| Author | Message | ||
| DL (Darth550)
Member Username: Darth550 Post Number: 449 Registered: 7-2003 |
PS. Telson, I apologize in advance for posting something car related. DL | ||
| DL (Darth550)
Member Username: Darth550 Post Number: 448 Registered: 7-2003 |
I know this may be off the "Off topic" at hand but I was wondering....would you consider this guy a "Treehugger" too? Please advise. DL  | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 363 Registered: 12-2002 |
Amir, First of all, you say Bush has been a detriment to US security, strength and US image. Regarding security, how has that been compromised? Last i checked, we have not had a terorrist attack on US soil since 9/11... more than 2 years. We have had piss-ant attacks here and there overseas, but overall we have not had any here and very little abroad. How has US strength been lowered? We are as powerful as ever, if not more so. Our military strength is more than ever. As for our image, of course it has been tarnished, but people keep falling back on that. Why would any country do what every other country wants it to do? Does France do what is best for the USA or what is best for France? I don't want my government to do anything other than what is best for me. If that's good for me and bad for you, well, I still want them to put my needs over your needs every time. Bush is doing what he feels is best for the country. You can say the US should do this or that, but it doesn't really matter. if you don't like what we do, go ahead and get pissed about it, but it doesn't change that we're going to do what is best for us regardless of what others think. It's ludicrous to think our actions would be dictated by what other countries think. Now regarding your continuous comments about "bush took us to war" - you are wrong on that one. There was a vote just about one year ago today on October 10th, 2002. In that vote, Congress authorized the President to go to war in Iraq with a vote of 296 in favor, 133 against. That is more than 2/3rds approving of the war. That is the house, which was repubs and dems both. It's not like America didn't want war and the politicos didn't want war. We wanted to take out Saddam and rebuild Iraq the way we feel it should be. The decision to do that was entirely our own and is nobody's business but our own. I don't remember the world slamming Russia when they went into Chechnya. I don't remember France deferring to world and UN opinion when the world asked them to cease testing nuclear weapons. I don't recall France going to the UN about their little Ivory Coast mess. The only reason everyone wants a say in what the USA does is because we're the most powerful nation by far - the last superpower. You or anyone else can flame us or slam us all you want. You can say you are more enlightened and you know what is better for us, but the bottom line is that we do what is best for US and nobody else. No democratic country does any less for it's people. The only difference is our power means others can't really do much if they don't like it, whereas if Belgium adamantly says it's going to invade Poland, well, it don't take much to snap them back in line. Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but that's just reality. When other countries solve their own problems, then perhaps we can talk about how we could benefit from their input on how to behave? | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 271 Registered: 5-2003 |
Amir..... I don't have any problem with people being held responsible for their actions as you suggest if the case is valid, enforceable and prosecutable with unimpeachable evidence. That is why we are having this discussion. At least you have the cojones to agree that these statements were made, unlike Telson....and I give you credit there....but you lose it for your juvenile name calling. Now that you finally agree that these people all said these things, tell me now why is the left wing not calling "them" liars while they are suggesting GWB lied ? "That" is my argument. Is it OK to do so ? I mean....to say one thing, and do another exactly the opposite ? I'll tell you why....there is an election in a year, more or less. You know how to find the online dictionary I think to look up the definition of what I just described. Well, has it ever occured to you that to make a statement, then change your mind in light of evidence, but to keep making the charge regardless, makes one look just a tad bit foolish and lacking credibility in the eyes of the viewers ? ------- "You" say it was because GWB "took the US to war, without a coalition or UN approval and that it is a mess". Yes....GWB took the US to war...because the world vacated their responsibilities. IMHO GWB was "very" restrained on 9/12 and afterwards. I am not suggesting that GWB attacked Iraq as a result of cooperation on their part in 9/11 (nor did GWB say that either because there in so evidence of any) but rather because after 9/11 when he woke up they were on top of the world's "hit parade" of troublemakers and GWB realized that the UN wasn't going to do anything about it. He built a coalition with GB, Australia and about 30 other countries who delivered logistical and political support as opposed to military. UN approval is not required for anything. It may come as a shock to you, but the UN is not a world government, it's merely a "coffee club of nations" where sometimes conscencus is reached on issues in order to keep weaker and less politically secure governments in power and out of controversy (like Canada). The UN could ban the US tomorrow, and it would be powerless to enforce anything, as it has proven itself over the decades with most all of it's resolutions. Now, in order for it to be a mess and a quagmire you would have to make a case for that, not a bombast like you have, and from that standpoint I would happily debate you as well. ------------- There is no question that Iraq "had" WMD's in some capacity....when and how much is the unknown variable, as "you" have agreed by accepting the truthfullness of these quotes, therefore this is no longer is a question. Is it an imminent threat ? IMHO....maybe it was...maybe it wasn't. I would not be prepared to find out I was wrong.....Democrats would. Iraq has supported terrorism. Gawd...what are you putting in your system to make you think otherwise ? | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Junior Member Username: Amir Post Number: 183 Registered: 2-2003 |
OK, fine, they did make those statements, and they were as misguided then as Bush still is today. Or, they were lying as vehemently as Bush continues to do today. But they didn't take us to war. Clinton said a lot of things, but he didn't take us to war. He had measured responses, which were sometimes criticized and sometimes not criticized. Bush did take us to war. Bush did do it without the coalition he promised to build. Bush did do it without UN approval. Bush embroiled us in this mess. And he did it all on the basis of two lies: 1. that Iraq had WMD and was an imminent threat, and 2. that Iraq supported terrorism. Killing people and invading countries for fraudulent reasons and ulterior motives are high crimes. Sooner or later, Bush will have to answer for them. Hopefully, it will be sooner. So he is the one being held responsible. I don't understand why you have a problem with that. Yes, it's not about hating Bush. People did not start out hating Bush and they don't decry his efforts because they hate him. Rather, what Bush did and continues to do is roundly hated. He is now hated because of his actions and words, his words and actions are not hated because we started off on a premise of hating him. I was talking about cause and effect. And I was also saying that it's not about bipartisanship. If a Democrat had done this, he would be ridiculed as well. Do you get the nuance yet? Hypocrisy? Hardly. As you can see, I have refuted your points, and responded to each of them. Where is the basic lack of ability you are claiming? As for calling you a rabid prick, it is because of your rabid insistence on the same meaningless point in two threads. That's the rabid part. Prick? Because of your method of attacking Telson again and again, goading him into responding to your meaningless crap. So we have rabid. And we have prick. Rabid and prick. Rabid prick. That's how I came up with that. And who is in "denial of responsibility?" Whose arguments have fallen apart now? And who is unable to substantiate their claims? I have substantiated all of mine, including why I called you a rabid prick. Do you need anything else explained to you? Does ex-intelligence mean that you were intelligent at one point? Do you have any more "Dubya defenses?" Let's move on, shall we? | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 268 Registered: 5-2003 |
It's not they "might have" said those things Amir...they did. That is why I posted their quotes here. What you have just done is called "denial of reality". You also say it's not about hating GWB, yet in the next part of your sentence you say it's OK, he's hated for many things. Well...what's it going to be ? It is this very hypocrisy in the opposing position from people who espouse these political views that is under attack here. That, and a basic lack of ability to refute them beyond calling someone a "rabid prick" as you referred to me in the other thread. | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Junior Member Username: Amir Post Number: 181 Registered: 2-2003 |
Mike, Kds asked if these people said the things they did, which support Bush's position. Fair enough, they might have. But they didn't go to war. Bush did. At a time when a lot of the cited evidence was being refuted. The responsibility for this war lies mostly with him and to some extent with his poodle, Tony Blair. It's not about hating Bush, although he is hated for his bull-headed stance on many things, from the economy and what should be done to fix it, to his tax-cuts for his wealthy friends, to abortion, to the Invasion of Iraq. It's about hating his actions that have been detrimental to US security, US strength, and US image. If a Democrat had done the same, he would be hated too. Does this answer the question, or is there another one that I am missing? If so, please post it. Thank you. | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 354 Registered: 12-2002 |
Telson, Kds asked a fair question. Your only response was to post inflammatory content that was opposite to Kds's position. He asked a fair question - why not just answer it? If you are genuinely interested in discussing this with well reasoned adults, then do so. If your sole intention is to inflame, then what value do you add to the site? Because I haven't seen much genuine and original commentary from you, I can't help but presume you are just here to stir the pot. But at least when someone challenges you to defend your position, do it with some dignity. I'm embarassed *for* you to see Kds deconstructing your entire argument like this. I'd either save face and depart, or address Kds's points one-by-one | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 594 Registered: 11-2002 |
And the mighty Telson fell to his knees, unable to support the weight of unanswered questions with quotes from "the Guadian". I appeared as though the act of constructing his OWN argument caused his head to explode. We will miss him, that spunky little bastard who did nothing but post political cartoons. | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 262 Registered: 5-2003 |
Darth550....yeah I know, funny, isn't it.....I also asked him if he had "ever" posted "anything" about Ferrari's too. | ||
| DL (Darth550)
Member Username: Darth550 Post Number: 439 Registered: 7-2003 |
I mean really!!!! What were you expecting anyway??? A simple Yes? Or a No? Come on. HEY TELSON...DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT FERRARIS?????? YES OR NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! DL | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 261 Registered: 5-2003 |
I "was" an intelligence officer...not am anymore, nor did I say I was, I got out of the forces in 1982...want photos ?....I also did 6 months as a UN peacekeeper, post it here and I'll comply within 24 hours. I've nothing to hide here. Anyways, back to the discussion....... You ask "where are the weapons BUSH said were in abundance"...which in itself is another attempt to change the subject without answering the question...... To which I reply......Why don't you ask those people shown whose quotes I have listed in the thread.....since "they" obviously didn't lie, or at least you are not willing to concede as much because you will not answer the question, nor explain their quotes, then "they" must know where they are.....what do you say to that one eh ? Answer the question Telson....."who" lied ? | ||
| Rosso (Redhead)
Member Username: Redhead Post Number: 471 Registered: 12-2001 |
HATE TO BREAK IN HERE.. Telson...can you read?LOL. Why do you have to LOL at everything? As well, you can not read, since KDS has asked the same one question to you 3 times, and NO answer as come out of your words. Now, do you want to talk about spin again??? Answer his question, then he has stated he will move on to other Points. DAMN internet | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 83 Registered: 8-2003 |
Only one issue is relevant: WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS BUSH PROMISED US SADDAM HAD IN ABUNDANCE AND WAS GOING TO USE AGAINST US ??? KDS, lol, intelligence officer, right, oh God, how I love the web and it's endless possibilities for unashamed self-embellishment and hype, just like the real world under Bush, anyway, look, I appreciate that it must really hurt to suffer from urgent cognitive dissonance, but, even you will have to accept, who CARES what some idiots said right after 9/11 when the level of intimidation by this evil administration had reached its heights, none of that is relevant. Heck, 70% of Americans believe and assert to this day that Saddam was behind 9/11, lol. The only thing that is relevant is what is done, as in start a war based on lies where tens of thousands are killed and maimed, and where our real enemy, terror, is strengthened. Bush claimed that Saddam was a huge and imminent threat, through inuendo that he was behind 9/11, and that he supported Al Qaeda, and Bush based his decsion to wage an illegal war on those lies. Even SEC STATE COLIN POWELL knew that Saddam did not pose a threat, lol, can't you read ? "Powell, February 2001: He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." __________________ "White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat' The Guardian Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday. "Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence..." http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0%2C12271%2C807286%2C00.html | ||
| Corey Feldman (Meatballs_4)
New member Username: Meatballs_4 Post Number: 13 Registered: 9-2003 |
The suspense is building, lol ::::::grabs popcorn::::::: | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 260 Registered: 5-2003 |
Answer the question I have asked you over 2 times Telson before I defeat your other argument, and while you are at it, explain the quotes from your people taken from after 9/11....not before....explain and answer. I was an intelligence officer in the military for 6 years, so I have no problem with the other issues of this debate....but first...who lied Telson ? You cannot have it both ways. You are trapped like a rat with no way out. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 82 Registered: 8-2003 |
LOL, KDS ! WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS GEORGE W. BUSH started this war on in a HUGE rush because the threat was so ATROCIOUS, IMMENSE and IMMINENT that he didn't even let the weapons inspectors finish their jobs, where are those weapons ? That is the ONLY relevant question here. Even SEC STATE COLIN POWELL knew that Saddam did not pose a threat, lol, can't you read ? "Powell, February 2001: He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." __________________ "White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat' The Guardian Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday. "Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence. ..." http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0%2C12271%2C807286%2C00.html | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 259 Registered: 5-2003 |
Telson.... We are talking about your allegation that GWB lied. Nothing else. Were these people from your side of the political fence lying when they made those statements that I posted ? A simple yes or no will do. But, trapped by your own lies and seeming inability to change the subject or detract attention with a new thread, you refuse to answer this simple question. "Who" lied Telson ? Two people cannot say the same thing and one lie and not the other. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 81 Registered: 8-2003 |
KDS, try and use your brain if you have one: WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS THAT ACCORDING TO BUSHS LIES POSED A HUGE AND IMMINENT THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF THE USA AND WERE THE KEY RATIONALE FOR THIS ILLEGAL, COUNTER PRODUCTIVE WAR OF AGGRESSION THAT HAS ONLY STRENGTHENED TERRORISM ??? lol "Powell, February 2001: He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 258 Registered: 5-2003 |
"Judge people by their actions, not words." Telson...this is your quote....but you have spent the last few threads trying to judge people by their words....now which is it going to be ? You cannot have it both ways in the "real" world. Judging "you" by both terms of reference, namely, actions and words, shows you to be morally bankrupt and guilty of what you yourself allege. Those of your political ilk who's quotes have been reproduced here have merely proven the hypocricy of the position taken by people who ascribe to the attitudes that you do. Blind screed such as your words may work on some of lesser IQ than yourself, but in the arena of ideas known as the internet, it does not even merit a nosebleed seat. Now who lied Telson.......??? Was everybody I posted lying like you allege GWB was ? | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 593 Registered: 11-2002 |
I rest my case, Telson. You have absolutely NO clue what the term facist means. I'm done. Run along.....run along. | ||
| Bruce Wellington (Bws88tr)
Advanced Member Username: Bws88tr Post Number: 3141 Registered: 4-2002 |
TELSON...YOU ONE FUC#$##KED UP INDIVUAL, PROBABLY DANGEROUS TOO,,,,,,,,,,, | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 79 Registered: 8-2003 |
Bruce, haha, at your NEOFASCIST tactics again: If you can't argue with em, attempt to destroy their credibility and character, however imbecilic and nonsensical the attempt may be, lol. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 78 Registered: 8-2003 |
Ahh, I think Bush had an evil streak in him from the outset that George 41 couldn't dispel, and as for Leo Strauss, I guess Wolfowitz et al took care of the rest, although I doubt that Bush paid too much attention to the theories. Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception | ||
| Bruce Wellington (Bws88tr)
Advanced Member Username: Bws88tr Post Number: 3140 Registered: 4-2002 |
TELSON...PERFECT SITE FOR YOU WWW.KKK.COM | ||
| DL (Darth550)
Member Username: Darth550 Post Number: 434 Registered: 7-2003 |
Telson, Don't blame George 43. He never met Leo Strauss, did he? DL | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 77 Registered: 8-2003 |
 lol, do I know what a fascist is? Why, we got one running the country, inventing reasons for war based on nothing but Spin, Lies and Deceit, creating and strongly sponsoring an atmosphere of permanent fear, and tearing up the US constitution, civil liberties, judicial due process, individual freedoms, etc etc. In short, Bush shows quite clearly what a fascist is. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 76 Registered: 8-2003 |
DL, hehe ;-) I really wouldn't put is past him to try and plant sthg, or suddenly discover that Mexico has secretly been planning to annihilate us for the last 40 years and needs to be taken care of pronto. Best, | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 591 Registered: 11-2002 |
Do you know what a facist is? Doubt it, but you DO know that it sounds bad and has negative connotations, so you toss it around to add strength to your arguments. In real life, idiots like you are easy to crush in an argument. You have none, essentially. All you've got is words like "racist", "nazi", and "facist" to throw at your opponents. The stupid people in audience buy your crap, but the vast majority of free thinkers see your tactics as nothing but "chicken little" strategy. Bush is far from a facist. I suggest you go to wikipedia.com and look up the word. Have a nice day! | ||
| DL (Darth550)
Member Username: Darth550 Post Number: 432 Registered: 7-2003 |
Telson, Do you have a prediction as to when the "Staged" heart attack will occur? DL | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 75 Registered: 8-2003 |
Nebula, no, not everyone is a fascist. Most Democrats could live with say a Prez like Bush senior, me included, and, vice versa, most Republicans didn't have a problem with, say, Clinton. It's not a partisan issue, the problem are the current tiny minority of neoconservatives in the GOP, neoconservative is in effect just a euphemism for neofascist, in other words, Bush II and minority gang that have nothing in common with core Republican values, but that have nevertheless hijacked the Republican Party and Country, lol, and are currently totally mismanaging things to the immense National Security detriment of the USA, not to mention shot national credibility etc. | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 589 Registered: 11-2002 |
EVERYONE'S A NAZI FACIST! AND A RACIST! GREAT GOD, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!! | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 74 Registered: 8-2003 |
AND TO YOU, MR WELLINGTON.. | ||
| Bruce Wellington (Bws88tr)
Advanced Member Username: Bws88tr Post Number: 3139 Registered: 4-2002 |
GOOD MORNING TO YOU, MR TELSON... | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 73 Registered: 8-2003 |
HEY BRUCE, GLAD TO SEE REACTIONARY FASCISTS LIKE YOU CAN ACTUALLY TYPE... GOT MORE GOOD NEWS, YOUR FASCO-IN-CHIEF IS ON HIS WAY OUT, lol: "Poll Shows Increased Doubts About Iraq War, Bush WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most Americans now believe the Iraq war was not worth it, according to CBS News/New York Times poll released on Thursday which showed a sharp fall in public confidence in President Bush's ability to handle foreign and economic policy issues. Just over a year before the Nov. 2004 election, a solid majority, 56 percent, of Americans thought the country was seriously on the wrong track, the poll found." http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp? floc=NW_3-T&oldflok=FF-RTO-rontz&idq=/ff/story /0002%2F20031002%2F213349161.htm&sc =rontz&photoid=20031001CDH111 | ||
| Bruce Wellington (Bws88tr)
Advanced Member Username: Bws88tr Post Number: 3138 Registered: 4-2002 |
THIS GUY IS FREAKIN WACKED.........MUST LIVE BY NUCLEAR TESTING GROUNDS .GEEZ..... | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 72 Registered: 8-2003 |
"There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. Don't attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts." Brent Scowcroft National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford & George Bush senior Wall Street Journal, 15 Aug 2002 QED Judge people by their actions, not words. Quite clearly, Clinton did not see any justification for actually attacking Iraq, as indeed nobody else in the world saw either. What others saw was that this war was not warranted by the facts, and that it would quite to the contrary give terror a huge boost, as can indeed be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere these days. "Bali proves that America's war on terror isn't working The US made the mistake of taking its eye off the main target Jonathan Freedland Tuesday October 15, 2002 The Guardian The world has every right to feel angry. Not just with the perpetrators of the Saturday night massacre in Bali, but with the governments who vowed to wage a "war on terror" which would make attacks like it less likely. None of this is a surprise. For the prosecutors of the war on terror - who promised to focus like a laser beam - have let their eye wander. Like the rulers of Orwell's 1984, our leaders have urged us to switch our hatred overnight not from Eastasia to Eurasia but from al-Qaida to Baghdad. Now we are to believe Saddam is the urgent, number one priority. Bali has proved why that is a woeful error. A war on Iraq will win yet more backing for jihadism in the Muslim world, apparently concerning all Bin Laden's most lurid predictions of a clash of west against Islam. A prolonged US occupation of Iraq will be the greatest provocation yet. But it will also be a distraction from the struggle we were all urged to join a year ago. Bali has proved what Clinton argued a fortnight ago: that radical Islamism remains the "most pressing" threat in the world today. http://www.guardian.co.uk/indonesia/Story /0,2763,812084,00.html Spin, Lies and Deceit by Bush: "A lack of intelligence The Sydney Morning Herald Australia's spies knew the United States was lying about Iraq's WMD programme. So why didn't the Government choose to believe them? Andrew Wilkie writes. 'Intelligence" was how the Americans described the material accumulating on Iraq from their super-sophisticated spy systems. But to analysts at the Office of National Assessments in Canberra, a decent chunk of the growing pile looked like rubbish. In their offices on the top floor of the drab ASIO building, ONA experts found much of the US material worthy only of the delete button or the classified waste chute to the truck-sized shredder in the basement. Australian spooks aren't much like the spies in the James Bond movies. Not many drink vodka martinis. But most are smart - certainly smart enough to understand how US intelligence on Iraq was badly skewed by political pressure, worst-case analysis and a stream of garbage-grade intelligence concocted by Iraqis desperate for US intervention in Iraq. It wasn't just the Australians who were mystified by the accumulating US trash. The French, Germans and Russians had long before refused to be persuaded by Washington's line. British intelligence agencies were still inclined to take a more conservative position. And the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, even went so far as to say during a late April interview that "much of the intelligence on which the capitals built their case seemed to have been shaky". The CIA had clearly lost the plot if its October 2002 report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was anything to go by. Either that, or the agency was party to a disinformation campaign designed to encourage support for a war. How else to explain the excerpt quoted by the Prime Minister in early February: "All key aspects ... of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program are active and most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War." The CIA's public acknowledgement of a review smells more like early positioning for its day of reckoning than a genuine interest in continuous improvement. The CIA can't afford another serious blunder so soon after its failure to pick up the September 11 attacks. Australian intelligence agencies made it clear to the Government all along that Iraq did not have a massive WMD program (that dubious honour remains restricted to at least China, France, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, Britain and the US). Nor was Saddam Hussein co-operating actively with al-Qaeda. And there was no indication Iraq was intending to pass WMDs to terrorists. Now the WMD claims are unravelling. All that US intelligence garbage is on the nose. Coalition forces in Iraq have not found thousands of chemical artillery shells ready to be fired or ballistic missiles loaded with deadly bacteriological agents. One of the major concerns about the war now is the way it will encourage the proliferation of WMDs. America's adversaries are being encouraged to acquire WMDs to deter US aggression. Mutually assured destruction kept the US and Soviet Union from each other's throats for decades. And, for now, Iran's and North Korea's arsenals seem to be influencing the US to back off. continued: http://www.smh.com.au/articles /2003/05/30/1054177726543.html Of course, US intelligence experts were also fully cognizant of the fact that Bush's case was basically a con game: White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat' The Guardian Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday. "Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence. cont.http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story /0%2C12271%2C807286%2C00.html | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 587 Registered: 11-2002 |
Telson, I see you are up to the same old crap again, but yu have "convieniently" stayed away from this post? Why? It baffles me as to why you wouldn't want to respond to this. Truly, I'm confused. | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Junior Member Username: Kds Post Number: 247 Registered: 5-2003 |
I wouldn't post anything that wasn't Wayne...however, I understand and your respect your doing so. There's too much at stake here. | ||
| Wayne Ausbrooks (Lwausbrooks)
Moderator Username: Lwausbrooks Post Number: 2648 Registered: 8-2002 |
BTW, I ran this through Snopes as usual and it turned out to be the real deal: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 581 Registered: 11-2002 |
You gotta love it! C'mon Telson, back it up! WHere are you? Should we post some political cartoons to make this appealing to you? | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Junior Member Username: Kds Post Number: 246 Registered: 5-2003 |
This is a series of quotes from Democratic party officials and those on the opposing side of the Iraqi conflict...specifically quotes about WMD's. Telson appears so convinced that GWB lied and that everything was made up, and using quotes from before 9/11 in a vain attempt to justify his argument I now present for your viewing pleasure.............something I am sure he will understand...........touche. Maybe I should have posted under the Democratic hypocrisy thread....but hey...I didn't want to hijack that one so here you go Telson...... ----------------- We haven't found WMD in Iraq yet, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is claiming that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The story being floated now is that Saddam had no WMD (or almost none) and that the Bush administration didn't tell the truth about the WMD threat. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same lies since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples of what I'm talking about... "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- •••• Gephardt in September of 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002 |