View Full Version : Press The Meat!!!
PsychoSy
06-07-03, 07:39 PM
Got some URLs that are pretty damning to the Bush Adminstation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2971022.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2955622.stm
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030607/D7RH04MG0.html
I know...I know, it's not Fox-Homogenized so some of you'll prolly discredit it! :D :p
digitalwanderer
06-07-03, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by PsychoSy
Got some URLs that are pretty damning to the Bush Adminstation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2971022.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2955622.stm
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030607/D7RH04MG0.html
I know...I know, it's not Fox-Homogenized so some of you'll prolly discredit it! :D :p
It's strange I know, but me mind is for some reason comparing the current Bush administrations handling of this to [t]ardOCP's coverage of the nVidia scandels.
"Despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary, we still believe we are right."
:lol:
1stFlight
06-07-03, 08:19 PM
Not only that, but even if they were wrong, they'll say, "it doesn't matter".
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
It's strange I know, but me mind is for some reason comparing the current Bush administrations handling of this to [t]ardOCP's coverage of the nVidia scandels.
"Despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary, we still believe we are right."
:lol:
LORD-eX-Bu
06-07-03, 08:28 PM
just speculation right now, lets all sit back and wait to see how this turns out. If there was no weapons programs in Iraq, I'll be the first guy to head over there and do all I can to help to get the Baath Party back into power:rolleyes:
But really, lets see how this turns out:lol:
Quite a rush to judgment.
The UN gets over over 12 years plus to deal with this issue and peeps wanted to give them more time. Yet the coalition in only 2 month has to produce the goods.
Even if WMD programs were found overwhelmingly, some detractors still wouldn't be satisfied and would find something to carp on. Typical. Its cause these dips think the US is a rogue nation and believe it is the problem. A few of them even went as far to support that tyrant Hussein. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbp777/smilies/headshaker.gif
And here is a left leaning source back at ya. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbp777/smilies/tongueout.gif
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10470-2003Jun3.html
Many critics of the war have rushed to the conclusion that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction and that the Bush administration falsified or deliberately hyped the evidence. This seems unlikely on both counts. Saddam Hussein was proven to have biological and chemical arms during the 1990s. He repeatedly refused to provide evidence that he had destroyed them, even when the survival of his regime was at stake. Not only was the Bush administration convinced that weapons and weapons programs continued: The Clinton administration publicly stated the same conclusion, as did the governments of Britain and France. In December the U.N. Security Council concluded, by a vote of 15 to 0, that Iraq was in "material breach" of repeated U.N. orders to disarm. That conclusion may be proven wrong, but if so the error was shared by two U.S. administrations and most of the world's intelligence community.
LORD-eX-Bu
06-07-03, 08:34 PM
no no no sbp, remember, the weapons inspectors weren't there for those 12 years, hell, if they were there for at the very most 5% of those 12 years... why, they would have been in there for a little over 7 months, whats the coalition had now? hmm...
anyways, the IAEA sent in its inspectors already, so hey, if you guys wanna rush to the conclusion that Hussein had no weapons or programs, be my guest:rofl
Originally posted by 1stFlight
Not only that, but even if they were wrong, they'll say, "it doesn't matter". -Bill Clinton on the lewdinsky matter
When Clinton in 1998 bombed the crap out of them his main reason was WMD. Clinton even wrote letter and gave a speech saying Iraq had WMD and they are a threat. Of course I am paraphrasing but this fact remains. It was ok when Clinton said it but it isn't when Bush says it. Get off your high horses and stop playing the political card. Your party is going to lose next november any way. ;) ...and I say this with love. :afro2:
digitalwanderer
06-08-03, 01:37 AM
How about a viewpoint from someone who should know a little something about scandels and I don't think we can exactly consider a foreign correspondence, Mr. John Dean (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html).
I don't know if saying this is bigger than Watergate like he does is really fair...yet. ;)
If it is true and they never did have these weapons then the following people also lied.
Madeleine K. Albright
William S. Cohen
Bill Clinton
Koffee Anan
Gerhard Schröder
Jacques Chirac
Collin Powell
George W. Bush
George HW Bush
Vladimir Putin
Condoleezza Rice
Al Gore
Dick Cheney
Dick Gephardt
Tom Daschle
Hillary Clinton
Saddam Hussein
Iraqi Minister of Information: Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf :p
also the use of power bill that was signed by congress and passed by both parties. They all had the same information that was current and from the Clinton administraion. Good luck with this one.
and the list goes on and on. Prove to me they are all lying.
1stFlight
06-08-03, 09:11 AM
How do you figure? 4 of the people you mention here aren't even in power anymore? Another 4 of them opposed the war, but supported further inspections.
Did Saddam have weapons, yes. However the last time that was confirmed was nearly 20 years ago. The overall question is/was did he still? To justify his war, Bush jr. made very specifc statements as to what weapons were where; currently not one has been found.
9 separate quotes, 9 separate utter lies.
Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.
Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations address, September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio address, October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the nation, March 17, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/
Originally posted by UDawg71
If it is true and they never did have these weapons then the following people also lied.
Madeleine K. Albright
William S. Cohen
Bill Clinton
Koffee Anan
Gerhard Schröder
Jacques Chirac
Collin Powell
George W. Bush
George HW Bush
Vladimir Putin
Condoleezza Rice
Al Gore
Dick Cheney
Dick Gephardt
Tom Daschle
Hillary Clinton
Saddam Hussein
Iraqi Minister of Information: Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf :p
also the use of power bill that was signed by congress and passed by both parties. They all had the same information that was current and from the Clinton administraion. Good luck with this one.
and the list goes on and on. Prove to me they are all lying.
digitalwanderer
06-08-03, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by UDawg71
If it is true and they never did have these weapons then the following people also lied.
Madeleine K. Albright
William S. Cohen
Bill Clinton
Koffee Anan
Gerhard Schröder
Jacques Chirac
Collin Powell
George W. Bush
George HW Bush
Vladimir Putin
Condoleezza Rice
Al Gore
Dick Cheney
Dick Gephardt
Tom Daschle
Hillary Clinton
Saddam Hussein
Iraqi Minister of Information: Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf :p
also the use of power bill that was signed by congress and passed by both parties. They all had the same information that was current and from the Clinton administraion. Good luck with this one.
and the list goes on and on. Prove to me they are all lying.
I don't know if these people lied or not, but I can promise you they weren't the President of the United States lying to the american people to take our country to war under false pretenses!
The only issue here is if Emperor George I lied or not, the rest ain't really capable of being impeached!
Wasn't Clinton impeached for lying about a *******? Which is worse? Lying about a ******* or lying to put american troops in harms way to forward your own personal agenda?
Methinks this is just the beginning, and I'm gonna enjoy watching these hearings a whole lot more than the Clinton ones. :)
(Have we ever had two consecutive presidents impeached? Looks like Bush will make history in his term yet! ;) )
1stFlight
06-08-03, 09:28 AM
I've always wondered about people who lump getting a blow job and lying about up against starting a war under false pretenses; getting 200+ U.S. servicemen killed.
Both of you missed the point. The point is and I said this. Both administrations used the same intelligence. Bush used intelligence from Clinton's administration and from his own. What does the fact that four are not in poliitics have to do with any thing. I gave you direct proof that more than one administration said Iraq has WMD. You avoided this fact. Also it was not 20 years ago Saddam had them and you know it. You are lying and I hate that. It was in 1998 we bombed them for having WMD and infrations in the no fly zone. Clinton said they had WMD or is he lying about that also. BTW I have never believed Clinton bomb Iraq or that asprin factory in the Suddan to take attention off his problems.
You say Bush lied about Saddam giving the order to use VX gas missle. There is no proof that this order wasn't given. There have been given no statements from the captured generals other than what Aziz said and he is trying to avoid the Hauge (sp) Face it you have no proof there is a lie. You only have the fact that we havent found the WMD. We did find two mobile labs that are labs. Yet your progressive thinkg :rolleyes: says they are other wise. :rolleyes: You only have a problem with this now that a Republican is in the office and it is pathetic. Bush will not be impeached so stop dreaming.
Tit for tat. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88858,00.html) Is Powell lying? You cannot refute his defense here. You simply cannot and your witch hunt is pathetic. You will be proven wrong just like you were on everything else about the war. Every thing you said was going to happen never did. LOL it must suck to be wrong all the time....but then again you are a liberal. LMAO :D
1stFlight
06-08-03, 01:26 PM
Proof is the whole problem
Remember when I first started on here, I said that I wasn't that I was pro-Saddam or anything, I just wanted proof.
We knew at one time Saddam had weapons, all we needed to do was sit back and let the UN inspectors find them. And we could have gone in with no questions asked. Since Bush was dead set on waging a war, he skipped over that important part and now he's paying the price.
Now here we are, with all these alegations, thousands of dead Iraqi, their nation in ruins, hundreds of dead U.S. soldiers, and not even ONE VX gas container to show for it.
As for lied about giving the order *LOL* UDawg, we both know you're not stupid, think if they had chemical weapon why wouldn't they have used them? The only probable reason the Iraqi didn't use them, is because they didn't have them to use.
Clinton's justifcation came from far greater reasoning than just, "they might have weapons". He had, Saddam just kicked the U.N. inspectors out. That alone could have been enough reason to go to war with no questions asked. Too bad others thought his getting head was more important :rolleyes:
However, having Bush make Saddam go from someone no one was thinking about, to public enemy #1 (even ahead of Osama), made no logical sense. Especially when you consider his first words where,"we must prepare for the war with Iraq". I still remember that in is State of Union Address, and I was like, "huh, did Iraq attack us or something?"
Btw, Colin Powell's statements are incredibly weak when you consider what Bush has said. All in all, we shouldn't even have to be looking for these weapons, according to Bush, they should have been littering the ground as Iraqi soliders fled. It's impossible to imagine a program being so effectively concealed that it's usable in any kind of rapid form.
Oh the only reason Bush won't get impeached, it's a Republican Congress, otherwise he'd be toast right now.
Face it, your hero is a liar on a scale even Clinton didn't match.
digitalwanderer
06-08-03, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by UDawg71
Both of you missed the point. The point is and I said this. Both administrations used the same intelligence. Bush used intelligence from Clinton's administration and from his own. What does the fact that four are not in poliitics have to do with any thing. I gave you direct proof that more than one administration said Iraq has WMD. You avoided this fact. Also it was not 20 years ago Saddam had them and you know it. You are lying and I hate that. It was in 1998 we bombed them for having WMD and infrations in the no fly zone. Clinton said they had WMD or is he lying about that also. BTW I have never believed Clinton bomb Iraq or that asprin factory in the Suddan to take attention off his problems.
You say Bush lied about Saddam giving the order to use VX gas missle. There is no proof that this order wasn't given. There have been given no statements from the captured generals other than what Aziz said and he is trying to avoid the Hauge (sp) Face it you have no proof there is a lie. You only have the fact that we havent found the WMD. We did find two mobile labs that are labs. Yet your progressive thinkg :rolleyes: says they are other wise. :rolleyes: You only have a problem with this now that a Republican is in the office and it is pathetic. Bush will not be impeached so stop dreaming.
Tit for tat. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88858,00.html) Is Powell lying? You cannot refute his defense here. You simply cannot and your witch hunt is pathetic. You will be proven wrong just like you were on everything else about the war. Every thing you said was going to happen never did. LOL it must suck to be wrong all the time....but then again you are a liberal. LMAO :D
I didn't address any of your points about the former administration since it's pretty irrelevant to our debate here. I don't think they can impeach SlickWilly again after the fact. ;)
I'd love it if this turns out to be "just a witchhunt", because the fall-out from it if it ain't isn't going to just be a huge horking deal for us Americans to squabble over....can you just picture the world's reaction if this pans out to be true?!?! :eek:
It'd suck to be Bush if this is true, it truly would. It almost sounds like he decided to gamble that they WOULD find WMD once they went in there, and if that's the case and he was wrong it's going to absolutely tank him. :(
1stFlight
06-08-03, 01:46 PM
It does sound like it doesn't it, I mean what are the odds Saddam would come clean? Slim to none? Of course having a large portion of the U.S. military sitting across his borders may have helped that.
If it tanks him, I can't say I'll miss him any.
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
It almost sounds like he decided to gamble that they WOULD find WMD once they went in there, and if that's the case and he was wrong it's going to absolutely tank him. :(
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
I didn't address any of your points about the former administration since it's pretty irrelevant to our debate here. I don't think they can impeach SlickWilly again after the fact. ;)
I'd love it if this turns out to be "just a witchhunt", because the fall-out from it if it ain't isn't going to just be a huge horking deal for us Americans to squabble over....can you just picture the world's reaction if this pans out to be true?!?! :eek:
It'd suck to be Bush if this is true, it truly would. It almost sounds like he decided to gamble that they WOULD find WMD once they went in there, and if that's the case and he was wrong it's going to absolutely tank him. :(
I agree with you if this administration lied I will be the first in line to stone him. ;) Yet I have believed what the last two administration have said and what Saddam him self said. They have WMD. My post was mainly directed at 1stFligh.
It just doesn't make sanse that Saddam would claim to have them then say he distroyed them and yet give no proof he distroyed them. This is why I get mad because the left is on a witch hunt when the facts are the same as when Clinton was in office. Nothing changed except Bush did something about it. It is pure politics and a lack of intellectual honesty on Bush's enemies. They have to ignore what they said in the past about WMD and what their own administration said in the 90's. It is complete BS. They will be found the question is in what fashion.
1stFlight
06-08-03, 03:12 PM
What will it take for you to believe Bush lied?
Are you going to wait until he comes out and admits it?
We've already got American inspectors with unfettered access inspecting every site on the list and coming up empty handed.
It's be a different matter if these were UN inspectors, but as it is it's looking like a prime opportunity to plant some evidence.
Originally posted by UDawg71
I agree with you if this administration lied I will be the first in line to stone him. ;) administration said in the 90's. It is complete BS. They will be found the question is in what fashion.
PsychoSy
06-08-03, 05:27 PM
Yet I have believed what the last two administration have said and what Saddam himself said.
There's your problem right there - not only did you believe most of everything our government told you...you believed Saddam, too!! :p
Saddam comes out and claims to have the ability to launch attacks on our forces using bio and chemical weapons that can be ready for deployment within 80 minutes. A good portion of Pentagon officials knew it was just hot air because the source - Saddam Hussein - has a track record of being nothing but a melting pot of hot air, piss, and vinegar that's never told a bit of truth in his miserable life.
But the Bush Administration apparently picked and choosed what parts of the half-assed intelligence we gathered that they liked and discarded/fired/forced into retirement any Pentagon official or peice of paper that argued contrary to it.
The brutal truth is had Saddam's claims and our intelligence been true, the 101st (of all people) would've had confirmed visual contact of the means to launch these weapons, been fired upon using these agents, and/or found stockpile after stockpile of them within the first 72 hours of steamrolling through the Iraqi sands. Seriously, you have to work extra hard to hide/decommission such battle-ready weapons, especially if they have a "ready to launch within an hour" status. In fact, you would need a MIRACLE to pull such a feat off.
And I don't think God is in the business of bestowing miracles on Saddam Hussein! :angel:
He wouldn't even grace Saddam with a freakin' meteor shower! :rofl
digitalwanderer
06-08-03, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by PsychoSy
And I don't think God is in the business of bestowing miracles on Saddam Hussein! :angel:
He wouldn't even grace Saddam with a freakin' meteor shower! :rofl
Hey...what about the big sandstorm that stopped combat for a few days? I suppose you'll just call that "coincidence"? :rolleyes:
j/k! ;)
Sooo...Saddam never gassed the Kurds then right?
Intelligence said Iraq had the capability to launch a chemical weapon atack like they did on the Kurds. The did not say he would do. They have said from the beginning that we should prepare for the worst. You guys keep twisting this and you ignore facts and documentation. You have no ground to stand on and it is ticking me off you wont face what has been proven. You entered into a who new line of thought that just is not backed up by what has happened the last 12 years. Your only stance is you political bias. I backed Clinton when he bombed Iraq in 98 and I cant stand Clinton. You, especialy you 1stFlight stand a childish bent of hate towards Bush that blinds you from all rational and logic. There isn't any reason to continue this argument since you are just plain wrong. I laid out the fact that the Clinton administration made the same exact claims of WMD and you ignore that fact. When you choose only what you want to believe then we have no dialog. I have never ignored the fact that the WMD are not there. It is plain to see that. Yet the question is where are they? Your logic is yeah well maybe they had them....no wait! now they never had them because we can't find them. Your logic is sad and does not hold water.
Not finding weapons does not equal they never existed.
for the last time where are the dump sites or the blast zones? You cannot answer this. So until you do we have no argument to continue. Why would Saddam say he distroyed all his WMD if he never had them? Do you see how childish your argument is? Your logic and attitude of hate towards Bush is the exact reason why Democrats are getting their butts kicked in the last two elections and the november elections to come. You base you opinions on what will hurt Bush rather than the truth.
1stFlight
06-08-03, 08:35 PM
No one is doubting Saddams past, but past and present are two different things. If you're so hard pressed on the past, then you should be wondering if Bush is still doing lines of coke in the oval office.
As for the dump sites, I've already answered that question. We're not looking for them.
You forget, we're out to prove Iraq's guilt, not it's innocence. If we start coming up with dump sites, and destroyed muntions, think of who'll look bad. This could also serve as a firm reason why the UN inspectors weren't allowed back in. They're competent and unbiased.
UDawg, there's nothing childish about find fault with a seriously flawed individual, you are letting your hero worship blind your logic.
Bush lied, he lied to you, to me, 270 Million Americans, and all of our supporters.
All I can say is they'd better be finding a boatload WMD's soon, or there should be an impeachment.
Originally posted by UDawg71
Sooo...Saddam never gassed the Kurds then right?
Intelligence said Iraq had the capability to launch a chemical weapon atack like they did on the Kurds. The did not say he would do. They have said from the beginning that we should prepare for the worst. You guys keep twisting this and you ignore facts and documentation. You have no ground to stand on and it is ticking me off you wont face what has been proven. You entered into a who new line of thought that just is not backed up by what has happened the last 12 years. Your only stance is you political bias. I backed Clinton when he bombed Iraq in 98 and I cant stand Clinton. You, especialy you 1stFlight stand a childish bent of hate towards Bush that blinds you from all rational and logic. There isn't any reason to continue this argument since you are just plain wrong. I laid out the fact that the Clinton administration made the same exact claims of WMD and you ignore that fact. When you choose only what you want to believe then we have no dialog. I have never ignored the fact that the WMD are not there. It is plain to see that. Yet the question is where are they? Your logic is yeah well maybe they had them....no wait! now they never had them because we can't find them. Your logic is sad and does not hold water.
Not finding weapons does not equal they never existed.
for the last time where are the dump sites or the blast zones? You cannot answer this. So until you do we have no argument to continue. Why would Saddam say he distroyed all his WMD if he never had them? Do you see how childish your argument is? Your logic and attitude of hate towards Bush is the exact reason why Democrats are getting their butts kicked in the last two elections and the november elections to come. You base you opinions on what will hurt Bush rather than the truth.
outriding9800
06-08-03, 08:56 PM
so does this mean saddam can still be the leader of iraq?
digitalwanderer
06-08-03, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by 1stFlight
No one is doubting Saddams past, but past and present are two different things. If you're so hard pressed on the past, then you should be wondering if Bush is still doing lines of coke in the oval office.
As for the dump sites, I've already answered that question. We're not looking for them.
You forget, we're out to prove Iraq's guilt, not it's innocence. If we start coming up with dump sites, and destroyed muntions, think of who'll look bad. This could also serve as a firm reason why the UN inspectors weren't allowed back in. They're competent and unbiased.
UDawg, there's nothing childish about find fault with a seriously flawed individual, you are letting your hero worship blind your logic.
Bush lied, he lied to you, to me, 270 Million Americans, and all of our supporters.
All I can say is they'd better be finding a boatload WMD's soon, or there should be an impeachment.
Methinks he answered your arguments well Udawg. You seem to be locked into this, "Well he had them 12 years ago, what makes you think he destroyed them except for him saying he did and us not finding any WMD there....THEY COULD STILL BE THERE"-type logic that I don't quite get. :eek2:
"Could" be there and "are" there are really quickly becoming of more than semantic importance. If Bush said he KNOWS there are WMD there, they'd best find some or he is hosed.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.