| 1
members are viewing this topic |
| >Guest |
| |
|
|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
cpu_slave 
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Sep. 18 2003,11:28 am |
|
   |
... and in other news Bush also admits the sky is blue and the grass is green. 
What on earth is going on? Since 9-11 this administration has gone out of it's way to connect Iraq with 9-11, yet produced no proof. As of last Sunday, HERE we have Cheney on meet the press telling of such connection, yet on Wednesday Bush and other members of the administration are now coming forward stating there is no link. This is called damage control people. Tie up the loose ends, state that while certain things were said, they really meant something else. Yup, all part of the plan. Just in time to start Bush's reelection campaign.
The reason it's asinine and hypocritical to say this NOW is because the Bush administration KNEW that a lot of people believed Saddam was involved in 9/11 and help perpetrate that myth two ways-
1) By repeatedly mentioning Saddam/Iraq in the same references as terrorism/9-11
And
2) By not making any attempt to dispel the myth because they knew it was helping to generate public support for the pre-emptive strike to remove Hussein
And you know what? It's lying, plain and simple. It's just that, for Republicans, this kind of lying is ok. It's only not ok to lie about your sexual exploits. And that's only if you are a Democrat. Hypocrisy is ok too as long as you are a Republican. And... oh you get the idea.
Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks - starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.
Here is a transcript of the exchange:
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."
RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."
70% of Arabs believe Israel was behind 9-11,70% of Americans think Saddam was behind 9-11,they have a state controlled press, what's our excuse?
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Angel
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 18 2003,12:13 pm |
|
 |
It's not a surprise to me that Bush JR. jumped on the chance to go into Iraq and remove Saddam. I'm sure it was his fathers wish. I don't like Bush or the way he's handled Iraq. Diplomacy, would someone please explain it to him!
However, I believe there were good reasons to oust Saddam without the lies and deception. Saddam had 11 years to comply with the U.N. He used chemicals on his people. What happened to the weapons/chemicals we can't find. Maybe he already sold them to Syria, Iran or terrorists.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 19 2003,12:45 pm |
|
|
| Quote | | I believe there were good reasons to oust Saddam without the lies and deception. |
Angel, everything you list as a 'good reason' is either a lie and-or a deception.
| Quote | | Saddam had 11 years to comply with the U.N. |
You can't be serious. The Iraqis were more than willing to allow the UN inspectors to continue. It was the United States and Britain that forced the inspectors to abandon their mission (again). Israel has had several more years to comply with the U.N. and have not- is that alone enough reason to invade and change the regime? Can you tell me what Saddam did that made invading Iraq a priority over finding bin-forgotten? Did the time on the game clock suddenly expire?
| Quote | | He used chemicals on his people. |
...about 10 years ago. If that is the reason given to justify an invasion I say the US has an exceptionally slow response time. Do you know why he even used the chemicals on his own people? Because they were trying to overthrow the government and were promised help from the US. The help never came, and they we killed. If you want to pin the death of all those people on anyone, I would start with Bush Sr.
| Quote | | What happened to the weapons/chemicals we can't find. Maybe he already sold them to Syria, Iran or terrorists. |
First of all, we can not prove he even had them in the first place. Now the administration is suggesting that all of the attacks against U.S. soldiers in Iraq are coming from outside of Iraq, from groups such as al-Qaeda. I think they're setting up a larger lie - the rhetoric most repeated and getting louder is that Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are sending in people to fight a civilian proxy war against the US using terrorist methods, so this would justify the broadening of the military assault to Syria et al. Now you suggest that they may have all the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction? The war on 'terrorism' is conveniently a one size fits all garment.
Secondly, I think it's pretty obvious that Scott Ritter has been thoroughly vindicated. Pretty much everything he said about Iraq's WMD in the lead up to war has been borne out. It's most likely that whatever remaining "unaccounted for" weapons were simply paperwork errors, they had already been destroyed.
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Angel
Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: Sep. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 19 2003,10:26 pm |
|
|
"Iraqis were more than willing to allow the U.N. inspectors to continue"
They would allow the inspectors to go where the Iraqis wanted them to go and speak with whom the Iraqis wanted them to speak with. As long as Iraqis were with the inspectors. Your right, Iraqis were more than willing to let the inspectors inspect.
True slave, A decade ago he used chemicals on his own people. The same ones Bush Sr. did a "read my lips" line on. (And Americans wonder why people in the MiddleEast can't trust the U.S.)
I do think we have a slow response time. We wait until thousands of people get slaughtered.(Bosnia) Or our oil supply/personal vendetta is at stake.
"First of all, we can not prove he even had them in the first place."
You said it yourself. About ten years ago Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people. As far as I know chemical wepons don't have a ten year expiration date.
Secondly, I don't know where any biological/chemical weapons are located or who they might have been sold to. In my opinion Saddam had weapons he wasn't supposed to have and was trying to develop more.
If he didn't have any or destroyed what he had. Why did he not prove it to the U.N. inspectors? Why wouldn't he let the U.N. inspectors interview those scientists?
Sounded to me like Saddam was hiding something.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 20 2003,9:00 pm |
|
|
| Quote | | If he didn't have any or destroyed what he had. Why did he not prove it to the U.N. inspectors? |
Have you ever tried to prove a negative? Here is an example, prove that you are not developing WMD's, or making meth for that matter.
Look, Iraqis took the inspectors out to a field where they destroyed over 1000 missiles. The inspectors could only account for the weapon if they could find a serial number. The inspectors even stated that it would appear with all the debris that they were in fact all destroyed, but since they could not find serial numbers for every single one they are still listed on the 'unaccounted for' weapons list.
Here is an even better question, where the h3ll are the WMD's that shrub and his administration pointed to as proof? How long have we been there looking without finding one thing to point to as the 'smoking gun'?
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 21 2003,3:52 pm |
|
|
| Quote | | "Have you ever tried to prove a negative?" |
Have you ever debated with Liberal?  He's more tenacious than Algore trying to get his 48th recount!
Edited by jimhanson on Sep. 21 2003,3:58 pm
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 22 2003,12:06 pm |
|
|
In a letter to Robert C. Byrd of the Senate Appropriations Committee The Congressional Budget Office has said that we need to end this by March 04 otherwise we will have to call up the reserves or use special forces and Marines for this peacekeeping mission. This would have a serious negative effect on our military strength. Special forces and Marines need to train constantly and they can't do that if they are busy patrolling the streets of Iraq. Also the CBO suggest the military would have to drop the requirement of Rapid Deployment Units like the 101st Airborne Divisions ability to be anywhere in the world in 48hrs.
One of the other options they are looking at is increasing the size of the US Army by two divisions this plan would take five years to accomplish.
| Quote |
Once those two divisions were available, using them to support an occupation--in addition to employing all of the other forces in the previous options--would enable the United States to sustain an occupation force of 85,000 to 129,000 personnel, at an annual cost of $23 billion to $29 billion
letter from CBO
|
Also according to a recent RAND analysis on Nation Building. "to date, no effort at enforced democratization has taken hold in less than five years.''
So it looks like we are either on a time table here or this is going to cost us much more than $87 billion.
Copy of letter on Congressional Budget Office website
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 22 2003,12:27 pm |
|
|
-The following is a quote from democratic underground that I found amusing-
"Ah, remember when we were going to get Saddam Hussein, find his weapons of mass destruction, pay for the war using nothing but Iraqi oil revenues, and the only thing getting in our way would be the Iraqi people throwing flowers at us? Yes, those were the days. Unfortunately things haven't quite gone according to the neo-con plan, and now we can't find Saddam or his weapons, the Iraqi people are blowing us and each other up with car bombs, and Our Great Leader had to make a groveling speech to the nation last week asking for another $87 billion to rebuild Iraq. And that's just for one year. That brings the total budget for the war - so far - to $166 billion. But pay no attention to the enormous $550 billion budget hole we're slowly digging, if another $87 billion is what's needed, then another $87 billion is what we shall pay. Just to put things in perspective, $87 billion is three times the amount Bush intends to spend on education this year, twice the budget for Homeland Security, and ten times the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. To put it further into perspective, the 1991 Gulf War cost the United States about $20 billion total. And to put things even further into perspective, ask yourself how much of that $87 billion is going to go directly into Halliburton and the Carlyle Group's back pockets. Let's face it, Bush and Cheney probably don't even care about next year's election - in a few short years the CEO president has already managed to set himself up for the world's biggest golden handshake. So the Bush Administration have once again totally misled America over yet another aspect of the invasion of Iraq. But what's $87 billion between friends?"
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 22 2003,6:58 pm |
|
|
If the democrats REALLY, REALLY BELIEVE THAT HALLIBURTON IS GOING TO MAKE ALL THAT MONEY, THEY SHOULD USED THIS "SECRET" KNOWLEDGE TO CASH IN THEMSELVES! Halliburton, (unlike Whitewater) is a publicly traded company. Now that they are going to become so rich, all these "true believers" need to do is to MORTGAGE EVERYTHING THEY'VE GOT, AND PUT THE MONEY INTO HALLIBURTON STOCK--then THEY can cash in, just like Cheney!
This has been floating around since the 2000 election--but I haven't seen any big upticks in Halliburton stock, I haven't seen any of the big institutional investors recommending it, and I haven't seen any of the major brokerage houses touting the stock.
Maybe the reason this has failed to resonate with the American people is that more people than ever OWN stock--it is harder than ever for them to play the "class warfare" card! 
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 22 2003,8:24 pm |
|
|
Chart on Halliburton stock over the last 12 months
Oh yeah, that Halliburton stock is a real underperformer. It's only nearly doubled in the last 12 months. I guess you must have missed those big upticks there Jim. 
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
