A chronicle: Media question honesty of Bush administration

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I find the Bush and Blair quotes in the L.A.Times article especially damning. YMMV.

How so?

The way I read it - they are both in step with what the UN has said. Saddam admitted having WMD - he didn't provide proof that he disposed of the weapons. So the only logical conclusion is that he still has them (or is providing them to others) which seems in-step with both of those quotes.
CkG

Both quotes reaffirm that the alleged weapons of mass distraction were the primary purpose of the war. Blair, in particular, said explicitly, "We did not want this war. But in refusing to give up his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam gave us no choice but to act." Many revisionists have since tried to pretend that this war was about liberating the Iraqi people. That's simply not what the men said.

You and Blair both put Iraq in a position of having to prove a negative, i.e., Iraq doesn't have NBC materials. How do you prove a negative? For example, can you prove to me that you personally don't have chemical agents? You can keep showing me places where they aren't, but I can keep alleging you're hiding them somewhere else. It ultimately boils down to my word against yours, and oh, by the way, I'm the one with far superior forces. If I'm bound and determined to attack you, there's nothing you can do or say to prove to my satisfaction that you don't have those chemical agents. You're damned from the git-go, no matter how wrong I may be.

Saddam Hussein was no choir boy, but that doesn't prove he was guilty of this. Yes, perhaps he should have provided better proof that he destroyed these materials, but what if he simply did not have that proof? What could he possibly have done to satisfy Bush & Co.?

For the record, at least two former Iraqi NBC leaders have said that these materials were to be destroyed. One was the defector who Bush and Powell quoted about all of the NBC materials Iraq "has". Curiously, Bush and Powell missed the next part where he said he had personal knowledge they had since been destroyed. A lot of people here missed this too.

 

[Alistar7]

they quoted the 12,000 page report Saddam submitted to the UN.


The Times ran that pic without verifying it, they only fired him to save and immense lawsuits. They had been called into question by various media watchdogs before this, who also chide Rush for his wonderfull interpretation of "fact". I have to take anything that comes out of their editorial boardrrom with a grain of salt.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Is this the same LA Times who took it upon themselves to merge 2 photos to get the desried effect of a USsoldier pointing his weapon at unarmed civilains? Ever think they had a liberal agenda? Why didn't they report the WMD recipes found there and the dipersion manuals? Was the camp there or not? I NEVER suggested above that camp was linked directly to Baghdad, maybe you should read a little more closely.

All 3 of those are true and have been linked EXTENSIVELY on here, there is a thread on the surrender of the Iraqi scientist who not only claimed the Govt was courting al-Queeda, he also claimed they started shifting WMD to syria in the mid 1990's, also that he worked in the program and amde WMD himself, then he led us to stockpiles of buried precursor chemicals that could make such WMD . He has not been the only one to have also claimed MANY were destroyed ONLY months before the war.

N.Y. Times: Iraqi Biological Weapons Scientist Admits He Lied To U.N. Inspectors

in 1992, when international inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission, or Unscom,
were arriving to ensure that Iraqi officials were complying with their country's pledge to give up chemical,
germ and nuclear weapons. He said military officials had asked him to tell inspectors that he was the head
of a single-cell protein facility. The plant, in fact, had made botulinum toxin and anthrax. . . . His student's legacy is well puiblicized as well, SHE is responsible for most of the WMD the UN could never account for.

The Al-Queda member Powell used as an exampleto the Un NOW in US custody?

Senior Bush administration officials Tuesday said a member of an al Qaeda-affiliated terror group operating in Iraq has been captured by U.S. forces

"Sources said the individual is a member of a group operating in western Baghdad under the leadership of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian believed by the United States to have been the mastermind behind the assassination of American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman last October.

Zarqawi was said to have received medical treatment in Baghdad in May and June of 2002 after being wounded in Afghanistan during the war. His leg was amputated, U.S. officials say, by a surgeon in Iraq.

Before the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed to Zarqawi's al Qaeda-affiliated group that he said was operating inside Baghdad, as evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.

Powell told the U.N. Security Council in early February that after al Qaeda and the Taliban were ousted from Afghanistan, Zarqawi established a camp in northeastern Iraq to train terrorists in using explosives and poisons. "

There was also one arrested along with 5 Baath party members planning on blowing up the most holy mosque in Iraq, that pilgirmage almost did not happen.

That enough for you?

Wait a sec, you mean he was recieving aid from the Iraqi Govt. in Baghdad no less AND he helped set up that terrorist camp? No link, looks like I was wrong, I guess that is a pretty direct link, AL-Queda member flees Afghanistan, stops in home base (Baghdad), gets some help from Saddam's doctors and then goes up north to open that new terror camp,. because "Saddam couldn't have stopped him up there", what about him and huis Jordanian friends operating IN BAGHDAD?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Countless Iraqi civilians!

We lost more on 9-11 than Iraq lost in that war!

Good point. We also lost more in Vietnam, more in Korea, more in each World War, the Civil War, and the Revolutionary War. We lose more people in traffic accidents each year. We lose more people to heart disease each year. Heck, we lose more people to old age each year.

All of which has absolutely NOTHING to do with Iraq! Is there any lie Bush could tell that is so preposterous even you wouldn't believe it? Is that your version of justice; we kill one Iraqi for each American who has died for any random reason having nothing to do with Iraq? God bless America, yee hah!

Hussein had over 10 years to get his sh|t together. He called our bluff and lost. Simple, no?

News flash for you - this wasn't a card game. You're forgiven though, Georgie suffered from the same delusion. Once tiny correction: Saddam called our bluff and thousands of innocent Iraqis and over 100 Americans lost. America shouldn't play games with innocent lives.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: PipBoy

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Is this the same LA Times who took it upon themselves to merge 2 photos to get the desried effect of a USsoldier pointing his weapon at unarmed civilains?

Actually that is the same L.A. Times that fired the photographer who did that and printed a public apology.

Perhaps there was more than one - links please - but no, I believe this was the same L.A.Times where that photographer was fired because he doctored a photo of a soldier directing civilians to safety. He did not doctor the photo to show the soldier pointing a gun; he merged two photos taken a few moments apart to make a more striking composition. Specifically, he combined an image of the soldier with his arm outstretched making a "get down" motion with a similar image taken a few seconds later where a man holding a baby was more in the foreground of the picture. The effect was to make the solider appear more compassionate.

The alteration was harmless, the overall scene was quite real, but the L.A.Time rightly felt it crossed the line. Journalists don't invent the news, no matter how benign their intentions. I think the paper deserves kudos for this.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
they quoted the 12,000 page report Saddam submitted to the UN.

Is this the same report where Bush, et al, complained that Iraq had NOT been forthcoming in providing any information about NBC weapons? Which is it, Iraq did or did not provide this information?

The Times ran that pic without verifying it, they only fired him to save and immense lawsuits. They had been called into question by various media watchdogs before this, who also chide Rush for his wonderfull interpretation of "fact". I have to take anything that comes out of their editorial boardrrom with a grain of salt.

Unless this is a different photo, your statement is simply not true. If you have any links, please post and I'll be happy to admit we're talking about two different things.


Re. your other claims, with all due respect, you need to read more carefully. For example, you said:

Powelll claimed a member of Al-Queda was in Baghdad recieving medical care, his links came from Jordan and he was affiliated with a group that operated openly in western Baghdad. He is now in custody.

But, the article you linked says: "Sources said the individual is a member of a group operating in western Baghdad under the leadership of Abu Musab al Zarqawi." Note the difference - not Zarqawi himself, but a member of his group. The rest of the article is a reiteration of the earlier story re. Zarqawi. Finally, note the last paragraph of the article: " Administration officials say they do not know yet whether the newly captured individual -- as yet not named by U.S. officials -- had any connections with the government of Iraq."


You also said:

So far we have multiple admissions by surrendered Iraq scientists and Govt. figures that the stockpiles of WMD were destroyed only months before the war.

But the article said: ' "There were orders to destroy it," Dr. Hindawi said during interviews conducted today and on Friday. "They destroyed some - whether all or not, I can't say."' Note that there is no timeline associated with his comments, and he last worked in the Iraqi weapons programs "sporadically until the mid-1990's". His most significant involvement was in the 1980's. In other words, he is talking about materials that were destroyed in the mid-1990's at the latest, NOT months before as you claimed. This is confirmed by his subsequent comment that such materials would have decayed by now anyway, even if they weren't destroyed as ordered.

In summary, he is saying the same thing that our secret Iraqi defector told us: Yes, we had NBC weapons, but we were ordered to destroy them. Not quite the smoking gun that some people want to pretend it is.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Squisher:

"You don't think an immediate threat can be beaten before you feel any of that threat's effects?

Not a very good argument, Sir Moon."
---------------------------------
We aren't talking theoretically where some example might exist as you suggest. We are talking about a specific example where we have already seen the WMD are AWOL. There was no immediate threat, not that we magically defeated it. There were no WMD in the theater of battle. They were not used to save Saddams life. If you don't use them then, you don't have them or you would never use them.

This all seems like dejavu all over again... Like the magic bullet theory explaination of how Oswald managed the impossible... and how many bought that... and still do. Because they are by some mystic force compelled to accept all that supports their preconceived notion and reject that which does not support it no matter what common sense would lead an otherwise reasonable and prudent person to conclude.

 

[mastertech01]

I keep seeing so many people making unsubstantiated statements about the numbers of civilians killed in this war. And all of you will never know exactly how many died at the hands of the coalition.

One thing I DO NOT hear is appreciation of the fact that our BLOOD THIRSTY government showed mercy on all those remaining holdouts in the north, granting them a negotiated surrender, most of of which were simply told to go home and sparing the civilian populations of those cities another week of bombing and death and destruction on a massive scale. Hell they could have made such a blood bath there, and even in Bagdad, but this did not happen. Maybe our coalition isnt as Evil as these people would love to prove us to be.

All in all, anyone even with the slightest of moderate view would see all this hullaballoo is about Bush, and thier hatred of him.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
I keep seeing so many people making unsubstantiated statements about the numbers of civilians killed in this war. And all of you will never know exactly how many died at the hands of the coalition.

And why is that we don't know? Might it have something to do with our government refusing to count our victims?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
I keep seeing so many people making unsubstantiated statements about the numbers of civilians killed in this war. And all of you will never know exactly how many died at the hands of the coalition.

One thing I DO NOT hear is appreciation of the fact that our BLOOD THIRSTY government showed mercy on all those remaining holdouts in the north, granting them a negotiated surrender, most of of which were simply told to go home and sparing the civilian populations of those cities another week of bombing and death and destruction on a massive scale. Hell they could have made such a blood bath there, and even in Bagdad, but this did not happen. Maybe our coalition isnt as Evil as these people would love to prove us to be.

All in all, anyone even with the slightest of moderate view would see all this hullaballoo is about Bush, and thier hatred of him.

I guess we have to determine collectivly what number of innocent Iraqi civilians killed is the threshold beyond which the causation is deemed to be antihumane..
Regarding the surrender.... I thought it was reasonable... on the part of the Iraqi to save American lives as well as the Americans to accept it to save Iraqi lives... and I'd bet the civilians side with both sides on this..

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
More on counting casualties

Holy crap, this pure genius! Why didn't I think of this? Hell, let's factor in all the Iraqi lives saved by not being spirited off in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again. Why, if my estimations are correct, we'll have a net INCREASE in Iraqi civilian lives because of this war! Fabulous!!

Then we better invade Texas too. I think the cost of soldiers' lives could be made up for in the number of death penalty elections alone!

Get it through your head, hindsight is 20-20. GW pushed this war on the grounds of WMD, and now that he can't find any he's shimmied over to putting more emphasis on the issue of "liberating the Iraqi people." You, and I, and the rest of the American public are being manipulated and you refuse to open your eyes.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
6k number is a projection as:

1) Hospitals are full of people that have been injured - and some are still dying.
2) They haven't dug out the rubble - yet.
3) We are not even trying to count Iraqi Civilians.
4) People are still being shot.
5) We are going to be there for quite a while longer.
6) More are going to die - on both sides.

Check back in a couple years when the details are know.

I wonder how many tens of thousands of shallow graves they still have to find and uncover from the regime?

Again you use this pointless circular logic to justify the American offensive. Saddam kills people, so we can kill a few to make him not be able to kill people any more? Fallacy in its purest form.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Countless Iraqi civilians!

We lost more on 9-11 than Iraq lost in that war!

Assuming that's true (which it most likely will not be, as there were more civilians killed in the Afghanistan conflict than in 9/11 and I presume there will be more than that from this war, although there's no way to tell at the moment), that argument is a steaming pile of dung. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and if you think so you're just pulling the wool farther down, down, down. Please point me to some proof other than "Saddam and Osama met once" or "they both wanted to destroy the US" (don't forget that Rummy met with Saddam too...)

Hussein had over 10 years to get his sh|t together. He called our bluff and lost. Simple, no?

No, not simple. When you try to simplify a complex issue into two sentences, you're never going to get it right.

You left wing whiners are going to have to find something else to bitch about, because day by day it's becoming more and more apparent this action was long overdue. Just as apparent that the UN is as fvcking useless as a tit on a bull.

How exactly is it becoming apparent that this "action was long overdue"? Our justification for it, 1441, still has not been proven, as we have found no WMD to date. If anything, our international credibility is waning "day by day"

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
6k number is a projection as:

1) Hospitals are full of people that have been injured - and some are still dying.
2) They haven't dug out the rubble - yet.
3) We are not even trying to count Iraqi Civilians.
4) People are still being shot.
5) We are going to be there for quite a while longer.
6) More are going to die - on both sides.

Check back in a couple years when the details are know.

I wonder how many tens of thousands of shallow graves they still have to find and uncover from the regime?

Again you use this pointless circular logic to justify the American offensive. Saddam kills people, so we can kill a few to make him not be able to kill people any more? Fallacy in its purest form.

At least we know you are unhappy about Saddam being out of power.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
6k number is a projection as:

1) Hospitals are full of people that have been injured - and some are still dying.
2) They haven't dug out the rubble - yet.
3) We are not even trying to count Iraqi Civilians.
4) People are still being shot.
5) We are going to be there for quite a while longer.
6) More are going to die - on both sides.

Check back in a couple years when the details are know.

I wonder how many tens of thousands of shallow graves they still have to find and uncover from the regime?

Again you use this pointless circular logic to justify the American offensive. Saddam kills people, so we can kill a few to make him not be able to kill people any more? Fallacy in its purest form.

At least we know you are unhappy about Saddam being out of power.

At least we know the only way you can discuss a topic is to put words in the mouths of other people...Do you ever have anything real to say?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
6k number is a projection as:

1) Hospitals are full of people that have been injured - and some are still dying.
2) They haven't dug out the rubble - yet.
3) We are not even trying to count Iraqi Civilians.
4) People are still being shot.
5) We are going to be there for quite a while longer.
6) More are going to die - on both sides.

Check back in a couple years when the details are know.

I wonder how many tens of thousands of shallow graves they still have to find and uncover from the regime?

Again you use this pointless circular logic to justify the American offensive. Saddam kills people, so we can kill a few to make him not be able to kill people any more? Fallacy in its purest form.

At least we know you are unhappy about Saddam being out of power.

At least we know the only way you can discuss a topic is to put words in the mouths of other people...Do you ever have anything real to say?

Quite often. Do you always have to harp on the negative and never the positive. You may not agree with president or the war, but I dont know how you can argue that the end result is not a positive thing for the Iraqi people.

 

[EXman]

Again you use this pointless circular logic to justify the American offensive. Saddam kills people, so we can kill a few to make him not be able to kill people any more? Fallacy in its purest form.

Are you serious? You think we killed even the smallest fraction of people that the Stalinist Saddam Regime did? Pahleez... we'd have to be there another decade in war to even be close. Or do you think a few hundred or a couple thousand is just as bad as tens or hundreds of thousands being killed over the past 26 years? Considering it was less than a month I the the average Iraqi made out pretty good and will keep getting better as things normalize. Freedom aint free brotha remember that the next time you disrespect the people who gave their lives in Iraq and won't be coming home.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: charrison

Quite often. Do you always have to harp on the negative and never the positive. You may not agree with president or the war, but I dont know how you can argue that the end result is not a positive thing for the Iraqi people.

Did I say that the end result isn't positive for the Iraqi people? I don't know if you've ever heard of a little book called THE PRINCE, or this interesting guy named Machiavelli, but all this "well as long as it's good now" business is eerily similar. And Machiavelli wasn't exactly a nice guy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Quite often. Do you always have to harp on the negative and never the positive. You may not agree with president or the war, but I dont know how you can argue that the end result is not a positive thing for the Iraqi people.

Did I say that the end result isn't positive for the Iraqi people? I don't know if you've ever heard of a little book called THE PRINCE, or this interesting guy named Machiavelli, but all this "well as long as it's good now" business is eerily similar. And Machiavelli wasn't exactly a nice guy.

Do you think the people of Iraq would rather have president Bush or president Saddam?

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: charrison
Quite often. Do you always have to harp on the negative and never the positive. You may not agree with president or the war, but I dont know how you can argue that the end result is not a positive thing for the Iraqi people.

Plenty of other countries whose populace would probably be better off if we wiped out their governments, i.e. China. Doesn't mean we should make up stuff to give us an excuse to do so.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Quite often. Do you always have to harp on the negative and never the positive. You may not agree with president or the war, but I dont know how you can argue that the end result is not a positive thing for the Iraqi people.

Did I say that the end result isn't positive for the Iraqi people? I don't know if you've ever heard of a little book called THE PRINCE, or this interesting guy named Machiavelli, but all this "well as long as it's good now" business is eerily similar. And Machiavelli wasn't exactly a nice guy.

Do you think the people of Iraq would rather have president Bush or president Saddam?

You seem to have missed everything I said.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Quite often. Do you always have to harp on the negative and never the positive. You may not agree with president or the war, but I dont know how you can argue that the end result is not a positive thing for the Iraqi people.

Did I say that the end result isn't positive for the Iraqi people? I don't know if you've ever heard of a little book called THE PRINCE, or this interesting guy named Machiavelli, but all this "well as long as it's good now" business is eerily similar. And Machiavelli wasn't exactly a nice guy.

Do you think the people of Iraq would rather have president Bush or president Saddam?

You seem to have missed everything I said.

I did not miss anything. The implication you were making was quite clear.

 

[EXman]

I have to remember not to post in the middle of a pissing contest! go at it boys

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Quite often. Do you always have to harp on the negative and never the positive. You may not agree with president or the war, but I dont know how you can argue that the end result is not a positive thing for the Iraqi people.

Did I say that the end result isn't positive for the Iraqi people? I don't know if you've ever heard of a little book called THE PRINCE, or this interesting guy named Machiavelli, but all this "well as long as it's good now" business is eerily similar. And Machiavelli wasn't exactly a nice guy.

Do you think the people of Iraq would rather have president Bush or president Saddam?

You seem to have missed everything I said.

I did not miss anything. The implication you were making was quite clear.

I beg to differ; I hate Saddam just as much as the next guy is obligated to, and I am no less happy to see him gone than you are. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to feel mixed about an event. As stated a few posts above, there are many countries in the world that would do better without their current governments, but that doesn't give us free reign to change them as we see fit, and it especially does not give us free reign to make up evidence to do so (as it appears so far).

To quote President Bush from the 2000 campaign, "I will not use our military for nation-building," "I don't think it's our place to go around the world saying, 'this is the way we do it, and we're right, so you have to do it too'"

Oh, the irony of it all.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: charrison

Quite often. Do you always have to harp on the negative and never the positive. You may not agree with president or the war, but I dont know how you can argue that the end result is not a positive thing for the Iraqi people.

Did I say that the end result isn't positive for the Iraqi people? I don't know if you've ever heard of a little book called THE PRINCE, or this interesting guy named Machiavelli, but all this "well as long as it's good now" business is eerily similar. And Machiavelli wasn't exactly a nice guy.

Do you think the people of Iraq would rather have president Bush or president Saddam?

You seem to have missed everything I said.

I did not miss anything. The implication you were making was quite clear.

I beg to differ; I hate Saddam just as much as the next guy is obligated to, and I am no less happy to see him gone than you are. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to feel mixed about an event. As stated a few posts above, there are many countries in the world that would do better without their current governments, but that doesn't give us free reign to change them as we see fit, and it especially does not give us free reign to make up evidence to do so (as it appears so far).

To quote President Bush from the 2000 campaign, "I will not use our military for nation-building," "I don't think it's our place to go around the world saying, 'this is the way we do it, and we're right, so you have to do it too'"

Oh, the irony of it all.

The only evidence missing at this point is WMD and that will turn up soon enough. AT this point I a month has not passed since the majority of the shooting has stopped and the US has several thousand places it wants to inspect. Scientest are coming forward for interviews about weapons development and documents are being found. It will require more than a month to determine if we were sold a bill of good on WMD.

However, the Iraqi links to terror groups seem undisputable at this point.