President Bush Is Going To Give IRAQ WMD Evidence Information

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


But we have Iraqi WMD trailers...

You do?

Bush is looking for them, so tell Bush where you have them.
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...
...we went in and took them out.

JK
Wow, Jedi:

you went in and took them out?

Did you fly to Baghdad?
America West?

[Crossbow]

Posted by Jedi Knight a couple of days ago.


Another psychic leftist lol. The trailers are part of the WMD found in Iraq.

If they aren't, what are they?

JK


Recently posted by Jedi Knight.


They are part of the Iraqi WMD program, a program banned by resolution 1441 as well as others and the reason why the US went to war in Iraq.

Done trolling now?

JK

I not trolling JK, I am just trying to point out two facts to you and I think that you may actually have grasped them.

Just to be clear, here is the first fact I am speaking of: The trailers may or may not have been part of a WMD program. That question is still being worked out.

Here is the second fact: As of now, No WMDs have been discovered anywhere in Iraq (in these trailers or otherwise).

By the way speaking of leftist psychics and morons, here is something you wrote about this topic about three months ago:

Originally posted by Jedi Knight on March 10, 2003


Well, if people are against the war they have already taken sides because the war hasn't even happened yet. That suggests a level of psychic ability (not that I am saying you are psychic lol, but many are claiming to be from the radical left).

See, everyone is saying that Saddam is "harmless" and that there is no reason to go in there and free the Iraqi people. Why does the left want to see the Iraqi people remain slaves? Is the left into slavery, or is the left only against slavery if it involves US history alone?

I am telling you right now that the US has the goods on Saddam and when and if the war kicks off the left better apologize to President Bush and Tony Blair as truckloads of WMD are captured. We wouldn't invade if there wasn't a serious danger. People have to have faith in their government and if troops are deployed you don't want to assist the enemy of our soldiers by appeasing the enemy.

The left appeases the enemy daily. They might as well go to Iraq and take up arms and defend Saddam.

JK

Do you care to defend your statements about how "truckloads of WMD" would be captured? Or do you wish to rephrase?

[The Fool]

I'm going to end this thread... George bush has just announced that WMD will not be found in Iraq, He has just announced that it was a huge lie.

ooooooooops.....Actually, I made that bit up......But that's ok isn't if Jedi?? After all, you regularly make up announcements from world leaders. Remember your epic announcement from Tony Blair? You said that he had announced that WMD had already been found? What happened to that little announcement Jedi??? It makes me laugh that every second post to this thread is from someone who is happy to manufacture whatever crap is required to support their loonie conspiracy theories..... all those that engage in debate with Mr Knight must realise that the default response is a blatant lie.

I don't make this accusation lightly. You are a bright guy it is such a shame that your compulsive lying makes your participation in a serious debate such a joke......

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool
I'm going to end this thread... George bush has just announced that WMD will not be found in Iraq, He has just announced that it was a huge lie.

ooooooooops.....Actually, I made that bit up......But that's ok isn't if Jedi?? After all, you regularly make up announcements from world leaders. Remember your epic announcement from Tony Blair? You said that he had announced that WMD had already been found? What happened to that little announcement Jedi??? It makes me laugh that every second post to this thread is from someone who is happy to manufacture whatever crap is required to support their loonie conspiracy theories..... all those that engage in debate with Mr Knight must realise that the default response is a blatant lie.

I don't make this accusation lightly. You are a bright guy it is such a shame that your compulsive lying makes your participation in a serious debate such a joke......

Let me guess...you hate Bush too? Just because I like Bush doesn't change the fact WMD was found in Iraq.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Do you care to defend your statements about how "truckloads of WMD" would be captured? Or do you wish to rephrase?

The search isn't over for finding more WMD. They already found more than a few "truckloads". It is going to take 1 truck per 1 WMD trailer, right? That equals 5 trucks.

I was right.

JK

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Let me guess...you hate Bush too? Just because I like Bush doesn't change the fact WMD was found in Iraq.

JK

No you are not right. There have been no WMDs found in Iraq.

I really do not care how much you love Bush, Rumsfeld, and Star Wars movies, but that does not change the fact that no WMDs have been found in Iraq.

[Ed]

A TMD(tm) is not a WMD. I think the lie is becoming clearer as time goes on.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The search isn't over for finding more WMD. They already found more than a few "truckloads". It is going to take 1 truck per 1 WMD trailer, right? That equals 5 trucks.

I was right.

JK

sources?

proof?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


And? We already found WMD. We are looking for the rest. Your point?

JK

sources?

proof?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No one on this forum has disproved the WMD trailers. No one.

WMD was found--that's a fact.

JK


Is Saddam, who has yet to be captured, going to contract 767s converted for cargo drops for the purpose of dropping trailers on American municipalities? These are the WMDs?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Let me guess...you hate Bush too?
...
JK
You too, Jedi?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Let me guess...you hate Bush too? Just because I like Bush doesn't change the fact WMD was found in Iraq.

JK
No Jedi, I don't hate GWB. My post had nothing to do with GWB. It was about your ongoing policy of manufacturing statistics, quotes and statements to support your assertions. Nothing to do with hate of GWB or anyone else.

The point I make is that your participation in discussions on this forum is pointless, as you have no concept of honesty and are willing to manufacture anything you feel will support your conspiracy theories. Because of this nothing that you say is taken seriously and you reduce yourself to the role of forum jester. Its a shame, I don't know why you would want do it.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The search isn't over for finding more WMD. They already found more than a few "truckloads". It is going to take 1 truck per 1 WMD trailer, right? That equals 5 trucks.

I was right.

JK

Jedi...Have you ever heard of military weather balloons? Have you ever heard of mobile hydrogen production units for these balloons. These trailers are absolutely consistant with being hydrogen producing units.

Guess what the Americans found when they inspected these trailers....residues of aluminium and caustic soda....exactly the two things that are used for hydrogen production. Not even the slightest trace of anything else has been found on or around these box trailer stills...nothing. I'm sure if a field laundry was found you could dream up some way of presenting the laundry as some form of evil bio lab....:rolleyes:

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Quotes of note:

WMD (http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/wmd_testoftime.html)

Baghdad builds and hides "an arsenal for conquest and mass murder."
-George W. Bush, March 8, 2003

"Here we are in June of 2003. Show me the weapons; where are they? What evidence did this administration have to spend $63 billion in taxpayers' money? What evidence did this administration have to put the lives of American servicewomen and men on the line?" --U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, June 5, 2003

"There is a long list of items unaccounted for, but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists, just because it is unaccounted for."

-UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, in his final report on weapons inspections in Iraq, June 5, 2003

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The search isn't over for finding more WMD. They already found more than a few "truckloads". It is going to take 1 truck per 1 WMD trailer, right? That equals 5 trucks.

I was right.

JK

Are you referencing these trucks and trailers JK? This is anybody's guess as you refuse to give sources and proof for your claims and statements.

...U.S. forces in late April also discovered a mobile laboratory truck in Baghdad. The truck is a toxicology laboratory from the 1980s that could be used to support BW or legitimate research."

-CIA report, May 28, 2003

(Later CIA tests of one of the trailers came up "negative for five standard (biological warfare) agents, including Bacillus anthracis, and for growth media for those agents.")



Oh, wait, asking for sources and proof would make me a "Bush hater" and that makes my requests for sources and proof null and void.

[Ion]

This:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may recall this instance where a bombastic claim was made by Bush. During his constitutionally-mandated State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Mr. Bush said, "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." Nearly five months later, those 500 tons are nowhere to be found. A few seconds with a calculator can help us understand exactly what this means. 500 tons of gas equals one million pounds. After UNSCOM, after UNMOVIC, after the war, after the US Arms inspectors, after all the satellite surveillance, it is difficult in the extreme to imagine how one million pounds of anything could refuse to be located. Bear in mind, also, that this one million pounds is but a part of the Iraqi weapons arsenal described by Bush and his administration. Maybe the dog ate it. Or maybe it was never there to begin with, having been destroyed years ago by the first UN inspectors and by the Iraqis themselves. Maybe we went to war on a big lie, one that killed over 3,500 Iraqi civilians to date, one that killed some 170 American soldiers, one that has been costing us one American soldier's life per day thus far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

comes from:

The Dog Ate My WMDs (http://truthout.org/docs_03/061303A.shtml)

Now Jedi, this is proof that the dog ate Bush's WMDs.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


One could also ask why, in an oil-rich country would you need hydrogen? Thermonuclear warheads perhaps? Besides, weather baloons usually use helium, because it doesn't have the nasty side effect of exploding like the Hindenburg.


during WWII ther US army used hydrogen in it's field weather balloons. hydrogen was easier generate in the field that helium


Virgil

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Radical leftists in the United States with their Stalinist allies in Europe for the past week have been attacking the Bush Administration for not providing evidence of Iraqi WMD.

President Bush said he is going to provide (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/sprj.irq.wmd.controversy/index.html) the proof.

I think the left is going to have a huge cream-pie in its face again. Or maybe a lard-pie lol.

Whatever the pie, the US has Iraqi WMD evidence and the left will cower when the evidence is revealed.

JK OMG, not THE Jedi Knight?

Hi JK, how ya doing?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
Ibuprofin. After a hard day destroying WMDs, the Iraqis needed a lot of relief for their aching joints. Now, now. :D

[JAR]

Originally posted by Malachi151
To quote myself:

Whether this war be right or wrong, and whether its immediate consequences be good or bad, there can be no denial that the nation was moved to war with lies.
Good point. Unfortunately the war supporters I know have a different logic they view things with. To them, to not want your country to go to war with Iraq is to sympathize with Saddam's desire to stay in power for the rest of his life. They also apply this logic to the American Civil War, where if you are against the Union's decision to refuse to allow part of the country to secede, then you are sympathizing with the desire of the southerners to keep slavery alive.

I argue that not wanting to go to war to get a tyrant out of power is not the same as sympathizing with his desire to stay in power. It can also mean that you don't want to be in a war.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Whether this war be right or wrong, and whether its immediate consequences be good or bad, there can be no denial that the nation was moved to war with lies. You are entitled to your opinion. There might have been lies. I don't think that has been established just assumed. Do you have any proof for your claim?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by JAR
Good point. Unfortunately the war supporters I know have a different logic they view things with. To them, to not want your country to go to war with Iraq is to sympathize with Saddam's desire to stay in power for the rest of his life. They also apply this logic to the American Civil War, where if you are against the Union's decision to refuse to allow part of the country to secede, then you are sympathizing with the desire of the southerners to keep slavery alive.

I argue that not wanting to go to war to get a tyrant out of power is not the same as sympathizing with his desire to stay in power. It can also mean that you don't want to be in a war. Agreed. Also, wanting to go to war does not make one a liar, warmonger, uncivilized or arrogant.

It could also mean that one wants to depose a murderous genocidal thug who at one time had enough botulism to wipe out everyone on the planet, refused to comply with his obligations of his surrender and proved that he was willing to commit genocide.

[JAR]

Originally posted by RandFan
You are entitled to your opinion. There might have been lies. I don't think that has been established just assumed. Do you have any proof for your claim?
I don't know much about what happened with the information, but from what I've heard, I agree with you. It seems more like the government wasn't trying to lie but rather had jumped to conclusions that Iraq had WMDs. There was one theory I read in the LA Times that theorized that the Iraqi informants who claimed that their country had WMDs had been given that inaccurate information by their government which had done that on purpose because it wanted us to think it had WMDs.

But the fact is, is that the United Nations decided that even if Iraq did have WMDS, it did not pose a big enough threat for it to be necessary to invade the country.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by RandFan
Agreed. Also, wanting to go to war does not make one a liar, warmonger, uncivilized or arrogant.

It could also mean that one wants to depose a murderous genocidal thug who at one time had enough botulism to wipe out everyone on the planet, refused to comply with his obligations of his surrender and proved that he was willing to commit genocide.


ok I'll bite, where is this botulism [sic] toxin now? I mean if saddam got rid of it then he was in compliance with the UN.


actually, I was and am more concerned about North Korea than I ever was about Iraq.

Until, Mr Bush announced that Iron clad link between Al Queda and Saddam.


don't mistake my criticism for ignorance Saddam was a very bad man. I just think North Korea is a lot worse.


Virgil

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Virgil
ok I'll bite, where is this botulism [sic] toxin now? As I understand the toxin was destroyed according to the UN mandate.

I mean if saddam got rid of it then he was in compliance with the UN. So destroying the botulism was the only thing he had to do? Odd, that was not my understanding. In fact, according to Hans Blix Saddam had not ever been in full compliance.

actually, I was and am more concerned about North Korea than I ever was about Iraq. There is much to be concerned about when it comes to North Korea. I respect very much your opinion and can see why you would not think Iraq a threat. It is an arguable position. I think we had an opportunity and I am glad (at least partially) that we took it. My only regrets are that it may prove to be politically divisive and the mounting death toll is very troubling. Don't get me wrong. A single death is tragic and worthy of our questioning the Presidents decision. But as the death toll climbs it gets harder and harder to justify the deaths. I don't yet say it was a mistake. If and when I do it will be a decision based on hindsight.

don't mistake my criticism for ignorance Saddam was a very bad man. I just think North Korea is a lot worse. Understood and respected.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by JAR
I don't know much about what happened with the information, but from what I've heard, I agree with you. It seems more like the government wasn't trying to lie but rather had jumped to conclusions that Iraq had WMDs. There was one theory I read in the LA Times that theorized that the Iraqi informants who claimed that their country had WMDs had been given that inaccurate information by their government which had done that on purpose because it wanted us to think it had WMDs.

But the fact is, is that the United Nations decided that even if Iraq did have WMDS, it did not pose a big enough threat for it to be necessary to invade the country. Yes, you are correct.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Virgil
ok I'll bite, where is this botulism [sic] toxin now? I mean if saddam got rid of it then he was in compliance with the UN. P.S. you could have just corrected the error. Why would you point it out but fail to capitalize the first words of your sentences? Odd.

On second thought the word is not spelled incorectly.

bot·u·lism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bch-lzm)
n.
A severe, sometimes fatal food poisoning caused by ingestion of food containing botulin and characterized by nausea, vomiting, disturbed vision, muscular weakness, and fatigue.

Hmmmm....

[The Fool]

Originally posted by RandFan
P.S. you could have just corrected the error. Why would you point it out but fail to capitalize the first words of your sentences? Odd.

On second thought the word is not spelled incorectly.

bot·u·lism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bch-lzm)
n.
A severe, sometimes fatal food poisoning caused by ingestion of food containing botulin and characterized by nausea, vomiting, disturbed vision, muscular weakness, and fatigue.

Hmmmm....
Hmmmmmm indeed.... Tell me, did he have enough botulism to kill the entire world in the same way that I have enough baseball bats to kill the entire world (as long as I have the time and everyone lines up in single file)?
These old chestnuts just keep reappearing...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by The Fool
Hmmmmmm indeed.... Tell me, did he have enough botulism to kill the entire world in the same way that I have enough baseball bats to kill the entire world (as long as I have the time and everyone lines up in single file)?
These old chestnuts just keep reappearing... You make a valid point but at the same time miss the salient one. The point is not that he could have killed everyone. In fact the amount of botulism he had could have killed everyone (actually many times over). He lacked an efficent delivery method that A.) could travel far enough and B.) if it could travel far enough it would not effectively introduce the toxin to every man woman and child.

The real point is why did he have so much toxin. Perhaps he wanted the ability to kill A HELL of a lot of people. Ya think?

[epepke]

Originally posted by RandFan
On second thought the word is not spelled incorectly.

The toxin is referred to as botulin toxin, not botulism toxin.

[Malachi151]

Anyone want to say "I told you so"......

[ConspiRaider]

Anyone want to say "I told you so"......
I wish, by saying it, that the deployed Americans could return home for good.

Amazing.

And the guy who spearheaded the WMD lies for war justification is - if you can believe this - STILL BEING DEFENDED BY MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM!

Even though no WMDs were found.

Even though 3,000 plus young American men and some women have been destroyed - totally - as human beings.

Even though tens of thousands of Iraqis of all ages and sexes have been destroyed - totally - as human beings.

Hundreds of thousands maimed, on all sides. Destruction of homes, communities. Refugees. Hundreds of billions spent, with no end to the violence in sight.

More young Americans to be endangered, and sacrificed. Same for the Iraqis.

That Bush could have even a single supporter remaining - other than "Hurricane Corrina" Laura his wife - is yet another tragedy.

[Azure]

And the guy who spearheaded the WMD lies for war justification is - if you can believe this - STILL BEING DEFENDED BY MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM!


Tenet? The CIA?

You seem to think this is a black and white issue.

[Darth Rotor]

Freaking Double Post.

Two minute minor for me. :p

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Anyone want to say "I told you so"......
I wish, by saying it, that the deployed Americans could return home for good.

Amazing.

And the guy who spearheaded the WMD lies for war justification is - if you can believe this - STILL BEING DEFENDED BY MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM!

Even though no WMDs were found.

Even though 3,000 plus young American men and some women have been destroyed - totally - as human beings.

Even though tens of thousands of Iraqis of all ages and sexes have been destroyed - totally - as human beings.

Hundreds of thousands maimed, on all sides. Destruction of homes, communities. Refugees. Hundreds of billions spent, with no end to the violence in sight.

More young Americans to be endangered, and sacrificed. Same for the Iraqis.

That Bush could have even a single supporter remaining - other than "Hurricane Corrina" Laura his wife - is yet another tragedy.
*Thweeeeeeeeeeeep!

Thread necromancy, two minute minor. Second team foul.

This thread is two months short of three years old. Let it Rest In Peace.

DR

[Malachi151]

The thing is that I remember arguing these points in this thread and various other ones before the Iraq war even started, and most of the members here defended the Bush admin up one side and down the other, were certain that the war was the right thing to do, were gun-ho supporters of the invasion, and were certain that everything Bush and co. were saying was true and right on.

I wrote the following piece on the subject in 2003:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/'

Basically it said "Bush is a liar, all of the justification for war are lies, none of this is true, the premise for war is faulty, etc."

Most people here who read it scoffed, yet what I said in 2003 has been shown to be true, and the scoffers still claim, somehow, that their "political worldview" is the "right one", but how can claim to be right about "how the world works" when all of their views about Bush and this war were so clearly wrong and they were so easily deceived?

[Grammatron]

The thing is that I remember arguing these points in this thread and various other ones before the Iraq war even started, and most of the members here defended the Bush admin up one side and down the other, were certain that the war was the right thing to do, were gun-ho supporters of the invasion, and were certain that everything Bush and co. were saying was true and right on.

I wrote the following piece on the subject in 2003:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/'

Basically it said "Bush is a liar, all of the justification for war are lies, none of this is true, the premise for war is faulty, etc."

Most people here who read it scoffed, yet what I said in 2003 has been shown to be true, and the scoffers still claim, somehow, that their "political worldview" is the "right one", but how can claim to be right about "how the world works" when all of their views about Bush and this war were so clearly wrong and they were so easily deceived?


Oh hey Malachi, how's the whole Communism thing going for you? I thought you quit this forum because people did not understand you and you were going to write some book with some guy...sorry if I don't remember it in detail it being years and all.

Well if Bush is a liar and all of the justification for war are lies than surely congress can go ahead and impeach him. Any minute now.

[Azure]

Exactly, if Bush lied, so did Hillary, and all the other people who voted in favor of the war.

[Malachi151]

Grammatron: Yep, did all that, everything is going well.

Azure: Yep, so we are agreed that Hillary is a conservative supporter of the establishment and that we need leaders who are far left of Hillary?

[Tony]

Hey Malachi, good to see you back. :)

[Azure]

Grammatron: Yep, did all that, everything is going well.

Azure: Yep, so we are agreed that Hillary is a conservative supporter of the establishment and that we need leaders who are far left of Hillary?

Far left?

Since when has communism ever worked?

Hillary scares me though, simply because she is supposed to, as next possible POTUS have the burden on her to solve whatever problems that were created in the past 8 years, and she doesn't seem willing to do that.

"Bush should pull out all the troops, I don't want to deal with that problem."

[Regnad Kcin]

A Jedi Knight thread? Boy, those were the days, eh?

[Tony]

Word Regnad Kcin. Jedi Knight. Sometimes i miss that wacko.

[Random]

What was it that was the cause of all the world's problems? Matriarchal totalitarianism?

[fishbob]

Exactly, if Bush lied, so did Hillary, and all the other people who voted in favor of the war.

It gets old after a while. Just drop it why doncha?

[Azure]

It gets old after a while. Just drop it why doncha?

Sure. I'll stick to your talking points..."Bush lied, people died."

Impeach him if he lied!

[Schneibster]

See, I keep hearing that everyone who believed Bush's lie is just as responsible as he is. This is ideology; nobody blames someone for believing a lie, when the liar is the President. It's just not done. The President's not supposed to lie. So "s/he did too, s/he's just as guilty" doesn't work, because s/he didn't lie; the President did.

It's over. You were wrong. Give up. Admit it.

[ConspiRaider]

Sure. I'll stick to your talking points..."Bush lied, people died."

Impeach him if he lied!
Easy to say - hard to do. Republicans - rabid to take down the popular Clinton - finally got him in his pants. Backed him into a no-win scenario.

Republicans - partisan as they are - won't vote to convict Bush the Invader in the Senate. Even turdboy Lieberman will vote with the Republicans. There would probably be an indictment in the House. But it would go no further.

In the Nixon era, enough Republicans crossed over to say: Enough! But that won't happen today. Bush the Invader is probably going to serve out the rest of his term. Best we can hope for is to stop this brain-damaged maniac from invading another country. Hopefully the House and Senate can at least be relied upon to do that.

Plus: It'd have to be a Bush/Cheney housecleaning. You get rid of Bush, you get Cheney? Tough call, but that would probably be worse. I realize it's difficult to imagine any President doing a worse job than Bush, but Cheney just might be able to step up and surprise us all.

[Azure]

No Conspi, if Bush did lie, someone on the Democrat side would have leaked everything to the media already, and pushed the process to impeach Bush.

Fact is though, Bush saw the same evidence that all the Senators saw, and mad e the same decision most Senators made. Only difference being, Bush can't go back and say, 'oh we were wrong, lets pull out all the troops."

And because of they are privileged to that information, the Democrats won't even try to impeach Bush.

I already pointed out in other threads the mistakes made by the CIA and the intelligence community in general regarding Iraq. Even Colin Powell agrees with me on that.

[UnrepentantSinner]

End of hostilities May 6 2003? today's June 9 2003,

thats an eon Ion (or aeon if you prefer).

I posit the large lady is still warming up, you have her hoarse, drunk at the cast party reading her reveiw in Variety.

And having read you profess to european values, I also understand your fondness for a Nanny State.

Time will Tell.

See, this is why you shouldn't make predictions on a message board thats someone nearly 4 years later can quote.

(This thread makes for some very interesting reading.)

[Random]

See, this is why you shouldn't make predictions on a message board thats someone nearly 4 years later can quote.

(This thread makes for some very interesting reading.)

Yeah, going back to a lot of the early 2003 posts gives you some juicy quotes and nuggets of "information" that didn't quite pan out.

[rikzilla]

No Conspi, if Bush did lie, someone on the Democrat side would have leaked everything to the media already, and pushed the process to impeach Bush.

Fact is though, Bush saw the same evidence that all the Senators saw, and mad e the same decision most Senators made. Only difference being, Bush can't go back and say, 'oh we were wrong, lets pull out all the troops."

And because of they are privileged to that information, the Democrats won't even try to impeach Bush.

I already pointed out in other threads the mistakes made by the CIA and the intelligence community in general regarding Iraq. Even Colin Powell agrees with me on that.

Well Azure,...
I'm with you in spirit because there is a reason why you are right, but you are also wrong in another way.

The fact of the matter is that the NIE provided to the White House prior to the invasion did not show any proof of Iraqi WMD and in fact stated that it was unlikely that Saddam had any effective WMD's.

However the danger of Saddam's regime was not controversial. Saddam was considered to be the most dangerous despot in the ME by just about everyone in all branches of government...as well as by allied foreign governments.

But here's what happened. When the White House got that NIE on Iraq and saw that it did not explicitly make the case for Iraqi WMD's, they wrote a 6 page summary which reinforced the executive's Saddam/WMD/9-11 theories and placed it on top of the NIE...then they presented the NIE to Congress. Now get this; out of 100 Senators only 6 of them had their aides read past the 6 page summary. Saddam's stature as universal boogeyman was so non-controversial that they basically voted for the war on faith.

The White House provided all the evidence...and the Senate didn't even look at it! Now they are crying about being mislead...and in fact they were...but what really happened was that these people failed to do their jobs. We are now at war and if this war is a disaster it is clear that Congress owns nearly as large a share of the blame as does Bush for getting us into it.

Personally I wish the politicos would shut up. They'll never impeach Bush because they can't. Bush provided them all the intelligence info he had. If they had bothered to look at it they could not have been "mislead".

It's like buying a used car. If a slick salesman tells you the car is perfect and you sign the papers without reading them then later find the car had hidden damage you may find that the papers you signed actually disclosed the damage. If so you can't sue the slick salesman...but you can kick yourself in the arse for being stupid.

That's about all Congress can do; point up their own credulity. That's why there has never been a real move to impeach and never will be.

-z

[Darth Rotor]

See, this is why you shouldn't make predictions on a message board thats someone nearly 4 years later can quote.

(This thread makes for some very interesting reading.)
*Thweeeeeeeeeep*

You are all now penalized 15 yards for this dog pile.

Thread necromancy? Not hardly, this is thread necrophelia.

DR

[Upchurch]

But here's what happened. When the White House got that NIE on Iraq and saw that it did not explicitly make the case for Iraqi WMD's, they wrote a 6 page summary which reinforced the executive's Saddam/WMD/9-11 theories and placed it on top of the NIE...then they presented the NIE to Congress.
Are you arguing that the White House altered the NIE by adding their spin on it before handing it to Congress and that it is Congress' fault for taking the NIE as provided to them by the White House in good faith?

[rikzilla]

Are you arguing that the White House altered the NIE by adding their spin on it before handing it to Congress and that it is Congress' fault for taking the NIE as provided to them by the White House in good faith?

No I didn't say that. The White House merely wrote a summary of the NIE (6 pages IIRC) which played up the WMD angle. Call it spin, exaggeration, hype, whatever...it was basically 6 pages of advertising for the White House's position. The NIE itself is not alleged to have been altered in any way.

Therefore my used car salesman analogy is pretty well spot on. There was no "high crime or misdemeanor" to hang an impeachment on. But bringing up the pre-war NIE on Iraq would only serve to point up the fact that the Senate didn't even bother reading this thing before voting for the war. So Senators saying; "If I had known then what I know now I'd have voted against war" have no leg to stand on. The info was provided them...but they simply didn't bother reading past the summary.

-z

[Upchurch]

No I didn't say that. The White House merely wrote a summary of the NIE (6 pages IIRC) which played up the WMD angle. Call it spin, exaggeration, hype, whatever...it was basically 6 pages of advertising for the White House's position. The NIE itself is not alleged to have been altered in any way.

Therefore my used car salesman analogy is pretty well spot on. There was no "high crime or misdemeanor" to hang an impeachment on. But bringing up the pre-war NIE on Iraq would only serve to point up the fact that the Senate didn't even bother reading this thing before voting for the war. So Senators saying; "If I had known then what I know now I'd have voted against war" have no leg to stand on. The info was provided them...but they simply didn't bother reading past the summary.
But you're still saying that the White House summary was intentionally misleading and that its the Senate's fault for trusting the White House? You're saying that the President of The United States Of America should be given no more credibility than a used car salesman?

[Darth Rotor]

But you're still saying that the White House summary was intentionally misleading and that its the Senate's fault for trusting the White House? You're saying that the President of The United States Of America should be given no more credibility than a used car salesman?

Would you buy a used car from Richard Nixon? From Bill Clinton? From Jimmy Carter?

Maybe Jimmy, but only if Amy never drove it.

DR

[billydkid]

See, this is why you shouldn't make predictions on a message board thats someone nearly 4 years later can quote.

(This thread makes for some very interesting reading.)Nothing wrong with making predictions that don't pan out or have a good possibility of not panning out. I do it a lot - but I do it in the full knowledge I may be full of horse crap. That's quite a bit different from making claims about uncertain things with absolute unwavering certainty.

[rikzilla]

But you're still saying that the White House summary was intentionally misleading and that its the Senate's fault for trusting the White House? You're saying that the President of The United States Of America should be given no more credibility than a used car salesman?

Yes...that's pretty much what I'm saying. Sad ain't it? In truth though the used car salesman can only take your money, so if you are lazy and gullible there's only the hit to your wallet. Trusting a politician who just happened to win the world's biggest popularity contest with your life is a far worse idea than buying a clunker.

Bush sold us a clunker...and yes it's partly the Congress's fault for signing on the dotted line without reading the contract.

Spin, cynicism, gullibility, incompetence....your tax dollars at work.

The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary.

Found the link! Enjoy. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101832.html)

-z

[Upchurch]

Would you buy a used car from Richard Nixon? From Bill Clinton? From Jimmy Carter?
Of course not, but I'm asking this of Rik who, if I remember correctly, was one of the crowd who also bought into the President's line about WMDs (if not, I apologize). He's essentially strengthening the argument that the President lied to Congress and inexplicably blaming Congress believing the lie.

[Upchurch]

Bush sold us a clunker...and yes it's partly the Congress's fault for signing on the dotted line without reading the contract.How in the world would that not fall under high crimes and misdemeanors?

[rikzilla]

Of course not, but I'm asking this of Rik who, if I remember correctly, was one of the crowd who also bought into the President's line about WMDs (if not, I apologize). He's essentially strengthening the argument that the President lied to Congress and inexplicably blaming Congress believing the lie.

Yes I was of course all into the invasion of Iraq. Remember please that hindsight is 20/20 and I have never once shut off my critical thinking skills since then. Does my info actually strengthen the argument that Bush lied? I don't think it does because for Bush to have lied in this instance he would have had to modify the NIE. No, what came from the White House in the form of the NIE summary was likely hype. Perhaps even misleading advertising...but since the full info was provided to Congress there could not have been a lie.

Again my used car salesman analogy is particularly apt. The moral is; read the fine print.

Bush wanted Saddam gone...(and I still think this was not a bad thing)....so he found a way to make him gone. All he had to do was tell everyone things that they all already believed about Saddam, then rely on their incompetence and knee-jerk herd mentality to carry the vote.

I do wish Bush had chosen a reason that had been better supported...but in the end I'm one American who thinks the world is a better place without Saddam and his boys in charge of a large nation. I'm not at all sure that it's still a good idea to stay on in the face of a civil war, but a continuation of Saddam's regime would have been an endless disaster for Iraqis and the entire region.

-z

[rikzilla]

How in the world would that not fall under high crimes and misdemeanors?

Can you sue a used car salesman for misleading you when he can produce a full disclosure of pre-existing damages to the car that carries your signature???

I don't think you can. Also the judge would likely think you an idiot for signing without reading.

In this case the judge is the American people. Bush can still be presented as the main bad guy, but all those Senators and Congressmen come out with major pie on their faces.

So, would you introduce articles of impeachment if it means your own political career is tainted as well?? Perhaps even destroyed???

Apparently the answer is no since there is no realistic move to impeach....

-z

[Upchurch]

Perhaps even misleading advertising...but since the full info was provided to Congress there could not have been a lie.
Ah, so a half truth is not a whole lie, even when it is something this important. Bill Clinton could have used more folks like you arguing for him. ;)

Yes, you are correct. This was certainly a lesson to the Congress that the President Bush cannot be trusted, but that in no way alleviates Bush's own responsibility for his actions. If his reasons for going to war could not stand on their own merit, then maybe there was something wrong with his reasons for going to war.

[rikzilla]

Ah, so a half truth is not a whole lie, even when it is something this important. Bill Clinton could have used more folks like you arguing for him. ;)

Yes, you are correct. This was certainly a lesson to the Congress that the President Bush cannot be trusted, but that in no way alleviates Bush's own responsibility for his actions. If his reasons for going to war could not stand on their own merit, then maybe there was something wrong with his reasons for going to war.

Yes. It's sad that it comes to this, but a life of being legally screwed repeatedly by people protected under laws crafted by lobbyist's dollars had led me to be inured and thus not surprised or excessively hurt when it happens yet again....

Oh, BTW UpChurch, I'm not a huge fan of Bush. I merely look at him as a POTUS willing to take an important decision regardless of political fallout, at a time when such decisive action was (IMHO as ever) was needed. I find that a rare quality amongst the political animals that crawl around this city on their bellies everyday.

-z

PS: I merely love the debate and often will play Devil's advocate. You lot think I'm a conservative...but amongst people I interact with everyday...I'm the pet liberal/atheist guy. Go figure huh? :)

[Grammatron]

Ah, so a half truth is not a whole lie, even when it is something this important. Bill Clinton could have used more folks like you arguing for him. ;)

Yes, you are correct. This was certainly a lesson to the Congress that the President Bush cannot be trusted, but that in no way alleviates Bush's own responsibility for his actions. If his reasons for going to war could not stand on their own merit, then maybe there was something wrong with his reasons for going to war.

I hope they learned a bigger lesson that a President can not be trusted. The whole reason we have checks and balances is they check and balance his decisions and visa-versa.

[Overman]

Yes...that's pretty much what I'm saying. Sad ain't it? In truth though the used car salesman can only take your money, so if you are lazy and gullible there's only the hit to your wallet. Trusting a politician who just happened to win the world's biggest popularity contest with your life is a far worse idea than buying a clunker.

Bush sold us a clunker...and yes it's partly the Congress's fault for signing on the dotted line without reading the contract.

Spin, cynicism, gullibility, incompetence....your tax dollars at work.



Found the link! Enjoy. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101832.html)

-z

OUCH! Aren't we paying these people to read these things? What the hell does their vote matter if they don't fully understand the things they are voting on.

[rikzilla]

Also, the problem with Clinton was how he lied: under oath.
Then his other problem was who he lied to: The American people...on tv...wagging his finger at us....it was an iconic image. I don't need to tell you how us Americans just love to absorb those iconic images!

Oh yeah, and what he lied about: SEX!

Yeah...Clinton's problem was that everything he did was just so much more entertaining than the things Bush has done. We expect politicians to lie about boring political life and death stuff...but WOW when it's about SEX!!?? That's special! You usually need a French politician to get such titilating fare! ;)

-z

Edited to add: And I neglected to mention that there was no political price to pay for attempting to impeach Clinton. As you can see that is clearly not the case with a possible Bush impeachment.)

[Upchurch]

Oh, BTW UpChurch, I'm not a huge fan of Bush. I merely look at him as a POTUS willing to take an important decision regardless of political fallout, at a time when such decisive action was (IMHO as ever) was needed. I find that a rare quality amongst the political animals that crawl around this city on their bellies everyday. Well, I find that an extremely generous assessment of the situation, given that there were and are much more important situations already going on.[/quote]

PS: I merely love the debate and often will play Devil's advocate. You lot think I'm a conservative...but amongst people I interact with everyday...I'm the pet liberal/atheist guy. Go figure huh? :)I hang out with several dirty hippies that have the opposite effect with me. ;)

But then, I also hang out with some pretty staunch conservatives that make me look like the dirty hippy. :boggled:

[Azure]

OUCH! Aren't we paying these people to read these things? What the hell does their vote matter if they don't fully understand the things they are voting on.

Absolutely right.

But guys, impeach Bush!!

The Senators are innocent. ;)

[wahrheit]

I told you so.

[FireGarden]

The thing is that I remember arguing these points in this thread and various other ones before the Iraq war even started, and most of the members here defended the Bush admin up one side and down the other, were certain that the war was the right thing to do, were gun-ho supporters of the invasion, and were certain that everything Bush and co. were saying was true and right on.

I wrote the following piece on the subject in 2003:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/'

Basically it said "Bush is a liar, all of the justification for war are lies, none of this is true, the premise for war is faulty, etc."

Most people here who read it scoffed, yet what I said in 2003 has been shown to be true, and the scoffers still claim, somehow, that their "political worldview" is the "right one", but how can claim to be right about "how the world works" when all of their views about Bush and this war were so clearly wrong and they were so easily deceived?

Excellent ressurection of a thread. Full points!

[davefoc]

I'd like to take this opportunity to write something I have never written before:

Malachi I think you were right.

At the time of the invasion, I was skeptical of the need for war, but I supported the idea that the president should be given the power to make the decision. I thought the Democrats that voted to allow the president to make the decision were acting out of patriotism to give the power to make such an important decision to a president of the opposite party.

Several facts have now emerged that have changed my views on much of this. At the time I was unaware of PNAC and its clearly stated philosophy of asserting American power to promote a middle east more to their liking. It is now clear that to implement this philosophy the Bush administration engaged in an organized policy of deceit about the evidence for WMD and the connection of Al Qaida with the Hussein regime.

It is also clear that the Bush administration is the most inept and corrupt of my life. The opportunity to use the Iraq occupation as a way to reward crony companies and crony partisans may not have been their motivation for the war, but it was absolutely their plan to take advantage of the war in that way once the occupation was underway.

Even more problematic has been Bushco's inability to change course in the face of unflagging failure. Bushco believes in the use of US forces as a source of ego gratification and anything that would require them to admit the slightest mistakes is absolutely off the table. So we have one of the largest human disasters going in the world today with hundreds of thousands of displaced Iraqis settling all over the region and still Bushco won't talk to the other key players in the region to attempt to find a solution. What a bunch of friggin morons.

The world and the US have been horribly affected by the Bushco and yet many of the Bushco cheerleaders that existed at the start of this self made debacle continue to cling to the most unlikely interpretation of events to somehow find vindication for their views which have been so painfully shown to have been so completely wrong.

[Azure]

Clear? What exactly about unreliable information gathered by the CIA do you guys not understand?

There was no deceit, there is no conspiracy to take over the world; Bush was presented with the intelligence the pointed out that Saddam had mobile weapons labs within Iraq, and Bush acted on it.

I have pointed out numerous articles and sources in another thread proving that. I have YET to receive any sort of proper proof against it.

Until then, you're just another person who suffers from BDS.

[Upchurch]

Clear? What exactly about unreliable information gathered by the CIA do you guys not understand?
What? rik was just telling me that it was very clear and didn't support the WMD claim at all. Which is it?

[FireGarden]

So we have one of the largest human disasters going in the world today with hundreds of thousands of displaced Iraqis settling all over the region

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6362289.stm
The UN estimates that some two million Iraqis have fled the country.

About one million are living in Syria and up to 750,000 in neighbouring Jordan, UNHCR says.

And with refugees displaced inside Iraq, too.

It is also clear that the Bush administration is the most inept and corrupt of my life.

There are only so many mistakes a person can make before I stop thinking they're inept and start thinking they intend the chaos they inflict.

Bush has passed that in line in Iraq. So I leave it at "Most corrupt".

[Azure]

What? rik was just telling me that it was very clear and didn't support the WMD claim at all. Which is it?

The evidence gathered by the CIA very much supported the WMD claim. Remember the 'slam dunk' comment made by Tenet?

But it is where the intelligence game from, foreign sources, unreliable sources, which created the problem.

No unilateral agents in Iraq = bad war.

[Upchurch]

The evidence gathered by the CIA very much supported the WMD claim. Remember the 'slam dunk' comment made by Tenet?
So, was Congress as gullible as rik says or not?

[Azure]

So, was Congress as gullible as rik says or not?

Absolutely. Someone posted a link that pointed out how only 6-7 senators actually read the intelligence briefing.

Gullible? Yes, and stupid along with that.

Bush should have verified everything first, and thank god that idiot Tenet is gone.

[Upchurch]

Absolutely. Someone posted a link that pointed out how only 6-7 senators actually read the intelligence briefing.

Gullible? Yes, and stupid along with that.

Bush should have verified everything first, and thank god that idiot Tenet is gone.
......so, are you saying that Bush didn't read the briefing either or that he was lying when he said they had proof that Iraq had WMD's? Because rik was saying that reading the briefing should have led people to conclude that Iraq did not have WMD's.

[a_unique_person]

Well Azure,...
I'm with you in spirit because there is a reason why you are right, but you are also wrong in another way.

The fact of the matter is that the NIE provided to the White House prior to the invasion did not show any proof of Iraqi WMD and in fact stated that it was unlikely that Saddam had any effective WMD's.

However the danger of Saddam's regime was not controversial. Saddam was considered to be the most dangerous despot in the ME by just about everyone in all branches of government...as well as by allied foreign governments.

But here's what happened. When the White House got that NIE on Iraq and saw that it did not explicitly make the case for Iraqi WMD's, they wrote a 6 page summary which reinforced the executive's Saddam/WMD/9-11 theories and placed it on top of the NIE...then they presented the NIE to Congress. Now get this; out of 100 Senators only 6 of them had their aides read past the 6 page summary. Saddam's stature as universal boogeyman was so non-controversial that they basically voted for the war on faith.

The White House provided all the evidence...and the Senate didn't even look at it! Now they are crying about being mislead...and in fact they were...but what really happened was that these people failed to do their jobs. We are now at war and if this war is a disaster it is clear that Congress owns nearly as large a share of the blame as does Bush for getting us into it.

Personally I wish the politicos would shut up. They'll never impeach Bush because they can't. Bush provided them all the intelligence info he had. If they had bothered to look at it they could not have been "mislead".

It's like buying a used car. If a slick salesman tells you the car is perfect and you sign the papers without reading them then later find the car had hidden damage you may find that the papers you signed actually disclosed the damage. If so you can't sue the slick salesman...but you can kick yourself in the arse for being stupid.

That's about all Congress can do; point up their own credulity. That's why there has never been a real move to impeach and never will be.

-z

Thanks for that, Rick. Unbelievable, but it rings true because it comes down to incompetence, which is always believable. What the actual state of politics is at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75618.

[Azure]

......so, are you saying that Bush didn't read the briefing either or that he was lying when he said they had proof that Iraq had WMD's? Because rik was saying that reading the briefing should have led people to conclude that Iraq did not have WMD's.

I think Bush made the same mistake that the Senators made.

Saw Iraq coupled together with WMD, and ended up jumping on the war wagon too quickly. And I disagree with rik about the briefing. I don't think the CIA said anything else 'besides' that Iraq had WMD.

Call it incompetence, call it whatever.

I wouldn't call it lying though.

[Upchurch]

I think Bush made the same mistake that the Senators made.

Saw Iraq coupled together with WMD, and ended up jumping on the war wagon too quickly. And I disagree with rik about the briefing. I don't think the CIA said anything else 'besides' that Iraq had WMD.

Call it incompetence, call it whatever.

I wouldn't call it lying though.
:boggled:

Okay, so either Bush is a crafty used car salesman who lied to the US Congress and the American people in order to trick us into war -or- he is an incompetent idiot who rushed the country into war without performing due diligence?

:faint:

[davefoc]

Bush should have verified everything first, and thank god that idiot Tenet is gone.

Any thoughts on why Bush gave Tenet the Medal of Freedom? Was that because Bush didn't agree with you assessment?

[Azure]

:boggled:

Okay, so either Bush is a crafty used car salesman who lied to the US Congress and the American people in order to trick us into war -or- he is an incompetent idiot who rushed the country into war without performing due diligence?

:faint:

Sure, take your pick.

I don't think he manipulated anyone. Congress should have read through the briefing, and according to Rik, they 'should' have known that something was wrong.

How exactly is that manipulating Congress? Had Bush deceived them, that intelligence report would have been mistake free.

[Azure]

Any thoughts on why Bush gave Tenet the Medal of Freedom? Was that because Bush didn't agree with you assessment?

If Tenet was such a hero, and did such a great job, and worked for his 'boss' doing everything his 'boss' asked of him, why did he resign?

Or why did Bush get rid of him?

[Renfield]

Bush should have verified everything first, and thank god that idiot Tenet is gone.

Not empty handed though. He does have that Presidential Medal of Freedom or whatever its called as part of his severance package.

Job well done!

[Azure]

Not empty handed though. He does have that Presidential Medal of Freedom or whatever its called as part of his severance package.

Job well done!

Absolutely.

Politicians don't have the guts to fire someone the right way these days.

I bet he got a $200,000 per year pension plan as well.