Blix interview: No WMD's in Iraq!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zrom999

Banned
Apr 13, 2003
698
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Yeah that must be it. The air traffic over Iraq or the U2's long history of being vulnerable to AA or SAM's and of course the UN inspectors who are infamous for their violent interrogation tactics.


Ladies and Gentleman I think we have found Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf.

Hahaha...
No, not the Iraqi Information Minister, but rather someone who prefers not to let Bush do the thinking for him. Yeah, thats right, thinks for himself... an endangered species these days.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
No blix did not have full access. Inspectors NEVER had full access for over 10 years. Yeah, we cut the "inspections" short, if you call many years of inspections short
rolleye.gif

Again - you are not hearing me. If an "inspector" isn't given FULL access how can he state so difinitively that "there are no weapons"? How many palaces were "off limits"? or did you forget about those;) Or maybe you forgot how closely Saddam kept track of the "inspectors" and kept atleast one step ahead of them.

Oh and if that is such twisted logic then why did the UN even send inspectors in "to find" WMD since clearly there aren't any
rolleye.gif
Oh wait, I thought the UN PASSED MULTIPLE RESOLUTIONS STATING THAT HE MUST GET RID OF AND SHOW PROOF(of the destruction) OF HIS WMDs, but maybe that doesn't matter to you.

If you want to believe a murderer like Saddam instead of the US, UK, and UN go ahead, I won't stop you.:p

CkG

UN weapsons inspection report dated Feb. 14, 2003

BLIX'S POINTS
-No convincing evidence that Iraqis have known in advance of inspectors' plans
-Iraq has accepted an offer to talk with South African experts on disarmament
-U.N. weapons inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but won't rule out the possibility that they exist
-Iraq must account for status of anthrax, VX nerve agent and long-range missiles
-Not clear that U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell conclusively demonstrated illicit movement of arms
-Private interviews with four Iraqi scientists were helpful

ELBARADEI'S POINTS
-Inspectors have so far found no evidence of nuclear weapons but are still investigating
-Iraq has provided immediate access to all inspection locations
-International Atomic Energy Agency will increase inspectors and support staff
-Iraq has provided documentation on several issues, but the documents did not fully clarify the matters
-Iraqi cooperation "will speed up the process," though it is possible to complete inspections without cooperation




 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
If you want to believe a murderer like Saddam instead of the US, UK, and UN go ahead, I won't stop you.
----------------------------
Thanks CAD, How bout if I tell you I put them all in the same book when it comes to telling the truth. Your President and his administration lied to you about why we needed to go to war. They killed American soldiers by lying. They will never find the WMD Bush wanred of because they aren't there. You can't hide a truth so massive unless it's a lie. It was a lie. Bush has been playing stump the chump from day one. When you gonna wake up and stop supporting a lie, a killing lie.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
My German is a little rusty, but here goes: Mein leiben, schnell farvegneugen volksvagen, schnell schnell!!

:D
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Yeah that must be it. The air traffic over Iraq or the U2's long history of being vulnerable to AA or SAM's and of course the UN inspectors who are infamous for their violent interrogation tactics.


Ladies and Gentleman I think we have found Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf.

Hahaha...
No, not the Iraqi Information Minister, but rather someone who prefers not to let Bush do the thinking for him. Yeah, thats right, thinks for himself... an endangered species these days.

Care to give an example. I haven't read all of your posts but nothing you've posted in this thread proves your claim.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: rchiu
No blix did not have full access. Inspectors NEVER had full access for over 10 years. Yeah, we cut the "inspections" short, if you call many years of inspections short
rolleye.gif

Again - you are not hearing me. If an "inspector" isn't given FULL access how can he state so difinitively that "there are no weapons"? How many palaces were "off limits"? or did you forget about those;) Or maybe you forgot how closely Saddam kept track of the "inspectors" and kept atleast one step ahead of them.

Oh and if that is such twisted logic then why did the UN even send inspectors in "to find" WMD since clearly there aren't any
rolleye.gif
Oh wait, I thought the UN PASSED MULTIPLE RESOLUTIONS STATING THAT HE MUST GET RID OF AND SHOW PROOF(of the destruction) OF HIS WMDs, but maybe that doesn't matter to you.

If you want to believe a murderer like Saddam instead of the US, UK, and UN go ahead, I won't stop you.:p

CkG

UN weapsons inspection report dated Feb. 14, 2003

BLIX'S POINTS
-No convincing evidence that Iraqis have known in advance of inspectors' plans
-Iraq has accepted an offer to talk with South African experts on disarmament
-U.N. weapons inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but won't rule out the possibility that they exist
-Iraq must account for status of anthrax, VX nerve agent and long-range missiles
-Not clear that U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell conclusively demonstrated illicit movement of arms
-Private interviews with four Iraqi scientists were helpful

ELBARADEI'S POINTS
-Inspectors have so far found no evidence of nuclear weapons but are still investigating
-Iraq has provided immediate access to all inspection locations
-International Atomic Energy Agency will increase inspectors and support staff
-Iraq has provided documentation on several issues, but the documents did not fully clarify the matters
-Iraqi cooperation "will speed up the process," though it is possible to complete inspections without cooperation

Until Dec 4 2002 (IIRC) there was no attempt at "suprise" visits to saddams palaces that resulted in a complete inspection. Even at that - they still had to wait for "permission" at the gate. How many years of inspections? Oh yeah that's right;) And the only reason Saddam even gave us that, the U2 fly overs, and a couple other morsels was because we were lining up at the border waiting to go in. We could have waited longer than we did to attack Iraq, but Iraq also could have just complied with the resolutions A LONG TIME AGO;)

So if on the 14th of Feb Blix said
"-U.N. weapons inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but won't rule out the possibility that they exist
-Iraq must account for status of anthrax, VX nerve agent and long-range missiles"
but now he says there definately aren't WMD? How long was it between feb14 and the start of the war? Boy, Blix must be a speed demon to inspect the rest of Iraq in that amount of time.
rolleye.gif

I wonder if Blix still thinks they have anthrax, VX, and long-range missles then;) He said Iraq hasn't proven that they were destroyed so logic says that they still exist or did he find that information out on his whirlwind inspection of the country;)


CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: rchiu
No blix did not have full access. Inspectors NEVER had full access for over 10 years. Yeah, we cut the "inspections" short, if you call many years of inspections short
rolleye.gif

Again - you are not hearing me. If an "inspector" isn't given FULL access how can he state so difinitively that "there are no weapons"? How many palaces were "off limits"? or did you forget about those;) Or maybe you forgot how closely Saddam kept track of the "inspectors" and kept atleast one step ahead of them.

Oh and if that is such twisted logic then why did the UN even send inspectors in "to find" WMD since clearly there aren't any
rolleye.gif
Oh wait, I thought the UN PASSED MULTIPLE RESOLUTIONS STATING THAT HE MUST GET RID OF AND SHOW PROOF(of the destruction) OF HIS WMDs, but maybe that doesn't matter to you.

If you want to believe a murderer like Saddam instead of the US, UK, and UN go ahead, I won't stop you.:p

CkG

UN weapsons inspection report dated Feb. 14, 2003

BLIX'S POINTS
-No convincing evidence that Iraqis have known in advance of inspectors' plans
-Iraq has accepted an offer to talk with South African experts on disarmament
-U.N. weapons inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but won't rule out the possibility that they exist
-Iraq must account for status of anthrax, VX nerve agent and long-range missiles
-Not clear that U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell conclusively demonstrated illicit movement of arms
-Private interviews with four Iraqi scientists were helpful

ELBARADEI'S POINTS
-Inspectors have so far found no evidence of nuclear weapons but are still investigating
-Iraq has provided immediate access to all inspection locations
-International Atomic Energy Agency will increase inspectors and support staff
-Iraq has provided documentation on several issues, but the documents did not fully clarify the matters
-Iraqi cooperation "will speed up the process," though it is possible to complete inspections without cooperation

Until Dec 4 2002 (IIRC) there was no attempt at "surprise" visits to saddams palaces that resulted in a complete inspection. Even at that - they still had to wait for "permission" at the gate. How many years of inspections? Oh yeah that's right;) And the only reason Saddam even gave us that, the U2 fly overs, and a couple other morsels was because we were lining up at the border waiting to go in. We could have waited longer than we did to attack Iraq, but Iraq also could have just complied with the resolutions A LONG TIME AGO;)

So if on the 14th of Feb Blix said
"-U.N. weapons inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but won't rule out the possibility that they exist
-Iraq must account for status of anthrax, VX nerve agent and long-range missiles"
but now he says there definitely aren't WMD? How long was it between feb14 and the start of the war? Boy, Blix must be a speed demon to inspect the rest of Iraq in that amount of time.
rolleye.gif

I wonder if Blix still thinks they have anthrax, VX, and long-range missles then;) He said Iraq hasn't proven that they were destroyed so logic says that they still exist or did he find that information out on his whirlwind inspection of the country;)


CkG

We went to war and attacked a soverign nation because Bush became frustrated and lost patience. So Saddam was not cooperative A LONG TIME AGO. Well, that's a damn poor reason to start a shooting war. He was no threat. Bush lied about WMD's, a term his administration invented for the purpose of fostering support for his war. A piss poor precedent to set for the world.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If you want to believe a murderer like Saddam instead of the US, UK, and UN go ahead, I won't stop you.
----------------------------
Thanks CAD, How bout if I tell you I put them all in the same book when it comes to telling the truth. Your President and his administration lied to you about why we needed to go to war. They killed American soldiers by lying. They will never find the WMD Bush wanred of because they aren't there. You can't hide a truth so massive unless it's a lie. It was a lie. Bush has been playing stump the chump from day one. When you gonna wake up and stop supporting a lie, a killing lie.

When are you going to stop spreading lies about the 2000 election?;)

Bush killed American soldiers? How about Iraqis killed them. Why don't you start blaming the real reason for this mess(Saddam), instead of letting your hatred for Bush blind you.

"They will never find the WMD Bush wanred of because they aren't there." - maybe so, but are you also saying that Saddam never had them? Clinton sure thought they were there, the UN sure thought they were there but gee guess we should just blame Bush:confused:
rolleye.gif


CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If you want to believe a murderer like Saddam instead of the US, UK, and UN go ahead, I won't stop you.
----------------------------
Thanks CAD, How bout if I tell you I put them all in the same book when it comes to telling the truth. Your President and his administration lied to you about why we needed to go to war. They killed American soldiers by lying. They will never find the WMD Bush wanred of because they aren't there. You can't hide a truth so massive unless it's a lie. It was a lie. Bush has been playing stump the chump from day one. When you gonna wake up and stop supporting a lie, a killing lie.

When are you going to stop spreading lies about the 2000 election?;)

Bush killed American soldiers? How about Iraqis killed them. Why don't you start blaming the real reason for this mess(Saddam), instead of letting your hatred for Bush blind you.

"They will never find the WMD Bush wanred of because they aren't there." - maybe so, but are you also saying that Saddam never had them? Clinton sure thought they were there, the UN sure thought they were there but gee guess we should just blame Bush:confused:
rolleye.gif


CkG

So David did not kill Uriah? Ahh I see. Completely justified. You can look up the reference.
 

Zrom999

Banned
Apr 13, 2003
698
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Yeah that must be it. The air traffic over Iraq or the U2's long history of being vulnerable to AA or SAM's and of course the UN inspectors who are infamous for their violent interrogation tactics.


Ladies and Gentleman I think we have found Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf.

Hahaha...
No, not the Iraqi Information Minister, but rather someone who prefers not to let Bush do the thinking for him. Yeah, thats right, thinks for himself... an endangered species these days.

Care to give an example. I haven't read all of your posts but nothing you've posted in this thread proves your claim.


Claim? Of what? That I'm not Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf? Or I don't let Bush think for me?
If you had any common sense I wouldn't need to prove these.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If you want to believe a murderer like Saddam instead of the US, UK, and UN go ahead, I won't stop you.
----------------------------
Thanks CAD, How bout if I tell you I put them all in the same book when it comes to telling the truth. Your President and his administration lied to you about why we needed to go to war. They killed American soldiers by lying. They will never find the WMD Bush wanred of because they aren't there. You can't hide a truth so massive unless it's a lie. It was a lie. Bush has been playing stump the chump from day one. When you gonna wake up and stop supporting a lie, a killing lie.

When are you going to stop spreading lies about the 2000 election?;)

Bush killed American soldiers? How about Iraqis killed them. Why don't you start blaming the real reason for this mess(Saddam), instead of letting your hatred for Bush blind you.

"They will never find the WMD Bush wanred of because they aren't there." - maybe so, but are you also saying that Saddam never had them? Clinton sure thought they were there, the UN sure thought they were there but gee guess we should just blame Bush:confused:
rolleye.gif


CkG

So David did not kill Uriah? Ahh I see. Completely justified. You can look up the reference.

I know of your reference;)

David's intent was to send Uriah off to be killed so he could take Bathsheba for his wife.

So are you saying that Bush send soldier off to be killed so he could marry their wives, girlfreinds, or lovers?

Ok
rolleye.gif


CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
So are you saying that Bush send soldier off to be killed so he could marry their wives, girlfreinds, or lovers?
---------------------------------
Are you saying you're wearing etech's pink underware?
 

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: rchiu
No blix did not have full access. Inspectors NEVER had full access for over 10 years. Yeah, we cut the "inspections" short, if you call many years of inspections short
rolleye.gif

Again - you are not hearing me. If an "inspector" isn't given FULL access how can he state so difinitively that "there are no weapons"? How many palaces were "off limits"? or did you forget about those;) Or maybe you forgot how closely Saddam kept track of the "inspectors" and kept atleast one step ahead of them.

Oh and if that is such twisted logic then why did the UN even send inspectors in "to find" WMD since clearly there aren't any
rolleye.gif
Oh wait, I thought the UN PASSED MULTIPLE RESOLUTIONS STATING THAT HE MUST GET RID OF AND SHOW PROOF(of the destruction) OF HIS WMDs, but maybe that doesn't matter to you.

If you want to believe a murderer like Saddam instead of the US, UK, and UN go ahead, I won't stop you.:p

CkG

UN weapsons inspection report dated Feb. 14, 2003

BLIX'S POINTS
-No convincing evidence that Iraqis have known in advance of inspectors' plans
-Iraq has accepted an offer to talk with South African experts on disarmament
-U.N. weapons inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but won't rule out the possibility that they exist
-Iraq must account for status of anthrax, VX nerve agent and long-range missiles
-Not clear that U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell conclusively demonstrated illicit movement of arms
-Private interviews with four Iraqi scientists were helpful

ELBARADEI'S POINTS
-Inspectors have so far found no evidence of nuclear weapons but are still investigating
-Iraq has provided immediate access to all inspection locations
-International Atomic Energy Agency will increase inspectors and support staff
-Iraq has provided documentation on several issues, but the documents did not fully clarify the matters
-Iraqi cooperation "will speed up the process," though it is possible to complete inspections without cooperation

Until Dec 4 2002 (IIRC) there was no attempt at "surprise" visits to saddams palaces that resulted in a complete inspection. Even at that - they still had to wait for "permission" at the gate. How many years of inspections? Oh yeah that's right;) And the only reason Saddam even gave us that, the U2 fly overs, and a couple other morsels was because we were lining up at the border waiting to go in. We could have waited longer than we did to attack Iraq, but Iraq also could have just complied with the resolutions A LONG TIME AGO;)

So if on the 14th of Feb Blix said
"-U.N. weapons inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but won't rule out the possibility that they exist
-Iraq must account for status of anthrax, VX nerve agent and long-range missiles"
but now he says there definitely aren't WMD? How long was it between feb14 and the start of the war? Boy, Blix must be a speed demon to inspect the rest of Iraq in that amount of time.
rolleye.gif

I wonder if Blix still thinks they have anthrax, VX, and long-range missles then;) He said Iraq hasn't proven that they were destroyed so logic says that they still exist or did he find that information out on his whirlwind inspection of the country;)


CkG

We went to war and attacked a soverign nation because Bush became frustrated and lost patience. So Saddam was not cooperative A LONG TIME AGO. Well, that's a damn poor reason to start a shooting war. He was no threat. Bush lied about WMD's, a term his administration invented for the purpose of fostering support for his war. A piss poor precedent to set for the world.

I don't see how he lied when Sadaam said he had liter upon liters of Anthrax... Where's that?

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So are you saying that Bush send soldier off to be killed so he could marry their wives, girlfreinds, or lovers?
---------------------------------
Are you saying you're wearing etech's pink underware?

Shhh...I thought that was our little secret moony.

:p
CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If you want to believe a murderer like Saddam instead of the US, UK, and UN go ahead, I won't stop you.
----------------------------
Thanks CAD, How bout if I tell you I put them all in the same book when it comes to telling the truth. Your President and his administration lied to you about why we needed to go to war. They killed American soldiers by lying. They will never find the WMD Bush wanred of because they aren't there. You can't hide a truth so massive unless it's a lie. It was a lie. Bush has been playing stump the chump from day one. When you gonna wake up and stop supporting a lie, a killing lie.

When are you going to stop spreading lies about the 2000 election?;)

Bush killed American soldiers? How about Iraqis killed them. Why don't you start blaming the real reason for this mess(Saddam), instead of letting your hatred for Bush blind you.

"They will never find the WMD Bush wanred of because they aren't there." - maybe so, but are you also saying that Saddam never had them? Clinton sure thought they were there, the UN sure thought they were there but gee guess we should just blame Bush:confused:
rolleye.gif


CkG

So David did not kill Uriah? Ahh I see. Completely justified. You can look up the reference.

I know of your reference;)

David's intent was to send Uriah off to be killed so he could take Bathsheba for his wife.

So are you saying that Bush send soldier off to be killed so he could marry their wives, girlfreinds, or lovers?

Ok
rolleye.gif


CkG


Tsk. Tsk. only get a 4 out of 10 on the "duck the question" scale
:D
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Prove Bush Lied....

A difficult task indeed. But, not insurmountable.

Bush said Saddam had WMD at the time of the invasion or near abouts... to the extent he (Bush) has told the truth he has not lied... the proof is in the pudding... if the truth prevails the lie cannot. Today the truth has not been established so the lie prevails.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: HJD1
Prove Bush Lied....

A difficult task indeed. But, not insurmountable.

Bush said Saddam had WMD at the time of the invasion or near abouts... to the extent he (Bush) has told the truth he has not lied... the proof is in the pudding... if the truth prevails the lie cannot. Today the truth has not been established so the lie prevails.


Who could possibly refute that kind of logic. I'm convinced.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: HJD1
Prove Bush Lied....

A difficult task indeed. But, not insurmountable.

Bush said Saddam had WMD at the time of the invasion or near abouts... to the extent he (Bush) has told the truth he has not lied... the proof is in the pudding... if the truth prevails the lie cannot. Today the truth has not been established so the lie prevails.


Who could possibly refute that kind of logic. I'm convinced.

And don't you think ya oughta be. ;) Extreme example... if some how every inch of Iraq could be investigated and still no WMD were found everyone would have to admit they are not there. They may have been. But, not now. They may be in the hills of Afganistan or in the Euphrates or elsewhere. Bush may have told the truth and may be supported by intel but, with the deep convictions of the polar left that part don't matter any more. In order to shut up the folks who doubt his word he must produce proof of truth or he may lose the independent voter who is needed to secure 2004. Plausable denial is not sufficient at this point.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: HJD1
Prove Bush Lied....

A difficult task indeed. But, not insurmountable.

Bush said Saddam had WMD at the time of the invasion or near abouts... to the extent he (Bush) has told the truth he has not lied... the proof is in the pudding... if the truth prevails the lie cannot. Today the truth has not been established so the lie prevails.

There was a thread about this a few weeks ago. Here is a repost of articles I found with links and brief excerpts. It is a fact that Bush and his administration said many things that were untrue or highly distorted. One can always question whether these were intentional lies or merely incompetent ignorance.
From the L.A. Times, Are We Dumb or Just Numb?
Forget truth. That is the message from our government and its apologists in the media who insist that the Iraq invasion is a great success story even though it was based on a lie.

In the statement broadcast to the Iraqi people after the invasion was launched, President Bush stated: "The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world." To which Tony Blair added: "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."

That claim of urgency - requiring us to short-circuit the U.N. weapons inspectors - has proved to be a whopper of a falsehood.
[ ... ]
From the Miami Herald, Did our leaders lie to us? Do we even care?
[ ... ]
Just a few weeks ago, any statement from me that Bush's case for war was riddled with inconsistencies and illogic would have brought swift and fierce condemnation from this fellow.

Now, basking in the glow of military conquest -- and confronted by a thus-far futile search for chemical and biological weapons -- this hawk breezily conceded the point while also waving it away as inconsequential.

Have we become a country that wears its hypocrisy openly and proudly?
[ ... ]
From the NY Times (thanks, Moonie), Matters of Emphasis
We were not lying," a Bush administration official told ABC News. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." The official was referring to the way the administration hyped the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States. According to the ABC report, the real reason for the war was that the administration "wanted to make a statement." And why Iraq? "Officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target."

A British newspaper, The Independent, reports that "intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war." One "high-level source" told the paper that "they ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat."
[ ... ]
From The Nation, Weapons of Mass Delusion?
Perhaps Saddam did have lots of WMDs, and perhaps the United States will find them. Not a day goes by, it seems, without a front-page announcement of their discovery that is retracted, on page B18, the next morning. Meanwhile, as David Corn reports on page 11, the hunt for WMDs is hardly proceeding with the seriousness and singlemindedness one might expect, given how impatient Bush was with poor Hans Blix. After all, if they are out there and we don't find them quick, then someone else--a Baath party loyalist, a renegade scientist, Al Qaeda--might get hold of them. Oh, but I'm forgetting--they're in Syria.

[ ... ]
From the New York Times, Missing in Action: Truth
Consider the now-disproved claims by President Bush and Colin Powell that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger so it could build nuclear weapons. As Seymour Hersh noted in The New Yorker, the claims were based on documents that had been forged so amateurishly that they should never have been taken seriously.

Another example is the abuse of intelligence from Hussein Kamel, a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein and head of Iraq's biological weapons program until his defection in 1995. Top British and American officials kept citing information from Mr. Kamel as evidence of a huge secret Iraqi program, even though Mr. Kamel had actually emphasized that Iraq had mostly given up its W.M.D. program in the early 1990's. Glen Rangwala, a British Iraq expert, says the transcript of Mr. Kamel's debriefing was leaked because insiders resented the way politicians were misleading the public.

[ ... ]
From the L.A. Times, Karl Rove: Counting Votes While the Bombs Drop
Karl Rove led the nation to war to improve the political prospects of George W. Bush. I know how surreal that sounds. But I also know it is true.
[ ... ]
The cause of the war in Iraq was not just about Saddam Hussein or weapons of mass destruction or Al Qaeda links to Iraq. Those may have been the stated causes, but every good lie should have a germ of truth. No, this was mostly a product of Rove's usual prescience. He looked around and saw that the economy was anemic and people were complaining about the president's inability to find Osama bin Laden. In another corner, the neoconservatives in the Cabinet were itching to launch ships and planes to the Mideast and take control of Iraq. Rove converged the dynamics of the times. He convinced the president to connect Hussein to Bin Laden, even if the CIA could not.
[ ... ]
From the San Francisco Chronicle, Bush will say anything -- no lie
"Bill Clinton lies about big things and does it very well; Al Gore lies about little things and does it very badly. None of his fibs really amount to much, but they remind voters of what they don't like about Clinton. With Bush, voters see a decent, likable and truthful candidate, but they're not sure he's up to the job." -- Charlie Cook, National Journal, Oct. 28, 2000 .

AS THIS quotation from one of America's best nonpartisan political analysts demonstrates, George W. Bush's 2000 campaign for the presidency was based in large part on the idea that Bush was honest while Clinton and Gore were liars. The phrase "little lies" stuck to Gore early, and he never shook it.

All of which makes it surprising that the media do not pay more attention to the ways in which Bush and his White House say whatever is necessary, even if they have to admit later that what they said the first time wasn't exactly true.

[ ... ]

Then there's the president's claim that his dividend tax cut is about creating jobs in a sluggish American economy. If you take the president's statements at face value, each new job created by his tax cut would cost the government $550,000 in lost revenues -- about 17 times the salary of the average American worker.

Since there have to be cheaper ways to create jobs, should we really believe that the president believes that his latest tax cut is about employment? Isn't it clear by now that he'll say anything to win support for a new tax cut?
From the L.A. Times, A Nuclear Road of No Return
On Sunday, the Washington Post wrote the obituary for the United States' effort to find Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. "Frustrated, U.S. Arms Team to Leave Iraq," read the headline, confirming what has become an embarrassing truth - that the central rationale for the invasion and occupation of oil-rich Iraq was in fact one of history's great frauds.

The arms inspectors "are winding down operations without finding proof that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms," reported the Post, putting the lie to Colin Powell's Feb. 6 claim at the United Nations that Iraq possessed a functioning program to build nuclear bombs and had hoarded hundreds of tons of chemical and biological materials.

[ ... ]

What's going on here? Having failed to stop a gang of marauders armed with nothing more intimidating than box cutters, the U.S. is now using the "war on terror" to pursue a long-held hawkish Republican dream of a "winnable nuclear war," as the president's father memorably described it to me in a 1980 Times interview. In such a scenario, nukes can be preemptively used against a much weaker enemy - millions of dead civilians, widespread environmental devastation and centuries of political blowback be damned.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If you want to believe a murderer like Saddam instead of the US, UK, and UN go ahead, I won't stop you.
----------------------------
Thanks CAD, How bout if I tell you I put them all in the same book when it comes to telling the truth. Your President and his administration lied to you about why we needed to go to war. They killed American soldiers by lying. They will never find the WMD Bush wanred of because they aren't there. You can't hide a truth so massive unless it's a lie. It was a lie. Bush has been playing stump the chump from day one. When you gonna wake up and stop supporting a lie, a killing lie.

When are you going to stop spreading lies about the 2000 election?;)

Bush killed American soldiers? How about Iraqis killed them. Why don't you start blaming the real reason for this mess(Saddam), instead of letting your hatred for Bush blind you.

"They will never find the WMD Bush wanred of because they aren't there." - maybe so, but are you also saying that Saddam never had them? Clinton sure thought they were there, the UN sure thought they were there but gee guess we should just blame Bush:confused:
rolleye.gif


CkG

So David did not kill Uriah? Ahh I see. Completely justified. You can look up the reference.

I know of your reference;)

David's intent was to send Uriah off to be killed so he could take Bathsheba for his wife.

So are you saying that Bush send soldier off to be killed so he could marry their wives, girlfreinds, or lovers?

Ok
rolleye.gif


CkG


Tsk. Tsk. only get a 4 out of 10 on the "duck the question" scale
:D

No, David knew he couldn't kill Uriah himself (which he wanted to do) so he sent him somewhere where he would likely be killed.

There was no ducking of any question you posted. If you really believe your argument you would also have to say that any leader who sends his troops out into battle wants them to die. You can try to fight with that argument but it bears no resemblance with what Bush did by sending our troops off to war.

Shall we continue with this nonesense or do you now realize the error of your implied argument?

CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If you want to believe a murderer like Saddam instead of the US, UK, and UN go ahead, I won't stop you.
----------------------------
Thanks CAD, How bout if I tell you I put them all in the same book when it comes to telling the truth. Your President and his administration lied to you about why we needed to go to war. They killed American soldiers by lying. They will never find the WMD Bush wanred of because they aren't there. You can't hide a truth so massive unless it's a lie. It was a lie. Bush has been playing stump the chump from day one. When you gonna wake up and stop supporting a lie, a killing lie.

When are you going to stop spreading lies about the 2000 election?;)

Bush killed American soldiers? How about Iraqis killed them. Why don't you start blaming the real reason for this mess(Saddam), instead of letting your hatred for Bush blind you.

"They will never find the WMD Bush wanred of because they aren't there." - maybe so, but are you also saying that Saddam never had them? Clinton sure thought they were there, the UN sure thought they were there but gee guess we should just blame Bush:confused:
rolleye.gif


CkG

So David did not kill Uriah? Ahh I see. Completely justified. You can look up the reference.

I know of your reference;)

David's intent was to send Uriah off to be killed so he could take Bathsheba for his wife.

So are you saying that Bush send soldier off to be killed so he could marry their wives, girlfreinds, or lovers?

Ok
rolleye.gif


CkG


Tsk. Tsk. only get a 4 out of 10 on the "duck the question" scale
:D

No, David knew he couldn't kill Uriah himself (which he wanted to do) so he sent him somewhere where he would likely be killed.

There was no ducking of any question you posted. If you really believe your argument you would also have to say that any leader who sends his troops out into battle wants them to die. You can try to fight with that argument but it bears no resemblance with what Bush did by sending our troops off to war.

Shall we continue with this nonesense or do you now realize the error of your implied argument?

CkG


I realize the impossibility of your getting the point. I will dumb it down for you.
David sent a man to die needlessly for his own unjust design.
Bush sent men to die needlessly to die for his own unjust design.

The fact is that people did not need to die (or kill) to protect America from Saddam. Bush did not pull the trigger, but he sure as hell sent people to die that did not have to. The intent may have been different than that of David, but it was no more worthy.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
The reader infers... the writer implies... when the explicit is absent.

One must always ask the writer to explain further so the inference drawn is not relied upon in error.

IMO
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Every time Bush said the US was going to Liberate Iraq but NOT Occupy Iraq . . . he was lying. Now by definition Iraq's occupation most certainly required its liberation but this administration adamantly opposed the moniker - Occupying Force - until they requested the lifting of UN sanctions . . . under the auspices that the Occupying Force required such actions to rebuild Iraq.

You cannot parse Bush's words to justify such a distinction. Clearly, this administration has ALWAYS intended to Occupy and Control Iraq for an extended period. Therefore, it is reasonable to say Bush lied.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: HJD1
Prove Bush Lied....

A difficult task indeed. But, not insurmountable.

Bush said Saddam had WMD at the time of the invasion or near abouts... to the extent he (Bush) has told the truth he has not lied... the proof is in the pudding... if the truth prevails the lie cannot. Today the truth has not been established so the lie prevails.

There was a thread about this a few weeks ago. Here is a repost of articles I found with links and brief excerpts. It is a fact that Bush and his administration said many things that were untrue or highly distorted. One can always question whether these were intentional lies or merely incompetent ignorance.
**********************
When along the way does the highly distorted become a lie...? When it becomes a material distortion that others relied upon to make decision that materially affect them. Each has a differn't threshold of materiality so too then the value judgement applied.
I'm still and will continue to be stuck at the beginning of this all... I still don't see the legal right to invade regardless of all the rhetoric. The UN Charter is US law as well.. because we signed on to it. It must be determined in the Courts. At this point international legal minds (including Blix, an attorney) say 1441 and before did not give permission to invade in '03 and no issue raised thus far mitagates the violation even if proven to have existed.