What if no wmd are found?

[tcsenter]

What it would actually mean if the WMD are not found is that our Government has become the biggest group of liars since the Johnson Administration and the Nixon Administration - COMBINED ! Much worse than anything that Clintons been accused of. They would have deliberately fabricated false evidence and forged documentation in order to force their mandate on the world, as well as their citizens. If they did that, they should be removed from office as soon as possible, to prevent further falsifications and miscarriage of justice. Our Constitution mandates it ! - Or doesn't our Constitution count anymore ?

Wait a minute, first you declare in no uncertain terms "it would actually mean" (emphasis mine) all these diabolical things, then you pull way back with the condition "if they did that"? Hmmm...a little confused are we?

To what 'fabrications of evidence' and 'forged documentation are you referring?

There is another explanation, that our intelligence concerning WMD including the testimony of a dozen or more Iraqi defectors was wrong.

At any rate, the entire ball of wax was far from being 'hinged' upon the existance of WMD in Iraq. Bush made a speech not so long ago making the case for military action to depose Hussein, perhaps you didn't see it? The White House's position wasn't limited exclusively to the existence of WMD, there were several other reasons cited as well.

This is from Robert Scheer - L.A. Times:

Hmm, that wouldn't be the same 'Robert Scheer' who fabricates such gems like the Bush Administration gave "$43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention" would it? ("Bush's Faustian Deal with the Taliban", LA Times, May 22, 2001)

So outrageously false were Scheer's facts, the LA Times took the unusual step of retracting the article. Unusual even for the LA Times, which continually blurs the standard of 'reasonable error' in journalism, but not at all unusual for Bush-hating pundit Robert Scheer.

One must wonder how Scheer could have gotten it so profoundly 'wrong', since Scheer himself cites as his source of information Colin Powell's State Department announcement, which explicitly states:

We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations. We provide our aid to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's warring factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it.

Did Scheer fall asleep during that part of Powell's speech?

Further, had Scheer dug a little deeper, he would have learned that the assistance was not conditioned whatsoever upon the Taliban's position on opium production, though there is no reason to believe Scheer would have reported the truth even if he had dug a little deeper.

Yep, I do believe its the same LA Times columnist Robert Scheer. Do feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

 

[HappyGamer2]

as if we can totally trust these scientists word, one way or the other

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Robert Scheer may have the tag of a 'Liberal' by the Extreme Righr and their Neo-Conservitives, but . . .
He does his homework, understands the facts, and presents them truthfully.
He doesn't just make up crap like the Conservative Right does for sensationalism.

His credentials are much better than those of who mock his writing, are your credentials as good as his ?
Or is this more of the mindless spew from the Blind Faithful.

P.S. 'French Fries' are now 'Freedom Fries'
and 'Texas Toast' are now 'Moron Muffins'.

HAHAHA! I had Moron Muffins for breakfast! I love Texas, and I'm a born Texan, the only thing that gets to me is that if you drive 2 miles out of downtown anywhere, people's minds shut down to the point of stupidity. The Blind Faithful are not bad people, they are just too blind to see the facts and too faithful to question their gov. Their stability and sanity depends it. Most people in America have never left the US. Their concept of the world extends only up to the state furthest away from their own that they have visited. They don't understand how others think and why they think that way. If I was all powerful, I would make it so that every child spends a summer in a different country, just to open their minds. I think that closed mindedness is a major reason for people becoming blindly faithful.

 

[tcsenter]

Robert Scheer may have the tag of a 'Liberal' by the Extreme Righr and their Neo-Conservitives, but . . .He does his homework, understands the facts, and presents them truthfully.
He doesn't just make up crap like the Conservative Right does for sensationalism.

BWAHAHAAHAHHAHAH ROTLFLMFAO!! I cannot describe to you in words how glad I am you said that.

Your credibility just plummeted to a level somewhere between The Iraqi Information Minister and Joseph Goebbels. Good show!

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Robert Scheer may have the tag of a 'Liberal' by the Extreme Righr and their Neo-Conservitives, but . . .

He's a radical left wing hack who claims we are war criminals for attacking Iraq. Any commentary from him gets the immediate credibility <flush>

 

[Zebo]

To what 'fabrications of evidence' and 'forged documentation are you referring?

Does it really matter, peoples memories are to short., Does anyone remember Bush saying without a doubt Iraq was 6 months out from a nuke back in Dec 01' and IAEA told him so in a briefing? When the chair of IAEA was asked about this he said he had no such information. Guess Bush forgot to make THE CALL before hand.

The only question in my mind is does the end justify the means In other words, would the american public understand the complexity of the Iraq situation and it's direct bearing on our lives if told the truth. I highly doubt it since Springer is a billion dollar sindication contract.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Sadly we may never know for sure. I'm sure we'll find something, but I'm sure people that don't want it to be found won't believe it anyway. What gets me is that if they didn't have WMD's why would Saddam have played so many games with inspectors? What was he doing? Nobody can argue that he cooperated fully with the UN. Was he lying when he said he had them or when he said he didn't?

 

[CaptnKirk]

It double posted see rant below.

But you don't have to 'Qute' 80 tons of a previous post, just ' Bubba said: "Blah- Blah'" should get you to the topic.

 

[CaptnKirk]

So now you go in and seclectivley pick apart peoples posts, to disprove whatever you don't want to accept?

That's 2 different picks to the same post !

Why are you questioning my cerdibility when I present infformation from a source that actually has some knowledge.?

In reading back over your first 'Pick' I saw you bashing where Scheer had made a statement a couple years ago about Bush helping the Taliban.
Well - DUH, way back in 'Ought 2001, July & August timeframe not too far removed from when the Taliban destroyed the Budda Statues from over
a thousand years of history, the Bush administration was bragging about their financial assistance to the Taliban, in the 'War-On-Drugs' - Drugs WON !
Sure changed his tune on 9/11 didn't he ?

As far a Fabrication of Evidence and Forgeries, have you forgotten that only about 2 months ago that Colin Powell tried to show the UN that Iraq had
purchased Uranium from Africa, and had 500 tons of WMD - and we had the color glossy 8x10 photos with the circles and the arrows on the back.
False Documents and poor forgeries - why haven't they tried to get to whoever forged those papers, or would it expose more fraud ?

Don't even try to tell me about Space Satellite Surveilance, and what they can see - there's a southbound bird coming over the pole every 5 minutes
day and night, they see damn near everything, down to a beanbag chair in registration, U-2/TR-1 can get even finer than that, If we ever saw it, we
could track it day and night to within approximately 3 feet.
If it was really there, we should be able to walk right up to it an say " I claim this rich land in the name of Dubya the Conquerer !
Been watchin' them 24/7 for 12 years, where did it go ? Think they drank it or used it for a supository ?

Flame on - Brothers !

 

[jahawkin]

At any rate, the entire ball of wax was far from being 'hinged' upon the existance of WMD in Iraq. Bush made a speech not so long ago making the case for military action to depose Hussein, perhaps you didn't see it? The White House's position wasn't limited exclusively to the existence of WMD, there were several other reasons cited as well.

Right......We had to listen to you guys for months going on about how we need to enforce the UN resolutions.....1441 blah blah blah......
Like a quote by yourself right here

We hardly need a terrorist link to justify an invasion of Iraq. It can be justified solely on Iraq's disarmament obligation to the world community, since the United Nations is apparently content to allow Iraq to remain in violation for like...ever...without doing a thing.

1441 and the case to disarm Saddam were all predicated on WMDs and Saddam's supposive huge cache of deadly weapons. If the justification for this war wasn't only about WMD that was was it??

To what 'fabrications of evidence' and 'forged documentation are you referring?

You having difficulty reading there??
"Secretary of State Colin Powell's now infamous speech to the U.N. Security Council employed "intelligence" cribbed from a graduate student's thesis, documents later acknowledged as fakes, and a defector's affirmation of the existence of chemical weapons while excluding his admission that they had subsequently been destroyed."

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

To what 'fabrications of evidence' and 'forged documentation are you referring?

Does it really matter, peoples memories are to short., Does anyone remember Bush saying without a doubt Iraq was 6 months out from a nuke back in Dec 01' and IAEA told him so in a briefing? When the chair of IAEA was asked about this he said he had no such information. Guess Bush forgot to make THE CALL before hand.

This has already been hashed over a few times elsewhere. But we'll rehash a few things again:

Bush didn't claim that Iraq was, as of December 2001, 6 months from a nuke.

Rather, in September of 2001, Bush made a speech citing a report dating back to the first Gulf War, which showed that IAEA had previously estimated Iraq was (IIRC) two years from developing a nuke, when in reality, it was discovered to be closer to six months. Of course the IAEA has no record of a report stating that Iraq was six months from a nuke, because it was the IAEA that was proven wrong in its estimation.

It wasn't perfectly clear that was what Bush attempted to say, but then as we constantly are reminded by Bush haters, Bush isn't all that adept in the department of concise and articulate verbal expression.

Bush haters can't have it both ways; either Bush is a bad speaker who frequently makes bumbling gaffes and mistakes, or we are safe to take him literally on his every word because he is an accomplished and concise orator.

Given the eight constant years of Clinton and Gore's attribution of its statements of factual error and muddled veracity to innocent 'misstatements' and 'misspeakings', I think we can allow Bush a few.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

To what 'fabrications of evidence' and 'forged documentation are you referring?

Does it really matter, peoples memories are to short., Does anyone remember Bush saying without a doubt Iraq was 6 months out from a nuke back in Dec 01' and IAEA told him so in a briefing? When the chair of IAEA was asked about this he said he had no such information. Guess Bush forgot to make THE CALL before hand.

This has already been hashed over a few times elsewhere. But we'll rehash a few things again:

Bush didn't claim that Iraq was, as of December 2001, 6 months from a nuke.

Rather, in September of 2001, Bush made a speech citing a report dating back to the first Gulf War, which showed that IAEA had previously estimated Iraq was (IIRC) two years from developing a nuke, when in reality, it was discovered to be closer to six months. Of course the IAEA has no record of a report stating that Iraq was six months from a nuke, because it was the IAEA that was proven wrong in its estimation.

It wasn't perfectly clear that was what Bush attempted to say, but then as we constantly are reminded by Bush haters, Bush isn't all that adept in the department of concise and articulate verbal expression.

Bush haters can't have it both ways; either Bush is a bad speaker who frequently makes bumbling gaffes and mistakes, or we are safe to take him literally on his every word because he is an accomplished and concise orator.

Given the eight constant years of Clinton and Gore's attribution of its statements of factual error and muddled veracity to innocent 'misstatements' and 'misspeakings', I think we can allow Bush a few.

You can't be serious. Look at the page linked. It links to mainstream (I won't say credible because I'm not qualified to make that assumption) sources on each and every deception. Coupled with what been going on since the ending of the war and Rummy et al writtings in the 70's about our plans in the ME how can anyone objectivly say there is not a deliberate campain of misinformation going on here?


Oh and I personaly think Bush's IQ is in the 140 range. Not stupid at all IMO

 

[tcsenter]

Why are you questioning my cerdibility when I present infformation from a source that actually has some knowledge.?

Read my post, I couldn't have spelled it out any more clear than I did. Scheer is a liar whose article was retracted by the LA Times because it asserted faslehoods which cannot possibly be explained by 'reasonable error' or even a 'legitimate difference of interpretation'.

Scheer stated matter of factly that the Bush administration sent "the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today." This is completely false.

Scheer cited Colin Powell himself as the source of this information, "The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell..." Yet Colin Powell explicitly stated during his announcement (emphasis mine), "We provide our aid to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's warring factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."

Further, Sheer claims the purpose of the $43 million 'gift' was as a reward for eradicating opium cultivation, when no part of the $43 million pledge of humanitarian assistance was conditioned upon or a reward for any anti-opium efforts by the Taliban.

So where is this Robert Scheer whom you describe as 'does his homework, understands the facts, and presents them truthfully'? Where is this Robert Scheer whom, according to you, 'doesn't just make up crap like the Conservative Right does for sensationalism'?

I suppose its possible there are two different Robert Scheer's who are columnists for the LA Times, and you are not referring to the same Robert Scheer as I. But until you can provide some proof there are two Robert Scheer's, one who is a bona fide liar, the other an 'honest journalist who doesn't make up crap', then I must assume there is only one Robert Scheer - the proven liar.

If my assumption is true, then your own credibilty suffers fatally by offering Scheer as a model for your idea of 'honesty'.

a thousand years of history, the Bush administration was bragging about their financial assistance to the Taliban, in the 'War-On-Drugs' - Drugs WON ! Sure changed his tune on 9/11 didn't he ?

Bush never bragged about any financial assistance to the Taliban. Again, that was Robert Scheer's propaganda, which I've proven false. The LA Times wouldn't even stand by or defend it as 'journalistic license' or 'difference of interpretation'. They agreed it was a complete fabrication by Scheer and printed a retraction.

 

[tcsenter]

You can't be serious. Look at the page linked. It links to mainstream (I won't say credible because I'm not qualified to make that assumption) sources on each and every deception. Coupled with what been going on since the ending of the war and Rummy et al writtings in the 70's about our plans in the ME how can anyone objectivly say there is not a deliberate campain of misinformation going on here?

You and I must have different perceptions of what constitutes "mainstream". It is largely based in known false or highly questionable accusations and information from the 'alternative quasi-conspiracy theory' information world, and links to mainstream sources only to the extent that it can misrepresent those sources.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

You can't be serious. Look at the page linked. It links to mainstream (I won't say credible because I'm not qualified to make that assumption) sources on each and every deception. Coupled with what been going on since the ending of the war and Rummy et al writtings in the 70's about our plans in the ME how can anyone objectivly say there is not a deliberate campain of misinformation going on here?

You and I must have different perceptions of what constitutes "mainstream". It is largely based in known false or highly questionable accusations and information from the 'alternative quasi-conspiracy theory' information world, and links to mainstream sources only to the extent that it can misrepresent those sources.

???
The UN, hans Blix, ABC, NYT, BBC, LAT, Rueters etc. Not good enough? Then try and think how when Bush was manipulating public opinion for this war on Iraq, he used 9-11, alquada, and Iraq-Saddam in the same sentence, and tell me this does'nt strike you as disingenuous and manipulative.

It is a consiracy.

I'm tring to develpo this into a quote maybe you can help. "If you think poeple cheat online gamming what do you think they do when it comes to real money and real politics when it actually matters"

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

hahahaha whatever dudes. this past 6 months alone i've been in korea, norcal, new york, conneticut, maryland, michigan, pennsylvania, arizona, illinois, and indiana. if that is sheltered then i'd like to know where you've been lately. lol.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
hahahaha whatever dudes. this past 6 months alone i've been in korea, norcal, new york, conneticut, maryland, michigan, pennsylvania, arizona, illinois, and indiana. if that is sheltered then i'd like to know where you've been lately. lol.

I have lived in seven countries and visited 36.... by the time I was 20. I just returned from Italy after spending a semester abroad and while I was there, as the war mongering was starting, I visited Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, Hungary, Czech Rep., Slovakia, Poland and Belgium, so congratulations on your tour of the US.

 

[Martin]

If no WMDs are found, then the PR department will simply spin it.

I honestly don't think the american public is any match for the Bush PR team...

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
If no WMDs are found, then the PR department will simply spin it.

I honestly don't think the american public is any match for the Bush PR team...

I know, I'm actually looking forward to see what they are going to say, it should be good for a few laughs.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said.

They said the scientist led Americans to a supply of material that proved to be the building blocks of illegal weapons, which he claimed to have buried as evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs.

The scientist also told American weapons experts that Iraq had secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to Syria, starting in the mid-1990's, and that more recently Iraq was cooperating with Al Qaeda, the military officials said.



I believe they found something here but have yet to release full details pending testing.

That would be convenient wouldn't it?

Oh wait, I can't questioned anything about this...

Sorry

 

[Siddhartha]

bump