what the dems have said about wmd's and iraq

[billvon 3,131]

>And you have gotten good at avoiding any answers when they are asked of you..

Which questions did you ask? The post in question contained statements about the intelligence Bush got, no questions. If you'd like to discuss that, and can manage to do that without adding the obligatory Clinton/Kerry slams, I'd be happy to. It just gets old when any comment gets a reply along the lines of " . . . but . . . but . . . .CLINTON LIED! "

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

And your non proven SLANDER has what to do with anything????

Ny non-proven slander as you put it, is my interpretation of the actions and motivations of those who have been elected to represent me and who are seeking to continue representing me in the next election.

Tell you what, Ron. You prove he DIDN'T lie or prove that he's NOT a dupe. Prove to me that your conclusions are any more valid than mine. My thoughts and opinions may be different than yours but their no less valid and a hell of a lot more relevant.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Which questions did you ask? The post in question contained statements about the intelligence Bush got, no questions. If you'd like to discuss that, and can manage to do that without adding the obligatory Clinton/Kerry slams, I'd be happy to. It just gets old when any comment gets a reply along the lines of " . . . but . . . but . . . .CLINTON LIED!

And I get sick of you and your buddies saying:
"Bush Lied" without proof.
"Bush just wanted to avenge Daddy" Without proof.


See it goes both ways...atleast I have proof of the things I say.

You should try it Bill, only say things you can back without just spitting the lefts crap like it is true.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Tell you what, Ron. You prove he DIDN'T lie or prove that he's NOT a dupe. Prove to me that your conclusions are any more valid than mine. My thoughts and opinions may be different than yours but their no less valid and a hell of a lot more relevant.

Ever heard of innocent till proven quilty?

The burden of PROOF is on you to show he did lie, not me to show he didn't

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Ever heard of innocent till proven quilty?

The burden of PROOF is on you to show he did lie, not me to show he didn't

Gee, think that should have been applied to the Iraq situation?

I'm not trying to start a war or put a man in jail, just decide who would be best for POTUS. Ever hear of preponderance of evidence?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Tell you what, Ron. You prove he DIDN'T lie or prove that he's NOT a dupe. Prove to me that your conclusions are any more valid than mine.

the burden of proof is on you to show he lied..not me to show he didn't...

Ever hear of innocent till PROVEN guilty?

Quote

My thoughts and opinions may be different than yours but their no less valid and a hell of a lot more relevant.

Oh I value your opinions when they are not just spit from the lefts mouth...

And as for relevent..Well I think that if the last Democrat we had in office did a damn thing this whole issue not being an issue IS relevent...

But of course your leftish ways can't see that.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Never mind that he tried to blow Bin Laden to bits during a cruise missile attack.

Exactly once, IIRC. I seem to recall that the public accused him of using the attack to deflect attention from his other problems at the time, and as was par for the course with Clinton, he succumbed to public pressure and stopped the attacks. Right?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Well I think that if the last Democrat we had in office did a damn thing this whole issue not being an issue IS relevent...

It may be relevant as far as placing blame, but not in deciding the proper course of future action, other than to say, don't elect him again. And last time I checked, he wasn't running. Which again, makes it irrelevant.

The invention of the gasoline engine has as much relevance to the issue.

[Ron 10]

Quote

It may be relevant as far as placing blame, but not in deciding the proper course of future action, other than to say, don't elect him again. And last time I checked, he wasn't running. Which again, makes it irrelevant.

Its relevent in the fact that the last DEMOCRAT in office did nothing, and lookie there is another DEMOCRAT running this time also.

And your "Bush lied" "Bush talks to God" "Bush is just protecting Daddy" BS is not a solution either...And not only is it NOT a soultion...Its also all fabrication.

so again as long as you keep spouting the unsubstantiated slander from the left...Expect me to continue to show how the left is not high and mighty....

By yes bringing up your hero Clinton's tricks, AND things like Kerry ADMITTING he was a war criminal.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

And the last REPUBLICAN in office didn't do anything either, in fact the last REPUBLICAN in office was VP while we were supplying Iraq with WMD and Iran with illegal arms.

Quote

so again as long as you keep spouting the unsubstantiated slander from the left...Expect me to continue to show how the left is not high and mighty....

I'll be the first to say that neither party has a significant advantage in the morals department. You're the one who can't handle and deal with or admit that Bush has faults. I admit Clinton has faults I admit Kerry has faults, I weigh those faults against those of GWB, that's how I make a rational and informed decisioni. Not be pretending GWB is a perfect servant of God.

[billvon 3,131]

>Exactly once, IIRC. I seem to recall that the public accused him of using
> the attack to deflect attention from his other problems at the time, and
>as was par for the course with Clinton, he succumbed to public pressure
>and stopped the attacks. Right?

Yep. A movie called "Wag the Dog" appeared at the same time, if I recall. It depicted a manufactured war that was used as a coverup for political indiscretions. Republicans accused him of bombing Bin Laden to cover up the Lewinsky scandal, and he capitulated (unfortunately.)

[billvon 3,131]

Thought so. Like I said before, if you want to discuss the issues, feel free. If you want to bash, bash away, but the bashes will be nothing different than has been posted ten thousand times already.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

It may be relevant as far as placing blame, but not in deciding the proper course of future action, other than to say, don't elect him again. And last time I checked, he wasn't running. Which again, makes it irrelevant.

Its relevent in the fact that the last DEMOCRAT in office did nothing, and lookie there is another DEMOCRAT running this time also.

And your "Bush lied" "Bush talks to God" "Bush is just protecting Daddy" BS is not a solution either...And not only is it NOT a soultion...Its also all fabrication.

so again as long as you keep spouting the unsubstantiated slander from the left...Expect me to continue to show how the left is not high and mighty....

By yes bringing up your hero Clinton's tricks, AND things like Kerry ADMITTING he was a war criminal.

You are in denial. There is ample proof that Bush lied about WMDs "in 45 minutes", about uranium from Niger, and said one thing and did the opposite on the deficit, on Veterans' care, and on education.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

There is ample proof that Bush lied about WMDs "in 45 minutes", about uranium from Niger, and said one thing and did the opposite on the deficit, on Veterans' care, and on education

But Clinton...

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

There is ample proof that Bush lied about WMDs "in 45 minutes"

Good, then it should be easy for you to find.

I, for one, will be waiting.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

There is ample proof that Bush lied about WMDs "in 45 minutes"

Good, then it should be easy for you to find.

I, for one, will be waiting.

-
Jim

You acknowledge the other lies, then, but you're unsure about that one?

Well, it's a start on the road to honesty. Keep up the good work.

(Edited to give you hint, look half way down this article from the White House)
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/iraq/20020926-7.html

And take note of the date.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

You acknowledge the other lies, then, but you're unsure about that one?

Well, it's a start on the road to honesty. Keep up the good work.

(Edited to give you hint, look half way down this article from the White House)
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/iraq/20020926-7.html

And take note of the date.

Not so cut and dried as you think.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373295039&p=1012571727085

Quote

However, European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq.

These intelligence officials now say the forged documents appear to have been part of a "scam", and the actual intelligence showing discussion of uranium supply has been ignored.

Perhaps you need to start searching for that road yourself.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

You acknowledge the other lies,

I did? Please, show me where I acknowledged anything. A quote would be nice, I need to make sure that I don't do it again.

Quote

Well, it's a start on the road to honesty. Keep up the good work.

(Edited to give you hint, look half way down this article from the White House)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/iraq/20020926-7.html

I am aware, Professor, that Bush made the 45 minutes comment. I am calling on you to provide the proof that it was a lie. You said that the proof was ample, so I suspect that it will be easy for you to present.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[quade 4]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=45+minutes+WMDs

Just for starters for both you and the good Professor.

What I find interesting is that there seems to be TWO people thought to be the original source of the "45-minute" statement: one now dead and the other now the leader of Iraq.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Are you willing to admit you have been lying to us if it turns out to be true that Iraq did try to buy uranium from Niger?

Does that "road to honesty" run in front of the Kallend household?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Thought so. Like I said before, if you want to discuss the issues, feel free. If you want to bash, bash away, but the bashes will be nothing different than has been posted ten thousand times already

Bring the issues...I'll work on them with you...Only if you promise to answer questions we ask of you...You seem to ignore the questions you don't want to answer.

But if you keep spitting leftish BS...Expect the same old same.

If YOU keep doing the same BS...Expect the same old BS in return

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,131]

>Bring the issues...I'll work on them with you..

OK. You said Bush got bad intelligence. Why? Simple question, one that contains no questions about Clinton, Lewinsky, Michael Moore or Al Gore.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Are you willing to admit you have been lying to us if it turns out to be true that Iraq did try to buy uranium from Niger?

Does that "road to honesty" run in front of the Kallend household?

Sure, when you prove that Bush had this information at the time he prepared his speech, after the CIA had told the White House that the story was untrue, and that I knew all about it and didn't have "bad intel". That is the criterion that you Bush acolytes use to assure us that he's not lying when he says something untrue.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

OK. You said Bush got bad intelligence. Why?

Saudi Arabi said they thought they had them...

Hell SH said he had them ata times depending on who he was talking to.

SH had missles that had a range greater than he was allowed to have.

SH had made a supper cannon that was able to shoot 650 miles.

Blix even found that he was testing missles with a greater range than he was allowed WHILE BLIX WAS IN COUNTRY.

Curveball a Iraqi defector said he know of moble Chem labs.

Hans Blix himself said that the Iraqi's would not permit U2 overflights...and that they would not allow us to take scientists out of the country to question them.

He also said that Iraq did not provide "Active co-operation" as required by the UN resolution.

There was alarge amount of evidence...And look at the first post int his thread...even the people who are now saying it was wrong at one time thought he did have them.

Some of it...Curveball gave bad intel on purpose..but he was a German informant, not ours, and we didn't know he was lying till AFTER the war started and he started bragging about it.

Some of it was out dated...as in some of the British info

Some was false, such as Niger and the uranium...

But you add it all up, and at the time it painted a clear pictuce that Iraq had WMD's...

It seems like if he did have them he got rid of them...So the question is how and where? He answered none of those questions before th war and stil has not answered them.

The big fear and the one that I fear is correct is that he did have them and he sold or gave them to terrorist groups.

That was our big fear anyway...He knew that we would blast him if HE used them, but if the PLO used them then it was not him we would go after....

So he could kill with WMD's by making and suppling them without getting nuked.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,131]

>Hell SH said he had them ata times depending on who he was talking to.

Us, on occasion. We sold them to him; he used them against the Iranians as we had hoped.

>SH had made a supper cannon that was able to shoot 650 miles.

A myth created by a defector (Khidhir Hamza) who wanted to pay for his freedom with the information.

>Curveball a Iraqi defector said he know of moble Chem labs.

Again, a defector who sold bad info for asylum.

>Hans Blix himself said that the Iraqi's would not permit U2
>overflights...

Before the invasion, Iraq WAS permitting overflights.

>He also said that Iraq did not provide "Active co-operation" as required
>by the UN resolution.

From his report:

-------------------------------------------
The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect. And with one exception, it has been [without] problems. We have further had a great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good.

The environment has been workable. Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas Day and New Year's Day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.
----------------------------------------------

>There was alarge amount of evidence...And look at the first post int his
>thread...even the people who are now saying it was wrong at one time
>thought he did have them.

I agree. Lots of people right here on this board thought that he did have them. However, if I go up to the Pentagon and say "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!" and we launch ICBM's on my warning, there is something very seriously wrong with the system. If the current administration would use my warning to justify a war against Russia that they really wanted, I would hope you would see that as a pretty transparent ruse.

The problem is that we basically believed the people who told us what we wanted to hear, and we didn't believe people who told us what we didn't want to hear. There have been several books published by people very close to the administration (Woodward's book, Clarke's book) that make this clear. So why did it happen? Why did we only hear what we wanted to hear, and how do we make sure that doesn't happen again?

>The big fear and the one that I fear is correct is that he did have them
>and he sold or gave them to terrorist groups.

You realize that a lot of the uranium that he had (which was known by the UN and under UN seals in a vault in Iraq) walked away after we unsealed the vault and left, right? It would be ironic indeed if we invaded to "prevent Hussein from giving WMD's to terrorist groups" and because of our actions, terrorists got access to uranium. It would be nothing new; the anthrax used to kill a bunch of people a few years back came from a US lab.