such urgency had been claimed or demonstrated.  Whatever weapons Iraq had were, correctly, seen as no major threat to the U.S.

<<You mean the ones you just completely ignored regarding Pollack??  The ones presented by Inspector David Kay?  The ones presented by the Robb-Silverman Commission, and a Bipartisan Senate Investigation??>>

Ahhh, it seems we are making some progress after all.  Now you seem to be abandoning your habitual BS claim that there is "zero, zip, nada" evidence to support the fact that Bush lied and cooked the intelligence to order, and merely trotting out your own tired and corrupt evidence that he didn't as an answer to my evidence that he did.  Thank you.

[sirs]

OK, so that's what "We can't wait till the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud" means to you?  You interpret this as, "well, Saddam doesn't have any nukes now and he's not on the verge of getting them, but he might eventually nuke Israel or eventually gas somebody else or eventually wage germ warfare on somebody, so we can't wait any longer, we can't even wait for the UN inspectors to finish looking for WMD in Iraq, we have to strike now?" 

Boy, you really want to push that next generation lie now, don't you.  The one that this is all about Saddam's pending attack.  Since you refuse to even to deal with reality (that following 911, the clock was put on & that this has always been about WMD getting in the hands of terrorists who wouldn't blink in using them on U.S. soil), we'll just leave it at this;  Following 911, we could no longer wait another 12yrs, so Saddam was put on notice.  Reading comprehension Tee.  Bt nailed this when he referenced how most folks see what they want to see.  You've determined that Bush is evil, and that this is all about the oil, that it was never about national defense, irrational & illogical garbage like that.  So everything of yours has to be rationalized into that template....EVERYTHING, including the blatant ignoring of so many official reports and conclusions to the contrary, including by Dems and folks in the Clinton administration, that have no support for Bush or the war.  Like Pollack  Sad, but at least consistent

[Mr_Perceptive]

Lady Jeaneen last night on bill mahr gave a moving moment of illustrating the tragic pathos that when, on the single day Powell addressed the UN, he had at that moment the chance to respond to his conscience and  to change history.

Instead he lied, knowing he lied.  Astoundingly, he lied before the largest audience in the world with glib disregard.

Powell was like the Black Eisenhower.  No other Black had such potential for national achievement.

He blew it for the backing of Bush and the loose cannon Neocons.

The one thing that Blacks in America need is for a role model that does not do a harikari at the big picnic.  Black writers refer to this a lot.  

I have yet to understand why blacks only hold up liberal black Americans as role models instead the full spectrum to include Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Ben Carson (http://www.neuro.jhmi.edu/profiles/carson.html), J.C. Watts et al.

I hear stundets talkin down even Oprah Winfrey and Tiger Woods, calling them "oreo". Does this then imply they only use left-leaning blacks as role models? Or, really AWESOME young men of great character such as Dexter Manley or Michael Vick?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I suggest that Black Americans have a perfect right to suggest whichever role model they wish.

Clarence Thomas is the least dynamic justice the Supreme Court has seen in over 100 years, He speaks little or not at all, he participates in only a minimal fashion, and he adds nothing to any debate. He has done nothing to advance the Black cause other than to serve as a bland token of the Black guy who attained his fortune and sealed a deal with Massa Charley.

Condi Rice was National Security Advisor when the worst security breeach in the history of the US occurred. Now she is a rather unsuccessful diplomat in the Middle East. The US is more unpopular than it has been since the Vietnam period.

To many Blacks, Rice and Thomas seem to be role models who could've made a difference and blew it bigtime.