Study: False statements preceded war

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Continue to revel in your beatdown, moron.

:roll:

You just don't know when to quit do you? If you look at what I said originally before you chimed in with your two cents you would realize that I said "the head UN inspector said shortly before they were yanked out"... that Iraq was complying. This was in MARCH. The article you keep trying pathetically to link here is from JANUARY. Two months before, and two briefings about Iraq earlier then what I was talking about. You know he gave several of those right?

In effect your argument is "What you said about Hans Blix's opinion on Iraqi compliance in March is wrong because he thought something different in January." I hope I don't have to tell you how stupid that is.

You obviously didn't read the article I linked or you would know that, but by all means continue to revel in your ignorance. It's sort of your thing.

Learn when to stop; like when you're only a little bit behind. You said, and I quote:

The head UN inspector said shortly before they were yanked out by the US invasion that things were going well, that Iraq was complying, etc.

You're wrong. Blix did not say that Iraq was complying and you're being completely revisionist on that point as I've already plainly shown.

This only beatdown is on yourself. So don't dig that hole any deeper than you already have.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You're wrong. Blix did not say that Iraq was complying and you're being completely revisionist on that point as I've already plainly shown.

This only beatdown is on yourself. So don't dig that hole any deeper than you already have.

You are really dense aren't you. Here, I'll do you a favor and take a few quotes from the article that I linked.... you know the one that references the period AFTER the article you so duplicitously linked.

But Mr Blix, who has since retired to Sweden, said his inspectors found no compelling evidence that Iraq had a hidden arsenal or was blocking the work of the inspectors. He said there had been only small infractions by Iraq.

and....

..."In March, they (the Iraqis) cooperated like hell. They were pro-active. In December and January, no. That is why I gave a critical account on January 27. In February, it was more balanced."

Just face it, you thought you had something... you were wrong. Sadly, you just aren't knowledgable enough on this subject. Take it like a man and admit it. No reasonable person can read what Mr. Blix said in that article and not think that it was compliance in his opinion. The infractions listed were very minor and could not be taken by any reasonable person as actions justifying armed invasion. Why does every single thing involving you have to devolve into some pedantic bullshit? Evidence that you're wrong is staring you straight in the face, and you're just going to keep soldiering on babbling about Blix's report on January 27th as if his reports in February and March didn't even exist.

My personal prediction for this thread: You will continue to attempt to push the argument to a different topic and repeat the same discredited points until I throw my hands up in frustration and let this fall off the front page.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


My personal prediction for this thread: You will continue to attempt to push the argument to a different topic and repeat the same discredited points until I throw my hands up in frustration and let this fall off the front page.

:thumbsup:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You're wrong. Blix did not say that Iraq was complying and you're being completely revisionist on that point as I've already plainly shown.

This only beatdown is on yourself. So don't dig that hole any deeper than you already have.

You are really dense aren't you. Here, I'll do you a favor and take a few quotes from the article that I linked.... you know the one that references the period AFTER the article you so duplicitously linked.

But Mr Blix, who has since retired to Sweden, said his inspectors found no compelling evidence that Iraq had a hidden arsenal or was blocking the work of the inspectors. He said there had been only small infractions by Iraq.

and....

..."In March, they (the Iraqis) cooperated like hell. They were pro-active. In December and January, no. That is why I gave a critical account on January 27. In February, it was more balanced."

Just face it, you thought you had something... you were wrong. Sadly, you just aren't knowledgable enough on this subject. Take it like a man and admit it. No reasonable person can read what Mr. Blix said in that article and not think that it was compliance in his opinion. The infractions listed were very minor and could not be taken by any reasonable person as actions justifying armed invasion. Why does every single thing involving you have to devolve into some pedantic bullshit? Evidence that you're wrong is staring you straight in the face, and you're just going to keep soldiering on babbling about Blix's report on January 27th as if his reports in February and March didn't even exist.

My personal prediction for this thread: You will continue to attempt to push the argument to a different topic and repeat the same discredited points until I throw my hands up in frustration and let this fall off the front page.

Dense? No. Pathologically dishonest.

And yes, those are exactly the tactics he will pursue. That's the only card in his hand.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
An article up on Yahoo about a study that quantified the number of false statements made by Mr Bush et al before the Iraqi invasion.

In his willingness to say anything to justify going to war with Iraq, Mr Bush has pushed pass Mr Nixon in the abuse of the powers of the Executive branch.


Study: False statements preceded war By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
58 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.


The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements ? amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts ? was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists ? indeed, even some entire news organizations ? have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

Good article. It once again validates what so many of us have been pointing out for years, and what the usual apologists have so desperately tried to deny. It's a pity this wasn't as well documented before the 2004 elections, but it can still serve as a warning to future generations.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
An article up on Yahoo about a study that quantified the number of false statements made by Mr Bush et al before the Iraqi invasion.

In his willingness to say anything to justify going to war with Iraq, Mr Bush has pushed pass Mr Nixon in the abuse of the powers of the Executive branch.


Study: False statements preceded war By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
58 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.


The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements ? amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts ? was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists ? indeed, even some entire news organizations ? have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

Good article. It once again validates what so many of us have been pointing out for years, and what the usual apologists have so desperately tried to deny. It's a pity this wasn't as well documented before the 2004 elections, but it can still serve as a warning to future generations.

Thanks for quoting the OP. I was going to do this myself because sohow some people managed to divert the subject from Mr Bush making false statements to Clinton.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Actually, some of us pointed out that not only Bush made statements that were incorrect, an entire gaggle of politicians from both sides did and did so for years before and during Bush's time in office. Bush alone making those statements could not have brought us into Iraq. The BDS crew in here seem to want to pretend otherwise. But that's there own dishonesty in dealing with this situation, along with whining about something that cannot be changed.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, some of us pointed out that not only Bush made statements that were incorrect, an entire gaggle of politicians from both sides did and did so for years before and during Bush's time in office. Bush alone making those statements could not have brought us into Iraq. The BDS crew in here seem to want to pretend otherwise. But that's there own dishonesty in dealing with this situation, along with whining about something that cannot be changed.

Yes. And some of us pointed out that time doesn't stand still and circumstances, events and reality changes over that period of time that continued to increment.

What was true is 1998 isn't guaranteed to still be true in 2003.

But you know this little fact destroys your talking point so you won't acknowledge it....will ya?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, some of us pointed out that not only Bush made statements that were incorrect, an entire gaggle of politicians from both sides did and did so for years before and during Bush's time in office. Bush alone making those statements could not have brought us into Iraq. The BDS crew in here seem to want to pretend otherwise. But that's there own dishonesty in dealing with this situation, along with whining about something that cannot be changed.

I have no problem putting all those responsible for the obviously corrupt war behind bars. I am sure the US has room for a few hundred, or even thousands whatever, corrupt politicians/military officers etc in the vast prison system of the US, certainly there should be no shortage of good strong Chinese rope to hang them with.

It is amusing to see you squirm and wiggle so desperately to protect war criminals, talk about partisan tool :roll:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, some of us pointed out that not only Bush made statements that were incorrect, an entire gaggle of politicians from both sides did and did so for years before and during Bush's time in office. Bush alone making those statements could not have brought us into Iraq. The BDS crew in here seem to want to pretend otherwise. But that's there own dishonesty in dealing with this situation, along with whining about something that cannot be changed.

Yes. And some of us pointed out that time doesn't stand still and circumstances, events and reality changes over that period of time that continued to increment.

What was true is 1998 isn't guaranteed to still be true in 2003.

But you know this little fact destroys your talking point so you won't acknowledge it....will ya?

pssst. The fact is that those politicians you are ptitfully trying to make apologies for were still making their assertions about Saddam's WMDs long past 1998.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything you and the rest of the BDS afflicted in here are trying to claim.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You're wrong. Blix did not say that Iraq was complying and you're being completely revisionist on that point as I've already plainly shown.

This only beatdown is on yourself. So don't dig that hole any deeper than you already have.

You are really dense aren't you. Here, I'll do you a favor and take a few quotes from the article that I linked.... you know the one that references the period AFTER the article you so duplicitously linked.

But Mr Blix, who has since retired to Sweden, said his inspectors found no compelling evidence that Iraq had a hidden arsenal or was blocking the work of the inspectors. He said there had been only small infractions by Iraq.

and....

..."In March, they (the Iraqis) cooperated like hell. They were pro-active. In December and January, no. That is why I gave a critical account on January 27. In February, it was more balanced."

Just face it, you thought you had something... you were wrong. Sadly, you just aren't knowledgable enough on this subject. Take it like a man and admit it. No reasonable person can read what Mr. Blix said in that article and not think that it was compliance in his opinion. The infractions listed were very minor and could not be taken by any reasonable person as actions justifying armed invasion. Why does every single thing involving you have to devolve into some pedantic bullshit? Evidence that you're wrong is staring you straight in the face, and you're just going to keep soldiering on babbling about Blix's report on January 27th as if his reports in February and March didn't even exist.

My personal prediction for this thread: You will continue to attempt to push the argument to a different topic and repeat the same discredited points until I throw my hands up in frustration and let this fall off the front page.

Can you fucking read? Where did Blix say Iraq was complying? He didn't. Cooperating != complying. Stop being so ignorant and utterly moronic about this subject.

 

[BoomerD]

Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld (30 March 2003, to ABC's George Stephanopoulos):

"we know where they [the weapons] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."


White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (10 April 2003)

"make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."


National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice from report (1 May 2003):

According to Dr Rice, the weapons programs are "in bits and pieces" rather than assembled weapons. "You may find assembly lines, you may find pieces hidden here and there," she said. Ingredients or precursors, many non-lethal by themselves, could be embedded in dual-use facilities. She had a new explanation too for Iraq's ability to launch these weapons that were not assembled. "Just-in-time assembly" and "just-in-time" inventory, as she put it.



No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002


What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.
- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003


We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003


You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two [the labs were later judged to not contain any such weapons, that they most likely were used for weather balloons]. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.
- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003



Oh, Wait a minute...what you thought we said isn't what we meant to say...


I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons. [SEE NEXT QUOTE]
- Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003

We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
- Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003


I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.? Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat. [SEE NEXT QUOTE]
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004

This is about an imminent threat.
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

After being asked whether Hussein was an ?imminent? threat: Well, of course he is
- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein?s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: Absolutely.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003


Ah hell.. Wait a minute...let's restate things...again
(can you say back-pedal?)

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, [as justification for invading Iraq] because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
- Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003

From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. Going after Saddam was topic "A" ten days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
- former Treasury Secretary Paul O?Neill, CBS? 60 Minutes, Jan. 11, 2004

I don't think they [WMD] existed. What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last [1991] Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s.
- David Kay, former chief weapons inspector of the UN Special Commission on Iraq, Reuters, Jan. 24, 2004

Intelligence ?analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.
- CIA Director George Tenet, speech, Feb. 5, 2004



So the Bush administration says they were mis-led by the intelligence community (many of whom were remnants from the days when his daddy was CIA director) yet the intelligence community says they tried to convince Bush there was no solid evidence of WMD's...
Who's lying to whom?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Right. Even though Iraq wasn't complying, they were complying. Just ignore the infractions that did exist and, voila, compliance.

:roll:

Right. Just ignore reality and lie, after lie after, lie from your Traitor In Chief and his merry band of lying traitors, murderers and torturers and voila... Instant Bushwhackos sycophant stupidity. :roll:

If you're not that stupid, you must be one of the Bushwhacko traitors... or maybe both.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, some of us pointed out that not only Bush made statements that were incorrect, an entire gaggle of politicians from both sides did and did so for years before and during Bush's time in office. Bush alone making those statements could not have brought us into Iraq. The BDS crew in here seem to want to pretend otherwise. But that's there own dishonesty in dealing with this situation, along with whining about something that cannot be changed.

Yes. And some of us pointed out that time doesn't stand still and circumstances, events and reality changes over that period of time that continued to increment.

What was true is 1998 isn't guaranteed to still be true in 2003.

But you know this little fact destroys your talking point so you won't acknowledge it....will ya?

pssst. The fact is that those politicians you are ptitfully trying to make apologies for were still making their assertions about Saddam's WMDs long past 1998.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything you and the rest of the BDS afflicted in here are trying to claim.

Once again....you completely ignore the FACT that members of Congress DO NOT GET ACCESS TO ALL INTEL.

What members of Congress say is based solely on the limited information that they are given by the president and/or intel agencies at the request of the president. It is a proven fact that the administration squashed dissenting opinions and/or doubts prior to the invasion.

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything that you and the rest of the BAA (Bush admin apologists) here are trying to claim.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Can you fucking read? Where did Blix say Iraq was complying? He didn't. Cooperating != complying. Stop being so ignorant and utterly moronic about this subject.

comply - verb - act in accordance with someone's rules, commands, or wishes

cooperate - verb - work together on a common enterprise of project

I don't have a degree in English, but it seems to me that Blix couldn't say the Iraqis were complying until he had finished his inspection, which of course he was never allowed to do.... so how could he say it??

They were cooperating, but compliance wasn't and couldn't be proven at the time he made his statement because he wasn't finished with his inspection. How could he say they were complying?

Trying to make a big deal out of Blix not using the word compliance is... well, the word "fluffer" comes to mind. :laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, some of us pointed out that not only Bush made statements that were incorrect, an entire gaggle of politicians from both sides did and did so for years before and during Bush's time in office. Bush alone making those statements could not have brought us into Iraq. The BDS crew in here seem to want to pretend otherwise. But that's there own dishonesty in dealing with this situation, along with whining about something that cannot be changed.

Yes. And some of us pointed out that time doesn't stand still and circumstances, events and reality changes over that period of time that continued to increment.

What was true is 1998 isn't guaranteed to still be true in 2003.

But you know this little fact destroys your talking point so you won't acknowledge it....will ya?

pssst. The fact is that those politicians you are ptitfully trying to make apologies for were still making their assertions about Saddam's WMDs long past 1998.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything you and the rest of the BDS afflicted in here are trying to claim.

Once again....you completely ignore the FACT that members of Congress DO NOT GET ACCESS TO ALL INTEL.

What members of Congress say is based solely on the limited information that they are given by the president and/or intel agencies at the request of the president. It is a proven fact that the administration squashed dissenting opinions and/or doubts prior to the invasion.

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything that you and the rest of the BAA (Bush admin apologists) here are trying to claim.

Pathetic and sloppy reasoning.

If those Congress-critters didn't get all the intel then what the hell are they doing claiming absolutes about Saddam's WMDs in the first place? Instead of making bold proclamations, how about they say "I don't all have all the information to make a determination." instead?

Sorry, but the old "They didn't have all the intel!" has no wings and it's a poor attempt at deflecting criticisms.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Can you fucking read? Where did Blix say Iraq was complying? He didn't. Cooperating != complying. Stop being so ignorant and utterly moronic about this subject.

comply - verb - act in accordance with someone's rules, commands, or wishes

cooperate - verb - work together on a common enterprise of project

I don't have a degree in English, but it seems to me that Blix couldn't say the Iraqis were complying until he had finished his inspection, which of course he was never allowed to do.... so how could he say it??

They were cooperating, but compliance wasn't and couldn't be proven at the time he made his statement because he wasn't finished with his inspection. How could he say they were complying?

Trying to make a big deal out of Blix not using the word compliance is... well, the word "fluffer" comes to mind. :laugh:

Glad you can use a dictionary. I know I considered it quite an achievement back in 2nd grade too.

In this case though, "comply" refers to the UN resolutions and Blix made it plain and clear that Saddam still was not complying.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, some of us pointed out that not only Bush made statements that were incorrect, an entire gaggle of politicians from both sides did and did so for years before and during Bush's time in office. Bush alone making those statements could not have brought us into Iraq. The BDS crew in here seem to want to pretend otherwise. But that's there own dishonesty in dealing with this situation, along with whining about something that cannot be changed.

Yes. And some of us pointed out that time doesn't stand still and circumstances, events and reality changes over that period of time that continued to increment.

What was true is 1998 isn't guaranteed to still be true in 2003.

But you know this little fact destroys your talking point so you won't acknowledge it....will ya?

pssst. The fact is that those politicians you are ptitfully trying to make apologies for were still making their assertions about Saddam's WMDs long past 1998.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything you and the rest of the BDS afflicted in here are trying to claim.

Once again....you completely ignore the FACT that members of Congress DO NOT GET ACCESS TO ALL INTEL.

What members of Congress say is based solely on the limited information that they are given by the president and/or intel agencies at the request of the president. It is a proven fact that the administration squashed dissenting opinions and/or doubts prior to the invasion.

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything that you and the rest of the BAA (Bush admin apologists) here are trying to claim.

I have decided that the Bush supporters have so some level accepted that Mr Bush, at best, really screwed up with the war in Iraq. But to feel better they irrationally need to blame Clinton and the Democrats too.

This is a personal problem with them.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

I have decided that the Bush supporters have so some level accepted that Mr Bush, at best, really screwed up with the war in Iraq. But to feel better they irrationally need to blame Clinton and the Democrats too.

This is a personal problem with them.

The Bushwhackos are desperately trying to preserver their own egos so they're resorting to the political equivalent of that new accessory for musicians, the Blame Shifter that shifts the pitch of the lead guitarist's mistakes down one octave so the audience thinks it was the bass player. :laugh:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Can you fucking read? Where did Blix say Iraq was complying? He didn't. Cooperating != complying. Stop being so ignorant and utterly moronic about this subject.

comply - verb - act in accordance with someone's rules, commands, or wishes

cooperate - verb - work together on a common enterprise of project

I don't have a degree in English, but it seems to me that Blix couldn't say the Iraqis were complying until he had finished his inspection, which of course he was never allowed to do.... so how could he say it??

They were cooperating, but compliance wasn't and couldn't be proven at the time he made his statement because he wasn't finished with his inspection. How could he say they were complying?

Trying to make a big deal out of Blix not using the word compliance is... well, the word "fluffer" comes to mind. :laugh:

Glad you can use a dictionary. I know I considered it quite an achievement back in 2nd grade too.

In this case though, "comply" refers to the UN resolutions and Blix made it plain and clear that Saddam still was not complying.

Did you just hear something go over your head..... or are you deaf as well as dumb?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, some of us pointed out that not only Bush made statements that were incorrect, an entire gaggle of politicians from both sides did and did so for years before and during Bush's time in office. Bush alone making those statements could not have brought us into Iraq. The BDS crew in here seem to want to pretend otherwise. But that's there own dishonesty in dealing with this situation, along with whining about something that cannot be changed.

Yes. And some of us pointed out that time doesn't stand still and circumstances, events and reality changes over that period of time that continued to increment.

What was true is 1998 isn't guaranteed to still be true in 2003.

But you know this little fact destroys your talking point so you won't acknowledge it....will ya?

pssst. The fact is that those politicians you are ptitfully trying to make apologies for were still making their assertions about Saddam's WMDs long past 1998.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything you and the rest of the BDS afflicted in here are trying to claim.

Once again....you completely ignore the FACT that members of Congress DO NOT GET ACCESS TO ALL INTEL.

What members of Congress say is based solely on the limited information that they are given by the president and/or intel agencies at the request of the president. It is a proven fact that the administration squashed dissenting opinions and/or doubts prior to the invasion.

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything that you and the rest of the BAA (Bush admin apologists) here are trying to claim.

I have decided that the Bush supporters have so some level accepted that Mr Bush, at best, really screwed up with the war in Iraq. But to feel better they irrationally need to blame Clinton and the Democrats too.

This is a personal problem with them.

Some of us aren't actually Bush supporters. We just get tagged with that label, as nearly anyone in P&N does that has the audicity to state that Bush might have done something right during his presidency, or that he didn't do something in the manner that the BDS afflicted ones claim.

Until you guys figure out that going into Iraq was a group effort, stop trying to blame Bush as the sole culprit, and recognize that Democrats were part and parcel of it happening, then YOU are the partisan ones, not me.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Some of us aren't actually Bush supporters. We just get tagged with that label, as nearly anyone in P&N does that has the audicity to state that Bush might have done something right during his presidency, or that he didn't do something in the manner that the BDS afflicted ones claim.

< TastesLikeChicken voice >

Hi. I'm not a lying brown nosed Bushwacko sycophant apologist. I just play one on AT.

< /TastesLikeChicken voice >

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I bring up BDS afflicted ones and look who shows up, the chief of the BDS Club.

Surely that's no coincidence?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Can you fucking read? Where did Blix say Iraq was complying? He didn't. Cooperating != complying. Stop being so ignorant and utterly moronic about this subject.

Hahaha, the guy who links Blix's January speech to discount my point on his speech in March is calling ME ignorant? Do I smell another Golden Mosque moment from you? I think I do! (Are you still claiming that place is Sunni by the way?)

I don't know what else to say to you. You KNOW that you're wrong... I know you aren't this stupid. You're just so fucking pigheaded that you will never, ever admit it. You based your point on a report from January probably because you didn't know that a similar report was issued by Blix in March showing a very different picture. If you had known about it, you wouldn't have linked something that was so easily blown apart.

Now, instead of talking on the substance of the issue you're trying to have a battle over definitions. (shocking that I predicted a descent into pedantry) Do you even know what compliance was defined as under resolution 1441? It's pretty vague when combined with a country's legitimate right to self defense, etc. which is also affirmed under other resolutions. The thing is that anyone who isn't an idiot can easily see what constitutes compliance. What the Iraqis were doing in December was clearly NOT compliance. What the Iraqis were doing in March was pretty clearly compliance. Yes there were issues that remained, but the inspections were going forth unimpeded and Blix expressed optimism that the other difficulties could be overcome. By any reasonable estimation that is compliance.

I don't know why I even bother with you, my attempts to make an honest assessment of the situation will certainly be met with idiotic responses from you due to some sort of percieved weakness. (ie. you SEE!? If there were some problems that means they weren't 100% in compliance and so we should have bombed and invaded and occupied them!! HURF BLURF) Any responsible person who was trying to have a legitimate discussion instead of promote an apologist agenda would not be arguing these points that you are. It's okay to be wrong sometimes, or to make a mistake. Just admit it when you do.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, some of us pointed out that not only Bush made statements that were incorrect, an entire gaggle of politicians from both sides did and did so for years before and during Bush's time in office. Bush alone making those statements could not have brought us into Iraq. The BDS crew in here seem to want to pretend otherwise. But that's there own dishonesty in dealing with this situation, along with whining about something that cannot be changed.

Yes. And some of us pointed out that time doesn't stand still and circumstances, events and reality changes over that period of time that continued to increment.

What was true is 1998 isn't guaranteed to still be true in 2003.

But you know this little fact destroys your talking point so you won't acknowledge it....will ya?

pssst. The fact is that those politicians you are ptitfully trying to make apologies for were still making their assertions about Saddam's WMDs long past 1998.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything you and the rest of the BDS afflicted in here are trying to claim.

Once again....you completely ignore the FACT that members of Congress DO NOT GET ACCESS TO ALL INTEL.

What members of Congress say is based solely on the limited information that they are given by the president and/or intel agencies at the request of the president. It is a proven fact that the administration squashed dissenting opinions and/or doubts prior to the invasion.

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything that you and the rest of the BAA (Bush admin apologists) here are trying to claim.

I have decided that the Bush supporters have so some level accepted that Mr Bush, at best, really screwed up with the war in Iraq. But to feel better they irrationally need to blame Clinton and the Democrats too.

This is a personal problem with them.

Some of us aren't actually Bush supporters. We just get tagged with that label, as nearly anyone in P&N does that has the audicity to state that Bush might have done something right during his presidency, or that he didn't do something in the manner that the BDS afflicted ones claim.

Until you guys figure out that going into Iraq was a group effort, stop trying to blame Bush as the sole culprit, and recognize that Democrats were part and parcel of it happening, then YOU are the partisan ones, not me.

Give your Bushit a rest. You do not fool anyone. Some Democrats were in the back seat but it was Dub behind the wheel. You Bush apologists need to quit trying to shift the blame.

--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): Pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980