• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The WMD Lying Game.... and of course the raw facts if you can handle them

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hope Alistar doesn't take a notion there's a bogy man in his closet. He's going to be a tough case to cure.

Alistar, did you know that Gore won?
why not directly address the UN report from March of 2003 which states their conclusions that Iraq more than likely still has massive stockpiles, as well as the equipment, supplies, and knowledge to produce as much as they wanted quickly? That there is still many WMD unaccounted for, and that even the figures produced by Iraq cannot be credible when held up to objective science, and have been proven to be blatant lies more often than not.

Better yet, ignore the evidence that proves the opposite of what you want to believe, and attack the person who presented the evidence you cannot refute.....
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: etech
read justice Breyer's opinion of 12/12/2000 this is my feelings as well
moonie, are you sure that isn't an equine roast in the oven? Perhaps HJD1 would like a slice. It certainly ought to be very tender by now.

Anyway, Let's say the USSC did not take the case. The outcome would not have changed. Pres. Bush would still have been elected. The USSC decision did not affect the outcome of the election. Gore picked his counties and still would have lost.
Etech..... Etech..... Etech..... why hath thou forsaken me... oops.. wrong story..

Gore won.... if all the selected counties were counted as proscribed by Breyer... or by a fair interpretation of intent.
If there was a general election redo... with all the non voters voting it would have been a landslide to gore.... maybe not landslide but, by 15000 votes as per the USCCR findings.
Moonie killed the horse, blame him.

As for saying that Gore would have won if there was a statewide recount, perhaps perhaps not, there are far too many variables to say that with any certainty. What standards would have been used in the recount is the most obvious? Who would have done the recounting and how would their biases have affected the outcome?

As for revoting the entire state, under what law was that legal?

But since I let myself get hooked into this offtopic for this thread discussion, I will repeat my request in an earlier thread. Start a thread if you want to beat this some more and let's please try to keep it out of other threads.

I'm out of this one and my apologies to the orginator of this thread for the off-topic discussion.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
oh you know I dont care, let them keep whining about Gore, 2004 will come and go, hopefully they will get over it by then...

Gore won Moonie, yippee, and hasnt he done such a splendid job so far? whats been your favorite part of his term?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,970
3,758
126
What's that about the third apology for taking a thread off topic, etech. Compulsive or what?
---------------------

Better yet, ignore the evidence that proves the opposite of what you want to believe, and attack the person who presented the evidence you cannot refute.....
------------------
Damn, Alistar, did I do that. I just hate it when people do that to me.

I was trying to suggest that you might have something psychological going on with the WMD thingi. It's obvious they aren't there and that the Pres knew. We have the best intelligence in the world, no, and it said no evidence for WMD. Why not address the fact that the war wasn't about WMD. It was a religious, ideological war for a Doctrine of a New American Century. Except for the blind that's been obvious since Bush first floated an endlessly changing series of reasons for the war. They were each as big a joke as the last. So why do you cling to the WMD thingi. It was a lost cause from day three of the war.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,970
3,758
126
My favorite part is knowing the American people didn't vote for the Disaster Bush.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What's that about the third apology for taking a thread off topic, etech. Compulsive or what?
---------------------

Better yet, ignore the evidence that proves the opposite of what you want to believe, and attack the person who presented the evidence you cannot refute.....
------------------
Damn, Alistar, did I do that. I just hate it when people do that to me.

I was trying to suggest that you might have something psychological going on with the WMD thingi. It's obvious they aren't there and that the Pres knew. We have the best intelligence in the world, no, and it said no evidence for WMD. Why not address the fact that the war wasn't about WMD. It was a religious, ideological war for a Doctrine of a New American Century. Except for the blind that's been obvious since Bush first floated an endlessly changing series of reasons for the war. They were each as big a joke as the last. So why do you cling to the WMD thingi. It was a lost cause from day three of the war.
it's obvious they were not there, yet the rest ofthe world felt inspections only needed more time... time for?

I will buy your position, as soon as you read the UN's report from March of 2003, conviently linked above your wlecome, and tell me why they were still advocating inspections.......

I'll bet Bush loses a ton of sleep over that moon.....
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,970
3,758
126
Yup, old Breyer was right on when he said that elections are about the will of the people not the court. The point was to count, not stop the counting of votes. Bush is Pres9ident by the Judicial Coup of an activist conservative court. Their opinions were more important than the peoples' of Florida.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
it's obvious they were not there, yet the rest ofthe world felt inspections only needed more time... time for?

I will buy your position, as soon as you read the UN's report from March of 2003, conviently linked above your wlecome, and tell me why they were still advocating inspections.......
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,970
3,758
126
it's obvious they were not there, yet the rest ofthe world felt inspections only needed more time... time for?
-----------------------------
There were no WMD. Just that simple, actually.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Etech ..........by permission of Alistar who is an honorable man.

As for revoting the entire state, under what law was that legal?

**********

Premise 1. The remedy in mandate by the USSC on the matter of G v B could have either the 14th or 15th ammend. in mind and should have.

Premise 2. The 'equal' clause of the 14th can be narrow or loose but narrow is preferred.

Premise 3. Not all voting machines were of similar nature or produced similar accuracy (14th)

Premise 4. The older and less accurate machines were in the poorer sections of counties and districts (15th)

Premise 5. There was evidence of violation of VRA as ammended and 15th ammendment presented.

Premise 6. The varity of recount process techniques violated the 14th.

The cert granted Bush was valid although some justices disagreed. The larger issue is that the 15th and VRA violations were included in oral argument and could have been considered in the remedy. The time of the essence issue could have been negated by rapid implementation of the mandate to revote the state. When the choice of President is in the balance the USSC should have ordered the results be tabulated by 10 jan and the winner take the oath as normal.
As long as it is not explicit in the Constitution the USSC can make new law all it wants and should have.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Premise 1. The remedy in mandate by the USSC on the matter of G v B could have either the 14th or 15th ammend. in mind and should have.

Premise 2. The 'equal' clause of the 14th can be narrow or loose but narrow is preferred.

Premise 3. Not all voting machines were of similar nature or produced similar accuracy (14th)

Premise 4. The older and less accurate machines were in the poorer sections of counties and districts (15th)

Premise 5. There was evidence of violation of VRA as ammended and 15th ammendment presented.

Premise 6. The varity of recount process techniques violated the 14th.

The cert granted Bush was valid although some justices disagreed. The larger issue is that the 15th and VRA violations were included in oral argument and could have been considered in the remedy. The time of the essence issue could have been negated by rapid implementation of the mandate to revote the state. When the choice of President is in the balance the USSC should have ordered the results be tabulated by 10 jan and the winner take the oath as normal.
As long as it is not explicit in the Constitution the USSC can make new law all it wants and should have.
Very nice . . .
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
it's obvious they were not there, yet the rest ofthe world felt inspections only needed more time... time for?
-----------------------------
There were no WMD. Just that simple, actually.
Really? Thats not what the UN said though, they said there were still substantial amounbts of unaccounted for WMD and inspections should continue until their destruction was assured.

Do i need to copy and paste some more of their findings again?

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
UNSCOM found that the accounting for some of the unilaterally destroyed bombs was not
possible given the hazardous conditions created by the method of destruction. In addition, Iraq
has produced no documentation that could have substantiated its statements that the surplus and
rejected R-400 bombs had been melted at NSE. The one document submitted as evidence of the
meltdown did not specifically refer to R-400s. In addition, photographic evidence shows that
biological R-400A bombs had been located at Al Walid Air base in October 1991, which is not
consistent with Iraq?s FFCD and CAFCD.
Through sampling of excavated bombs at Al Azzizziyah in 1997, UNSCOM found botulinum
toxin in an R-400 bomb. Iraq had never declared that it had filled R-400 bombs with this agent.
Sampling of R-400 chemical bombs did confirm the presence of the alcohol component for
binary Sarin/Cyclosarin.

"As it has proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of R-400 bombs,
UNMOVIC cannot discount the possibility that some CW and BW filled R-400 bombs remain in
Iraq. "

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
What about the steps taken to ensure certain people never got the chance to vote at all, that bothers me more than anything, except the actions of the court. I expect such things from both parties, but not the "supreme" court...
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Alistar7
What about the steps taken to ensure certain people never got the chance to vote at all, that bothers me more than anything, except the actions of the court. I expect such things from both parties, but not the "supreme" court...

That was the main focus of the US Civil Rights Commission... they said there was wide spread voter disenfranchisement. It was a violation of the Voters Rights Act (as ammended). Over 15000 were poor, black, students, purged felon roles by mistake and etc... folks who would and testified they would vote Gore. The ballot issue also would favor Gore if you accept the testimony of folks who thought Gore but voted Buchannan... on and on.
The USSC should have allowed the recount... no electoral problem to deal with and no congressional issue either.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Re my earlier post regarding the talbulation of results...
It just occured to me the constitution does give congress the authority to set the date for the electors to meet and it must be the same day through out the US... so the revote could have occured but the time to do it was real short.. I think they meet Dec 20.

Probably could not have been able to do it time wise.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: HJD1
Re my earlier post regarding the talbulation of results...
It just occured to me the constitution does give congress the authority to set the date for the electors to meet and it must be the same day through out the US... so the revote could have occured but the time to do it was real short.. I think they meet Dec 20.

Probably could not have been able to do it time wise.
personally, I think it would have been time well spent. If we cant find the time to get that vital aspect of American life right, the rest of it is irrelevant really.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,970
3,758
126
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
it's obvious they were not there, yet the rest of the world felt inspections only needed more time...
-----------------------------
There were no WMD. Just that simple, actually.
Really? That?s not what the UN said though, they said there were still substantial amounts of unaccounted for WMD and inspections should continue until their destruction was assured.

Do I need to copy and paste some more of their findings again?
Not really. Just explain to me this:

Iraq is filled with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. We know the tons and we know where. We have to prevent the immediate threat of these weapons from being used on us by Iraq of by terrorists working with the Iraqis. Al Quaeda is all over the country by the millions. So we go to war and we guard the oil fields in the north and south immediately with our troops. All the places we know where the weapons are never guarded and get looted by Al Quaeda obviously. What was the war about? We are either insane or we knew there were no weapons we needed to worry about. Think hard on this. I know it's tough.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Never heard anyone say there were millions of AQ, or they were respnsobile for any looting.

Saddam had at least 6 months to destroy, hide, sell, or transfer his WMD before we came into Iraq.

"As it has proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of R-400 bombs,
UNMOVIC cannot discount the possibility that some CW and BW filled R-400 bombs remain in
Iraq. " March 6th, 2003

The UN inspections teams felt they couldnt claim they were all gone. Think real hard, I know it's tough. They were charged with making sure Saddam destroyed everything, and then inspections would stop. They did not want to stop because they said they were not done, what were they doing again?

Find me one source, govt, etc that will claim there were no WMD in iraq....
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Alistar7 - <<Find me one source, govt, etc that will claim there were no WMD in iraq....
I don't think you can find one. Know why? Because nobody knew whether they had any or not. (except you, of course)


Regarding that 175 page report you linked to...I'm still trying to find anything in there that say the inspectors were denied access to certain sites. When I find it I'll letcha know. If I can't find it, I'll just assume that you're so confident in your stance that, not only do you have to put words in my mouth in order to defend it (as in the other thread), but you also have to start making stuff up.
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Did anybody catch the BBC Radio interview with Hillary Clinton? She says that Bush was using the exact same intelligence that her husband had and that she voted for them to go to Iraq based on that intelligence. She still wants to investigate though.
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,732
1
0
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Did anybody catch the BBC Radio interview with Hillary Clinton? She says that Bush was using the exact same intelligence that her husband had and that she voted for them to go to Iraq based on that intelligence. She still wants to investigate though.

she also said the most significant thing to happen to this country since she and bill left office was the downturn of the economy.

ummm hello? what about 911?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,970
3,758
126
All dragging the Democrats into this does is show those of them who supported to war to be as big a bunch of scumbags an Bush and his crowd.
------------------------
Find me one source, govt, etc that will claim there were no WMD in iraq....
------------------------------------------
Find me a slldier that died from WMD on the day we invaded. Imagine an immediate threat when not attacked suddenly collapsing in three weeks when attacked. Yeah, they were really some threat. You were used.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All dragging the Democrats into this does is show those of them who supported to war to be as big a bunch of scumbags an Bush and his crowd.
------------------------
Find me one source, govt, etc that will claim there were no WMD in iraq....
------------------------------------------
Find me a slldier that died from WMD on the day we invaded. Imagine an immediate threat when not attacked suddenly collapsing in three weeks when attacked. Yeah, they were really some threat. You were used.
I think there were lots of Iraqi soldiers that died as the result of WMD. Cluster bombs, MOAB's, B52's, Cruise missles and the like.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY