935 False Iraq Statements By Bush Administration [Archive]

CaptStu

01-23-2008, 07:09 AM

From Yahoo (http://www.yahoo.com):

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.

MORE HERE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study)

SuicideKing

01-23-2008, 07:19 AM

Study was funded by George Soros, 'nuff said... Sad that people are passing this press release off as news.

"Center for Public Integrity" is funded (http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=196) by The Open Society Institute, yes, the same Open Society Institute founded by George Soros. And the Fund for Independence in Journalism’s self-described primary purpose (http://www.tfij.org/) is “providing legal defense and endowment support for the largest nonprofit, investigative reporting institution in the world, the Center for Public Integrity, and possibly other, similar groups.”

Interesting that neither Yahoo (the AP), nor the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/washington/23database.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) feel the need to disclose that.

Soros also turned out to have provided substantial funding for the laughable Lancet study citing 600000 Iraqi deaths. Honestly, I wish the hack would just take his cash and politics and shove them.

mr. murphy

01-23-2008, 07:22 AM

I was thinking that it's sad people were too stupid to realize he was full of shit back in ought three. I certainly did, this isn't exactly news to me.

Edit: I think it should get passed around, people need to be aware when our leaders manipulate us, I'm just saying it's sad that even now, to a lot of people, this is going to come as a surprise.

SuicideKing

01-23-2008, 07:28 AM

King Drewsky

01-23-2008, 07:28 AM

I bet that makes you want to kick somebody in the junk.

51|RandoM

01-23-2008, 07:29 AM

Speaking of Soros he was on BBC radio this morning. Had some interesting things to say about the world economy.

Basically what he said was that economic world power is shifting from the industrialized countries of the world which have been using credit as a means to consume far more than they produce---America being the main example---to developing countries like India and China who produce far more than they consume. Long story short, get ready for another recession, Americans.

On the original topic, do we really need somebody else to tell us that the Bush administration is full of rich, creamy shit? Do we really need somebody else to tell us that he instigated a war in Iraq on incorrect intelligence, intelligence that he was told was incorrect by at least one reputable person beforehand? Do we really need somebody to tell us that he probably had a reason for doing that, a reason that isn't as media-friendly as a) retribution for 9/11, b) weapons of mass destruction, or c) saving the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein?

I mean come on, the reason he claims we went over there changes every time enough people realizes the last reason he threw on the table is a lie.

The emperor has no clothes, the more people who figure that out the better.

CaptStu

01-23-2008, 07:31 AM

SuicideKing

01-23-2008, 07:33 AM

Here's what really pisses me off though, being proven wrong is not the same as lying. The "Bush lied, people died" meme is really starting to grate on me. Acting in good faith on intelligence that turned out to be faulty != lying.
Why can't some people get that through their heads.

As far as the credit situation, frankly I say don't bail out the people who screwed up. Oh what, you can't make your sub-prime mortgage payments? Well A. screw you for not paying your bills, and B, screw them for throwing money at unreliable people to begin with. Let the lenders foreclose on the deadbeats, and then auction off the properties to pay as much of the bill as they can before filing for bankruptcy.

Kamalot

01-23-2008, 07:36 AM

Here's what really pisses me off though, being proven wrong is not the same as lying. The "Bush lied, people died" meme is really starting to grate on me. Acting in good faith on intelligence that turned out to be faulty != lying.
Why can't some people get that through their heads.

Yes, there is a difference between saying, "We believe such-and0such" and being proven wrong, and saying, "Such-and-such is true" and being proven a liar.

The Bush administration was not 'acting on good faith'. They lied to push their own agendas, and that is wrong. Even though Sadam was a threat, the ends do not justify the means.

SuicideKing

01-23-2008, 07:38 AM

The Bush administration was not 'acting on good faith'. They lied to push their own agendas, and that is wrong.

This is something that no one can prove one way or the other, so we have arrived at an impasse, feel free to believe that, I personally don't, I don't see that the facts show that at all. The size of the at-the-time supposed conspiracy that would have kept quiet the fact that the intelligence was wrong, is necessarily too large to be believable IMHO.

I mean we can't even stop our prominent newspapers from leaking how we're tracking terrorist funds (I think that falls clearly under the treason moniker, personally), yet we somehow got them to sit on the fact that Bush made up information in a bid to go to war for what? Oil I suppose?

I just don't buy it. Sorry.

People seem to be forgetting that the intel used to justify going to war, was the same intel BOTH parties had been operating on for the past decade.
Hey, if a Soros hit piece can be considered reliable, then I feel ok putting up for your consideration, a webad from the GOP, I suppose all the Democrats on the video making their statements were either stupid enough to be hoodwinked, before Bush was even in office, in which case nothing they say now should be taken seriously, or they were all in on it.

ePb6H-j51xE

Damn, now that all the lefties seem to see so clearly how Bush lied and made it all up, he must have either had a severe drop in his lying ability, or people are just being too blinded by Bush hatred to think rationally.

mr. murphy

01-23-2008, 08:07 AM

Sigh, and murphy leaps to it, quick man, mobilize that far left and pass around the Soros approved "Special Comments" and "Important Action Alerts". The Man himself has distributed the latest series of talking points, just in time for Super Tuesday...

This made no sense to me, what are you getting at?

I'm not a leftist because I expect accountability for my leaders' and governments' actions. It wasn't okay when Clinton lied to us, and it wasn't okay when Bush lied to us, and evidence all along has shown that it was a calculated lie - I would have been all for the Iraq war without all the WMD and Al Quieda bullshit if he had just told the truth.

SuicideKing

01-23-2008, 08:13 AM

This made no sense to me, what are you getting at?

I'm not a leftist because I expect accountability for my leaders' and governments' actions. It wasn't okay when Clinton lied to us, and it wasn't okay when Bush lied to us, and evidence all along has shown that it was a calculated lie - I would have been all for the Iraq war without all the WMD and Al Quieda bullshit if he had just told the truth.

What I'm getting at is as I pointed out, this is, essentially, a George Soros study. When the mere fact that I sometimes quote people who are "Fox News Contributors" gets them discredited as partisan, I don't see how anyone can reasonably consider Soros to be an impartial purveyor of the truth.

Then you did the whole "pass this around" routine, which I don't know if you frequent left-wing echo chambers like the Daily Kos, Huffington Post etc, but they tend to pick up every Soros piece of propaganda and spam it around, with titles like "Important Action Alert" etc...

Sorry if I unfairly lumped you in with them.

I don't see how anyone can objectively maintain that Bush lied. Look back up at my previous post, how do you refute all the evidence that points towards everyone at the time thinking Saddam DID have WMD? We only later learned he didn't have them on the scale we expected, regardless we still found WMDs which he shouldn't have had, just not a modern fully functioning creation capability.

If you simply voice the facts you have at the time, and everyone believes them to be true when voicing them, how in the world are you lying? I just don't get it.

Kamalot

01-23-2008, 08:14 AM

I don't see how anyone can objectively maintain that Bush lied. look back up at my previous post, how do you refute all the evidence that points towards everyone at the time thinking Saddam DID have WMD?

Everyone except the weapons inspectors...

MJBuddy

01-23-2008, 08:17 AM

Basically what he said was that economic world power is shifting from the industrialized countries of the world which have been using credit as a means to consume far more than they produce---America being the main example---to developing countries like India and China who produce far more than they consume. Long story short, get ready for another recession, Americans.

This is actually pretty close to correct; at very least he's on the right highway of thought.

roboninja

01-23-2008, 08:18 AM

51|RandoM

01-23-2008, 08:22 AM

This is something that no one can prove one way or the other, so we have arrived at an impasse, feel free to believe that, I personally don't, I don't see that the facts show that at all.
It already has been proven. The information is out there for people who aren't trying to hide from it.

Why would he need to change his story three times?

If we're going over there because they had something to do with 9/11, why not stick to that story? Uh, because they didn't.

If we're going over there because they possess weapons of mass destruction that are an imminent threat to US security, why not stick to that story? Uh, because they didn't.

If we're going over there on behalf of the Iraqi people then why are we still there when the Iraqi people seem to have decided they don't need or want our help?

If the Bush administration had stuck with one story, one message, they could be given the benefit of the doubt, even in the face of some evidence that would eventually prove that story or message to be incorrect. When they start changing the story and changing the message because they know it was incorrect, yet do not admit to making any mistakes, there is a real problem with believing anything they say, ever.

Honest people make mistakes, they also are willing to admit it when they do, even if it is a big one. George Bush doesn't fill the shoes of an honest man, nor does his administration.

NationalKato

01-23-2008, 08:22 AM

Lots of people didin't think Saddam had WMDs. The administration and the hawks wanted to invade so badly they had a collective cognitive dissonance against anyone saying otherwise. The evidence was there that he had none; they just didn't want to hear it, because it didn't promote their agenda. You can try and rewrite history all you want, but the truth remains.

mr. murphy

01-23-2008, 08:23 AM

What I'm getting at is as I pointed out, this is, essentially, a George Soros study. When the mere fact that I sometimes quote people who are "Fox News Contributors" gets them discredited as partisan, I don't see how anyone can reasonably consider Soros to be an impartial purveyor of the truth.

Then you did the whole "pass this around" routine, which I don't know if you frequent left-wing echo chambers like the Daily Kos, Huffington Post etc, but they tend to pick up every Soros piece of propaganda and spam it around, with titles like "Important Action Alert" etc...

Sorry if I unfairly lumped you in with them.

I don't see how anyone can objectively maintain that Bush lied. Look back up at my previous post, how do you refute all the evidence that points towards everyone at the time thinking Saddam DID have WMD? We only later learned he didn't have them on the scale we expected, regardless we still found WMDs which he shouldn't have had, just not a modern fully functioning creation capability.

If you simply voice the facts you have at the time, and everyone believes them to be true when voicing them, how in the world are you lying? I just don't get it.

I don't visit those sites and don't know or care who Soros is. I am not an archivist, so I don't have the old newspaper articles, but the whole time he was claiming they had WMD's back in '02, there were also reporters and groups (the BBC covered it a lot) saying that the whole thing was baloney and providing us with air surveillance photos. Remember when Cheney did his search and found nothing? They still pushed the fact that Iraq must have them - with absolutely no evidence. There was evidence all along that they were using WMD's as a scare tactic to go to Iraq, evidence that I could see as a 23 year old in '02, evidence that made me so disillusioned with our leader and politics that I haven't had a conversation about it since, and I'm not going to start now.

I didn't just decide that Bush is a liar because someone said so. He lied to me, and to all of us, and I'm sorry you couldn't tell, because the evidence that he was full of it was there all along. You call me blinded, but how shady does your president have to get before maybe you'd open your eyes and say, yeah, he shouldn't have done that? Do you not believe in accountability?

I guess there's no point responding to me, I'm done with this thread. I don't think it's right for any person or part of the government to manipulate people with fear, and it was clear to me from the start that the current administration had different priorities than the American people.

Basically I call Bush a liar because after 9/11 we attacked the wrong country. He said we'd never tire, falter or fail, but where's Osama?

SuicideKing

01-23-2008, 08:24 AM

Do you actually work for Fox News? This is an angle I had not thought of before. You sure do pass off lies and untruths as fact like they do.
Everyone at the time did not think Saddam had WMDs. Essentially, everyone not part of the GoP at the time.

No, I do contract coding work. So you're saying you think Soros is credible? If so, you're the Koolaid drinker.

Heh you don't trust Bush, I don't trust impotent UN weapons inspectors.

WTF man, did you not just see, Pelosi, Biden and Rockefeller on that video in 2002 declare that Saddam did have WMDs? Last I checked none of them were card carrying GOP members. This is getting beyond silly. So much for expecting people to face reality. Nobody will even recognize that Soros is a biased source with a stated interest in undermining the Bush administration.

Wyrm

01-23-2008, 08:24 AM

roboninja

01-23-2008, 08:31 AM

No, I do contract coding work. So you're saying you think Soros is credible? If so, you're the Koolaid drinker.

Heh you don't trust Bush, I don't trust impotent UN weapons inspectors.

WTF man, did you not just see, Pelosi, Biden and Rockefeller on that video in 2002 declare that Saddam did have wmds? Last I checked neither was a ard carrying GOP member.

I never mentioned Soros once. I am not even sure who he is. You are right, I misspoke with the GOP line. Everyone in the political spectrum (save a few) toed the line and called for war. They were called unpatriotic if they even suggested otherwise. It was a time where everyone was still feeling very vulnerable after 9/11, and the administration utilized this vulnerability for their own agenda.

Now, I do not excuse people like Bidden or Pelosi because of the situation. I also think that their actions since winning control of the Congress have been equally as neutered. Bush has not really even had an opposition since 9/11. The Democrats and Republicans have been two sides of the same coin, and both show tails.

But, hey, you still think Saddam did have WMDs, so you are not about to believe Bush was lying when he said the same.

SuicideKing

01-23-2008, 08:38 AM

But, hey, you still think Saddam did have WMDs, so you are not about to believe Bush was lying when he said the same.

So... the military lied when they reported that over 500 filled and unfilled shells of sarin and mustard gas have been recovered in Iraq from 2003 (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf)? Which were there in violation of the UN sanctions?

Achilles

01-23-2008, 08:43 AM

Basically I call Bush a liar because after 9/11 we attacked the wrong country. He said we'd never tire, falter or fail, but where's Osama?We didn't attack Afghanistan? That would be news to some people. We just attacked an additional country. Putting more troops into Afghanistan wouldn't help because Osama's not there either, he left when we invaded.

NationalKato

01-23-2008, 08:46 AM

SuicideKing

01-23-2008, 08:51 AM

Says degraded, not unusable, you miss the part about remaining "hazardous and potentially lethal?" :rolleyes:

Also, are you denying that pre-gulf or no, they violated UN sanctions? THey had them, and the UN didn't find them, that doesn't inspire me to believe that there weren't other WMDs as well.

MJBuddy

01-23-2008, 08:57 AM

The amount of people in Washington using Bush's idiotic missteps as a scapegoat for their own incompetence in order to save their own ass probably surpasses the amount of people blaming bush for "winking and nodding" at them when the topic of Iraq came up, *obviously* hinting that he wanted false information in order to justify a war.

Johan

01-23-2008, 09:02 AM

Basically what he said was that economic world power is shifting from the industrialized countries of the world which have been using credit as a means to consume far more than they produce---America being the main example---to developing countries like India and China who produce far more than they consume.

The bane of development is that, when people get wealthy, they tend to become enamored of an easy life, luxury, and spending more than they earn. Eventually, the system collapses upon itself.

It's a bad time to be in debt, if you are (not me!)!!!

Also...good job, Republicans AND DEMOCRATS in Congress, for authorizing the war!

51|RandoM

01-23-2008, 09:13 AM

Seems to me, if I were the President and had a couple Delta teams at my disposal it wouldn't be that hard to insure that we found real and working WMDs pretty much anywhere I said you would.

Vermillion

01-23-2008, 09:21 AM

If only we had black Bush, at least he was honest.

S7wFhHFajiQ

MJBuddy

01-23-2008, 09:21 AM

Seems to me, if I were the President and had a couple Delta teams at my disposal it wouldn't be that hard to insure that we found real and working WMDs pretty much anywhere I said you would.

The most assured reason I feel as though we had misinformation and not lies was that we didn't find actual WMDs....

Because if we knew they weren't there and lied about them, we'd have planted them there.

Schnoogs

01-23-2008, 09:30 AM

Turns out Saddam was actually a saint...who would have though it

Craggle

01-23-2008, 09:56 AM

So... the military lied when they reported that over 500 filled and unfilled shells of sarin and mustard gas have been recovered in Iraq from 2003 (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf)? Which were there in violation of the UN sanctions?

Santorum and Hoekstra's claim was debunked by the DOD. The Iraq Survey Group (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm) had already acknowledged the pre-Gulf cache and had dismissed it.

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

* The scale of the Iraqi conventional munitions stockpile, among other factors, precluded an examination of the entire stockpile; however, ISG inspected sites judged most likely associated with possible storage or deployment of chemical weapons.

Zanzibar

01-23-2008, 10:30 AM

Anyone who voted for Bush - TWICE - can take their reservations about Bill Clinton's ethics and shove them up their ass.

Schnoogs

01-23-2008, 10:32 AM

Anyone who voted for Bush - TWICE - can take their reservations about Bill Clinton's ethics and shove them up their ass.

In a year he'll be ancient history

MJBuddy

01-23-2008, 10:34 AM

In a year he'll be ancient history

Finally a fresh person to blame.

51|RandoM

01-23-2008, 10:34 AM

In a year he'll be ancient history

maybe... maybe not. ;)

IrishWhiskey

01-23-2008, 10:36 AM

No, I do contract coding work. So you're saying you think Soros is credible? If so, you're the Koolaid drinker.

Heh you don't trust Bush, I don't trust impotent UN weapons inspectors.I really wouldn't be talking about Kool-Aid here, seeing as you're one of the last remaining people who has faith in the credibility of George W Bush, and thinks he didn't lie.

Ignoring the immediate anti-Soros discreditation for the moment (I'm guessing picked up from years of watching Bill O'Reilly's "He's a lying pinko commie" tirades), is there any particular one of the statements they listed that isn't false? Or is your objection that the survey undercounted?

I mean for crying out loud, when its purpose is measuring lies told by Bush about Iraq, your complaint that its partisan comes off as silly.

Also...good job, Republicans AND DEMOCRATS in Congress, for authorizing the war!Absolutely. There are a lot of Democrats that made bad mistakes then too, and should be held to account. Of course that doesn't make what Bush did any better or more honest.

All governments lie to their people, frequently. The Bush Administration has been especially bad about getting caught lying about things, but that doesn't mean they're any worse than the previous bunch, or that the next will be better either.

You can vote, and pretend that makes a difference if you like.Maybe everybody lies, but what they lie about matters. Lets see, a President who lies about torture, secret surveillance and starting wars? Or blowjobs and how many MiccyDs he eats? Hmmm....

Rifter

01-23-2008, 11:02 AM

Everyone except the weapons inspectors...

No, everyone except Hans something... who was the lead inspector, and was on good, friendly terms with Saddam. There was a report several years ago, about US weapons inspection teams going into Iraq, and every place they inspected, was pristine... finally, they passed "false" papers to the french about where the "surprise" inspections were going to be... and when their surprise inspection popped up where the Saddam wasn't expecting them, they DID find problems. It was not pristine. Food for oil was corrupted, as was the weapons inspections. Hell, go back to the CLINTON administration... even HIS administration was saying there were WMDs... was HE lying as well?!!?

IrishWhiskey

01-23-2008, 11:17 AM

No, everyone except Hans something... who was the lead inspector, and was on good, friendly terms with Saddam.Oh, for fucks sake. Yes Rifter, of course, the reason Hans Blix, the foremost weapons inspection expert, said that the were no longer WMDs in Iraq, is because he and Saddam were best buddies. The fact that there were no weapons is just a complete coincidence.

Hell, go back to the CLINTON administration... even HIS administration was saying there were WMDs... was HE lying as well?!!?Maybe he was wrong, and maybe they had them then. We do know they had weapons during the Reagan and Bush era's, and that weapons inspections and sanctions during the 90s and the natural shelf life of some of the hard-to-replace chemicals would have eliminated most of those. The point isn't so much that Bush was wrong as a lot of people were, but that he was wrong because he started with an agenda of invading Iraq (Rumsfeld asked on the day of 9/11 how we could pin this on Iraq and the invasion was discussed even before then) and so fabricated or manipulated evidence to support their conclusions. Or at least heavily pressured others so that the results were the same.

DevilUknow

01-23-2008, 11:31 AM

why is everyone so hard on the president

he's only gotten thousands of American's and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, destroyed American credibility, put the country on the brink of economic collapse and committed treason a couple of times.

its not like he got a blow job or something.

Kamalot

01-23-2008, 11:39 AM

Whimbrel

01-23-2008, 11:54 AM

Suicide King is being pretty delusional here. "The idea that the government did something wrong is too hard to believe so I refuse to believe it." I don't care about your politics. I don't care if you love wasting US dollars in Iraq, killing Iraqi citizens, Americans, or both. Your argument about the conspiracy in intelligence being too large is uneducated and wrong. Read a few chapters of Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. It will spell out for you in easy to understand and objective language exactly what happened to the intelligence, opposition, etc in the press, the administration, and the public between 9/11 and attacking Iraq.

I understand if you want to defend Bush and the war. I even understand if you want to make a stupid argument to do so. But to make a stupid argument based on ignorance is really inexcusable when so many people have spelled out exactly what happened. This is not a question of "conspiracies so big I can't believe them." It is mostly the result of political influence, personality conflicts, communication problems, and different ideologies.

asimonk

01-23-2008, 01:03 PM

So... the military lied when they reported that over 500 filled and unfilled shells of sarin and mustard gas have been recovered in Iraq from 2003 (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf)? Which were there in violation of the UN sanctions?

When you trumpet nuclear weapons as your threat and the "smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud" and the best you can do to prove it is some shit buried under the sand for over a decade, you fail.

When you talk up yellow cake and aluminum tubes (cake which was never bought and the tubes were too thick for the centrifuges and the incorrect length, not to mention anodized - the process of stripping anodizing is not a precise one and will leave the tubes well out of the bounds of the tolerances needed for use in centrifuges) and continue to use them as evidence AFTER they have been discredited is fail.

Regardless, a list of 935 factually incorrect things is still a list of factually incorrect things. It doesn't matter who funded it.

Johan

01-23-2008, 01:42 PM

Suicide King is being pretty delusional here.

Exactly. Anyone who disagrees is delusional, right?

You don't agree? Yeah, well...you're delusional as well, then.

Whimbrel

01-23-2008, 01:47 PM

Nope, disagreement is fine. Claiming that the data are so inconclusive that it is simply a matter of personal interpretation is not just delusional, but inexcusably ignorant. Its the same sort of thing the Intelligent Designers try, but I'm sure you already know all about that.

Venkman

01-23-2008, 01:49 PM

When you trumpet nuclear weapons as your threat and the "smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud" and the best you can do to prove it is some shit buried under the sand for over a decade, you fail.

I don't disagree with you per se, but Sarin and Mustard gas are some pretty nasty weapons that I wouldn't gloss over so quickly. True, it's not the super secret metal gear mobile nuclear facility we were told was hidden in the Iraqi desert.

But it's not like they dug up a bunch of nerf weapons.

Johan

01-23-2008, 01:50 PM

Nope, disagreement is fine.

No it's not. That's perfectly clear!

Claiming that the data are so inconclusive that it is simply a matter of personal interpretation is not just delusional, but inexcusably ignorant.

Considering I haven't read any of the thread, I don't know what you're talking about and don't even care!

Its the same sort of thing the Intelligent Designers try, but I'm sure you already know all about that.

Yes. I am Michael Behe. There. I said it. The truth is out there now. :D

mr. murphy

01-23-2008, 01:52 PM

Considering I haven't read any of the thread, I don't know what you're talking about and don't even care!

Then... then what are you doing?

Zanzibar

01-23-2008, 01:53 PM

I don't disagree with you per se, but Sarin and Mustard gas are some pretty nasty weapons that I wouldn't gloss over so quickly. True, it's not the super secret metal gear mobile nuclear facility we were told was hidden in the Iraqi desert.

But it's not like they dug up a bunch of nerf weapons.

Be fair here, the context of the Administration comments were 'they are actively gearing up to wipe us out, so we have to act now before they have built a big enough arsenal to do it,' when the actuality was they only found stuff that was built BEFORE the first Iraq war.

Johan

01-23-2008, 01:53 PM

Then... then what are you doing?

Apparently you don't know me too well! http://www.emoticons4u.com/evil/teu42.gif

NationalKato

01-23-2008, 01:56 PM

I don't disagree with you per se, but Sarin and Mustard gas are some pretty nasty weapons that I wouldn't gloss over so quickly. True, it's not the super secret metal gear mobile nuclear facility we were told was hidden in the Iraqi desert.

Agreed. It's not Nerf. But when faced with this factual evidence, you must continually ask yourself, "Is it worth going to war over? Is it worth the tens of thousands dead and wounded? Is it worth the instability in the region and the empowerment of al-Qaeda?" All of this for some old gas?

I submit that the answer is 'no.' And when the administration, after the fact, answered these questions for themselves, they decided to change the goals, citing Saddam's mean-spirited ways and al-Qaeda (you know, once they entered the country) and the longtime favorite: Freedom! Convenient, huh? :D

muddi900

01-23-2008, 01:58 PM

All governments lie to their people, frequently. The Bush Administration has been especially bad about getting caught lying about things, but that doesn't mean they're any worse than the previous bunch, or that the next will be better either.

You can vote, and pretend that makes a difference if you like.

All governments want sheeps like you. They take away your hope and/or stiffle you economicaly. So now, Joe Schmoe is too busy putting food on the table to care or is a pessimistic fuckwad, not raising his voice for anything. Thats how they control you. Take some advice from someone who has seen a lot of bullshit in very few years: Things can and will get better, you just have to get off your butt.

PS: sorry to be off-topic, bt this has to be posted.

Johan

01-23-2008, 02:00 PM

Things can and will get better

Unless they get worse.

Flip a coin.

muddi900

01-23-2008, 02:01 PM

Apparently you don't know me too well! http://www.emoticons4u.com/evil/teu42.gif

What do you do for a living? I believe your whole day you;

a)Play Video games
b)Troll EvAv.

Please clarify if you do so otherwise.

xcalibur

01-23-2008, 02:02 PM

Venkman

01-23-2008, 02:11 PM

Agreed. It's not Nerf. But when faced with this factual evidence, you must continually ask yourself, "Is it worth going to war over? Is it worth the tens of thousands dead and wounded? Is it worth the instability in the region and the empowerment of al-Qaeda?" All of this for some old gas?

I submit that the answer is 'no.' And when the administration, after the fact, answered these questions for themselves, they decided to change the goals, citing Saddam's mean-spirited ways and al-Qaeda (you know, once they entered the country) and the longtime favorite: Freedom! Convenient, huh? :D

You confuse me! My ant-war side wants to say "no, it's not worth the immense cost in human life". But I also don't want anyone to use those weapons on people anymore. I certainly don't want to decide if it is worth losing 10000 people to those weapons, or hundreds of thousands in instability and sectarian violence.

I try not to think of people dying as purely a numbers game (they're people for God's sake!), but I think this screw up in the middle east may be starting to reach a scale in which it is difficult to use any other means of measurement. :(

Johan

01-23-2008, 02:18 PM

Please clarify if you do so otherwise.

I try to catch the drops of sunshine from those such as yourself, to brighten my day! :D

MJBuddy

01-23-2008, 02:20 PM

I also think there's a problem with people acting like the U.S. casualty rate was even significantly high.

Oh I'm starting an argument that makes me a total asshole...

Whimbrel

01-23-2008, 02:25 PM

I find it interesting that Bush-haters who insist that anyone who does not believe Bush knowingly lied to go to war is not looking at the "facts" are unable to do so themselves. They are so ingrained into their "Bush lied, people died" stance that they are either unwilling or unable to look at the issue objectively.

-X

Not sure who you are thinking of or what facts you think you have looked at objectively, but again, I suggest you read the first chapters of "Fiasco" for facts and then try to objectively decide this was all an unfortunate and unintentional misunderstanding. Frankly, I don't think you can do it once you have information about what actually happened. But maybe you can. It is hard for me to see how it is possible without sticking ones head in the sand and saying "It just doesn't seem likely from my perspective."

NationalKato

01-23-2008, 02:28 PM

But I also don't want anyone to use those weapons on people anymore. I certainly don't want to decide if it is worth losing 10000 people to those weapons, or hundreds of thousands in instability and sectarian violence.

I'm with you. At the root of my anger and hatred for the mess this administration and its cronies have gotten our country into is the simple fact that, had they come to us with decade-old mustard and sarin gas canisters, we wouldn't be in this war. You know, if they'd been honest and not tried to scare us into thinking Saddam had nukes pointed at Disney World.

GunnyMo

01-23-2008, 02:29 PM

Maybe everybody lies, but what they lie about matters. Lets see, a President who lies about torture, secret surveillance and starting wars? Or blowjobs and how many MiccyDs he eats? Hmmm....

haha that is so true! I remember during that whole Clinton fiasco thinking, "So, um, are Republicans more pissed off that he lied about getting a BJ or the fact that he was getting what they sorely desired?"

So Clinton diddled his intern. Big whoop. It wasn't the end of the country as the GoP wanted everyone to think. It was just a convenient excuse for them to talk about dirty, dirty sex for months on end and not get in trouble with their frigid wives. :D

If you want to have a Biggest Wang Lies contest, GW Bush, by far, has the biggest. That's been evident for a long time.

asimonk

01-23-2008, 02:30 PM

I don't disagree with you per se, but Sarin and Mustard gas are some pretty nasty weapons that I wouldn't gloss over so quickly. True, it's not the super secret metal gear mobile nuclear facility we were told was hidden in the Iraqi desert.

But it's not like they dug up a bunch of nerf weapons.

I agree totally. Kato summed up my thoughts fairly well. But how long did they beat that nuke drum? How long after the war was it still beaten? Hell, how long after our own intelligence guys concluded that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons are they still beating that drum?

I'm all for blowing shit up in games. Its fun. When its real people and real shit being blown up, I get uneasy.

KingGorilla

01-23-2008, 11:33 PM

Only 935? Must have low balled to make Bush look better.

Deadend

01-23-2008, 11:46 PM

So, remember the 2002 CIA investigation into whether Iraq was buying yellow cake? and how it concluded.. no, it was not? But hey. reality never stopped the Bush administration.

KingGorilla

01-24-2008, 02:30 AM

Congress too here people, there are hundreds of elected officials with their cocks in a knot on this.

H.Bogard

01-24-2008, 02:52 AM

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.

Thanks captain obvious!

o9Giln-f9OQ

nathansmart

01-24-2008, 03:36 AM

Did Bush ever admit they were wrong about the WMDs?

Lunar Blue

01-24-2008, 06:48 AM

Did Bush ever admit they were wrong about the WMDs?

If I recall, in a press event some months ago when asked the question about WMD's, he answered something along the lines: "that was never our missions" with a smirk on his face. That was the biggest "fuck you" I've ever seen in my life and I find it absurd there are people even on this site that support this guy. I'm sure someone can find the footage, I couldn't.

KingGorilla

01-24-2008, 01:36 PM

Last year in an interview he could not recall a single mistake that he or his administration has committed. Funny, neither could the former Speaker of the House.

NationalKato

01-24-2008, 01:40 PM

I find it absurd there are people even on this site that support this guy.

It's always hard for someone to admit they were hoodwinked. This is why you keep hearing the "everyone thought they had WMDs" angle.

Johan

01-24-2008, 01:44 PM

..."everyone thought they had WMDs" angle.

Which, for the entire Western world and its intelligence operations, was exactly what everyone thought.

Doesn't excuse the entire mess, but don't reinvent history. There wasn't a single Western nation that denied Iraq had them. There were, however, many Western nations that disputed any link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58127-2004Aug11?language=printer)

NationalKato

01-24-2008, 01:55 PM

Which, for the entire Western world and its intelligence operations, was exactly what everyone thought.

I'm sorry, I thought Florida was part of the Western world. And Atlanta too. And a bunch of other places where people weren't buying the bullshit. Just because you were too naive to see through the charade doesn't mean we all were. :rolleyes:

SuicideKing

01-24-2008, 02:00 PM

I'm sorry, I thought Florida was part of the Western world. And Atlanta too. And a bunch of other places where people weren't buying the bullshit. Just because you were too naive to see through the charade doesn't mean we all were. :rolleyes:

That's pretty ballsy of you, essentially stating that you saw through what all the Leaders of the western world, who had first-hand access to any intelligence you might have gleaned from press reports, not to mention tons you couldn't possibly have been privy to.

Just because you made up your mind on who knows what basis to disbelieve what all the people who's JOB it was to know were saying, and then it turns out you might be somewhat vindicated in hindsight. Why you're a regular Nostradamus, why the hell aren't you in charge?

NationalKato

01-24-2008, 02:00 PM

Sorry you were hoodwinked.

SuicideKing

01-24-2008, 02:08 PM

Let me guess, you have proof we didn't land on the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, and Oswald was a patsy too... Because you just know. :rolleyes:

But just for the record, I don't consider myself hoodwinked, that would require I believe that all the said leaders and intelligence people who did think they had WMDs were all in on some conspiracy to lie to everyone for who knows what reason. And that seems to me a far less plausible then them just getting the intel wrong.

Johan

01-24-2008, 02:15 PM

Sorry you were hoodwinked.

Hahahaha!

I'm sure your contributions to getting out the "truth" were magnificent and well-documented in the run-up to the Iraq War.

Oh...wait. Armchair general. Gotcha.

Whimbrel

01-24-2008, 02:17 PM

But just for the record, I don't consider myself hoodwinked, that would require I believe that all the said leaders and intelligence people who did think they had WMDs were all in on some conspiracy to lie to everyone for who knows what reason. And that seems to me a far less plausible then them just getting the intel wrong.

Man you are like a broken record, all spin and sounds like shit. There are many possible explanations for what happened that have nothing to do with a conspiracy. For starters, you keep repeating the completely inaccurate bullshit about all the leaders. At no point in between 9/11 and the launch of the Iraq war did all the leaders agree about any of this. FACTS, junior, FACTS. Get some or be relegated to having your views be based on the imaginary plausibility of things that you are wrong about anyway. It would be a sad way to go through life, so stop, learn, and listen.

NationalKato

01-24-2008, 02:21 PM

Wait! You forgot Poland! :D

51|RandoM

01-24-2008, 02:24 PM

Let me guess, you have proof we didn't land on the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, and Oswald was a patsy too...

I have proof about the moon landings right here (http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm).

thanks for giving me the opportunity to post what is probably my favorite link in the world

Johan

01-24-2008, 02:27 PM

At no point in between 9/11 and the launch of the Iraq war did all the leaders agree about any of this.

What they disagreed upon was the appropriate response. No security services in any Western nations denied the possibility of the presence of WMDs in Iraq prior to the war.

In fact, many in Saddam's own administration, and even Saddam himself, weren't definitively sure.

Time. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031006-490596,00.html)

Over the past three months, TIME has interviewed Iraqi weapons scientists, middlemen and former government officials. Saddam's henchmen all make essentially the same claim: that Iraq's once massive unconventional-weapons program was destroyed or dismantled in the 1990s and never rebuilt; that officials destroyed or never kept the documents that would prove it; that the shell games Saddam played with U.N. inspectors were designed to conceal his progress on conventional weapons systems—missiles, air defenses, radar—not biological or chemical programs; and that even Saddam, a sucker for a new gadget or invention or toxin, may not have known what he actually had or, more to the point, didn't have. It would be an irony almost too much to bear to consider that he doomed his country to war because he was intent on protecting weapons systems that didn't exist in the first place.

Facts, junior, FACTS! :rolleyes:

TheFlyingOrc

01-24-2008, 02:28 PM

I still maintain there's a huge difference between lying and being boneheaded.

Whimbrel

01-24-2008, 02:36 PM

There is a big difference between denying the possibility that they might exist and agreeing that they definitely do exist. I think that in terms of your rather qualified statement, you are pretty close to the truth. Pretty much everybody agreed that there might be something there. That is a very different thing than saying all the leaders agreed that they were there. Does nobody remember the security council vote issue prior to pre-emptive erroneous invasion? In any case, Johan, I draw a pretty clear distinction between you and Suicide King in terms of the ability to be cogent and do research.

My main point is that the errors in policy and intelligence did not come from conspiracy and they sure as hell did not come from agreement. As I said before, it was the result of a clash in ideologies and leadership at multiple levels in the administration, the military, and the intelligence community. There were dissenting voices at every stage and step.

IrishWhiskey

01-24-2008, 02:38 PM

I still maintain there's a huge difference between lying and being boneheaded.But how much of a difference is there between lying, and intentionally seeking only information that proves your argument, presenting it as more credible than it really is, and dismissing or ignoring any contradictory information?

Ultima Thulian

01-24-2008, 02:41 PM

I have proof about the moon landings right here (http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm).

thanks for giving me the opportunity to post what is probably my favorite link in the world

Sir, that may be the funniest thing I've seen in months, perhaps years. I'm tears reading that.

"Even your reptilian overlords can't help you now NASA!"

As for the topic, uh...what was it? Aw fuck it, Bush sucks. There.

TheFlyingOrc

01-24-2008, 02:42 PM

But how much of a difference is there between lying, and intentionally seeking only information that proves your argument, presenting it as more credible than it really is, and dismissing or ignoring any contradictory information?
Well, A is pretty much the definition of boneheadedness, B is delusion, and C begins to approach lying. I'm not saying that Iraq was a good idea, but I maintain that the current policies are a result of foolishness, not conspiracy.

"Never suspect malice where incompetence will suffice."

Zanzibar

01-24-2008, 02:45 PM

UN weapons inspectors were ON THE GROUND in Iraq saying 'we can't corroborate anything the Bush Administration has said. We haven't found anything to suggest they are correct. Give us more time and we'll know if their information is accurate.'

But no, the Bush Administration said 'Of course our information is accurate. There is no question that we are correct. Get your asses out of there because we're gonna bomb them back to the Stone Age.'

The information was all fragments and incomplete theories. Only somebody who has already decided to go to war can look at the data and interpret it as 'accurate' information about an existing Iraqi program to procure WMDs.

Reckless endangerment resulting in compromising the safety of the United States.

Treason.

Ultima Thulian

01-24-2008, 02:45 PM

What does it matter if it was "boneheadeness" or just plain bullshit? The end result is the same either way.

IrishWhiskey

01-24-2008, 02:45 PM

Well, A is pretty much the definition of boneheadedness, B is delusion, and C begins to approach lying. I'm not saying that Iraq was a good idea, but I maintain that the current policies are a result of foolishness, not conspiracy.

"Never suspect malice where incompetence will suffice."And thats why I think it was a little bit of all three. They were boneheaded enough to accept the premise without ever questioning it, they deluded themselves into presenting and believing in faulty intel (like Chabali) just because of their eagerness and the idea that the end justified the means, and several times displayed criminal lying in attacking Joe Wilson and others not because their information was wrong, but because they wished to silence and discredit any other point of view.

"Never suspect that Dick Cheney lacks malice in his actions"

TheFlyingOrc

01-24-2008, 02:47 PM

What does it matter if it was "boneheadeness" or just plain bullshit? The end result is the same either way.
Surely you've used "I didn't mean to" as an excuse for something? The ends don't always justify the means, and neither do they implicate them.

Oxonian

01-24-2008, 02:48 PM

Reckless endangerment resulting in the compromising safety of the United States.

Treason.
The mens rea for treason is recklessness? Shit, Zanz, you must be a prosecutor in one of those secret military tribunals I've heard so much about.

NationalKato

01-24-2008, 02:48 PM

Sshhh, Zanzibar! SupportTheTroops9/11Osama.

Ancalagon

01-24-2008, 02:48 PM

Smoke em out!

Zanzibar

01-24-2008, 02:50 PM

The mens rea for treason is recklessness? Shit, Zanz, you must be a prosecutor in one of those secret military tribunals I've heard so much about.

Well, it's certainly more direct than what some people (http://www.amazon.com/Treason-Liberal-Treachery-Cold-Terrorism/dp/1400050308) are accusing others behavior of being treasonous.

Oxonian

01-24-2008, 02:51 PM

Well, it's certainly more direct than what some people (http://www.amazon.com/Treason-Liberal-Treachery-Cold-Terrorism/dp/1400050308) are accusing others of being treasonous.
So, your argument is "I'm slightly less partisan and unhinged than Ann Coulter"? Congratulations.

TheFlyingOrc

01-24-2008, 02:51 PM

And thats why I think it was a little bit of all three. They were boneheaded enough to accept the premise without ever questioning it, they deluded themselves into presenting and believing in faulty intel (like Chabali) just because of their eagerness and the idea that the end justified the means, and several times displayed criminal lying in attacking Joe Wilson and others not because their information was wrong, but because they wished to silence and discredit any other point of view.

"Never suspect that Dick Cheney lacks malice in his actions"
Joe Wilson was discredited because he didn't deserve any credit, but that's getting off topic.

And your last statement sounds like that of a man who is looking to store some of Dick Cheney's buckshot in his forehead for safe keeping. ;)

Zanzibar

01-24-2008, 02:52 PM

So, your argument is "I'm slightly less partisan and unhinged than Ann Coulter"? Congratulations.

LOL - I'm just poking at the embers of the fire. I know it's not treasonous, or even impeachable.

But it is fun to watch people get upset. Ah, the power of words. ;)

Oxonian

01-24-2008, 02:53 PM

Oh, OK. You're Johan.

Johan

01-24-2008, 02:54 PM

UN weapons inspectors were ON THE GROUND in Iraq saying 'we can't corroborate anything the Bush Administration has said. We haven't found anything to suggest they are correct. Give us more time and we'll know if their information is accurate.'

Ive already posted a link proving several things:

1. More time would have solved nothing, as the documents had been destroyed proving the WMDs were gone, and Saddam himself actually though he had some.

2. Nobody in Western intelligence services could definitively state that the WMDs were gone.

3. You're an idiot who, as you've apparently never voted anything other than party line (you have not denied this previously), is unworthy of a political discussion. You see only one side. YOURS.

That should have been in the link, anyways.

*pull that lever/press that party-line button*

Oh, OK. You're Johan.

Is he stirring the flames? Yes...he is. But a pale imitation, at best.

TheFlyingOrc

01-24-2008, 02:54 PM

LOL - I'm just poking at the embers of the fire. I know it's not treasonous, or even impeachable.

But it is fun to watch people get upset. Ah, the power of words. ;)

So what you're saying is you were the puppetmaster THE WHOLE TIME???

I have never heard that before on an internet forum, I guess I'd better believe it.

IrishWhiskey

01-24-2008, 02:55 PM

3. You're an idiot who, as you've apparently never voted anything other than party line (you have not denied this previously), is unworthy of a political discussion. You see only one side. YOURS.

*pull that lever/press that party-line button*Whereas you never see anything but one side, but no party is crazy enough to align with all your views. Much better.

Ultima Thulian

01-24-2008, 02:58 PM

Surely you've used "I didn't mean to" as an excuse for something? The ends don't always justify the means, and neither do they implicate them.

End result is still the same, and my and others taxpayers are used to pay congressmen, presidents, etc. So you'll have to excuse me if I take their fuckups not so lightly, especially when they result in war, patriot act, NCLB act, weakening economy, "advanced interrogation tactics", poor foreign policy, high gas prices (okay, that one is arguably not the fault of politicians...), increased survelliance and the pressing of my privacy, ridiculous spending, and the title of a "do-nothing congress" and a "lame-duck" president.

Politicians are usually highly educated and intelligent people. Yes, they are human and will have the occasional "whoopsie-doodle!", but not too often. Likewise, their paycheck is made possible by me and other citizens, and their job is to represent me and look out for OUR interests. So fuck them. My sympathy is better spent elsewhere.

I'm not a Cafferty (sp?) fan...he's that loudmouth douchebag on Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room that occasional pops up. But he said one thing I agree with, "Vote all incumbents out. Everyone." Time to show these fuckers we don't approve of their job performance.

TheFlyingOrc

01-24-2008, 02:58 PM

Whereas you never see anything but one side, but no party is crazy enough to align with all your views. Much better.
I actually do find that preferable to just following the party line without thinking for yourself.

Zanzibar

01-24-2008, 03:14 PM

Ive already posted a link proving several things:

1. More time would have solved nothing, as the documents had been destroyed proving the WMDs were gone, and Saddam himself actually though he had some.

2. Nobody in Western intelligence services could definitively state that the WMDs were gone.

3. You're an idiot who, as you've apparently never voted anything other than party line (you have not denied this previously), is unworthy of a political discussion. You see only one side. YOURS.

That should have been in the link, anyways.

*pull that lever/press that party-line button*

Is he stirring the flames? Yes...he is. But a pale imitation, at best.

Wow, holy shit, are you listening to yourself? You're really arguing that bombing was justified because we couldn't prove they DIDN'T exist??

I can't prove that fairies don't exist, but by your logic, shouldn't we make sure that our Universal Health Care system would provide coverage for them?

God, that's just amazing. "We know where they are. They're in the area outside Tikrit." That ring a bell? More time for the UN inspectors who were getting cooperation from the Iraqis - remember how Iraq had realized that the US was serious, and they started destroying those medium-range missiles that could reach Israel? - would have elicited MORE EVIDENCE of the NON-EXISTENCE of the WMDs.

By the way, I go against party line all the time, not sure what you're referring to. I'm pro-nuclear power and pro-death penalty, for starters.

Johan

01-24-2008, 03:17 PM

Wow, holy shit, are you listening to yourself? You're really arguing that bombing was justified because we couldn't prove they DIDN'T exist??

Where did I EVER say we were justified in our invasion? I've always said it was/is a clusterfuck, and I'm for a pullout. Have been...

I am clearly pointing out that the tin-foil-hat-wearing amongst us need to get over the "HE LIED" bullshit. Nobody in Western intelligence believed with a certainty that the WMDs were gone. Saddam HIMSELF thought he still had some.

Oh, and by the way...ever vote Republican? Even once? If not, you're a tool. A party-line tool.

IrishWhiskey

01-24-2008, 03:26 PM

Oh, and by the way...ever vote Republican? Even once? If not, you're a tool. A party-line tool....Really? You have to vote for a Republican or you're a tool? Its one thing to criticize someone for agreeing with their party too much, its another to say that unless you vote for a member of a party whose principles (for your own personal reasons) you disagree with, you are a tool. And for anyone under 28, they could easily just be voting to get split government, which makes them more bipartisan, not less.

derjester

01-24-2008, 04:51 PM

I have proof about the moon landings right here (http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm).
taken out of quote to preserve spoiler:thanks for giving me the opportunity to post what is probably my favorite link in the world

The only reason to read this whole thread.

NationalKato

01-24-2008, 05:43 PM

Oh, and by the way...ever vote Republican? Even once? If not, you're a tool. A party-line tool.

Wow, even your own trolling is getting kind of weak now. You can do better, I know it!

NSFW

01-24-2008, 06:09 PM

I don't remember all the leaders of the nations giving us the green flag. I remember a bunch of countries calling bush n co on his bs reasons and those countries getting a bad rap. Seriously there wasn't a unanimous international consensus on invading Iraq. If there was then there would have been a lot more European countries involved in the effort. That being said. Who really cares? Wouldn't the energy put into arguing about this shit be better spent in trying to find a solution to all our problems. Our attitude needs to change in that we need to figure out how to make our country essentially LEVEL UP over the competition and regain our dominance in all things awesome. Seriously I think we're focusing on the wrong issues as a people (not us on the boards but our country as a whole is out of touch). We focus on differences and not our similar interests.

MJBuddy

01-24-2008, 06:55 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did. Because, says Piro, "For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," he tells Pelley.

He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. "Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

APPARENTLY, some of the people here are incredibly wrong, and some of them incredibly right.

karak

01-24-2008, 07:02 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

APPARENTLY, some of the people here are incredibly wrong, and some of them incredibly right.

Sometimes people's big bragging mouths get them into trouble. Saddam's mouth got him into death.

Johan

01-24-2008, 07:03 PM

Wow, even your own trolling is getting kind of weak now. You can do better, I know it!

If you believe, and vote, as if one party has the answers for everything...then you're no better than a fundamentalist religious zealot who believes his "one party" has the answers to everything.

I've voted on both sides of the aisle, and I'm proud to admit it. I don't vote party line, because I don't think one party has all the answers.

If you do, you're a tool. Worse, you (and those who vote and think "party line") are the greatest stumbling block to true political progress in America.

So...Zanzibar hasn't voted across party lines ever. You? :rolleyes:

IrishWhiskey

01-24-2008, 07:05 PM

APPARENTLY, some of the people here are incredibly wrong, and some of them incredibly right.I'm not sure who they are. We all knew Saddam wasn't going to be honest with us, and many acknowledged beforehand that he couldn't appear weak. And had the justification for war been Saddam's "potential to at some point" have weapons, the debate would have been very different.

If you believe, and vote, as if one party has the answers for everything...then you're no better than a fundamentalist religious zealot who believes his "one party" has the answers to everything.

I've voted on both sides of the aisle, and I'm proud to admit it. I don't vote party line, because I don't think one party has all the answers.

If you do, you're a tool. Worse, you (and those who vote and think "party line") are the greatest stumbling block to true political progress in America.Voting for one party over another doesn't mean you think "one party has the answers for everything". It means either:

A. Out of the choices in front of you, you thought the party member each time would be a better choice (which often happens when a partisan issue like abortion, healthcare, war or gay rights is your primary concern)
or B. You are voting strategically, trying to get your party in power, because even if you prefer a Republican/Democratic opposition candidate, if the balance of power is close, you know it will not be that individual alone controlling the agenda, but a party whose views you don't share.

There's tons of good reasons why people might vote a straight ticket. Stop acting superior to everyone because you, like most of the country, voted for Clinton.

Johan

01-24-2008, 07:14 PM

I smell a festering pile of shit above this post.

So...foreign national, or felon?

Tool. And a troll.

IrishWhiskey

01-24-2008, 07:15 PM

I smell a festering pile of shit above this post.

So...foreign national, or felon?

Tool. And a troll.This may be your most mature and reasoned post yet today.

Zanzibar

01-24-2008, 07:16 PM

Interesting. If I voted for a Republican, that means that I want the Republican platform to succeed, does it not? I don't see how you could interpret that any other way - voting for a Republican means you're sending a party member to go vote with the rest of the party members. Oh, s/he might dissent here or there, but by and large, s/he'll be ammunition to throw behind the weight of whatever crappy Republican bills that are made by the GOP Powers That Be.

Johan

01-24-2008, 07:17 PM

I don't know what you're saying, IW, but you should stop hounding me. You're following me around, trolling my posts, and while that might be appropriately dickish behavior of you, it's still dickish.

Felon, or foreign? Too bad I can't see the response.

Interesting. If I voted for a Republican, that means that I want the Republican platform to succeed, does it not? I don't see how you could interpret that any other way - voting for a Republican means you're sending a party member to go vote with the rest of the party members. Oh, s/he might dissent here or there, but by and large, s/he'll be ammunition to throw behind the weight of whatever crappy Republican bills that are made by the GOP Powers That Be.

This is, frankly, fucked up thinking. Seeing a politician as a "mindless party member" rather than someone with their own positions and interests, is part of the problem in our political realm.

I've voted Democratic on numerous occasions because the politician had a slate of positions that were compelling to me. I don't vote a party. I vote a politician.

Seriously...if all you do is flip a switch, you don't even need to think any more. You're part of the reason nothing ever changes.

MJBuddy

01-24-2008, 07:21 PM

I'm not sure who they are. We all knew Saddam wasn't going to be honest with us, and many acknowledged beforehand that he couldn't appear weak. And had the justification for war been Saddam's "potential to at some point" have weapons, the debate would have been very different.

Well fuck, I guess reason is out of the question. Bush just lied guys, let's go home.

No no, take that evidence and circumstance and go home with it.

Zanzibar

01-24-2008, 07:22 PM

Johan, if I send a freshman Republican Congressman to Washington, he's going to be the low man on the totem pole. The only way he gets to advance on that totem pole is to toe the party line. If he doesn't help the Party, then he gets no Party support at re-election time. Thus, he can do nothing on his own unless he advances the causes of his Party cronies.

Again, he may do something here and there which makes a modicum of effort towards ideas that I would want enacted, but how many other votes would he make that are in support of ideas that I am diametrically opposed to?

Just like with the Presidency. You vote the ideals of the party, not the candidate. Yes, perhaps there's some room for fiscal/social philosophies, but they'll all hire from the same pool of experts to fill out their Cabinets.

IrishWhiskey

01-24-2008, 07:24 PM

I don't know what you're saying, but you should stop hounding me. You're following me around, trolling my posts, and while that might be appropriately dickish behavior of you, it's still dickish.This might have more credence, if I hadn't been here responding to MJBuddy, and only afterward did I see and edit in
my response to you. And if you think you can go around trolling everyone and calling people tools without my responding to your bad logic, I'd think again.

Seriously, I made an argument, you've done nothing but call everyone here childish names. Its gone from "amusing but argumentative Johan" to a sad sight resembling a drunk uncle on a bender. It might be that you have me on ignore, but seeing as that doesn't keep you from responding, its basically just talking with your fingers in your ears. In other words, no different than usual.

Well fuck, I guess reason is out of the question. Bush just lied guys, let's go home.
No no, take that evidence and circumstance and go home with it.I don't understand what you are saying. Did you read the argument I made previously? Was your other post trying to suggest that Bush wasn't misleading people?

Johan

01-24-2008, 07:26 PM

Johan, if I send a freshman Republican Congressman to Washington, he's going to be the low man on the totem pole.

That's certainly a consideration. What if your local representative or senator is/was a higher-ranking Republican?

Of course there's a lot more to take into account; I do that as well. Voting in a new guy means slim to nothing from him/her for a while, because of the way Washington works. I have voted for Democratic politicians in my area, taking into consideration their positions, their seniority, and the like.

I definitely trend Republican, but I'm not beholden to it. I'm seriously considering Obama if he wins the primary. Clinton, however, I cannot support, despite her decent experience. Ironically, Clinton is more conservative than Obama, fwiw.

Just like with the Presidency. You vote the ideals of the party, not the candidate.

That's not true for me. I consider both, and often vote the candidate's ideals, not the party's.

Tel Prydain

01-24-2008, 07:40 PM

All governments want sheeps like you

Actually, governments want sheeps like the one below:
http://216.120.158.109/images/page_images/143--sheep.jpg

They give better wool.

KingGorilla

01-25-2008, 12:11 AM

Or in New Zealand, they give better head.

AMIRIGHT?

Tel Prydain

01-25-2008, 12:33 AM

Or in New Zealand, they give better head.

AMIRIGHT?

Say what you want about Kiwi sheep love... that's not anywhere as bad as voting for Bush.... twice.

KingGorilla

01-25-2008, 03:49 AM

I abstained twice.

Johan

01-25-2008, 06:35 AM

Here's is why this place sucks donkey's balls for actual discussion. When I intentionally aim to piss you people off, you jump into the fire (I don't even need very good accellerant! You provide it yourselves!). However, when I post something clear, concise, and actually very even-handed...

NOTHING.

This place thrives on flames. Don't kid yourselves. 99.97% of forums do.

Here's my post.

Seeing a politician as a "mindless party member" rather than someone with their own positions and interests, is part of the problem in our political realm.

I've voted Democratic on numerous occasions because the politician had a slate of positions that were compelling to me. I don't vote a party. I vote a politician.

Seriously...if all you do is flip a switch, you don't even need to think any more. You're part of the reason nothing ever changes.

One reply. Seriously...most of you are just out to pound the other side into submission. You're not interested in political discussion; you're interested in domination and victory.

The fucking problem with our nation is that people pull a lever for THEIR SIDE, rather than considering the actual candidates and voting on the basis of something other than the damn packaging.

If you're not willing to consider crossing the aisle, you're part of the fundamental problem with our society...an oppositional, hostile, blind member of your political ranch.

Moooo. Y'all are boring unless someone breaks out the cattle prod! :D

Devilturnip

01-25-2008, 06:42 AM

Johan

01-25-2008, 06:45 AM

Have you considered the possibility that most people who are interested in real debate and discussion completely ignore you at this point? You spend all your time intentionally creating flames, and then are surprised when people start to ignore your genuine posts?

Bullshit (and I don't care anyways!). This place is a freaking furnace. I see it all the time.

Reason gets flamed or ignored. Flames get traction and responses.

Proof? You replied. To which post? The inflammatory one.

mr. murphy

01-25-2008, 06:46 AM

Ancalagon

01-25-2008, 06:47 AM

Here's is why this place sucks donkey's balls for actual discussion. When I intentionally aim to piss you people off, you jump into the fire (I don't even need very good accellerant! You provide it yourselves!). However, when I post something clear, concise, and actually very even-handed...

NOTHING.

This place thrives on flames. Don't kid yourselves. 99.97% of forums do.

Here's my post.

One reply. Seriously...most of you are just out to pound the other side into submission. You're not interested in political discussion; you're interested in domination and victory.

The fucking problem with our nation is that people pull a lever for THEIR SIDE, rather than considering the actual candidates and voting on the basis of something other than the damn packaging.

If you're not willing to consider crossing the aisle, you're part of the fundamental problem with our society...an oppositional, hostile, blind member of your political ranch.

Moooo. Y'all are boring unless someone breaks out the cattle prod! :D

Most politics is like that though. How many times would a Democrat vote for a Republican motion that he happened to agree with? Dont expect the voters to do the same - in fact, given how everyone is a fanboy in some sense or another, its not unreasonable to expect them to be fanboys of a political party. In fact, given how most people's political beliefs are usually very important to them, this is probably almost always the case.

It causes one of the chief problems I have with democracy, in that people vote for parties first, celebrities second and ideas third. Democracy becomes a popularity contest. And those in power bloc vote with their compatriots instead of the for good of the country.

I think everyone should just elect me Dictator Of the World For Life!

Johan

01-25-2008, 06:50 AM

You are kindof the Johan that cries wolf. It's not like it's obvious to us when you're just trying to get a rise.

:D You got the percentage wrong. It's higher.

What I get a kick out of (besides the ridiculous replies I personally get), is reading/watching the myriad other flame fights that occur all around the site. Forums are a trip. People are constantly insulting one another, ripping on one another, and attempting to dominate the "other side" in discussions. It's hilarious...like dozens of mud-wrestling matches occurring in a stockade.

So...how many "party-line" tools do we have out there? I'm interested in how many people actually cross the aisle....you know, because you have a brain and think for yourself, as opposed to pulling one lever/pushing one button every election. Hmmm? Anyone?

It causes one of the chief problems I have with democracy, in that people vote for parties first, celebrities second and ideas third. Democracy becomes a popularity contest. And those in power bloc vote with their compatriots instead of the for good of the country.

Too true, and ridiculous.

Devilturnip

01-25-2008, 06:53 AM

Honestly, I didn't read your post as inflammatory, and I was asking a genuine question, not trying to piss you off. I honestly believe, no disrespect intended, that you could have more meaningful discussions around here if you turned off flame mode and treated other people with respect. I see people treat each other respectfully around here all the time, and I really enjoy those discussions. There are assholes that spout crap of course, but there is a significant number of people around here (though clearly not a majority) that are more interested in debate than in personal attacks.

I think that you see every post as inflammatory, whether it is meant to be or not. I think a lot of people around here do the same thing to the detriment of discourse. Of course, it's entirely up to you how to read the site, so do what you like.

Johan

01-25-2008, 06:56 AM

I think that you see every post as inflammatory, whether it is meant to be or not. I think a lot of people around here do the same thing to the detriment of discourse. Of course, it's entirely up to you how to read the site, so do what you like.

A very reasonable post...quite true, in fact.

mr. murphy

01-25-2008, 06:57 AM

So...how many "party-line" tools do we have out there? I'm interested in how many people actually cross the aisle....you know, because you have a brain and think for yourself, as opposed to pulling one lever/pushing one button every election. Hmmm? Anyone?

I vote based on what I agree with, not whose side the person is on. I have voted for both Dems and Repubs in presidential elections (as well as a libertarian once).

I have the ability to share my opinion on the forum and not get emotionally concerned with who agrees and doesn't, and I've never flamed or trolled or been a jerk just to get a rise out of anybody, I don't see the point when there's so much bickering party-line bullshit out there already.

This is one of two forums I frequent, and I frequent it because compared to virtually every other forum, we're all pretty civil (and articulate!). People share ideas and often admit when the other side raises a good point - except for a few heavy posters and big donators that seem to think that EvAv is their personal game and we're all idiots, here to be manipulated and told what system is best, which games suck and who is right without bothering to read replies or reconsider their point of view.

Edit: NOT INFLAMMATORY JOHAN :D I actually like you for some reason, we've had more than a couple of opinions in common

Johan

01-25-2008, 07:00 AM

...except for a few heavy posters and big donators that seem to think that EvAv is their personal game and we're all idiots, here to be manipulated and told what system is best, which games suck and who is right without bothering to read replies or reconsider their point of view.

:D LOL!

You're not all idiots, but a healthy number are (I can include myself in that as well at times). I don't care what system you buy. I think most games suck (a few are gold). I also don't read most of the junk here, except for people's opinions on games/gaming (news and console sections). The rest has too much nonsense mixed in with the bit of good...needles in the haystack.

Also, I will very soon be heading off...for varied and sundry reasons. It's time for a change and for the time I spend here to get spent in the real world!

mr. murphy

01-25-2008, 07:04 AM

:D LOL!

You're not all idiots, but a healthy number are (I can include myself in that as well at times). I don't care what system you buy. I think most games suck (a few are gold). I also don't read most of the junk here, except for people's opinions on games/gaming (news and console sections). The rest has too much nonsense mixed in with the bit of good...needles in the haystack.

You just described the whole internet! Yeah, go get some sun... I'm stuck in an office, so EvAv is my lifeline to sanity (crazy, I know!) but if you can, have some fun for us all - and make her call you Murphy once for me!