DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Mucho on November 02, 2006, 08:36:26 PM

Title: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Mucho on November 02, 2006, 08:36:26 PM
Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

THE PRESIDENT OF 30 MILLION-STRONG NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS, REV. TED HAGGARD, HAS RESIGNED AFTER BEING ACCUSED OF PAYING FOR SEX WITH A MAN


http://abcnews.go.com?CMP=EMC-1396

It is going to be sooo sad to see 30 million whacked out fundies crying and licking their wounds(among other things, probly) rigt through all of next Tues.

   

Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: BT on November 02, 2006, 09:07:09 PM
My guess is most of his congregation will pray for him.

And i guess the rest of us will wonder why the left takes such glee in outting gay people.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 02, 2006, 09:42:03 PM
My guess is most of his congregation will pray for him.

And i guess the rest of us will wonder why the left takes such glee in outting gay people.



We need them for this , the Furies would do no better job of exposeing an hypocracy than a political opponent .

Without this assistance this twerp might have carried on his charade years more.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: BT on November 02, 2006, 09:57:44 PM
Is it possible to be gay and be against gay marriage?

I think it is.

Is it possible to preach against sin and yet still be a sinner?

In the quest for perfection, should we demand the questors be perfect?

Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Mucho on November 02, 2006, 10:37:15 PM
Is it possible to be gay and be against gay marriage?

I think it is.

Is it possible to preach against sin and yet still be a sinner?

In the quest for perfection, should we demand the questors be perfect?



You guys never will get it. It isnt the sin, it is the hypocrisy. For example, these creeps claim they dont believe in sex with men, Bill Clinton believed in sex with women.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: larry on November 02, 2006, 11:13:03 PM

Is it possible to preach against sin and yet still be a sinner?

In the quest for perfection, should we demand the questors be perfect?


When considering the actions of radical fundamentalist, we must always keep in mind, those who sacrifice themself for the good of god, are exalted. The intent of the sacrifice is to create a negative image of gay people in general. If a preacher can get national attention and vilify the so-called gay life style, he has served the purpose of the cult. Election time seemingly bring about an increase in ritual sacrifice. Moral warfare is a deceptive practice indeed

Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: BT on November 03, 2006, 12:42:22 AM
Quote
. For example, these creeps claim they dont believe in sex with men, Bill Clinton believed in sex with women.

Not sure where you get that. This man apparently believed in sex with men enough to pay for it.

Also not ssure what your reference to Clinton is about. Did you have doubts he was a heterosexual?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Lanya on November 03, 2006, 12:52:49 AM

Is it possible to preach against sin and yet still be a sinner?

In the quest for perfection, should we demand the questors be perfect?


When considering the actions of radical fundamentalist, we must always keep in mind, those who sacrifice themself for the good of god, are exalted. The intent of the sacrifice is to create a negative image of gay people in general. If a preacher can get national attention and vilify the so-called gay life style, he has served the purpose of the cult. Election time seemingly bring about an increase in ritual sacrifice. Moral warfare is a deceptive practice indeed



One, how is he sacrificing himself for the good of God?  Looks like he was married and cheating on his wife with  a man. That's a sacrifice?
Two, who is being ritually sacrificed--the preacher?
Three, what is moral warfare? Why's it deceptive?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 03, 2006, 02:03:23 AM
Wait a minute...

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/evangelical-leader-accused-of-gay-affair/20061102182309990027?ncid=NWS00010000000001



He has not confessed to anything .


He is getting out of the way of an investigation , this could also be a case of false accusation.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Mucho on November 03, 2006, 03:06:24 PM
Quote
. For example, these creeps claim they dont believe in sex with men, Bill Clinton believed in sex with women.

Not sure where you get that. This man apparently believed in sex with men enough to pay for it.

Also not ssure what your reference to Clinton is about. Did you have doubts he was a heterosexual?


 I said he CLAMED he didn't believe in sex with men, but obviously did which makes him a hypocrite like most of the Bible thumpers in the US. Th reference toBill was that he did believe in sex with women for certain. He may have told a fibs about who he was doing , but he wasn't a hypocrit about.
I think this  whole Haggard thing has you totally flustered. You don't know what to believe in anymore. Congrats- that is the first step toward becoming human.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: BT on November 03, 2006, 04:00:32 PM
Quote
I said he CLAMED he didn't believe in sex with men, but obviously did which makes him a hypocrite like most of the Bible thumpers in the US.

When did he do this?

Quote
I think this  whole Haggard thing has you totally flustered.

I don't see why. His actions don't affect me in the least. You seem to be the judgmental one in this equation.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Brassmask on November 03, 2006, 05:36:05 PM
He hasn't confessed to monkey-bumping with other guys yet, but he has admitted to this now.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/3/135229/228


BREAKING: Haggard Admits to Buying Meth from Gay Escort!
by pontificator [Subscribe]
Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 12:52:29 PM CST
Boom:


Pastor Ted Haggard came out of his house Friday morning and admitted to 9NEWS that he bought meth from a gay escort in Denver.
Haggard says he bought the meth from a gay escort, 49-year-old Michael Jones, after contacting him for a massage.


There is no question this will have an effect on the November 7 election.  Haggard probably has 95% name recognition among evangelical christians, and 100% name recognition among evangelical christians in Colorado.  These evangelical voters are going to stay home, as they are likely to react with disgust to the hypocrisy of their leaders who tried to get them involved in politics.

pontificator's diary :: ::
Update [2006-11-3 14:28:22 by pontificator]: This is probably a good time to point out the following:


Haggard is a firm supporter of President George W. Bush, and is often credited with rallying evangelicals behind Bush during the 2004 election. Author Jeff Sharlet reports that Haggard "talks to... Bush or his advisers every Monday" and opines that "no pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism."
In a June 2005 Wall Street Journal article, "Ted Haggard, the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, jokes that the only disagreement between himself and the leader of the Western world is automotive: Mr. Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas he prefers a Chevy."

Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Mucho on November 03, 2006, 05:37:55 PM
Quote
I said he CLAMED he didn't believe in sex with men, but obviously did which makes him a hypocrite like most of the Bible thumpers in the US.

>When did he do this?<

Because he is a hypocrite spelled H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E just like must of the holier than though fundies among US.

Quote
I think this  whole Haggard thing has you totally flustered.

>I don't see why. His actions don't affect me in the least. You seem to be the judgmental one in this equation. <

You should.If they turn off 30 million RW whcako fundies enough to keep them at home, you might lose your beloved tax cuts which is really the only thing economic cons care about. Especially now that he has confessed.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: BT on November 03, 2006, 06:03:35 PM
I doubt Haggards downfall will keep voters from the polls.

In fact it could do just the opposite. Perhaps motivate  them to vote for politicians who call for stronger laws against meth dealers and gay escort services.

Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Brassmask on November 03, 2006, 06:31:33 PM
Whatever, it's just one more exposed lying hypocrit.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Mucho on November 03, 2006, 07:28:00 PM
I doubt Haggards downfall will keep voters from the polls.

In fact it could do just the opposite. Perhaps motivate  them to vote for politicians who call for stronger laws against meth dealers and gay escort services.



Oh really? That is not one of the possibilities this mid-America newspaper sees.







   Posted on Fri, Nov. 03, 2006   



Haggard case fuels debate over hypocrisy

DAVID CRARY
Associated Press
With the Mark Foley scandal still troubling Republicans, one of the nation's top evangelical leaders is now accused of paying for gay sex. Heading into Tuesday's election, when voters in eight states will decide on gay marriage bans, liberals and some conservatives are saying the party that prides itself on family values has a hypocrisy problem.

Ted Haggard, a staunch foe of gay marriage and occasional participant in White House conference calls, resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and head of his Colorado church following allegations he met monthly with a gay prostitute for three years. Haggard denies having sex with the man, but admits receiving a massage and buying methamphetamine.

Five weeks ago, Foley - a vocal advocate for exploited children - resigned from Congress because of sexually tinged messages to male pages. Rep. Don Sherwood, R-Pa., a married father of three, has been burdened by revelations about his five-year affair with a mistress who says he physically abused her.

"The attention focused on these cases will inescapably lead people to think about these people's hypocrisy," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "They make a career out of defaming gay people and preaching family values, when it's clear that it's just a veneer."

Stephen Bennett, a conservative activist who describes himself as a former homosexual, also suggested the Haggard case would have political consequences.

"Will this affect the elections next Tuesday? ... You better believe it," he said in a statement from the Huntington, Conn., base of Stephen Bennett Ministries. "The more and more hypocrisy I see each day, the more I realize next Tuesday we are going to get exactly what we deserve."
Other conservatives disagreed - saying support for the gay-marriage bans and for GOP candidates would not be diminished. And John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, said Haggard isn't close enough to President Bush to be an ally, merely a supporter.

"We have great sympathy and disappointment, and can even be demoralized when a leader falls into sin," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. "That doesn't mean we're going to vote against an amendment to protect marriage."

Republican pollster Whit Ayres acknowledged religious conservatives are discouraged about several issues this fall, but "are they so discouraged they're going to participate in any movement to have Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi run the country? No."

The allegations against Haggard emerged only a few days before Coloradans vote on two ballot measures dealing with marriage and gay rights. One, backed by Haggard, specifies that marriage is only between a man and a woman; the other would provide many rights to same-sex couples through domestic partnerships.

Both the pro- and anti-ban campaigns in Colorado declined to comment on how the Haggard case might affect voting on the measures. A Colorado College political science professor, Bob Loevy, suggested there could be a burst of support for the marriage ban if voters felt the accusations against Haggard were timed to sway the referendums.

Referring to conservative voters in Colorado Springs, Haggard's hometown, Loevy said: "They don't get disenchanted easily."

Colorado Springs is the base of the influential Christian ministry Focus on the Family, which has campaigned vigorously against same-sex marriage. Its founder and chairman, James Dobson, said he was "heartsick" over the Haggard allegations.

"We will await the outcome of this story, but the possibility that an illicit relationship has occurred is alarming to us and to millions of others," Dobson said. "The situation has grave implications for the cause of Christ."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Haggard was on the weekly calls between Bush aides and evangelical leaders only "a couple" of times. The minister has visited the White House, but "there've been a lot of people who've come to the White House," Fratto said. He expressed confidence that evangelical voters can distinguish between an individual's problems and the GOP's agenda.

Indeed, the National Association of Evangelicals represents a political constituency that has been staunchly Republican in recent years. In 2004, according to exit polling, 78 percent of white born-again evangelical Christians voted for President Bush, and 72 percent voted for the GOP candidate for House.

An AP-AOL News poll in October showed a mild decline in evangelical support for the GOP, and 43 percent said they were dissatisfied with the Republican leadership in Congress. The poll found them no more or less likely to turn out on election day than voters generally.

David Kuo, a born-again Christian and former White House aide who wrote the book "Tempting Faith, An Inside Story of Political Seduction," said Haggard's situation is magnified by his and other evangelicals' involvement in Republican politics.

"It's religious hypocrisy with a political rocket booster," said Kuo, who thinks politics is corrupting Christianity. "It's tragedy enough if a pastor falls, but this is not about a pastor falling. This is about a politician falling, and the politician is bringing down Jesus with him."




http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/elections/15923683.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: BT on November 03, 2006, 09:46:09 PM
Quote
"It's religious hypocrisy with a political rocket booster," said Kuo, who thinks politics is corrupting Christianity. "It's tragedy enough if a pastor falls, but this is not about a pastor falling. This is about a politician falling, and the politician is bringing down Jesus with him."

Kuo is spouting nonsense. What public office did Haggard run for and hold?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Mucho on November 04, 2006, 01:32:16 AM
Quote
"It's religious hypocrisy with a political rocket booster," said Kuo, who thinks politics is corrupting Christianity. "It's tragedy enough if a pastor falls, but this is not about a pastor falling. This is about a politician falling, and the politician is bringing down Jesus with him."

Kuo is spouting nonsense. What public office did Haggard run for and hold?


I dont know how to break thi to you, but you dont have to run for office to be a politician.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician

Haggard was a politician in the worst sense. He dragged Jesus down with him.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Universe Prince on November 04, 2006, 03:55:45 AM
Quote

"We will await the outcome of this story, but the possibility that an illicit relationship has occurred is alarming to us and to millions of others," Dobson said. "The situation has grave implications for the cause of Christ."


Quote

"It's religious hypocrisy with a political rocket booster," said Kuo, who thinks politics is corrupting Christianity. "It's tragedy enough if a pastor falls, but this is not about a pastor falling. This is about a politician falling, and the politician is bringing down Jesus with him."


I am of the opinion these people have no idea what they're talking about. Bringing Jesus down with him? A completely inane and ignorant notion. How can these people be leaders in the Christian community?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Amianthus on November 04, 2006, 11:11:03 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician

"A person who is active in party politics."

That would be pretty much everyone here. And anyone that has ever been to a political fund raiser.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Lanya on November 05, 2006, 02:07:12 AM
I feel so bad for Haggard's wife.
  I have had pollsters call me on the subject of gay marriage. (We had a statewide referendum on it in 2004 that passed--it banned gay marriage here.)  "I'm all for it." "Oh! Why?"  "Because some poor woman won't have to find out her husband is gay, that's why." 
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 05, 2006, 12:10:04 PM
I think this was the best part of the story - -

<<Haggard is a firm supporter of President George W. Bush, and is often credited with rallying evangelicals behind Bush during the 2004 election. Author Jeff Sharlet reports that Haggard "talks to... Bush or his advisers every Monday" and opines that "no pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism.">>

This is gonna be a classic example of the multiplier effect working in reverse.  If one man (Haggard) influences millions of voters how to cast their votes, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that those millions who first voted under his influence are going to (a) lose all respect for him as a leader and yet (b) nevertheless, continue to vote as their fallen leader had instructed them.  It seems obvious to me that some will vote entirely opposite to what the boss had told them to vote, while others will stay at home and sulk.  In fact, due to the wondrous phenomenon of broad-brushing, some of the effect will be felt among the followers of other Evangelicals who so far have managed to keep their noses clean.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: BT on November 05, 2006, 12:44:11 PM
Quote
This is gonna be a classic example of the multiplier effect working in reverse.

You might be right. I remember when scandals happened in the 80's concerning evangelicals like Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker the movement was weakened to the core. To this day they haven't recovered.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Lanya on November 05, 2006, 02:35:58 PM
Poor Pastor Haggard was victimized by that awful meth dealing gay escort massager! 
So....vote Republican. Yay.   

Actually, I hope it will bring about a discussion about how spouses need to get tested for HIV.   
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Amianthus on November 05, 2006, 03:30:44 PM
"Because some poor woman won't have to find out her husband is gay, that's why." 

If you think allowing gay marriage will eliminate this, you're living in a dream world.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Brassmask on November 05, 2006, 04:20:11 PM
The evidence is in fully now.

He confessed to his "flock" this morning that he is into male/male monkey-bumping or something that the "flock" would consider as bad how they look at male/male monkey-bumping.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/05/haggard-confesses-i-am-a-deciever-and-a-liar/

Haggard Confesses: ‘I Am a Deciever and a Liar’

From a statement read in right-wing evangelical leader Ted Haggard’s church this morning: “The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality, and I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There’s a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring with it all of my adult life.” Haggard previously denied having sex with a male prostitute.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 05, 2006, 05:04:53 PM
<<Haggard Confesses: ‘I Am a Deciever and a Liar’>>

Hey, that's OK preacher.  You were just following in the footsteps of your "President."
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 05, 2006, 05:13:26 PM
Hey, that's OK preacher.  You were just following in the footsteps of your "President."

Now, if they could only prove it vs repeat that lie, they might actually have something
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 05, 2006, 05:22:17 PM
<<Now, if they could only prove it vs repeat that lie, they might actually have something>>

It's already been abundantly proven to the majority of the American people, sirs.  People have realized it's no use trying to prove it to the last die-hard Republicans and have given up trying.  It's becoming like an argument with flat-earthers.  Just ain't worth it.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 05, 2006, 05:34:39 PM
<<Now, if they could only prove it vs repeat that lie, they might actually have something>>

It's already been abundantly proven to the majority of the American people, sirs. 

In your alternate reality, perhaps.  In this one we're able to torpedo each and every one of those "Bush lied us into war" diatribes.  Been doing it each and every time it's tried, which is why we're left to folks like you now avoiding such like the plague and simply claim It's already been abundantly proven to the majority of the American people, sirs

Declare victory & hit enter I believe is the term used for that tactic
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 05, 2006, 05:57:41 PM
<< . . .  we're able to torpedo each and every one of those "Bush lied us into war" diatribes.  Been doing it each and every time it's tried>>

In your dreams, sirs

<<which is why we're left to folks like you now avoiding such like the plague and simply claim It's already been abundantly proven to the majority of the American people, sirs.  >>

Uh, I was actually referring to the polls, sirs.  The people now know they were lied to.

<<Declare victory & hit enter I believe is the term used for that tactic>>

No, that was your "torpedo" claim. 
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 05, 2006, 06:02:32 PM
<< . . .  we're able to torpedo each and every one of those "Bush lied us into war" diatribes.  Been doing it each and every time it's tried>>

In your dreams, sirs

No, that would be in this reality, I'm afraid.  Don't believe me......try it again & watch.  Throw out your BEST Bush lied us into war claim, and how it's a supposed verifiable lie.  Come on, we have people watching and waiting to see how this is suppsedly me declaring victory and hitting enter.  Ball in your court
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 05, 2006, 06:15:06 PM
<<No, that would be in this reality, I'm afraid.  Don't believe me......try it again & watch.  Throw out your BEST Bush lied us into war claim, and how it's a supposed verifiable lie.  Come on, we have people watching and waiting to see how this is suppsedly me declaring victory and hitting enter.  Ball in your court>>

Well, not word for word, but "We know Saddam has failed to account for his WMD and the situation is so urgent we can't wait any more.  We have to invade because we know he has WMD."  Big fucking lie.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 05, 2006, 06:17:52 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/05/haggard.allegations/index.html


"In the letter read Sunday, Haggard took responsibility for his actions, saying "I am guilty of sexual immorality" and noted that "the things I did opened the door for additional allegations."

He asked the congregation to also forgive his accuser, who Haggard said has revealed "the deception ... that was in my life."

In a separate letter from Haggard's wife, also read by Stockstill, Gayle Haggard said while her heart is broken, she remains "committed to him until death do us part."

An overflow congregation responded to the announcement with a standing ovation.

Haggard, 50, and his wife have five children."

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Well , that is pretty convincing.

This may be a good canadate for cureing Homosexuality.

Putting a rubber band on his wrist and telling him to administer a snap to himself every time he has an inappropriate craveing.


Snap Snap Snap Snap Snap Snap Snap Sanp......

Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 05, 2006, 06:20:54 PM
<<No, that would be in this reality, I'm afraid.  Don't believe me......try it again & watch.  Throw out your BEST Bush lied us into war claim, and how it's a supposed verifiable lie.  Come on, we have people watching and waiting to see how this is suppsedly me declaring victory and hitting enter.  Ball in your court>>

Well, not word for word, but "We know Saddam has failed to account for his WMD and the situation is so urgent we can't wait any more.  We have to invade because we know he has WMD."  Big fucking lie.


This was a lie when Bush told it ? so what was it when all the others told it?

This is the weakest of all the potential lies you could have chosen to defend , this one is the one that has been illuminated the most and is most clearly not a lie.

Unless you want to define "lie" in some way that is new.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 05, 2006, 06:24:30 PM
Well, not word for word, but "We know Saddam has failed to account for his WMD and the situation is so urgent we can't wait any more.  We have to invade because we know he has WMD."  Big fucking lie.

This was a lie when Bush told it ? so what was it when all the others told it?

This is the weakest of all the potential lies you could have chosen to defend , this one is the one that has been illuminated the most and is most clearly not a lie.

Unless you want to define "lie" in some way that is new.

No Plane, apparently that's "the best" Tee (and anyone else on the left for that matter) can do, since that was the initial challenge <Throw out your BEST Bush lied us into war claim, and how it's a supposed verifiable lie>
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 05, 2006, 06:26:50 PM
Should they change the subject then?

How about that big fish?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 05, 2006, 06:32:09 PM
Should they change the subject then?  How about that big fish?

Naaa, it's what has given them some traction at this point, and very likely why the polls reflect it.  The mantra has been applied so often and left so consistently unchallenged by the mainscream media when made, that folks like Tee can simply declare victory (Bush lied us into war), and hit enter (not be required to actually substantiate the claim
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: domer on November 05, 2006, 06:35:30 PM
Bush didn't "lie"; rather, he was stupid and stubborn, reckless and negligent ... which is not why he got elected.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 05, 2006, 06:45:04 PM
Bush didn't "lie"; rather, he was stupid and stubborn, reckless and negligent ... which is not why he got elected.

Well, that's 1 opinion.  Another is that he demonstrated incredible leadership in the face of a new form of enemy, put backbone back into the word of the U.S, its military, its credibility to its allies.  Took out 2 oppressive regimes while the rest of the Global community sat and did squat.  But yes, he did fail to fully appreciate the type of insurgent resistance they could come in contact with once Saddam was taken out, and like EVERY war, mistakes were made both in post-Saddam planning, and contingency planning for when other plans were failing to accomplish their goals.  So yes, in that case, I can vouch for the stubborness factor & borderline negligence

And FYI, one of the functions, if not the PRIMARY fuction, as President of the U.S. is to be commander and chief of its military, protecting this country from enemies both foreign & domestic.  Perhaps he didn't campaign specifically on such (thus didn't get elected for such), but as my president, I put more credence into that responsibility, vs how many bills he can sign into law
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 05, 2006, 07:14:29 PM
Bush didn't "lie"; rather, he was stupid and stubborn, reckless and negligent ... which is not why he got elected.


I can go along with this.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 05, 2006, 07:21:40 PM
<<This was a lie [the WMD lie] when Bush told it ? so what was it when all the others told it?>>

If they were in his administration, it was his lie, part of the campaign of lies that he constructed to invade Iraq.  Whether they were lying too or just fools, depends on how close to the top they were.  The big guys all must have known it was a lie and must have had a hand in crafting the lie, the small fry were either in on the lie or didn't give a shit if it was true or not.

<<This is the weakest of all the potential lies you could have chosen to defend , this one is the one that has been illuminated the most and is most clearly not a lie.>>

On the contrary, I think it's the biggest lie and obviously the one with the most disastrous consequences.

<<Unless you want to define "lie" in some way that is new.>>

No, I'd say it's either saying something you know for a fact is untrue, or saying that you know it's true when you really don't know if it is or isn't.  There's a point where ignorance shades into lying when you claim more certainty than the lie warrants - - you are manipulating people with a statement that may or may not be true, so the lie is not necessarily what you are alleging but in deceiving others into believing that what you are saying has to be true when you yourself don't really know if it's true or not.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 05, 2006, 07:27:48 PM
Why do you accept the notion that President Bush spoke deceptively about the WMD in Iraq?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 05, 2006, 07:35:41 PM
<<The mantra [that Bush lied the country into war] has been applied so often and left so consistently unchallenged by the mainscream media when made, that folks like Tee can simply declare victory (Bush lied us into war), and hit enter (not be required to actually substantiate the claim>>

See, that's where all your lies become undone.  Because Bush lied to the whole country.  People remember the weapons of mass destruction.  That wasn't a part of the language till Bush and his gang made it a part of the language.  And they remember the allegations that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction, he did not account for them, so he must still have them.  

They will remember Condoleeza Rice telling them that they couldn't keep looking for the smoking gun till the smoking gun became a mushroom cloud.  People who are dumb enough to be fooled by that kind of argument are dumb enough to be scared by it.  And people remember when they are scared.  They remember who scared them and how.

So when you come out with this shit, it never happened, Bush never tried to scare America into supporting an invasion, they KNOW you are lying because they remember being scared by those very lines.  So telling them it never happened is just compounding the lie.

I find that this habitual lying is probably the Achilles heel of the Republican Party.  They HAVE to lie because they are the party of the rich and they need the votes of the poor.  If you tell the poor the real truth (we're here to make our friends richer and you poorer) it will not get them elected.  But the lies should be confined to fields they have more control over, where it's much harder to understand the subject matter, so that it's harder to prove them liars.  When they start to lie over stuff like weapons of mass destruction or "We're gonna be greeted as liberators," they are lying about something they ultimately cannot control.  BAD policy.  But they seem to have this magical belief that they can keep repeating something - - "We are making great progress in Iraq," "There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and it will BECOME true over time.  But it never does.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 05, 2006, 07:38:28 PM
You have skipped a step.



I do not see yet any indication that President Bush has intentionally decevied anybody , especially not on the subject of WMD.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 05, 2006, 08:08:37 PM
<<Why do you accept the notion that President Bush spoke deceptively about the WMD in Iraq?>>

Well, basically, it's the people around Bush.  Bush himself is a mental pygmy who probably couldn't have found Iraq on a map, let alone figured out a need to invade it.  But he was influenced by people whom he depended on for knowledge and experience, many of whom had been associated with PNAC (Project for a New American Century,) a Zionist-influenced movement which had laid out a strategy for America to pursue after the fall of Communism in the U.S.S.R. and the advent of a unipolar world.

PNAC's plan had called for America to seize the oilfields of at least one Middle East country, and named Iraq as the top candidate.  During Clinton's administration, PNAC officers had actually presented Clinton with the PNAC plan for the invasion and lobbied intensively for its adoption.  Clinton was smart enough to show them the gate.  Common sense alone would tell you that what they lobbied Clinton for, they would similarly lobby Bush, with far greater chances of success.  Clinton, after all, was a Rhodes scholar with deep knowledge and experience of foreign policy, who can do his own thinking on the subject, whereas Bush is much more dependent on the counsel of his advisers, including the numerous PNAC heavyweights on board.

Published insider accounts attest to the fact that from the first weeks of the administration, Bush was looking for excuses to invade Iraq.  This would obviously be the result of PNAC lobbying.  What was lacking was the excuse.  Sept. 11 provided that excuse, or rather, it granted Bush a window of opportunity during which ANY critique of any aggressive action taken anywhere would be practically immune from public criticism, a window of opportunity when everyone would scramble to be seen rallying to the support of the administration and nobody would want to seem to oppose it.  Again, published insider reports attest to the fact that almost from the beginning, post-Sept. 11 planning was focused on the need to hit Iraq, still without any public justification agreed upon.

At some point, WMD became the reason of choice.  Suddenly we began to hear about the immediate threat posed by Iraq and its WMD.  Despite the absurdity of Iraq attacking the U.S.A. - - and it can never be stressed enough how absolutely absurd the idea was - - the administration and its stooges like Judith Miller of the New York Times began to flood the MSM with reports of the Iraqi "threat" - - this was a campaign.  The "President" began to receive warnings from various sources, all of which, as it turned out, could be traced back to Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, obviously a party with a vested interest in having America invade Iraq and overthrow its dictator.

If an idea makes no sense at all, and is completely at odds not only with common sense but with the previous history of this one dictator's past performance - - then the idea is obvious bullshit regardless of the source.  Regardless of the number of sources.  Here you had what was effectively a single-source idea from an interested party with an agenda, and we are expected to believe that the "President" - - a known liar, BTW, even before he became President - - sincerely believed this obviously outrageous bullshit which just happened - - conveniently - - to justify the agenda-driven program of his PNAC advisers.  Because it came from his own intelligence services.  Despite the fact that officers of those same intelligence services have told how they were pressured to abandon any conclusions which did not serve the PNAC goals and look only for evidence and conclusions that matched those goals.

Effectively, we could say that we have two choices - - believe the President, despite his earlier decisions to invade Iraq when WMD weren't even being advanced as the reason; despite the obvious absurdity of Iraq being able to threaten the U.S.; despite the evidence that someone was pressuring the intelligence services to come up with evidence of Iraqi "threat"; despite the single-source nature of all the WMD evidence - - somehow sincerely came upon the "evidence" of the threat and honestly believed in it.  This conclusion would appeal to me for one reason only - - because it would indicate monumental stupidity and incompetence on the part of George W. Bush.  But little as I think of Bush's brainpower, I have to say, it is impossible to believe that even he could be THAT stupid.  Even if he were, his advisers aren't and they wouldn't let him get away with it.

It is much easier to believe - - much more consistent with common sense and the real world - - to believe that Bush and his advisers knew this WMD business was pure bullshit, but believed that it provided enough of a fig-leaf, a pretence, for the invasion.  They would invade, instal a puppet government, and pull out, leaving the puppets in control.  At that point, with a "success" behind, minimal loss of American life and most if not all of the troops back home, nobody would give a shit if the WMD theory had been a lie or not.  THAT was their major miscalculation.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 05, 2006, 08:12:40 PM
"If an idea makes no sense at all, and is completely at odds not only with common sense but with the previous history of this one dictator's past performance - - then the idea is obvious bullshit regardless of the source."


What about Saddams past history indicated that he would be averse to useing WMD or (and) supporting terrorism?


Why do you think it rediculous that a much smaller power might cause pain to the USA even if they have no hope of defeating us?

This seems to have happened several times in recent decades.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 05, 2006, 08:14:27 PM
<<I do not see yet any indication that President Bush has intentionally decevied anybody , especially not on the subject of WMD.>>

I just answered that.  Read my last post.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 05, 2006, 08:17:22 PM
<<I do not see yet any indication that President Bush has intentionally decevied anybody , especially not on the subject of WMD.>>

I just answered that.  Read my last post.


The one in which you say that it could not have been anyone as dumb as Bush himself ?

I read it , I still think you are skipping a step.

What makes you think that Bush intended to deceive anybody , especially about WMD?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 05, 2006, 08:20:20 PM
<<What about Saddams past history indicated that he would be averse to useing WMD or (and) supporting terrorism?>>

Nothing indicated that he would take on the U.S.  Common sense alone tells you it would be suicidal.  He was never suicidal.  Few leaders are.

What the history indicated was that before invading Kuwait, he asked for U.S. permission, and April Glaspie, then the U.S. ambassador, gave it to him.  When Bush revoked the permission, Saddam pulled his army back out of Kuwait, hoping to avoid war with the U.S.  Does that sound suicidal?  Does that sound like a guy who's not afraid of U.S. retaliation?


<<Why do you think it rediculous that a much smaller power might cause pain to the USA even if they have no hope of defeating us?>>

I have no idea what you mean.  "Cause pain?"  What the hell is that?  What are you talking about?  Bush never said "This guy's gonna cause pain."  That's not the lie.  Bush and his cabinet members were talking about WMD, they were talking mushroom clouds, not "causing pain."

<<This seems to have happened several times in recent decades.>>

Yeah?  The U.S. was attacked several times with WMD?  Maybe I slept through it.  Tell me about it.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 05, 2006, 08:24:07 PM
<<I read it , I still think you are skipping a step.

<<What makes you think that Bush intended to deceive anybody , especially about WMD?>>

If you read my post of 7:08:37 and are still asking what makes me think Bush intended to deceive anybody about WMD, this discussion's over.  I can't make it any clearer than I did in that post.  Sorry.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 05, 2006, 08:25:21 PM
<<What about Saddams past history indicated that he would be averse to useing WMD or (and) supporting terrorism?>>

Nothing indicated that he would take on the U.S.  Common sense alone tells you it would be suicidal.  He was never suicidal.  Few leaders are.


And yet this was never about Saddam taking on the U.S., mano a mano.  That would be ANOTHER LIE in the Bush lied us into war  AMBE

This was ALWAYS about preventing his WMD from getting in the hands of terrorists who COULD use them in the U.S.  
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Mucho on November 05, 2006, 08:46:16 PM
<<What about Saddams past history indicated that he would be averse to useing WMD or (and) supporting terrorism?>>

Nothing indicated that he would take on the U.S.  Common sense alone tells you it would be suicidal.  He was never suicidal.  Few leaders are.


And yet this was never about Saddam taking on the U.S., mano a mano.  That would be ANOTHER LIE in the Bush lied us into war  AMBE

This was ALWAYS about preventing his WMD from getting in the hands of terrorists who COULD use them in the U.S.  

If the Bushidiot really  wanted to keep WMD's out of terrorist hands he shoulda attacked someone that had them ,  not his Daddy's nemesis (and now his) , Iraq.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 05, 2006, 08:56:11 PM
If the Bushidiot really  wanted to keep WMD's out of terrorist hands he shoulda attacked someone that had them ,  not his Daddy's nemesis (and now his) , Iraq.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

In the Axis of Evil Iraq was probly the easyest to tackle .

Easyest first makes sense to me.


I was surprised that WMD did not turn up on day two of the invasion, I still wonder what happened to them.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 05, 2006, 09:02:25 PM
<<This was ALWAYS about preventing his WMD from getting in the hands of terrorists who COULD use them in the U.S.  >>

Thanks.  That's another one of Bush's lies.  It's even more  ludicrous than the others.  There's no way that Saddam could have transferred weapons to terrorists without leaving a calling card.  One way or another the U.S. would have to learn where the weapons came from and when they did, that would be the end of Saddam and the end of Iraq.  

The idea that Saddam would just hand over nuclear weapons to a bunch of terrorists (Osama Bin Laden is as good an example as any) and say, "Here ya go.  Nukuler weppinz.  Just don't tell anyone where ya got 'em from, fellas, I'm relying on your discretion."

I mean anybody who thinks there is a serious chance of Saddam Hussein or ANY world leader acting like that would have to be a total and complete moron.  
These conjectures get more and more foolish.  Foolish as it is to think of Saddam nuking the U.S., it's even more foolish to think of him giving away his own nukes to some terrorist group and trusting their discretion not to get him in any trouble.

I'm starting to see your real problem.  We all know that Bush said something which turned out not to be true.  So either Bush KNEW it wasn't true when he said it, making him a liar, or he really believed in it at the time, making him look, well, kind of . . . stupid.  The problem is, that what he needs to have honestly believed in order for him not to be a liar is so preposterous that it would really have required a monumental stupidity, so much so that in the end it is just an impossibility, because no matter how stupid Bush may be, compared to, say, Clinton, there is just NO WAY that he could be as stupid as he'd have to be in order to believe in the "threat" that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States of America.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 05, 2006, 09:19:36 PM
I mean anybody who thinks there is a serious chance of Saddam Hussein or ANY world leader acting like that would have to be a total and complete moron.


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

I am just that sort of moron .

You do not think that President Bush or President Husein could possibly be as moronic as me?


I remember the Crash at Lockerbie , an act of revenge that was done in anonominity , by a national Leader whose catspaws were in his direct employ.

I look over Saddams biography and am impressed more by his ruthlessness and wilingness to gamble than his prudence.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 05, 2006, 09:30:43 PM
<<I remember the Crash at Lockerbie , an act of revenge that was done in anonominity , by a national Leader whose catspaws were in his direct employ.>>

You're equating the bombing of an airliner with a nuclear attack on a U.S. city?  Sorry, but you must be what you claim to be, then.

<<I look over Saddams biography and am impressed more by his ruthlessness and wilingness to gamble than his prudence.>>

Jesus.  Good thing you didn't look over Menachem Begin's.  When you find the part in his bio where he launches a nuclear attack on the U.S., get back to me.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 05, 2006, 09:34:52 PM
<<I remember the Crash at Lockerbie , an act of revenge that was done in anonominity , by a national Leader whose catspaws were in his direct employ.>>

You're equating the bombing of an airliner with a nuclear attack on a U.S. city?  Sorry, but you must be what you claim to be, then.


[][][][][][][][][]


I am just too stupid to see what the diffrence is.

What is it?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 05, 2006, 09:40:57 PM
<<I am just too stupid to see what the diffrence is.

<<What is it?>>

Shooting down a civilian airliner is no big deal.  The U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, the Russians shot down a Korean airliner, the Israelis shot down a Libyan airliner, and the U.S. gives sanctuary to a terrorist who blew up a Cuban airliner.  It's not a good thing, but nobody goes to war over it - - it happens.

A lot of people seem to think that a nuclear attack upon a U.S. city would bring nuclear anihilation to whoever causes it.  Go figure.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 05, 2006, 11:47:31 PM
<<I am just too stupid to see what the diffrence is.

<<What is it?>>

Shooting down a civilian airliner is no big deal.  The U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, the Russians shot down a Korean airliner, the Israelis shot down a Libyan airliner, and the U.S. gives sanctuary to a terrorist who blew up a Cuban airliner.  It's not a good thing, but nobody goes to war over it - - it happens.

A lot of people seem to think that a nuclear attack upon a U.S. city would bring nuclear anihilation to whoever causes it.  Go figure.


I think we are probly going to disagree entirely on this one.

The only diffrence is scale , and the scale of the retaliation should not be rediculous but it can be.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Brassmask on November 05, 2006, 11:49:48 PM
Sirs,

It really is tiresome how you just continue to put up posts that say "Prove it!" when the guy is rating in the low to mid 30's and GOP candidates refuse to be seen in public with him.  The guy is a moron and what's worse, he's a dangerous, lying moron.

How you can continue to be one of his cult members is beyond me.  Decency counts.  Principle counts.

Look at how I've been fighting the Kossacks on Ford.  I have been called everything from a "concern troll" to a traitor over there and I have refused to back off putting Ford in a bad light every day and meeting every glowing Ford-loving diary with the latest of his outrages against the Democratic Party.

Party loyalty has ruined this country and cult like love of each party's candidate due to the letter behind their name is what is wrong with America and how we got ourselves into the messes we're in.  They allowed Bush to have the power to invade IRaq illegally.  He lied to the Congress about his evidence.  (And please don't think I'm going to bother going over that again.)  He said evidence from 20 years ago was evidence to invade IRaq.

On and on.  America knows it.  Well, most of America.  There are still the 35% out there of you crazed, cult members who will never, ever admit to Bush having lied even when he eventually resigns like his pattern predecessor, Nixon did and there are all sorts of hearings and people testifying that they lied.  Then Cheney will pardon him and he'll just fade away only to be paraded around eventually and have you cultists talking about what a great "statesman" he was but even that won't stick.

You know why?  Because we all know that Bush isn't fit to tie Nixon's shoes, much less follow in his footsteps.  Its like having Angelina Jolie come on TV and a little while later they show a pig with lipstick on.  Sure they both have on lipstick but it's not even remotely the same thing.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 05, 2006, 11:56:52 PM
" He lied to the Congress about his evidence.  (And please don't think I'm going to bother going over that again.)  "



This is not right.

First you have to have ever been there.


I really don't think that President Bush is one of the greatest presidents ever , I prefer Reagan quite a bit.

But to falsely accuse him of lieing is a false accusation no matter how tenaciously you refuse to be swayed from it.

Invadeing Iraq was a good idea , much better than the alternatives , it was an expensive and painfilled choice , but the alternitives carried potential for even worse loss .
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Lanya on November 06, 2006, 12:08:30 AM
from John Dean's column in FindLaw:
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Should The President Get The Benefit Of The Doubt?

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses - including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.

On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the President of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.

First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's thought. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.

Second, I explained that - at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton - statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the President is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In addition, others in the Administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs - and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.

There are two main possibilities. One that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately misled the nation, and the world. [.........]
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

and this is the one that always gets me:

WMD Just A Convenient Excuse for War, Admits Wolfowitz
By David Usborne
Independent
May 30, 2003

The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged. The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair.

Mr Wolfowitz also discloses that there was one justification that was "almost unnoticed but huge". That was the prospect of the United States being able to withdraw all of its forces from Saudi Arabia once the threat of Saddam had been removed. Since the taking of Baghdad, Washington has said that it is taking its troops out of the kingdom. "Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to the door" towards making progress elsewhere in achieving Middle East peace, Mr Wolfowitz said. The presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia has been one of the main grievances of al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups.

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine. The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz's immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found. [.........]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0530wmdexcuse.htm
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 06, 2006, 12:13:20 AM
Thanks Lanya but every word of it is moot.


What part of that couldn't have been said by President Clinton?
Or Senator Clinton for that matter.


Being wrong is not lieing , not at all.


And Where did the WMD go?

We still do not know.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Lanya on November 06, 2006, 12:36:04 AM
Quote

"We will await the outcome of this story, but the possibility that an illicit relationship has occurred is alarming to us and to millions of others," Dobson said. "The situation has grave implications for the cause of Christ."


Quote

"It's religious hypocrisy with a political rocket booster," said Kuo, who thinks politics is corrupting Christianity. "It's tragedy enough if a pastor falls, but this is not about a pastor falling. This is about a politician falling, and the politician is bringing down Jesus with him."


I am of the opinion these people have no idea what they're talking about. Bringing Jesus down with him? A completely inane and ignorant notion. How can these people be leaders in the Christian community?

http://www.harpers.org/SoldiersOfChrist-20061103288348488.html

I won't even quote a bit of this article. It is long.  It's about Haggard. Quite interesting.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 12:54:21 AM
<<And Where did the WMD go?

<<We still do not know.>>

Of course you know.  That's just another one of Bush's lies.  In strict compliance with the UN-imposed deadline, the Iraqi government delivered a complete accounting of its WMD.  The small percentage of unaccounted for WMD was entirely consistent with normal human error in record-keeping over a long period of time.  Sorta like "corkage" in a tavern.

<<Thanks Lanya but every word of it is moot...>>

That's why it's no longer possible to take you and sirs seriously any more.  When a statement is made that Bush lied, a banshee-like wailing arises - - "not a shred of evidence," "mantra," "repeated endlessly," and of course demands for proof.  When proof in meticulous detail is presented, we get some lame-ass answer that "every word is moot." Period.  Case settled.  Who do you really think you are fooling?  Not me.  Not Lanya.   So what is the point of presenting evidence to someone who refuses to treat it seriously, who dismisses it in a one-liner?  No point.  None at all.

To add insult to injury, a few days will pass.  When another reference has to be made to Bush's lies, the same wall of bullshit arises, and we learn that despite repeated requests for proof that Bush lied, the "liberals" have never been able to come up with a shred of evidence.  IMHO, this is not only intellectual dishonesty (that goes hand-in-glove with being a conservative) but it's just plain rudeness as well.  Lanya can speak for herself, but I will tell you it is God-damn annoying to see somebody take the trouble to assemble the irrefutable proof of Bush's lies, only to be told, "Thanks, it's all moot."  The least that you owe Lanya is not a dismissive "Thanks" but some kind of reasoned response to her sources.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Brassmask on November 06, 2006, 12:58:27 AM
But to falsely accuse him of lieing is a false accusation

Oh I quite agree.  But I'm not "falsely accusing" him.  I"m factually accusing.  I can see how you'd come to your conclusion.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: BT on November 06, 2006, 01:29:49 AM
If you are factually accusing Bush of lying about WMD's are you also accusing all the other politicos who said that WMD's in Iraq were a problem?

As Plane has explained on numerous occasions, i think we are dealing with different definitions of what a lie is. What is yours?


Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 01:50:36 AM
<<If you are factually accusing Bush of lying about WMD's are you also accusing all the other politicos who said that WMD's in Iraq were a problem?>>

Speaking for myself only, my accusation was that Bush lied the country into war.  He LIED and because of the lie, the country went to WAR. 

While many politicians lie ("I did not have sex with that woman") there is only one recent case of a politician lying and bringing the country into a war on the basis of his lie.

So it's kind of a red herring to look to the cases of other politicians lying.

There's also an escalating degree of seriousness to be attached to the lie depending on where the liar stands in the pecking order.  When the guy is the leader of your nation and the Commander-in-Chief of your armed forces, the matter of his lying is somewhat more important than if he were only the junior Senator from Rhode Island.

Finally, an issue of lying can only be examined on a case-by-case basis.  There are many politicians, many lies are told.  To debate each and every politician on each and every lie is a pointless waste of everybody's time.  I think you are trying to muddy the waters by bringing in the cases of other politicians, each of whom has had different levels of access to incoming intelligence at different points of time.  You could spend a lifetime debating whether others have lied.  You could debate which TV anchors lied, which Hollywood actors.  Again, what is the point?

The main issue that overshadows all the others is whether the President of the U.S. lied to the nation in order to get support for a planned invasion of another country.  That's a serious matter and that's what you ought to be discussing.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: BT on November 06, 2006, 02:30:28 AM
Quote
So it's kind of a red herring to look to the cases of other politicians lying.

I disagree. If Bush was lying about WMD's did all the other politicians who said WMD's were a problem in Iraq also lie? Apples to apples was Clinton lying about WMD's in 98? We aren't mitigating the WMD's lies if that is in fact what they are.


And what exactly is your definition of lie?


We are simply setting a baseline.



Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 06, 2006, 02:32:59 AM
Ahhh ...


You are just being obtuse on purpose.


It is not anything like a lie , and Clintons both told the same thing.


You may say Lie x N and consider that the proof is in the frequent repitition , but if N=one hundred Billion and lie =0 you still have nothing.

And you do have nothing.

Lanya found a lot of Bush saying what he said and his advisors agreeing, it would be easy to doubble that list with all the statements of Bushes opponents who thought the same way because they had the same sorces .


Bush may have lies in his past , but you have not found ONE yet.


Much less many.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 06, 2006, 02:38:09 AM
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine. The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. "



?


How about it does not at all suggest that the reasoning was an empty shell.

It does suggest that everyone could agree on WMD as the clearest reason because everyone was in agreement that it was true?

I do remember a few who didn't think so , but I think that most of the people involved did think so ,
genuinely.


So where is the LIE?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Lanya on November 06, 2006, 03:40:50 AM
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine. The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. "

?
How about it does not at all suggest that the reasoning was an empty shell.

It does suggest that everyone could agree on WMD as the clearest reason because everyone was in agreement that it was true?

I do remember a few who didn't think so , but I think that most of the people involved did think so ,
genuinely.
So where is the LIE?

______________________________________


"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

For bureaucratic reasons!   They "settled" on one issue!  Because the numbskulls could agree on it.

If there's no lie to it, they would just say that it was for reasons of national defense.  This sounds like the completely ass-backwards way they got us into this war: We want to attack Iraq. Find reasons to do so.
  You do understand that's not commonly the way people decide to go to war? Usually we have to have cause first, THEN decide to attack?
 
This sounds like they said, "Hey, here's one everyone can agree on: WMD! Sounds scary, it'll play in Peoria, we gave them some back in the 80s, yeah, that's the ticket!"       
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 06, 2006, 03:54:57 AM
No

It seems as if they had a multitude of reasons , and to avoid sounding scattered they picked the one that most universaly agreed on.


And that WMD was one of Saddams favorite projects before we began disarming him in 91 is a fact.


What was supposed to let us know he was such a pussycat? That he was so completely stripped?


It was Saddam that ejected the UN inspectors years before , untill he started to beleive that President Bush really could lead an attack as he said Saddam didn't let anyone know  what was going on with the WMD.

Saddam was claiming that thousands were dieing every month due to the Sanctions , but he wouldn't allow in the inspectors who could have lifted the sanctions by finding nothing during the Clinton years.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Lanya on November 06, 2006, 04:15:59 AM
Did we not get reams of paperwork from his regime in an effort to show they'd gotten rid of the WMD?  I remember that.
And we said, "Oh no, we need ___________, this is insufficient. "  I can't remember what our objection was.  It was moot anyway---machinery of war was already started.  Jesus's return to Earth  could not have stopped that war, I don't think. 
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 06, 2006, 05:48:37 AM
<<The mantra [that Bush lied the country into war] has been applied so often and left so consistently unchallenged by the mainscream media when made, that folks like Tee can simply declare victory (Bush lied us into war), and hit enter (not be required to actually substantiate the claim>>

See, that's where all your lies become undone.  Because Bush lied to the whole country.  People remember the weapons of mass destruction.  That wasn't a part of the language till Bush and his gang made it a part of the language.  And they remember the allegations that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction, he did not account for them, so he must still have them. ...So when you come out with this shit, it never happened, Bush never tried to scare America into supporting an invasion, they KNOW you are lying because they remember being scared by those very lines.  So telling them it never happened is just compounding the lie.

No, this is where we again show the audience at large just how off your rocker, you are.  You've made your best "Bush lied us into war" allegation the ever famous WMD.  Now obviously in your reality "lie" means something entirely different, that in this reality.  In this reality, a lie is a deliberate deception, where person A KNOWS that what they say/claim is false, but say/claim it anyways.  
- To this date NO ONE has been able to demonstrate anywhere that Bush KNEW Saddam didn't have WMD, but told us he did anyways.  
- To this date, Bush's conclusions that Saddam had WMD mirror every other Government leader that made the same conclusions, based on their internal intelligence gathering apparati.  
- To this date, his rhetoric was a mirror of the prior administration's conclusions, based on their intelligence gathering apparatus.  
- To this date, his rhetoric mirrored every one of those Democrat politicians that both during Clinton AND initially under Bush, (Kerry, Edwards, Reid, included) came to the same conclusions, regarding Saddam's WMD.

Now, they're either ALL lying or they ALL got it wrong.  Only a completely warped mind can claim that Bush lied, but everyone else simply got it wrong, or was fooled by Bush.  That defies any logic or common sense.  Now I've noted a bit of backtracking on your part now, where you're opining that many politicians lied because of campaigning.  So, since this issue of Saddam's WMD conclusions have been going on since Clinton, then you must be claiming every Democrat is a liar, who mirrored what Clinton was saying, when he too concluded that Saddam's WMD remained a distinct threat.  And of course, the grandadday of lying,  being Clinton himself.  After all, they all were campaigning at some time

Now your version of Bush trying to scare people is pure distortion 101.  Yea he highlighted the danger that Saddam's WMD in the hands of a terrorist group could pose.  He would have been irresponsible in going to war, had he not.  It was both political and ethical.  But as comittee investigation after committee investigation have FACTUALLY determined, Bush did not lie about the WMD, he did not coerce the intel folks to shape their conclusions, and following 911, would have been morally and wrecklessly irresponsible as CnC had he not taken action, both in Afghanistan & Iraq.  David Kay's report makes that crystal clear as well.

So, you can keep playing the game of declare victory <Bush lied us into war>, and hit enter <continued failure to demonstrate how he supposedly lied us into war> to your heart's content.  The only folks you're fooling are yourself and those who have not been paying attention to the facts


Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 06, 2006, 05:57:33 AM
There's no way that Saddam could have transferred weapons to terrorists without leaving a calling card.  One way or another the U.S. would have to learn where the weapons came from and when they did, that would be the end of Saddam and the end of Iraq.   The idea that Saddam would just hand over nuclear weapons to a bunch of terrorists (Osama Bin Laden is as good an example as any) and say, "Here ya go.  Nukuler weppinz.  Just don't tell anyone where ya got 'em from, fellas, I'm relying on your discretion."   I mean anybody who thinks there is a serious chance of Saddam Hussein or ANY world leader acting like that would have to be a total and complete moron.  These conjectures get more and more foolish.  Foolish as it is to think of Saddam nuking the U.S., it's even more foolish to think of him giving away his own nukes to some terrorist group and trusting their discretion not to get him in any trouble.

You're promoting the notion we'd find out AFTER the fact.  How, I have no idea.  Perhaps you can entertain us with how we'd have found this "calling card"  The point being, this is a pro-active event...the PREVENTION of the act happening, thus the PREVENTION of it even getting into America.  I realize you have no problem with the rudimentary slaughter of perhaps a few thousand, perhaps tens of thousands of "little Eichmans", but I do.  And your continued LIE that we were worried that Saddam would attack the U.S. with WMD/nuke, just reinforces how devoid of meirit your POV has

I'm starting to see your real problem.  We all know that Bush said something which turned out not to be true.  So either Bush KNEW it wasn't true when he said it, making him a liar, or he really believed in it at the time, making him look, well, kind of . . . stupid.

Ahh, getting closer.  Now instead of they were ALL liars, now they were ALL stupid.  Clinton, Gore, Edwards, Kerry (well, he was military, so obviously he must be stupid), Schumer, Dean, etc., etc., etc., are all now stupid.  If you say so
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 06, 2006, 06:06:42 AM
Did we not get reams of paperwork from his regime in an effort to show they'd gotten rid of the WMD?  I remember that.
And we said, "Oh no, we need ___________, this is insufficient. "  I can't remember what our objection was.  It was moot anyway---machinery of war was already started.  Jesus's return to Earth  could not have stopped that war, I don't think. 



When did we get the reams of "proof" that the WMD was gone?

After the threat became tangable?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 06, 2006, 06:08:41 AM
The guy is a moron and what's worse, he's a dangerous, lying moron....How you can continue to be one of his cult members is beyond me.  Decency counts.  Principle counts.....Party loyalty has ruined this country and cult like love of each party's candidate due to the letter behind their name is what is wrong with America and how we got ourselves into the messes we're in.  They allowed Bush to have the power to invade IRaq illegally.  He lied to the Congress about his evidence.  (And please don't think I'm going to bother going over that again.)  He said evidence from 20 years ago was evidence to invade IRaq.....You know why?  Because we all know that Bush isn't fit to tie Nixon's shoes, much less follow in his footsteps.  Its like having Angelina Jolie come on TV and a little while later they show a pig with lipstick on.  Sure they both have on lipstick but it's not even remotely the same thing.

 ::)

While putting aside your vitriolic Bush rant, you know why this claim of me being some Bush loving cultist falls completely as uncredible, is because you perpetually ignore every one of my criticisms and condemnations of Bush.  As I've referenced before, to you, unless someone is burning Bush's name in effigy, cursing his every living breath, they must be a cool-aide drinking Clint...I mean Bush worshipper.  Regardless of how often I've criticised & condemned Bush, both domestically and on the war, that just doesn't cut it with you.  You either ignore them or pffft those condemnations as token and worse, insincere.  Without you knowing me personally, you have no frelling clue of how sincere or insincere I am.  So, what you're left with is your blinding Bush hatred, that prevents you from actually dealing with substantive criticisms from the likes of me, of Plane,of Ami, of Bt, of Professor, of Miss De & Miss Kim, when they're around, when it's aimed at Bush.  Because if we dare support the effort to deal with the Terrorist threat & the leadership that Bush has brought to that cause, we must be Bush loving cultists, who can see no wrong in the never wrong King Bush, as deemed by no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon Brass
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Amianthus on November 06, 2006, 09:50:16 AM
GOP candidates refuse to be seen in public with him.

Funny, I seem to remember him being at various GOP condidates' fund raisers over the past few days. Pictures and everything.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Amianthus on November 06, 2006, 10:01:48 AM
Did we not get reams of paperwork from his regime in an effort to show they'd gotten rid of the WMD?  I remember that.

"In early December 2002, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN. After reviewing the document, U.N. weapons inspectors, the U.S., France, United Kingdom and other countries thought that this declaration failed to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents."

"On January 27, 2003, UN inspectors reported that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a 'genuine acceptance' of the need to disarm. Inspector Hans Blix said that after the empty chemical warheads were found on the 16th, Iraq produced papers documenting the destruction of many other similar warheads, which had not been disclosed before. This still left thousands of warheads unaccounted for however. Inspectors also reported the discovery of over 3,000 pages of weapons program documents in the home of an Iraqi citizen, suggesting an attempt to 'hide' them from inspectors and apparently contradicting Iraq's earlier claim that it had no further documents to provide. In addition, by the 28th, a total of 16 Iraqi scientists had refused to be interviewed by inspectors. The United States reports that sources have told them that Saddam has ordered the death of any scientist that speaks with inspectors in private. Iraq insists that they are not putting pressure on the scientists."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_actions_regarding_Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_actions_regarding_Iraq)
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 12:25:27 PM
<<No, this is where we again show the audience at large just how off your rocker, you are.  You've made your best "Bush lied us into war" allegation the ever famous WMD.  Now obviously in your reality "lie" means something entirely different, that in this reality.  In this reality, a lie is a deliberate deception, where person A KNOWS that what they say/claim is false, but say/claim it anyways.  >>

Bush's lie was to tell the country he KNEW that Saddam had WMD, that it was a slam dunk.  This wasn't true.  The intel was dubious and he must have known that because he actively discouraged anyone who reported anything different to him.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 06, 2006, 12:47:36 PM
"...he must have known that because he actively discouraged anyone who reported anything different to him."



How do we know this?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Brassmask on November 06, 2006, 01:20:48 PM
If you are factually accusing Bush of lying about WMD's are you also accusing all the other politicos who said that WMD's in Iraq were a problem?

Of course, but let's be honest, because I know where you're headed with this.  Those actually in the federal government are far guiltier than those outside it who might have agreed with the idea that WMD's NOT "were a problem" but were a deadly threat to the very fabric of the universe and required America to start a war of choice in order to keep the "smoking gun" from being a "mushroom cloud".

Here's how I look at it.  The intelligence was wrong.  Admittedly, it was like the belief that there is some kind of god who cares for us but doesn't make his presence factually known to us, meaning that nearly EVERYONE thought it was more than likely true (except the inspectors who were withdrawn by the Bush cult, NOT thrown out by Saddam) but that didn't make it true.  Even my own personal political hero, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean [D], September 2002: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

And like anything that is supposed but can't be 100% proven and verfied, that information and the subsequent suppositions based on the information should never be used as a basis to commit human lives in a war of choice.  That's why Clinton didn't invade though he agreed that Saddam may have WMD.  That's why Bush's own father and fellow Republican didn't continue his push into Iraq after the "liberation of Kuwait". 

(Note on that:  I would not be surprised to find out there was some other reason that wasn't public.  Bush41 was a savvy CIA-trained operator since the 50's.  He would know more than his advisors were telling him to his face more than likely.  I suspect it was that he knew Saddam was an operative and perhaps even that he wanted to save that invasion for Bush43.  I am sort of the notion that Bush41 set his son up to take the fall for Bush41's own misteps as part of a larger plan but that's a whole 'nother story.)

The No-fly Zone was working. The inspections were slow but steady.  Saddam was contained.

Those who believed that there were WMD should state plainly that they were wrong and now they know there never were any WMD that were unaccounted for because they are guilty of fostering the belief among The People who don't have access to Top Secret documents and must trust their representatives. 

Those who supported and voted for the war and held the same erroneous belief should state plainly that if they knew then what they know now, they never would have voted to give Bush the authority to invade.  If they had access to the information and were told by the "president" that they had to act, they are only guilty of ignorance and apathy and being scared shitless to oppose a "president" with an approval rating in the upper 80's (lol remember that?  80% of the people actually supported this monkey in a suit?  LOL Hilarious.)

The really, truly guilty though are those in the "administration" who actively used cherry-picked and out of date and manipulated intelligence to "sell" an invasion of Iraq that the neo-conservatives, now the major players in the stolen White House, holding all the cards and using McCarthyesque tactics of accusations of non-patriotism  and Hitleresque tactics of politicizing "homeland" attacks (think Reichstag Fire and all that insinuates) had been advocating for several years from their Project For a New American Century think tank.  Those same neo-conservatives who were now handed the very thing that they said would help to persuade the nation to support a war of choice.

Sure, BT, there is dirt to go around.  Plenty.  Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and that whole DLC type gang who spent time dancing around the Iraq war are dirty.  (I suspect Hillary and the DLC are just in collusion with neo-cons and they are equally guilty as Bush and Cheney and Perle (who was laying the groundwork to avoid prosecutions at the Hague beside Bush and Cheney by selling them out but got screwed by Vanity Fair), if they are not out and out co-conspirators.

But if you think that I must then condemn people like Dean and, say, Chirac, then you are going to be disappointed.  But there is one difference between them and the Bush people and the congress that gave Bush the authority to attack Iraq.  They weren't involved in that illegal act.  Dean voted for no such authority and other government who may or may not have believed that Saddam had WMD didn't actively pursue and war of choice.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 06, 2006, 02:05:17 PM
"The really, truly guilty though are those in the "administration" who actively used cherry-picked and out of date and manipulated intelligence to "sell" an invasion of Iraq ..."


Yes that would be lieing.

Is there any reason to think that this happened?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 02:23:51 PM



<<How do we know this?  [that Bush actively discouraged anyone who reported anything different to him."]>>

Good question.  We know it because of published accounts by White House insiders.

Next good question:  Whose published accounts?

Honestly, plane, I don't remember.  I've read the MSM excerpts from the books when they came out and they were impressive enough at the time, but I don't recall who the authors were and I don't have the time to search for them on the net either.  Sorry.
 
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Mucho on November 06, 2006, 02:28:29 PM
"The really, truly guilty though are those in the "administration" who actively used cherry-picked and out of date and manipulated intelligence to "sell" an invasion of Iraq ..."


Yes that would be lieing.

Is there any reason to think that this happened?

There are a lot of reasons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418_pf.html

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/7/3991/printer

Among many others

Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 02:38:58 PM
<<You're promoting the notion we'd find out [that terrorists got their nukes from Saddam] AFTER the fact.  How, I have no idea.  Perhaps you can entertain us with how we'd have found this "calling card" >>

People talk.  Explosions leave residues.  Residues can be matched to other residues.  Samples can be collected from various sites for comparison purposes.  Investigators investigate.  Scientists seem to be pretty confident of their ability to figure out stuff like that.  I believe they can.  HOW they find out after isn't anywhere near the issue of WHETHER they will find out at all.  

If you were Saddam, and your life and the life of your country depended on it, you'd have basically two choices:

1.  Give the terrorists what they want and hope that the U.S. would never find out about it.  That's a pretty big gamble to take.  What's in it for Saddam?  That one or two nukes will go off in the U.S.A.?  WTF good does that do him, really?  Where's the benefit that justifies the risk of anihilation?  Considering that most of these wackos consider HIM an infidel because he's a socialist, and is the head of a socialist Arab state where women run around in miniskirts with nothing on top of their heads and every fucking nightclub serves alcohol, what on earth would he gain by giving them nukes and trusting to their gratitude and their discretion?  On the one hand, nuclear anihilation and on the other, a few thousand more fucking infidels dying ten thousand miles away?  He'd really have to be nuts to take that gamble.

2.  Second choice:  Just say no.  Saddam was not afraid of terrorists or Islamic fundamentalists.  On any given day there were probably dozens of them if not hundreds in his torture chambers, getting "Iraqi manicures" (having their fingernails pulled out) or much, much worse.  Why on earth he would want to give any of them their own nukes is a mystery to any intelligent observer of the Middle Eastern scene.

So this whole concern about Saddam maybe giving nukes to terrorists is just ONE BIG FRAUD.  ONE MORE BUSH LIE.  It's so asinine only a moron could believe in it, but apparently in America there is no shortage of morons.

 <<The point being, this is a pro-active event...the PREVENTION of the act happening, thus the PREVENTION of it even getting into America.  I realize you have no problem with the rudimentary slaughter of perhaps a few thousand, perhaps tens of thousands of "little Eichmans", but I do.  And your continued LIE that we were worried that Saddam would attack the U.S. with WMD/nuke, just reinforces how devoid of meirit your POV has>>

Well, it's quite a stretch to call the invasion of Iraq "pro-active."  Just because some lying bastard SAYS he is acting pro-actively does not make the act pro-active.  In fact, there's another Bush lie right there, and thank you for bringing this up.  The invasion was "pro-active" against an event that didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening, and Bush must have known that.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 06, 2006, 02:42:08 PM
Does your logic match theirs?


For example , what practical benefit did Osama Bin Laden get from any of his attacks on America?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Brassmask on November 06, 2006, 03:06:30 PM
Does your logic match theirs?


For example , what practical benefit did Osama Bin Laden get from any of his attacks on America?

I don't know that bin Laden has gotten any benefits from any of his attacks on America other than America acting like he is the greatest threat to the world since that meteor that killed the dinosaurs thus helping him find friends in the enemies of his enemy.  When you spotlight bin Laden and give him power, surely that would lead to disaffected middle easterners to think that there was finally a place, a home, you might say for that burning rage they felt about Americans invading their culture and stationing their military in Saudi Arabia (which the Bush "administration" immediately caved on).

The real question is "Who benefited more from bin Laden's attacks on America, bin Laden or Bush?"  I think a clearer answer can found for the latter.  Bush was sitting on a tenuous 50% approval rating.  He had talked the economy down in the campaign and so was reaping what he had sown.   When 9.11 happened (with his perhaps unwitting blessing), he became Bush the Chosen One and then it was Katie bar the door for every crackpot idea the neo-cons and the GOP had ever thought of.  Remember, he hit the "trifecta" and the cash just came pouring down on him and his cronies.

Who benefited from 9.11 in reality?  Who indeed.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 05:53:28 PM
<<For example , what practical benefit did Osama Bin Laden get from any of his attacks on America?>>

Thank you for proving my point.  Osama bin Laden is religious fanatics.  By definition religious fanatics look for their reward in heaven.  They do not expect to reap practical benefits from their actions on earth - - they fear God and try to perform His will on earth in order to avoid divine punishment.  THAT'S the only benefit Osama expects.

Your mistake - - and it's a HUGE mistake - - is failing to differentiate between the two men.  "They're both Arabs and one is illogical so both must be illogical."  Consciously or not, that's racist thinking.  I don't blame you personally, I know there is only so much you can do to escape from background childhood conditioning, but nevertheless, the thinking is racist, illogical and unsupportable.  There is no reason in the world to expect Saddam to have acted as Osama would have.  They were mortal enemies of one another.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 07:02:33 PM
from Ami:

<<"In early December 2002, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN. After reviewing the document, U.N. weapons inspectors, the U.S., France, United Kingdom and other countries thought that this declaration failed to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents.">>

Well, that's kind of selective.  We know who didn't think that Iraq had accounted for "all" of its chemical and biological agents - - the two invaders themselves, plus France (suddenly regaining credibility in the eyes of conservatives) and "other countries."  (probably the same stooges that the U.S. blackmailed, bribed, inveigled and ortherwise schmeered or coerced into their criminal venture)   What we don't know from the article is which countries felt that Iraq had accounted for all or most of its chemical and biological weapons.  (BTW, it's kind of funny that whereas Iraq had to account for all of its chemical weapons, the U.S.A. was perfectly free to use its WP bombs and shells on the civilian population of Falluja.  Go figure.)

That's the problem with using Wikipedia as a source in partisan matters.  The stuff is heavily edited and re-edited by partisans, sometimes going through a couple dozen re-edits, so you're not really sure whose spin you're picking up when you dip into it.

<<"On January 27, 2003, UN inspectors reported that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a 'genuine acceptance' of the need to disarm. >>

Somebody no doubt can explain that little brain fart.

<<Inspector Hans Blix said that after the empty chemical warheads were found on the 16th, Iraq produced papers documenting the destruction of many other similar warheads, which had not been disclosed before. This still left thousands of warheads unaccounted for however. >>

Blix said there were thousands of warheads unaccounted for?  I don't think so.  In whose opinion were the number of unaccounted warheads in the thousands?  The article doesn't say.  My recollection of the editorial comment of the day was that every single warhead had not been accounted for, but the number of unaccounted for warheads was small and consistent with what you would expect could be "lost" through record-keeper errors over so long a period of time. 

<<Inspectors also reported the discovery of over 3,000 pages of weapons program documents in the home of an Iraqi citizen . . . >>

Well, that's a crock as stated.  3,000 pages of what, exactly?  Outdated phone numbers of weapons program technicians?  Drawings and specs for equipment that was never purchased?   Who was the Iraqi citizen?  A scientist who took the stuff home to work on?  An employee who stole whatever he could lay his hands on for fun and profit?  A retired guy who had the stuff for years and never got around to returning it or shredding it?

<< . . . suggesting an attempt to 'hide' them from inspectors >>

Yeah.  Or a plant by an American agent on the inspection team.  Or a slip in the Iraqi document-control procedures.

<< . . . and apparently contradicting Iraq's earlier claim that it had no further documents to provide.>>

Yeah, Jeeziz, like it's totally unheard of for a taxpayer, let's say, to turn over all his documents in a file to the IRS and then later discover more documents that weren't included in the original handover.  Like nothing ever gets misplaced or misfiled.  VERY suspicious.  I guess if you ever get audited by the IRS and find more documents that weren't turned over originally, that's proof positive that you were hiding something and the IRS should just stop their investigation and sock you with the maximum penalty because your guilt has been established beyond dispute.

 Can't believe (a) how the administration's defenders turn to the most trivial bullshit in support of their asinine propositions and (b) how many morons they can find to take such crap seriously.  A sucker is born every minute.

<<In addition, by the 28th, a total of 16 Iraqi scientists had refused to be interviewed by inspectors. The United States reports that sources have told them that Saddam has ordered the death of any scientist that speaks with inspectors in private. Iraq insists that they are not putting pressure on the scientists.">>

Again, you'd have to be pretty naive not to recognize what's going on here.  A scientist would have to be nuts to speak to a UN inspector.  They can't guarantee his life and if Saddam thinks anybody fucked up, that is the end of a life.  The only smart thing for any scientist to do is to clam up.  That way, no matter what happens, he can say "Boss I never met with them, never talked to them.  Couldn't a bin anything I said."
Of course Iraq says it puts no pressure on scientists.  Doesn't have to - - the pressure comes from the scientists.  What the inspectors were dealing with was the normal quotient of fear that comes with the territory in any Middle Eastern dictatorship.

<<The United States reports that sources have told them that Saddam has ordered the death of any scientist that speaks with inspectors in private>>

Yeah, that's rich.  Their sources also told them that Iraq was buying yellowcake from Niger, that Saddam was behind the WTC attacks, that Saddam's WMD could be launched in 45 minutes, that the U.S. Army would be welcomed as liberators, that the boys would be home by Christmas, that they would create a new democratic Middle East through the shining example of Iraq, blah blah blah.  Their sources told them a lot of things.  Basically, whatever they need or want their sources to tell them, they advise the sources what they want to hear and the sources tell them.  This is NOT one of the more impressive arguments in the neocon arsenal.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Amianthus on November 06, 2006, 07:07:15 PM
That's the problem with using Wikipedia as a source in partisan matters.  The stuff is heavily edited and re-edited by partisans, sometimes going through a couple dozen re-edits, so you're not really sure whose spin you're picking up when you dip into it.

That's rich, considering you have used Wikipedia as a source several times for your partisan matters.

Regardless, did you check out the references in the article before responding?



Didn't think so...
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 07:29:21 PM
<<That's rich, considering you have used Wikipedia as a source several times for your partisan matters.>>

I didn't tell you, "It's Wikipedia therefore it's bullshit.  End of story."  I didn't say Wikipedia is 100% crap.  I said it deserves caution, AND THEN I showed you exactly where the article was vague and misleading.  I still use Wikipedia on occasion, it's very handy.

If you feel that my quoting a Wikipedia article was somehow misleading, then point to the part of the article that you object to and show what's wrong with it - - exactly as I did with the Wikipedia article that you quoted.  If you can't do it, then that particular article was as good as source as any other.

<<Regardless, did you check out the references in the article before responding?>>

No, I didn't have the time.  The article you quoted from was, in the parts that I indicated, misleading and/or useless.  That was apparent from the text itself.  If you had better sources, it was up to you to have quoted from them, or even to have used them instead of the Wikipedia text.  It certainly isn't up to me to perfect your arguments.  YOU were the one who chose to rely on Wikipedia rather than go to the sources.  Now you want to blame me for your choice of supporting material.  Sorry, wrong number.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Amianthus on November 06, 2006, 07:33:46 PM
No, I didn't have the time.

Oh well.

I will claim, as you have claimed before, "I'm obviously right." I think you even said something like "if you think what I say is wrong, get off your lazy ass and look up your own sources."

Maybe if someone other than you, Knute, or XO ask me for sources, I'll provide them.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 06, 2006, 07:44:56 PM
<<For example , what practical benefit did Osama Bin Laden get from any of his attacks on America?>>

Thank you for proving my point.  Osama bin Laden is religious fanatics.  By definition religious fanatics look for their reward in heaven.  They do not expect to reap practical benefits from their actions on earth - - they fear God and try to perform His will on earth in order to avoid divine punishment.  THAT'S the only benefit Osama expects.

Your mistake - - and it's a HUGE mistake - - is failing to differentiate between the two men.  "They're both Arabs and one is illogical so both must be illogical."  Consciously or not, that's racist thinking.  I don't blame you personally, I know there is only so much you can do to escape from background childhood conditioning, but nevertheless, the thinking is racist, illogical and unsupportable.  There is no reason in the world to expect Saddam to have acted as Osama would have.  They were mortal enemies of one another.

You oversimplify.

They were both leaders of Arabs and enemys of the USA.

They had a lot more in common than just being Arabs , They share this with the Voice of Shaggy on "Scooby Do" but nothing elese.

With each other they share a rivalry over who is Americas worse enemy.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: The_Professor on November 06, 2006, 07:51:46 PM
A difference may lie in the fact that one looks at this from a secular viewpoint, whereas the other views it from a religious one? The latter may be potentially more dangerous to the U.S. as those who are passioned tend to defeat those whom are not, everything else being the same.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 08:01:16 PM
<<Maybe if someone other than you, Knute, or XO ask me for sources, I'll provide them.>>

Or maybe if you do it right the first time, you won't have to bitch that your reader didn't go beyond your first sources to your second sources.  Sheeesh.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 08:10:05 PM
<<They were both leaders of Arabs and enemys of the USA.>>

Yeah.  And that's about ALL they had in common.

<<They had a lot more in common than just being Arabs >>

Yeah, I know.  You just said they were Arabs AND enemies of the USA.  I guess in your mind that means they're not only identical twins but soulmates.

<<They share this with the Voice of Shaggy on "Scooby Do" but nothing elese.>>

Uhh, you lost me there, plane.  Not that I'm totally unfamiliar with Scooby Doo, but . . .

<<With each other they share a rivalry over who is Americas worse enemy . . . >>

Well, you're speculating there, plane.  Osama's an enemy of ALL infidels and that INCLUDES Saddam, the skirt-chasing booze-hound.  Even if it were true, there'd certainly be a lot of room left for intellectual and behavioural divergence between them.  It's still extremely foolish to think that Osama and Saddam think alike.  You've provided the flimsiest of similarities, virtually nothing but your racist thought (they're both Arabs) to back it up.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Amianthus on November 06, 2006, 08:28:38 PM
Or maybe if you do it right the first time, you won't have to bitch that your reader didn't go beyond your first sources to your second sources.  Sheeesh.

I'll remember that the next time you do the same thing.

Geez, you sure have a lot of complaints that you're guilty of doing as well.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 09:02:48 PM
<<I'll remember that the next time you do the same thing.

<<Geez, you sure have a lot of complaints that you're guilty of doing as well.>>

When did I tell you I was perfect?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Amianthus on November 06, 2006, 09:07:02 PM
When did I tell you I was perfect?

Your viewpoint on your own perfection was a logical determination from your posts on this board.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 09:10:48 PM
<<Your viewpoint on your own perfection was a logical determination from your posts on this board.>>

Shit.  That was supposed to be my own guilty secret.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 06, 2006, 09:52:37 PM
Thank you for proving my point.  Osama bin Laden is religious fanatics.  By definition religious fanatics look for their reward in heaven.  They do not expect to reap practical benefits from their actions on earth - - they fear God and try to perform His will on earth in order to avoid divine punishment.  THAT'S the only benefit Osama expects.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


You are not reading Osamas own words , he wants to establish a big empire on Earth , a Caphilate.

Saddam was less religious but the two of them were just useing diffrent means to the same end.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 06, 2006, 09:59:17 PM
<<They were both leaders of Arabs and enemys of the USA.>>

Yeah.  And that's about ALL they had in common.

<<They had a lot more in common than just being Arabs >>

Yeah, I know.  You just said they were Arabs AND enemies of the USA.  I guess in your mind that means they're not only identical twins but soulmates.

<<They share this with the Voice of Shaggy on "Scooby Do" but nothing elese.>>

Uhh, you lost me there, plane.  Not that I'm totally unfamiliar with Scooby Doo, but . . .

<<With each other they share a rivalry over who is Americas worse enemy . . . >>

Well, you're speculating there, plane.  Osama's an enemy of ALL infidels and that INCLUDES Saddam, the skirt-chasing booze-hound.  Even if it were true, there'd certainly be a lot of room left for intellectual and behavioural divergence between them.  It's still extremely foolish to think that Osama and Saddam think alike.  You've provided the flimsiest of similarities, virtually nothing but your racist thought (they're both Arabs) to back it up.

If you were Saddam, and your life and the life of your country depended on it, you'd have basically two choices:

1.  Give the terrorists what they want and hope that the U.S. would never find out about it.  That's a pretty big gamble to take.  What's in it for Saddam?  That one or two nukes will go off in the U.S.A.?  WTF good does that do him, really?  Where's the benefit that justifies the risk of anihilation?  Considering that most of these wackos consider HIM an infidel because he's a socialist, and is the head of a socialist Arab state where women run around in miniskirts with nothing on top of their heads and every fucking nightclub serves alcohol, what on earth would he gain by giving them nukes and trusting to their gratitude and their discretion?  On the one hand, nuclear anihilation and on the other, a few thousand more fucking infidels dying ten thousand miles away?  He'd really have to be nuts to take that gamble.

2.  Second choice:  Just say no.  Saddam was not afraid of terrorists or Islamic fundamentalists.  On any given day there were probably dozens of them if not hundreds in his torture chambers, getting "Iraqi manicures" (having their fingernails pulled out) or much, much worse.  Why on earth he would want to give any of them their own nukes is a mystery to any intelligent observer of the Middle Eastern scene.



So you can speculate better than I can?

Kasey Kasem is the Voice of Scooby Doo and a radio personality also , he is an arab with nothing in common to Saddam Husein.


Much more to the point , Osama declared war on the USA and proceded to build a nation for himself .

Saddam was diffrent is what important respect?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Lanya on November 06, 2006, 10:10:35 PM
I'm going off on a tangent, so feel free to skip this post.
I've heard people say, "Osama's a cave dweller, just  a crazy Muslim who lives in a cave."  As if he is an actual cave man, very very primitive, perhaps can use tools but...one never knows. 

From the dreaded Wiki: "As a college student at King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, bin Laden studied civil engineering and business administration. He earned a degree in civil engineering in 1979 and also one in economics and public administration, in 1981."

I would like people in this country to be less self-satisfied, to read more, and not to think that if someone lives in harsh conditions it means he is stupid.     This is very dangerous thinking.  We have to be smarter than to think of our enemy as a dummy. 
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 10:27:47 PM
<<You are not reading Osamas own words , he wants to establish a big empire on Earth , a Caphilate.>>

So how does that make him similar to Saddam, similar enough that you can predict what Saddam would do based on what Osama has done?

<<Saddam was less religious  . . . >>

Bullshit.  Saddam wasn't religious at all.  He wasn't "less religious," he was non-religious.  He allowed the pubic consumption of alcohol, women in Western dress, equal educational opportunities for women - - every fucking thing that Osama and the Taliban opposed.  What are you doing, just making stuff up as you go along?  You're talking nonsense.


<< . . but the two of them were just useing diffrent means to the same end. >>

Oh that's just more  total bullshit.  A caliphate was a religion-based empire of Muslims and Saddam was a member of the Ba'ath Socialist Party.  He had no intention of establishing a Caliphate.  Anybody who wanted to establish a Caliphate would have been tortured to death if Saddam ever got his hands on him. 

Don't you see how your own mind is so crippled by racism that you can't even conceive of these guys differing? 
"They're Arabs so they gotta think the same."  You gotta get out of that box, plane!
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 06, 2006, 10:28:16 PM
Bush's lie was to tell the country he KNEW that Saddam had WMD, that it was a slam dunk.  This wasn't true.  The intel was dubious and he must have known that because he actively discouraged anyone who reported anything different to him.

Bzzzz, wrong....the intel was overwhelming.  It was overwhelmingly wrong, but was overwhelming in their conclusions that Saddam did possess stockpiles of WMD.  This was echoed by the entire global community, AND the prior administration.  Apparently we're back to they ALL lied.  So which is, they all lied, Clinton, Gore, Dean, Reid, etc., or were they all stupid??  

And the FACTS clearly concluded that no effort was made by Bush to coerce the intel conclusions.  Sorry, that lie won't fly either
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 06, 2006, 10:33:13 PM
We know who didn't think that Iraq had accounted for "all" of its chemical and biological agents - - the two invaders themselves, plus France (suddenly regaining credibility in the eyes of conservatives) and "other countries."  (probably the same stooges that the U.S. blackmailed, bribed, inveigled and ortherwise schmeered or coerced into their criminal venture)   What we don't know from the article is which countries felt that Iraq had accounted for all or most of its chemical and biological weapons. 

That didn't take long.  We're back to a lack of proof/evidence is proof/evidence that Saddam did comply with UN 1441.  Again, gotta love the consistency
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 10:39:40 PM
<<Bzzzz, wrong....the intel was overwhelming. >>

No it wasn't overwhelming.  It did not convince the allies that Bush wanted to convince.  If it were overwhelming it would have.

<< It was overwhelmingly wrong, but was overwhelming in their conclusions that Saddam did possess stockpiles of WMD. >>

Well, that's what happens when it's manipulated from the top.  When the boss tells anyone who brings in a contrary opinion, "Go back and look at it again."

<< This was echoed by the entire global community,>>

That's YOUR mantra, but it's a pack of lies.  The entire global community REJECTED this bullshit and wanted more time, it was Bush and his fellow criminal Blair who insisted that the circumstances did not allow for more time.

<< AND the prior administration.  Apparently we're back to they ALL lied.  So which is, they all lied, Clinton, Gore, Dean, Reid, etc., or were they all stupid??  >>

They never told the country that the threat was so immediate that an invasion was the only option.  THAT was Bush's unique lie.  Whatever else they said, they did not use the fiction of an Iraqi "threat" as demanding an invasion.

<<And the FACTS clearly concluded that no effort was made by Bush to coerce the intel conclusions.  Sorry, that lie won't fly either>>

Why?  Because you say so? Bullshit.  Insiders have published their accounts and those accounts say clearly that Bush and his cabinet basically ordered up the intelligence they wanted.  I didn't make that up.  Those books are out there.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 10:45:24 PM
<<That didn't take long.  We're back to a lack of proof/evidence is proof/evidence that Saddam did comply with UN 1441.  Again, gotta love the consistency >>

Not only do you not know what you are talking about, but apparentlly you don't even read the fucking posts.  The Wikipedia article itself was the source for the original statement that Saddam HAD complied with the UN requirements.  NOT the lack of evidence.

The same article then went on to find supposed fault with its earlier statement that Saddam had complied.  The part of my post that you were quoting from was the part wherein I was attacking the latter part of the Wikipedia article.  It was not meant as proof that Saddam had complied, it was disproof of the part of the Wikipedia article that said he might not have complied.

If you are going to criticize what I am saying, at least understand what my point is before you attack it. 
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 06, 2006, 10:57:47 PM
<< It was overwhelmingly wrong, but was overwhelming in their conclusions that Saddam did possess stockpiles of WMD. >>

Well, that's what happens when it's manipulated from the top.  When the boss tells anyone who brings in a contrary opinion, "Go back and look at it again."

Ok, so despite the facts to the contrary, they ALL were apparently lying.  Bush, Clinton, the UN, France, Germany, Gore, and every Dem to claim Saddam had them, were all lying to us.  Well, hopefully we can put that to bed now

<< This was echoed by the entire global community,>>

That's YOUR mantra, but it's a pack of lies.  The entire global community REJECTED this bullshit and wanted more time, it was Bush and his fellow criminal Blair who insisted that the circumstances did not allow for more time.

Oh this should be good.  Show us Tee.  Show us where every Country's leader rejected their own intelliegence, that had concluded Saddam's stockpile of WMD was legit.

They never told the country that the threat was so immediate that an invasion was the only option.  THAT was Bush's unique lie.  Whatever else they said, they did not use the fiction of an Iraqi "threat" as demanding an invasion.

Following 911, a timetable for Saddam to comply WAS necesarry.  And the basis continued to be the conclusions that allowing Saddam's WMD to potentially get in the hands of terrorists, following what they were able to do with simple boxcutters, was a scenario that simply wasn't going to be allowed to fester on the back burner.  It was never stated the threat was "immediate" nor "imminent".  Simply one that wasn't going to be tolerated.  I realize this effort to re-write history is an emotionally gripping one, but your egregious distortions will simply be continued to be corrected,

<<And the FACTS clearly concluded that no effort was made by Bush to coerce the intel conclusions.  Sorry, that lie won't fly either>>

Why?  Because you say so? Bullshit.  Insiders have published their accounts and those accounts say clearly that Bush and his cabinet basically ordered up the intelligence they wanted.  I didn't make that up.  Those books are out there.

No, because the Bi-partisan Investigative commissions, mandated to look at ALL the facts, said so.  Their reports, minus the biased agenda, is out there as well
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 06, 2006, 10:59:26 PM
If you are going to criticize what I am saying, at least understand what my point is before you attack it. 

Just noting the thematic consistency, Tee
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 11:03:45 PM
<<Just noting the thematic consistency, Tee>>

That was my whole point, sirs - - there wasn't any "thematic consistency" this time, even if one were to accept your own warped view of what theme you claim to find in all my posts.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 06, 2006, 11:08:46 PM
That was my whole point, sirs - - there wasn't any "thematic consistency" this time, even if one were to accept your own warped view of what theme you claim to find in all my posts.

On the contrary, there was.  I even highlighted it.  Lack of evidence justifies the support in believing nonexistant evidence.  In this case, that Saddam supposedly complied with UN 1441.  You use it when your egregiously bashing the military for supposed widespread atrocities, and in Bashing Bush for widespread corruption & lying about WMD.  Oh, let's not forget condemning Bush for sitting on 911 had, if he had known.  If anything, it's definately a consistent theme to supposedly validating your deductions
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 11:23:20 PM
<<Ok, so despite the facts to the contrary, they ALL were apparently lying.  Bush, Clinton, the UN, France, Germany, Gore, and every Dem to claim Saddam had them, were all lying to us.  Well, hopefully we can put that to bed now >>

Maybe on YOUR planet, sirs, but on mine it was only Bush who claimed that the threat was so great that an invasion could not be put off.

<<Show us where every Country's leader rejected their own intelliegence, that had concluded Saddam's stockpile of WMD was legit.>>

I'm sorry, sirs.  I guess on your planet, Bush didn't try to drum up support for a Security Council resolution authorizing use of force.  Didn't bring his "intelligence" to the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Canadians and try to get them onboard for use of force.  See, sirs, here on THIS planet, that's what happened.  Bush tried to peddle his laughable, childish "intelligence" to the UN, and to most of the Western countries he wanted on-board.  "Look at this stuff, it PROVES that there's a huge menace here in Iraq and if we don't invade them tomorrow we'll all be toast."  Words to the same effect, anyway.  And nobody was buying.  Well, almost nobody.  Nobody of any importance.  It was bullshit and it was clearly recognized as bullshit by the governments of many nations.  He could fool the huge mass of morons that goes by the name of "the American people," but there were few others that he could fool.

<<And the basis continued to be the conclusions that allowing Saddam's WMD to potentially get in the hands of terrorists, following what they were able to do with simple boxcutters, was a scenario that simply wasn't going to be allowed to fester on the back burner.>>

Oh, OF COURSE.  The logic is unassailable.  If they can use boxcutters as weapons, they shouldn't have any problem deploying atom bombs.  Once you're qualified on box-cutters, man, you're qualified on any weapons system imaginable.

<<It was never stated the threat was "immediate" nor "imminent". >>

Uh, yeah, sirs, it was.  The whole argument of the U.S. was that whereas the UN Security Council wanted to give diplomacy more time, there just wasn't any more time.  In Condoleeza Rice's words, "We can't wait until the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud."  Sorry to let a little fact break in on your fantasy, but there it is.

<<No, because the Bi-partisan Investigative commissions, mandated to look at ALL the facts, said so.  Their reports, minus the biased agenda, is out there as well>>

sirs, you're hilarious.  First, you go out of your way to tell me all the Democrats who said the same thing as Bush.  THEN you claim that Bush was exonerated of manipulating the intelligence by a Bi-Partisan Committee, as if the bipartisanship of the committee inoculated it from any charge of whitewash - - completely forgetting your earlier argument that identical allegations regarding Saddam's WMD were made by members of both parties.  BTW, how did the "Bipartisan Committee" deal with the published reports by intelligence and White House insiders that clearly indicated manipulation of the conclusions by White House staffers?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 06, 2006, 11:27:47 PM
<<Lack of evidence justifies the support in believing nonexistant evidence.  In this case, that Saddam supposedly complied with UN 1441.  >>

OK.

Now show me where in my post I relied on lack of evidence of compliance to prove that Saddam had complied.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 06, 2006, 11:42:03 PM
<<Ok, so despite the facts to the contrary, they ALL were apparently lying.  Bush, Clinton, the UN, France, Germany, Gore, and every Dem to claim Saddam had them, were all lying to us.  Well, hopefully we can put that to bed now >>

Maybe on YOUR planet, sirs, but on mine it was only Bush who claimed that the threat was so great that an invasion could not be put off.

Naaa, that'd be your planet Tee.  They air is apparently very thin.  In this reality, they ALL claimed that Saddam posed a distinct threat, to both the region and to America, with his stockpike of WMD.  Your biggest beef is that Bush actually did something about it.

<<Show us where every Country's leader rejected their own intelliegence, that had concluded Saddam's stockpile of WMD was legit.>>

I'm sorry, sirs.  I guess on your planet, Bush didn't try to drum up support for a Security Council resolution authorizing use of force.  Didn't bring his "intelligence" to the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Canadians and try to get them onboard for use of force.  See, sirs, here on THIS planet, that's what happened.  Bush tried to peddle his laughable, childish "intelligence" to the UN, and to most of the Western countries he wanted on-board.  "Look at this stuff, it PROVES that there's a huge menace here in Iraq and if we don't invade them tomorrow we'll all be toast."  Words to the same effect, anyway.  And nobody was buying.  Well, almost nobody.  Nobody of any importance.  It was bullshit and it was clearly recognized as bullshit by the governments of many nations.  He could fool the huge mass of morons that goes by the name of "the American people," but there were few others that he could fool.

So, in that entire rant of a paragraph, not so surprisingly, my question never got answered.  Just your nonverifiable conclusions of Bush being able to strongarm everyone else to follow his lead.  Priceless

<<It was never stated the threat was "immediate" nor "imminent". >>

Uh, yeah, sirs, it was.  The whole argument of the U.S. was that whereas the UN Security Council wanted to give diplomacy more time, there just wasn't any more time.  In Condoleeza Rice's words, "We can't wait until the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud."  Sorry to let a little fact break in on your fantasy, but there it is.  

Reading for comprehension issues again?  The paragragh supports the continued notion that we act BEFORE Saddam's WMD gets in the hands of a terrorist group, and then DOES become an immediate/imminent threat

<<No, because the Bi-partisan Investigative commissions, mandated to look at ALL the facts, said so.  Their reports, minus the biased agenda, is out there as well>>

sirs, you're hilarious.  First, you go out of your way to tell me all the Democrats who said the same thing as Bush.....

Yea, and..............?  I'm not the one implying that they're all lying.  That'd be you big guy

THEN you claim that Bush was exonerated of manipulating the intelligence by a Bi-Partisan Committee, as if the bipartisanship of the committee inoculated it from any charge of whitewash - - completely forgetting your earlier argument that identical allegations regarding Saddam's WMD were made by members of both parties.  


I love the way you're able to rationalize how agenda driven books, by folks who could EASILY be shown to have an axe to grind, and who also are innoculated from any repercussions of their writings must be gospel, but Bi-Partisan committees, who were required to look at the facts, must be discounted, because they dare stray from the pre-disposed mindset of how evil and a lying bastard Bush has to be.......because.....he just has to be.  It's Bush

BTW, how did the "Bipartisan Committee" deal with the published reports by intelligence and White House insiders that clearly indicated manipulation of the conclusions by White House staffers?

As I stated, they investigated the FACTS, and concluded otherwise.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 06, 2006, 11:49:21 PM
I'm going off on a tangent, so feel free to skip this post.
I've heard people say, "Osama's a cave dweller, just  a crazy Muslim who lives in a cave."  As if he is an actual cave man, very very primitive, perhaps can use tools but...one never knows. 

From the dreaded Wiki: "As a college student at King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, bin Laden studied civil engineering and business administration. He earned a degree in civil engineering in 1979 and also one in economics and public administration, in 1981."

I would like people in this country to be less self-satisfied, to read more, and not to think that if someone lives in harsh conditions it means he is stupid.     This is very dangerous thinking.  We have to be smarter than to think of our enemy as a dummy. 


I Knew that Osama was an engineer.

But I wish that Osama had heard your adviced before he assumed the the USA was populated by pushovers.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 06, 2006, 11:49:49 PM
Now show me where in my post I relied on lack of evidence of compliance to prove that Saddam had complied.

Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 06:02:33 PM
We know who didn't think that Iraq had accounted for "all" of its chemical and biological agents - - the two invaders themselves, plus France (suddenly regaining credibility in the eyes of conservatives) and "other countries."  (probably the same stooges that the U.S. blackmailed, bribed, inveigled and ortherwise schmeered or coerced into their criminal venture)   What we don't know from the article is which countries felt that Iraq had accounted for all or most of its chemical and biological weapons.  

The accusatory implication is as clear as rainwater.  The countries that said he didn't comply, can't be trusted, and we don't know what countries did believe Saddam, because they've not been listed.  In other words, not 1 country that concluded Saddam didn't comply will be one you agree can be trusted or believed.  But those non-existant countries that did believe Saddam complied.....well, if we only knew, that'd prove he did
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 06, 2006, 11:55:36 PM
<<You are not reading Osamas own words , he wants to establish a big empire on Earth , a Caphilate.>>

So how does that make him similar to Saddam, similar enough that you can predict what Saddam would do based on what Osama has done?

<<Saddam was less religious  . . . >>

Bullshit.  Saddam wasn't religious at all.  He wasn't "less religious," he was non-religious.  He allowed the pubic consumption of alcohol, women in Western dress, equal educational opportunities for women - - every fucking thing that Osama and the Taliban opposed.  What are you doing, just making stuff up as you go along?  You're talking nonsense.


<< . . but the two of them were just useing diffrent means to the same end. >>

Oh that's just more  total bullshit.  A caliphate was a religion-based empire of Muslims and Saddam was a member of the Ba'ath Socialist Party.  He had no intention of establishing a Caliphate.  Anybody who wanted to establish a Caliphate would have been tortured to death if Saddam ever got his hands on him. 

Don't you see how your own mind is so crippled by racism that you can't even conceive of these guys differing? 
"They're Arabs so they gotta think the same."  You gotta get out of that box, plane!



I am in awe of the superior ability you have.


I cannot compare two Arabs who have made similar career choices without makeing myself a racist.
Yet some seem able to state the mind set of a whole region full of them without any such problem.


A Caphilate is an Empire and an Empire is a Caphilate in all of the respects that concern me .

There may be interesting details and diffrences in the various sorts of tyrany , but they are pretty much equally objectionable .


Saddam was a gambleing sort , with a long history of bold moves and biteing off more than he could chew.

Osama shared this trait , but levened it with scripture.

I don't count the addition of scripture to tyrany as a significant improvement.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 07, 2006, 12:00:41 AM

Re: Evidence that Saddam had WMD

"The entire global community REJECTED this bullshit and wanted more time,..."




Oh?

Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 07, 2006, 12:07:06 AM
<<In this reality, they ALL claimed that Saddam posed a distinct threat, to both the region and to America, with his stockpike of WMD.  Your biggest beef is that Bush actually did something about it.>>

I guess on YOUR planet, sirs, there is no distinction between saying that a country is potential threat and saying that the threat is so great that action cannot be put off and there must be an invasion.  But on THIS planet, sirs, that is a BIG distinction.  And not just for semantic reasons - - because 600,000 people died as a result of that distinction.  It's really too bad that Bush DIDN'T restrict himself to saying what all the others had been saying.

<<So, in that entire rant of a paragraph, not so surprisingly, my question never got answered.  Just your nonverifiable conclusions of Bush being able to strongarm everyone else to follow his lead.  Priceless>>

A little slow in the reading-for-comprehension field, are we?  <<Bush tried to peddle his laughable, childish "intelligence" to the UN, and to most of the Western countries he wanted on-board.  . . .  And nobody was buying.>>  THAT'S basically where your question got answered, sirs.  Bush's "intelligence" failed to convince a lot of foreign leaders, sirs.  Most of them in fact.

<<Reading for comprehension issues again?  The paragragh supports the continued notion that we act BEFORE Saddam's WMD gets in the hands of a terrorist group, and then DOES become an immediate/imminent threat>>

Oh, don't worry, sirs, I GOT your childish and foolish idea that you had to act before Saddam could transfer his WMD to terrorists.  What I  - - or any other reasonably sane and normal individual - - found ludicrous was the very concept that Saddam would ever transfer nuclear or any other WMD to a terrorist group, effectively surrendering control over some very powerful weaponry for no conceivable advantage and with a downside that would include utter and instant anihilation of himself, his family and his nation.  An idea that even some certifiable paranoids would find bizarre.

<<Yea, and..............?  I'm not the one implying that they're all lying.  That'd be you big guy>>

More reading for comprehension issues, I see.  My point had nothing to do with Democrats lying or being mistaken, it had to do with the motivations of a bipartisan committee to cover up where both Republicans and Democrats (in your version of events) both had the exact same thing to be covered up.

<<I love the way you're able to rationalize how agenda driven books, by folks who could EASILY be shown to have an axe to grind, and who also are innoculated from any repercussions of their writings must be gospel . . . >>

As opposed to an oil-industry "President" and Vice-President and an AIPAC-supported Congress have NO agenda driving them, NO axe to grind and no real fear of any kind of criminal prosecution for anything except taking bribes.

<<but Bi-Partisan committees, who were required to look at the facts, must be discounted, because they dare stray from the pre-disposed mindset of how evil and a lying bastard Bush has to be.......because.....he just has to be.  It's Bush>>

Well, I gotta admit, you finally got me there, sirs.  How foolish I have been.  Imagine me thinking that a bipartisan Congressional committee would whitewash Democrats and Republicans.  Who ever heard of a Congressional committee whitewashing anything?



Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 07, 2006, 12:08:34 AM
"Oh, OF COURSE.  The logic is unassailable.  If they can use boxcutters as weapons, they shouldn't have any problem deploying atom bombs.  Once you're qualified on box-cutters, man, you're qualified on any weapons system imaginable."


I see this as an insight of great profundity.


Is it more difficult to slash a man to death with a tiny blade , or is it more difficult to press a button that will cause a flash on the horizon.

Is it more difficult to travel the USA for months seeking a vunerable target and pretending frendship as you meet and learn from your intended victims , or is it more difficult to cross the border in a truck loaded with a wepon that makes all targets vunerable.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 07, 2006, 12:10:09 AM
Re: Evidence that Saddam had WMD

"The entire global community REJECTED this bullshit and wanted more time,..."
Oh?

As we're all aware, the notion that the Global community wanted more time, is arguably accurate.  But to combine it with the notion that they rejected their own intelligence conclusions that Saddam did still posess WMD continues to be demonstrated as the lie that it is, by the lack of any evidence supporting the claim.........Oh wait, this is Tee making the claim.  I forgot, lack of evidence is proof of evidence.  My bad      ;)
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 07, 2006, 12:13:53 AM

Maybe on YOUR planet, sirs, but on mine it was only Bush who claimed that the threat was so great that an invasion could not be put off.


http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm



  "Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,

Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations


Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).



By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days,..."
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 07, 2006, 01:18:04 AM
<<In this reality, they ALL claimed that Saddam posed a distinct threat, to both the region and to America, with his stockpike of WMD.  Your biggest beef is that Bush actually did something about it.>>

I guess on YOUR planet, sirs, there is no distinction between saying that a country is potential threat and saying that the threat is so great that action cannot be put off and there must be an invasion.  But on THIS planet, sirs, that is a BIG distinction.   

Actually the only distinction is one of action, as the rhetoric was nearly identical

<<Bush tried to peddle his laughable, childish "intelligence" to the UN, and to most of the Western countries he wanted on-board.  . . .  And nobody was buying.>>  THAT'S basically where your question got answered, sirs.  Bush's "intelligence" failed to convince a lot of foreign leaders, sirs.  Most of them in fact.  

You keep parading that opinion as continued fact.  FACT remains that their OWN intelligence agencies, made their OWN conclusions, that mirrored that of the U.S. intel's conclusions.  Now, show us, as that was your claim, where they rejected THEIR own intelliegnce gathering

What I  - - or any other reasonably sane and normal individual - - found ludicrous was the very concept that Saddam would ever transfer nuclear or any other WMD to a terrorist group, effectively surrendering control over some very powerful weaponry for no conceivable advantage and with a downside that would include utter and instant anihilation of himself, his family and his nation.  An idea that even some certifiable paranoids would find bizarre.

Well, you continue, as ususal, in failing to grasp the concept that not only were their both direct and indirect ties with terrorist organizations, but that no matter how much dislike Saddam may have with religious fundamentalists, the U.S. & Israel provided a mich greater common enemy.  and as Saddam himself has shown, has no problem taking wild gambles, and would have no problem gambling that terrorists could do some major physical and political destruction with some of his WMD.  Perhaps enough to give him more latitude to break out of the boundries he was made to follow.  Only speculation at this point, but grounded in much greater logic than your effort

My point had nothing to do with Democrats lying or being mistaken, it had to do with the motivations of a bipartisan committee to cover up where both Republicans and Democrats (in your version of events) both had the exact same thing to be covered up.

You keep ignoring the conclusions I & most rationally minded folks have made, that since there was no mass effort for all congressional critters to lie about what Saddam had, there was no need to cover up anything.  So, the ball falls in your court to demonstrate how they all knew Saddam had WMD, but lied about it, thus requiring the need to "cover up" their dastardly deed

<<I love the way you're able to rationalize how agenda driven books, by folks who could EASILY be shown to have an axe to grind, and who also are innoculated from any repercussions of their writings must be gospel . . . >>

As opposed to an oil-industry "President" and Vice-President and an AIPAC-supported Congress have NO agenda driving them, NO axe to grind and no real fear of any kind of criminal prosecution for anything except taking bribes.

LOL.  The hole just keeps getting deeper & deeper

<<but Bi-Partisan committees, who were required to look at the facts, must be discounted, because they dare stray from the pre-disposed mindset of how evil and a lying bastard Bush has to be.......because.....he just has to be.  It's Bush>>

Well, I gotta admit, you finally got me there, sirs.  How foolish I have been.  Imagine me thinking that a bipartisan Congressional committee would whitewash Democrats and Republicans.  Who ever heard of a Congressional committee whitewashing anything?

Ahhh, more of that lack of evidence as proof of evidence, yet again.  Priceless     :D   And I didn't realize the Butler commission was working for Bush as well.  Pretty smart moron we got there, to pull that off
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 07, 2006, 01:46:42 AM
<<Actually the only distinction is one of action, as the rhetoric was nearly identical>>

Well, the consequences of bullshit that goes no further than bullshit are pretty benign.  The consequences of someone who uses the bullshit to justify action are, as you see, 600,000 dead.  As between two lying bullshitters, some of us prefer the kind who don't get anyone killed over the kind who get 600,000 killed.  Not all bullshitters are created equal, not by a long shot.

<<You keep parading that opinion as continued fact.  FACT remains that their OWN intelligence agencies, made their OWN conclusions, that mirrored that of the U.S. intel's conclusions.  Now, show us, as that was your claim, where they rejected THEIR own intelliegnce gathering>>

Well, if you are saying that the French, German, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, etc. and U.S. intelligence services all came up with the same conclusion, indicating the same need for immediate action, the same impossibility of waiting any longer, then the failure to join the U.S. attack on Iraq was a rejection of that intelligence by the French, German, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, etc. governments.  Each of the governments, according to you, was then rejecting the "intel" of its own intelligence service as well as intel from the French, German, etc. and U.S. government intelligence services.

<<Well, you continue, as ususal, in failing to grasp the concept that not only were their both direct and indirect ties with terrorist organizations . . .  >>

That's another lie right there, there was no proof of direct ties to terrorist organizations, and the indirect ties are the same intelligence-gathering contacts that every government has or tries to have with lots of groups just to keep tabs on them.

<< . . . but that no matter how much dislike Saddam may have with religious fundamentalists, the U.S. & Israel provided a much greater common enemy. >>

Really?  And you know that because Saddam drew up a numbered enemies list and showed it to you?  Or was it because Israeli agents in Iraq were trying to convert the population to Judaism? 

If the U.S. was a greater enemy to Iraq than the religious fundamentalist government in Iran, how did it happen that the U.S. government sided with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, and why did Saddam bother to ask the U.S. ambassador, April Glaspie, to greenlight his invasion of Kuwait?  And how was it that his "greater enemy" stood aside while he massacred his Shi'ite fundamentalist "lesser" enemies in Southern Iraq instead of pressing their attack on his armies after their retreat from Kuwait? 

You really don't know what the fuck you are talking about, do you?

<<and as Saddam himself has shown, has no problem taking wild gambles, >>

Oh?  Wild gambles like getting the U.S. on-side before attacking Iran?  Like asking for an American green-light before invading Kuwait?  Like pulling his army out of Kuwait without engaging the American army there?  Yeah, that Saddam is some wild and crazy guy alright.  A real gambler, as you say.

The rest of your drivel seems to be more of the same-ol'-same-ol', so I am just going to pass on it.  Oh, by the way - - the Butler Commission was British.  It wasn't a whitewash of Bush, it was a whitewash of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 07, 2006, 02:01:42 AM
Well, if you are saying that the French, German, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, etc. and U.S. intelligence services all came up with the same conclusion, indicating the same need for immediate action  ...  

Never said such.  I defy you to show me where I did.  I've been consistent in simply demonstrating the FACT that the intel conclusions that Saddam still possessed stockpiles of WMD were present with all these other countries.  You're the one that keeps trying to combine the intel conclusions with we "had to immediately invade".  No one else has made that claim.  That's your lie, all to your own

You really don't know what the fuck you are talking about, do you?...Oh, by the way - - the Butler Commission was British.  It wasn't a whitewash of Bush, it was a whitewash of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

Projection, at its finest.  Oh, and I realize that the Butler commission was British.  the point being there were multiple commissions, and according to you, they were all apparently lying as well, and obviously in cahoots with Bush.  I guess the only honest fella around is Saddam.  Poor guy, getting railroaded so harshly.  And you'll get back to us when you've come across the other leaders rejecting their own intel conclusions, k?  We'll be waiting patiently
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 07, 2006, 02:14:51 AM
 <<I've been consistent in simply demonstrating the FACT that the intel conclusions that Saddam still possessed stockpiles of WMD were present with all these other countries. >>

Actually, you can stop congratulating yourself on your "consistency" in "demonstrating the FACT" that all the other countries' intelligence services had come to the same conclusions about Saddam's WMD.  The fact is you never demonstrated it at all, I just didn't bother to challenge you on this ridiculous bullshit.  Even if they did all agree there were stockpiles, which I wouldn't admit for a moment, there was obviously wide disagreement as to the significance of the stockpiles and the immediacy of the threat that they posed.

<<the point being there were multiple commissions, and according to you, they were all apparently lying as well, and obviously in cahoots with Bush. >>

"Multiple" my ass.  There was a British commission which whitewashed the British PM and an American commission or maybe two which whitewashed the "President."  You make it sound like Commissions were multiplying like rabbits.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 07, 2006, 02:34:33 AM
Actually, you can stop congratulating yourself on your "consistency" in "demonstrating the FACT" that all the other countries' intelligence services had come to the same conclusions about Saddam's WMD.  The fact is you never demonstrated it at all, I just didn't bother to challenge you on this ridiculous bullshit. 

The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel and--yes--France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix--who headed the U.N. team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past--lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:  The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km [105 miles] southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

Yea, best not try challenging me

Even if they did all agree there were stockpiles, which I wouldn't admit for a moment, there was obviously wide disagreement as to the significance of the stockpiles and the immediacy of the threat that they posed.

Agreed, that was a judgement call that each individual country had to make on their own.  If it weren't for the events of 911, and his failure to comply fully with UN 1441 we'd likely still be watching Saddam take pot shots at our planes over the no-fly zones

"Multiple" my ass.  There was a British commission which whitewashed the British PM and an American commission or maybe two which whitewashed the "President."  You make it sound like Commissions were multiplying like rabbits.

Show me a bi-partisan commission that didn't.  Show me a bi-partisan commission that looked at all the facts and concluded, yea, that Bush, one lying sack of *#^$
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 07, 2006, 11:46:51 PM
People talk.  Explosions leave residues.  Residues can be matched to other residues.  Samples can be collected from various sites for comparison purposes.  Investigators investigate.  Scientists seem to be pretty confident of their ability to figure out stuff like that.  I believe they can.  HOW they find out after isn't anywhere near the issue of WHETHER they will find out at all.  

All of course missing the point of it having been detonated and having killed thousands if not tens of thousands of innocent civilians.  Again, the point is to prevent it from happening in the 1st place

If you were Saddam, and your life and the life of your country depended on it, you'd have basically two choices:

1.  Give the terrorists what they want and hope that the U.S. would never find out about it.  That's a pretty big gamble to take.  What's in it for Saddam?  
2.  Second choice:  Just say no.  Saddam was not afraid of terrorists or Islamic fundamentalists.  

And given Saddam's frequent propensity for gambling, incl that of his country, option 1 is perfectly reasonable

this whole concern about Saddam maybe giving nukes to terrorists is just ONE BIG FRAUD.  ONE MORE BUSH LIE.  It's so asinine only a moron could believe in it, but apparently in America there is no shortage of morons....it's quite a stretch to call the invasion of Iraq "pro-active."  Just because some lying bastard SAYS he is acting pro-actively does not make the act pro-active.  In fact, there's another Bush lie right there, and thank you for bringing this up.  The invasion was "pro-active" against an event that didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening, and Bush must have known that.

Well, that's another egregiously flawed opinion, but have at it
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 08, 2006, 12:01:54 AM
<<All of course missing the point of it having been detonated and having killed thousands if not tens of thousands of innocent civilians.  Again, the point is to prevent it from happening in the 1st place>>

That might have been the point of Bush's policy (it wasn't really, but it's what his supporters claim was the point) but the point of my argument was that Saddam wouldn't have given the bomb to terrorists in the first place because of the retaliation that would likely follow.  What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that for Saddam, or anyone else, anihilation is anihilation - - equally to be avoided whether or not it has happened to somebody else.  I was making the point that Saddam just wouldn't give away the WMD to a bunch of unpredictable and unreliable flakes for a number of reasons, one being that it could get him and his country blown off the face of the earth.   You missed that point completely.  If you still don't get it, I'll be happy to elaborate further.

<<And given Saddam's frequent propensity for gambling, incl that of his country, option 1 is perfectly reasonable>>

First, Saddam doesn't have a "frequent propensity for gambling" and second, nobody has ever gambled where the stakes were total anihilation of self and country by nuclear attack.  Stronger countries than Iraq have never taken that gamble  Hitler, who was a real gambler (unlike Saddam) wouldn't even gamble with poison gas.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 08, 2006, 12:11:29 AM
<<All of course missing the point of it having been detonated and having killed thousands if not tens of thousands of innocent civilians.  Again, the point is to prevent it from happening in the 1st place>>

That might have been the point of Bush's policy (it wasn't really, but it's what his supporters claim was the point)

Oh, and of course, the almighty Tee can read minds.     ::)

but the point of my argument was that Saddam wouldn't have given the bomb to terrorists in the first place because of the retaliation that would likely follow.  What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that for Saddam, or anyone else, anihilation is anihilation - - equally to be avoided whether or not it has happened to somebody else. 

A) pure speculation on how it would be supposedly tracked back to Saddam
b) Military dictators like Saddam, have no problem gambling the lives of their people, so long as they might survive

I was making the point that Saddam just wouldn't give away the WMD to a bunch of unpredictable and unreliable flakes for a number of reasons, one being that it could get him and his country blown off the face of the earth. 

If the price were right, I don't think he'd blink an eye.

You missed that point completely.  If you still don't get it, I'll be happy to elaborate further.

Naaaa, your illogic is quite well recorded

<<And given Saddam's frequent propensity for gambling, incl that of his country, option 1 is perfectly reasonable>>
First, Saddam doesn't have a "frequent propensity for gambling" and second, nobody has ever gambled where the stakes were total anihilation of self and country by nuclear attack.  Stronger countries than Iraq have never taken that gamble  Hitler, who was a real gambler (unlike Saddam) wouldn't even gamble with poison gas.

Ahhh, Tee, and the breathtaking mind reading ability, yet again.  Tapping in to that of a madman.  Impressive      ::)   Saddam shooting poison gas at our military, during the initial invasion would absolutely be a death sentence to him and his nation.  Terrorists detonating some chemical device in Boston, is hardly a tag item that could be placed on Saddam, just like that.  A few degrees of seperation there, I'm afraid Tee.  and all the while, the deaths caused by that detonation keep being counted
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 08, 2006, 02:06:37 AM
<<Oh, and of course, the almighty Tee can read minds.>>

No, he can connect the dots.  To someone who's incapable of connecting the dots, it just looks like reading minds.

<<A) pure speculation on how it would be supposedly tracked back to Saddam>>

That's speculation but the idea that Saddam would give away his nukes to terrorists is inescapable logical deduction.

<<b) Military dictators like Saddam, have no problem gambling the lives of their people, so long as they might survive>>

By what magical cloak of invulnerability would Saddam survive if the US came to the conclusion that the nuke exploded on its soil came from Iraq?

<<If the price were right, I don't think he'd blink an eye.>>

Right, so the guy's sitting on the second biggest proven oil reserves on the planet but he's so hard up for cash that he'll sell nukes to some crazy bunch of terrorists and hope desperately that word doesn't get out - - but (and here's where sirs displays his hard-won knowledge of the world) - - only "if the price were right."   sirs, you're hilarious.  :o

<<Ahhh, Tee, and the breathtaking mind reading ability, yet again. >>

oy.

<<Tapping in to that of a madman.  Impressive >>

Uhh, that would be you, sirs.   Letting us in on Saddam's gambling habits, and what they'll drive him to.  Letting us in on Saddam's insatiable thirst for cash, and what he'll do for it.  Comparing the gambles of other dictators (which in your truly monumental ignorance you happen to know absolutely nothing about, but that's another story) - - your "logic," BTW, is also hilarious - -  kinda like: well, my cousin Joey's a singer and Willie Nelson's a singer, and they both gamble, so if Willie bet $50,000 on a hand of poker, that means my cousin Joey would bet his life, his wife's life and his kids' lives that he could climb into the ring with a world heavyweight champion and beat the living shit out of him.  I mean, it's so fucking stupid that I don't even know where to start on it.  I'll just leave you with the analogy and leave it to you to figure out where you fucked up.

<<Terrorists detonating some chemical device in Boston, is hardly a tag item that could be placed on Saddam, just like that.  A few degrees of seperation there, I'm afraid Tee. >>

Right, sirs.  Of course.  Forgive me.  I had forgotten what impressive qualifications you possess in the means and techniques of investigating nuclear explosions and their residues, of intelligence gathering and criminal investigation.  And - - remind me again sirs - - those qualifications are . . . ?

<<and all the while, the deaths caused by that detonation keep being counted>>

Uhh, and in terms of Saddam's trying to decide whether or not to give a few nukes to those pesky terrorists, this would enter into his decision-making process how?  or where?He would figure it was OK if the US anihilated him and his country AFTER Boston had been nuked, but not before?  And even though that kind of anihilation avoidance wouldn't make sense to any of us, it would make sense to Saddam because, why?  Gee, sirs, we sure are lucky that you can provide such brilliant insights into Saddam's mind.  Why, YOU must be a mind-reader, sirs.  AND a genius.

Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 08, 2006, 02:47:24 AM
"By what magical cloak of invulnerability would Saddam survive if the US came to the conclusion that the nuke exploded on its soil came from Iraq?"



I agree but I am surprised that you have changed your mind.


Didn't you tell me that if an Atomic explosion were to occur on American territory or on an ally we should not take action against North Korea without certainty that North Korea was the sorce?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 08, 2006, 02:57:58 AM
No, he can connect the dots.  To someone who's incapable of connecting the dots, it just looks like reading minds.

Especially when the dots are non-existant

That's speculation but the idea that Saddam would give away his nukes to terrorists is inescapable logical deduction.

Nice twist.  I've been consistently talking about WMD, not nuk specific, nor that Saddam would "give" anything away.  The idea that Saddam would SELL some of his WMD, such as cases of sarin or containers of mustard gas, to terrroists he did have connections with, to be used on an enemy that they jointly despised, is acutely logical

By what magical cloak of invulnerability would Saddam survive if the US came to the conclusion that the nuke exploded on its soil came from Iraq?

You keep jumping to the conclusion that it would be a forgone conclusion that America would make that connection.  Not even close.  I bet he'd even expect certain members of the UN to come to his rescue, and decry how such connections were obviously flawed, perhaps even planted to make it look like Iraq.  Reasonable doubt, and the Global community would make it clear that the U.S not make any attempt at retaliation.  And that'd be the gamble

Right, so the guy's sitting on the second biggest proven oil reserves on the planet but he's so hard up for cash that he'll sell nukes to some crazy bunch of terrorists and hope desperately that word doesn't get out - - but (and here's where sirs displays his hard-won knowledge of the world) - - only "if the price were right."  

You're kidding right?  Someone with lots of money is content not to want any more.  Yea, Gates doesn't want any more.  I hear he's trying to sell everything, join a commune.   Of all people Tee, you condemn "rich Republicans" every frellin day, the evils of capitalism, how dare rich people want to get richer.  But Saddam is content with what he has.??...especially the amounts he'd request for something like WMD.  You're bent, Tee.  But, at least you stopped digging the Bush lied wbout WMD hole any deeper. 

Uhh, that would be you, sirs.   Letting us in on Saddam's gambling habits, and what they'll drive him to.  Letting us in on Saddam's insatiable thirst for cash, and what he'll do for it.  

Lemme see, how does that phrase go?...oh yea, I can connect the dots.  And more so, observation of people's actions, especially from a military standpoint.  Saddam was not simply the President of Iraq, he was their military leader, complete with uniform & sidearm.  His military actions indeed included gambling.  To someone who's incapable of connecting the dots, it just looks like reading minds

Right, sirs.  Of course.  Forgive me.  I had forgotten what impressive qualifications you possess in the means and techniques of investigating nuclear explosions and their residues, of intelligence gathering and criminal investigation.  And - - remind me again sirs - - those qualifications are . . . ?

The same ones you're using that make it a forgone conclusion that the U.S. would know it was Saddam's WMD, thus he wouldn't dare let one loose

Uhh, and in terms of Saddam's trying to decide whether or not to give a few nukes to those pesky terrorists, this would enter into his decision-making process how?   

It doesn't.  As I said, he'd probably be looking at the dollar signs, which he could then use to help rebuild his own military complex.  Especially when he could combine it with the corrupted oil for food program, from the UN.  gotta rebuild all those palaces some way



Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 08, 2006, 03:21:54 AM
<<You're kidding right?  Someone with lots of money is content not to want any more.  Yea, Gates doesn't want any more.  I hear he's trying to sell everything, join a commune. >>

No, he's taking suicidal risks.  Playing Russian Roulette for half a billion a shot.  I didn't say rich people don't want more money, I said they don't have to risk anihilation for it.

<<  Of all people Tee, you condemn "rich Republicans" every frellin day, the evils of capitalism, how dare rich people want to get richer.  >>

Did I say they want to risk their lives and their wives' and children's lives to get even richer?  It's pointless to argue with you, your theories are so fucking stupid and out to lunch that it's just a complete waste of my time.

<<But Saddam is content with what he has.??...especially the amounts he'd request for something like WMD. >>

Fucking PAKISTAN has nukes for christ sake.  More than Iraq does.  How much fucking money do you think it takes to get nukes anyway?  And if Saddam with all his oil can't afford to buy nukes, where do you think the fucking terrorists are going to come up with the money that he needs?

 <<You're bent, Tee.  >>  Oh shut the fuck up already.  You're getting boring.

<<But, at least you stopped digging the Bush lied wbout WMD hole any deeper.  >>

Well, someone's sure digging himself into a hole on that one.  You'll be the last man in America to still believe the little prick WASN'T lying.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 08, 2006, 03:32:26 AM
"You'll be the last man in America to still believe the little prick WASN'T lying."



He is sure to outlive me?


Lots of people do not beleive he was lieng, Note that the races for Congress are very close Democrats are comeing out ahead tonight mostly by haveing small percentage gains in a lot of places.

We are still divided very nearly evenly, all that shouting about Lies with no proof offered ...


Yes no proof really

... have had a very small effect.


Most of us are either in the Party already or are rational enough to be persuaded .

You and I are partizans , the swing is the people who watch the partizens and swap when persueded.


Doesn't need to be many altogether , if they are in the right places.


So all this change , can be reversed in two years , unless the persuedeable remain faithfull and this is not their nature.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Amianthus on November 08, 2006, 09:07:16 AM
No, he can connect the dots.  To someone who's incapable of connecting the dots, it just looks like reading minds.

Especially when the dots are non-existant

Why, Sirs, dots like Ford's War Budget. He connects 'em, dontcha know.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 08, 2006, 09:46:03 AM
<<Didn't you tell me that if an Atomic explosion were to occur on American territory or on an ally we should not take action against North Korea without certainty that North Korea was the sorce?>>

Absolutely not.  You are really confused.  Or maybe you just don't recall the details.

We were talking specifically about Krauthammer's moronic proposal that the U.S. should intimidate North Korea by letting them know that they would be nuked in response to ANY nuclear attack on the U.S. whether or not the U.S. could prove they were behind it.

I said that such a policy would guarantee a second nuclear strike on the U.S. by North Korea even if they had nothing to do with the first, since they would know they were gonna get nuked anyway.

What I told you was a specific critique of the moron Krauthammer and his idiotic idea.  Had nothing to do with whether the U.S. should or shouldn't nuke anybody.  That wasn't even on the table for discussion. 

The proposed policy was to scare NK with a threat.  The effect would have been a guaranteed second strike if anyone else on the planet made a first strike.  You probably misrecalled the thread by leaving out Krauthammer's proposal, which was the topic.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 09, 2006, 11:43:11 AM
No, he's taking suicidal risks.  Playing Russian Roulette for half a billion a shot.  I didn't say rich people don't want more money, I said they don't have to risk anihilation for it.

Crazy military dictators are not immune from such, especially since it's neither he, nor anyone directly connected to him doing the attack

<<  Of all people Tee, you condemn "rich Republicans" every frellin day, the evils of capitalism, how dare rich people want to get richer.  >>

Did I say they want to risk their lives and their wives' and children's lives to get even richer?  It's pointless to argue with you, your theories are so fucking stupid and out to lunch that it's just a complete waste of my time.

Saddam has not only consistently risked the lives of his own people, but has taken on killing them in mass from time to time, all by himself.  I'd suggest medication for that overt fear of current reality

Fucking PAKISTAN has nukes for christ sake.  More than Iraq does.  How much fucking money do you think it takes to get nukes anyway?  And if Saddam with all his oil can't afford to buy nukes, where do you think the fucking terrorists are going to come up with the money that he needs?

Why you insist on making this soley about nukes is beyond me.  More of that hole you keep digging.  A) He didn't even have one yet (though as Ami pointed out, there was always the possibility he purchased 1 or more of Russia's missing suitcase nukes), and B) the Chemical & Biologicial WMD Saddam had possessed, and much more the target of terrorists in trying to purchase.  So, do the class a favor, and stop making yourself out to look so desperate in cheery picking only nukes, that even the Intel said Saddam didn't have yet

Well, someone's sure digging himself into a hole on that one.  You'll be the last man in America to still believe the little prick WASN'T lying.

Actually those millions of us with a grasp of the facts will continue to believe Bush didn't lie us into war.  But don't let the facts stop you.  By all means, keep digging
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 09, 2006, 12:10:25 PM
<<  I'd suggest medication for that overt fear of current reality>>

In that case, you'd be drowning in Prozac.
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 09, 2006, 12:46:10 PM
In that case, you'd be drowning in Prozac.

 :D  Keep digging.  You'll be able to start trade negotiations with China any time now
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Michael Tee on November 09, 2006, 01:27:11 PM
<<Actually those millions of us with a grasp of the facts will continue to believe Bush didn't lie us into war. >>

"those millions," eh?  By this time, that should probably be "those hundreds of thousands of us."   When you finally get into the five digits, you'll be eligible for some kind of Republican medal for extreme stupidity above and beyond the call of duty.  BTW, "digging" is for people who are working in earth - - in your case, what I'm trying to clear up is your pure bullshit, and the proper term would be "shovelling."
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: sirs on November 09, 2006, 02:05:38 PM
<<Actually those millions of us with a grasp of the facts will continue to believe Bush didn't lie us into war. >>

"those millions," eh?  By this time, that should probably be "those hundreds of thousands of us."   

Last time I looked, the Republicans across the country were getting votes in the millions, despite losing most of those races.  Want to try again, or just keep digging?
Title: Re: I guess the evidence is in.
Post by: Plane on November 10, 2006, 02:22:44 AM
<<Didn't you tell me that if an Atomic explosion were to occur on American territory or on an ally we should not take action against North Korea without certainty that North Korea was the sorce?>>

Absolutely not.  You are really confused.  Or maybe you just don't recall the details.

We were talking specifically about Krauthammer's moronic proposal that the U.S. should intimidate North Korea by letting them know that they would be nuked in response to ANY nuclear attack on the U.S. whether or not the U.S. could prove they were behind it.

I said that such a policy would guarantee a second nuclear strike on the U.S. by North Korea even if they had nothing to do with the first, since they would know they were gonna get nuked anyway.




What I told you was a specific critique of the moron Krauthammer and his idiotic idea.  Had nothing to do with whether the U.S. should or shouldn't nuke anybody.  That wasn't even on the table for discussion. 

The proposed policy was to scare NK with a threat.  The effect would have been a guaranteed second strike if anyone else on the planet made a first strike.  You probably misrecalled the thread by leaving out Krauthammer's proposal, which was the topic.




There would be no second strike from North Korea if we struck them with enough to make it impossible .


Why should we do any less ?
If we had absolute proof that the bomb was from a particular place , that palce would not admit it and lay their wepons down .

If we get an attack of that nature the retaliation will not be done with revenge in mind , but safety .


Safety is served by reduceing our enemys by one , even if it is the "wrong " one .