Casey Sheehan

[my porsche]

what do you guys think of this?

its basically a woman who's son died in iraq camping outside bush's ranch claiming she wants bush to answer why he murdered her son, and no im not exaggerating, she said that.

i think ben stein summed it up well today:

"saying george w. bush killed casey sheehan is like saying that FDR killed all those hundreds of thousands of people in WWII"


"On April 4, Palm Sunday, we got the word that Casey had been killed in an ambush," Cindy Sheehan wrote in her essay. "The first chance he got, my brave, wonderful, faithful, sweet, gentle and kind boy volunteered for a rescue mission … Casey and 20 of his buddies were sent into a raging insurgent uprising to rescue wounded soldiers. Only 13 of them returned."


im surprised this hasnt been discussed here before...or maybe its in one of the many fleet v. matra threads :p

[Wouter Melissen]

There is no real connection between the war in Iraq and the second world war. In WW2 the US helped liberate invaded country from a third country. Iraq is a lot more similar to Vietnam where the 'great liberator' has felt it time to liberate a country from its own countrymen.

[spi-ti-tout]

I knew about this for a very long time but refrained from posting it here.

[drakkie]

its just pathetic.period.

[Matra et Alpine]

It's a sad example of a parent not coming to terms with a terrible loss and NEEDING to blame someone.

As the leader who took the American forces INTO the war then the buck does stop at GWB. A previous great president once had "the buck stops here" on his desk. Shame they dont' make that compulsory as part of the swearing in for modern leaders !!!

For me, the questino is .... did she protest whiel here son was in the Army and stationed oversease ? ( ie being callous ... was it "OK" to take the money as long as he lived ?? )

[spi-ti-tout]

For me, the questino is .... did she protest whiel here son was in the Army and stationed oversease ? ( ie being callous ... was it "OK" to take the money as long as he lived ?? )
Nope. 2 months after her son died she met with Bush and it was all alright. He even gave her a compliment and kiss on her cheek. THEN it was OK. But 2 years after the death of her son suddenly she gets over the shock. I mean, WTF? So far there has been no report of her ever protesting at anytime when he was overseas. I don't want to rally for Bush or anyone else but this is just pathetic, so I've deicded not to care or take any notice of it at all. Of course, you can now imagine what the poor souls at rr.com had to talk about for 3 weeks :rolleyes:

[GT F1]

what's rr.com?

[Matra et Alpine]

Might it be possible that she accepted the patriotic line until some of the truths are being more widely reported and accepted ? Maybe she foudn how to change channel from FOX :D

[ScionDriver]

I read a guys opinion about this and I think he summed it up quite well it was basically along the lines of if she is so upset when her son got killed why did she let him enlist, she had to know that he would get sent over there and his life in danger. By protesting she is really just showing that she has no support for our troops and so really in a way she is not supporting America at all.

[my porsche]

wow, even the most left of our members are saying this is pathetic :D so it MUST BE! :p


yeah its not like there was a draft, her son enlisted of his own will, and she is just dishonering her son and his contribution to america by doing this

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

There is no real connection between the war in Iraq and the second world war. In WW2 the US helped liberate invaded country from a third country. Iraq is a lot more similar to Vietnam where the 'great liberator' has felt it time to liberate a country from its own countrymen.
An excellent point. I can't believe that they have the gall to call them 'wars' they are more like 'invasions'.

And in WW2 the Yanks were obscenely late, and only got involved as soon as they had the living crap kicked out of them by the rather plucky Japs.

Nice guys, huh- they invade countries for the fun of it, and only help an ally when they are attacked by the opposite side.

I'm sure all our American UCPers (Fleet aside) are a jolly decent set of blokes though!

[Matra et Alpine]

I read a guys opinion about this and I think he summed it up quite well it was basically along the lines of if she is so upset when her son got killed why did she let him enlist, she had to know that he would get sent over there and his life in danger. By protesting she is really just showing that she has no support for our troops and so really in a way she is not supporting America at all.
or consider this ....

say you got a job in a garage service workshop
You do brake and oil changes and advise on any other work needing done
You're happy and things are OK.
THEN the boss comes in and tells everyone that he wants to charge for oil changes but ONLY to do the change if the oil is off and to replace brake pads and charge the custeomre whether they need pads or not.
OK, you may chose to go along with that for a while.
THEN a very poor family come in with 6 kids, struggling to survive and you have their car to work on
Do you charge for the unecessary work or not ?
You chose not to and someone else does it and charges them.
This happens to you again and again.

At whichc potin woudl YOU blow the whistle ?

Noe think of the parallels. Whilst it was hte occasinoal car and guys who coudl afford it you didnt' mind. You justified by YOU not doing it. BUT finally the iniquity of the owernesr deceit forces you to go public.

Now, what do you think about her rationale on complaining NOW ??

[my porsche]

i didnt understand that, how is she blwing a whistle? her son volunteered...

[Matra et Alpine]

i didnt understand that, how is she blwing a whistle? her son volunteered...
it is called ANALOGY.

You guys :D

Equate her 'feelings' that lead her to campaign with the 'feelings' experienced in the first person in the analogy.

[Fleet 500]

And in WW2 the Yanks were obscenely late, and only got involved as soon as they had the living crap kicked out of them by the rather plucky Japs.

That's because we had a liberal President.
However, WWII began on Sept. 1, 1939 and ended Aug., 1945. The U.S. entered in Dec., 1941, much less than halfway through, hardly "obscenely" late. Don't forget the U.S. was supplying Great Britain with war material under the lend-lease act before we entered the war.

[Spastik_Roach]

That's because we had a liberal President.
However, WWII began on Sept. 1, 1939 and ended Aug., 1945. The U.S. entered in Dec., 1941, much less than halfway through, hardly "obscenely" late. Don't forget the U.S. was supplying Great Britain with war material under the lend-lease act before we entered the war.

Don't blame it on sunshine, don't blame it on moonlight, don't blame it on good times, blame it on the liberals..

[Fleet 500]

Don't blame it on sunshine, don't blame it on moonlight, don't blame it on good times, blame it on the liberals..
It's true, though. A conservative (or moderate) President probably would have taken action in WWII sooner than FDR did.

[crisis]

Ms Sheehan may have also come to the realisation that the war was not a just as she and her son may have initially believed. She may now be coming to the same conclusion more and more Americans are having now seenhow the Bush administration lied to Americans and the world. One may be more understanding of loosing a son in a legitimate struggle against a known threat to ones country, but a little less content when the true reasons for commiting to the war are becoming more obscure if not dishonest.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I think it's dangerous to trust the opinion of someone so obviously biased.

Thats what we've been arguing about most of the time on these forums anyway.

It's another sad case, but in every war there are those "Innocent" people, as seen through the eyes of their proud parents, who die. Simple.

[Fleet 500]

Ms Sheehan may have also come to the realisation that the war was not a just as she and her son may have initially believed. She may now be coming to the same conclusion more and more Americans are having now seenhow the Bush administration lied to Americans and the world.
Cindy Sheehan is a loony who has said the following:
"America is not worth saving."
"We are fighting a nuclear war in Iraq." (?)
"This is not a war on terrorism; this is a war of terrorism."
"Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world."

Back to the myth about Bush "lying?"
That would mean the last U.S. President and all of these Democrats "lied," too, because they were saying exactly the same thing as Bush was. Bush was even going by info handed over to him from the last administration.

[Matra et Alpine]

Don't forget the U.S. was supplying Great Britain with war material under the lend-lease act before we entered the war.
lend-lease was like charging your neighbour for the blood donatino that woudl save their life.
I'm still amazed how many peopel cite it as if it was a great humanitarian act. It was hard fought for by Churchill to get anythign and the payback was guaranteed to put Britian so much in debt it woudl lead to the destrucitno of the British industrial base worldwide. It worked. It's worth reading in depth on the lend-lease arrangements and continued payback :(
Britain didn't ahve much choice, kind of like running out of gas 20 miles from a station and a guy stopping and offering you a gallon of gas for $20. What are you going to do :)

[Matra et Alpine]

It's true, though. A conservative (or moderate) President probably would have taken action in WWII sooner than FDR did.
Can you cite all those Republican congress and senate members who were calling for America to join in the war in 1939 ?
Churchill made many pleas to both houses with little support it seemed.
I've not seen that covered from the perspective of those who wupported an early entry. If you have references to articles of the day or house reports that showed the call for entering the war I'd love to read them to exapdn out my understanding of the times.

[Matra et Alpine]

Cindy Sheehan is a loony who has said the following:
"America is not worth saving."
"We are fighting a nuclear war in Iraq." (?)
"This is not a war on terrorism; this is a war of terrorism."
"Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world."
Can you explain why THAT makes her a 'loony' and sayign Bush didnt' deceive the nation on WMD doesn't ? The evidence woudl seem equal on both sides :)
Remember "shock and awe" - if that isn't insitituted 'terrorism' then nothing else is !! Remember they didnt' have a UN mandate to act like the world-SWAT-team !!

Back to the myth about Bush "lying?"
That would mean the last U.S. President and all of these Democrats "lied," too, because they were saying exactly the same thing as Bush was. Bush was even going by info handed over to him from the last administration.
oh dear.
AND what information were these 'supporters' using to make those statements ? erm that will be the UK/US reports which were doctored to say that Saddam could launch a WMD attack in 45 minutes !!!!!!
Really, Fleet, you KNOW by now you will be ripped and reamed if you are going to blindly quote nonsense here :)
I love how you want to belive Al Gore and not the hundreds of UN inspectors on the ground :)

[ yes, you're being read again as it was pointed out you were lying about me ]

[Fleet 500]

Can you cite all those Republican congress and senate members who were calling for America to join in the war in 1939 ?
Churchill made many pleas to both houses with little support it seemed.
I've not seen that covered from the perspective of those who wupported an early entry. If you have references to articles of the day or house reports that showed the call for entering the war I'd love to read them to exapdn out my understanding of the times.
It was still up to the President for a final decision.

[Fleet 500]

Can you explain why THAT makes her a 'loony' and sayign Bush didnt' deceive the nation on WMD doesn't ? The evidence woudl seem equal on both sides :)
Remember "shock and awe" - if that isn't insitituted 'terrorism' then nothing else is !! Remember they didnt' have a UN mandate to act like the world-SWAT-team !!

oh dear.
AND what information were these 'supporters' using to make those statements ? erm that will be the UK/US reports which were doctored to say that Saddam could launch a WMD attack in 45 minutes !!!!!!
Really, Fleet, you KNOW by now you will be ripped and reamed if you are going to blindly quote nonsense here :)
I love how you want to belive Al Gore and not the hundreds of UN inspectors on the ground :)

Anyone who says the stupid statements that Cindy has said is a loon.
Bush did not "deceive" the nation. There is no record or evidence that he distorted or changed info he received.
Those who claim that Bush "lied" are lying themselves because it's not true.

Saddam would have been removed from power eventually because (and I've said this before), Congress passed and Clinton signed in 1998 a bill calling for regime change in Iraq because that country was a threat.
People who make the claim that removing Saddam was only G.W. Bush's idea are wrong. It was being discussed years before he was in office.

The U.N. were wrong, too... check the link in my signature.
U.N., U.S. British, Russian and Chinese intelligence all claimed that Iraq had WMD. So, if Bush "lied" (which he didn't), all of the above, plus those Democrats I listed, "lied," too.

[crisis]

Cindy Sheehan is a loony who has said the following:
"America is not worth saving."
"We are fighting a nuclear war in Iraq." (?)
"This is not a war on terrorism; this is a war of terrorism."
"Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world."

Naturally enough the mena spirited neo con line. Typical modus operandi, belittle and marginalise the source and therefore anything the person says is deemed to be irrational. You posted some erroneous comments out of context and make her look foolish. She is a bereaved parent whose life has been ruined. Her rationale on some matters would be affected. I would go a little loony myself if me son died let alone in a war that has now been exposed as being for differetn reasons that first claimed.


Back to the myth about Bush "lying?"
That would mean the last U.S. President and all of these Democrats "lied," too, because they were saying exactly the same thing as Bush was. Bush was even going by info handed over to him from the last administration.
Bush's and his administrations and anyone elses lies were about WMDs and Iraq harbouring terrorists. Even they admit that wasnt the case now. They are just not able to use the L word.

[Fleet 500]

Naturally enough the mena spirited neo con line. Typical modus operandi, belittle and marginalise the source and therefore anything the person says is deemed to be irrational. You posted some erroneous comments out of context and make her look foolish. She is a bereaved parent whose life has been ruined. Her rationale on some matters would be affected. I would go a little loony myself if me son died let alone in a war that has now been exposed as being for differetn reasons that first claimed.

Bush's and his administrations and anyone elses lies were about WMDs and Iraq harbouring terrorists. Even they admit that wasnt the case now. They are just not able to use the L word.
Then how come there are other mothers who lost sons and have not become loony?

So it was a big conspiracy which involved Bush, Clinton, both of their administrations, Congress and British, U.N., Russian and Chinese intelligence to "lie" about WMD?
Let me know when you step back into reality! Let me also remind you that WMD was not the only reason to take action against Iraq.
BTW, Iraq was definitely harboring terrorists (not to mention funding them).

[Matra et Alpine]

It was still up to the President for a final decision.
erm we all KNEW that.
But 'someone' was suggesting a right wing President woudl ahve entered earlier ?
So that president woudl have coem from the senate/congress memebers.
Hence why asked to show the members who were askign for America to enter the war the first time Churchill spoke to them ??

[Matra et Alpine]

Anyone who says the stupid statements that Cindy has said is a loon.
Bush did not "deceive" the nation. There is no record or evidence that he distorted or changed info he received.
Those who claim that Bush "lied" are lying themselves because it's not true.
You lie to yourself. You've already been shown the Downing Street memos and the quotes from Robin Cook. You don't WANT to accept it because of your patriotism to a party/president over yoru country :(

Saddam would have been removed from power eventually because (and I've said this before), Congress passed and Clinton signed in 1998 a bill calling for regime change in Iraq because that country was a threat.
People who make the claim that removing Saddam was only G.W. Bush's idea are wrong. It was being discussed years before he was in office.
I fit was going to be eventual, then WHY was it all wrapped up in "45 minutes to deply WMDs" BS ?

The U.N. were wrong, too... check the link in my signature.
U.N., U.S. British, Russian and Chinese intelligence all claimed that Iraq had WMD. So, if Bush "lied" (which he didn't), all of the above, plus those Democrats I listed, "lied," too.
Wow you REALLY have bought into the BS line havent' you.
The "British intelligence" has already been proven to us to be wrong. You either dont' read the right papers/news or refuse to accept truths.
The previous citation I've seen were from groups who accepted the US/UK presentations. You can't use soemone repeating a lie as evidence of truth you know :)

[Matra et Alpine]

Then how come there are other mothers who lost sons and have not become loony?
loony/not loony isn't a two position world !!!
You keep aking that mistake in every debate you get into Fleet. It's stupid.
Some mothers can handle it better than others. Some mothers will support her, some won't, some will support some of it and not others. Get real please !!

So it was a big conspiracy which involved Bush, Clinton, both of their administrations, Congress and British, U.N., Russian and Chinese intelligence to "lie" about WMD?
I see you're now using Clinton to try to make Bush look reasonanble.
IT was different times, different situations.
He HAD WMD capability for sure. The UN inspections had removed it.
So Clintons views dont' fit !!

Let me know when you step back into reality! Let me also remind you that WMD was not the only reason to take action against Iraq.
BTW, Iraq was definitely harboring terrorists (not to mention funding them).
America harbours and funds terrorists !!
There were NO Iraqis in the air on 9/11. You were led by fear into a war for the wrong reasons agasint the wrong people and with the wrong tactics.
You are STILL blind to reality on this. That he was a tyrant does NOT give a nation the right to attack and remove. You knwo that if America was a signatory of the Internatinoal Criminal Court that GWB would be in the dock !!! You shoudl think about why before replying and repeating the same brain-washed nonsense that has been disproven by reputable sources. Just because you can post an image of a post 'somewhere' doesnt make it real or true you know - or maybe you dont !!!!!

[crisis]

Then how come there are other mothers who lost sons and have not become loony?
Seeing I dont agree with your terminology I will phrase it as such. You have no idea what others are feeling about the loss of their loved ones. And your insensitivity towards this woman is lamentable.


So it was a big conspiracy which involved Bush, Clinton, both of their administrations, Congress and British, U.N., Russian and Chinese intelligence to "lie" about WMD?
Around we go again. You trot out Neocn dogma and I will refer to facts. You supposition basically says that the US hold external intelligence sources above their own. I have posted (many times ) the link and the passages by the CIA people who stated that their reports were doctored to show the suggestion of WMD and terrosits links. Bush ignored the fact his agency could
make no viable link so it is possible he made up the evidence form other sources. In any event he trusted external agencies more than his own. Cr@p.


Let me know when you step back into reality! Let me also remind you that WMD was not the only reason to take action against Iraq.
BTW, Iraq was definitely harboring terrorists (not to mention funding them).
BTW it is clear Iraq had no links. I have provided evidence of this. Feel free to back up your counter claim.

[Krillmeister]

There is no real connection between the war in Iraq and the second world war. In WW2 the US helped liberate invaded country from a third country. Iraq is a lot more similar to Vietnam where the 'great liberator' has felt it time to liberate a country from its own countrymen.

I don't understand why USA got to be fighting a "war" down in iraq, saying that iraq had these mass destruction weapons for a reason for the attack, and then it shows that they never hade these "bombs" USA actually wanted the Oil, i mean, FFS... george W bush, USA shouldn't be allowed to do this, USA should mind their own buisness.

I think USA is a cool country, but when they do like this.. no no no, it is wrong. just because USA is the mightiest country in the world does not give them the permission to do what they like. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Fleet 500]

BTW it is clear Iraq had no links. I have provided evidence of this. Feel free to back up your counter claim.
You liberals are hilarious! You actually think that Iraq (when Saddam was in power) had no links to terrorists or terrorism? You've got to be kidding. There were terrorist training camps found in Northern Iraq.

The Kay Report, from CIA.GOV, showed that Saddam was trying to restart his chemical weapons programs- he was giving his scientists money to develop WMD. That was one of many violations of the cease-fire agreement. The Deulfer report also confirms this.
Maybe you think we should have attacked Saddam once his arsonal was complete and the number of civilian casualties could sky rocket?

Abdul Rahmar Yasin, the man who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was on the payroll of the Iraqi government and receiving safe haven there until the American invasion. IIS documents back this up.

Zarqawi ran terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, was wounded and ended up in a hospital in Baghdad... what was he doing there if Iraq had "no connections" to terrorism?
Zarqawi worked with Ansar Al Islam, which was funded by the Batthists, and he coordinated the assassination of an American diplomat for USAID in 2002 in Jordan.

[Fleet 500]

I don't understand why USA got to be fighting a "war" down in iraq, saying that iraq had these mass destruction weapons for a reason for the attack, and then it shows that they never hade these "bombs" USA actually wanted the Oil, i mean, FFS... george W bush, USA shouldn't be allowed to do this, USA should mind their own buisness.

I think USA is a cool country, but when they do like this.. no no no, it is wrong. just because USA is the mightiest country in the world does not give them the permission to do what they like. :mad: :mad: :mad:
WMD was not the only reason to resume military action against Iraq. Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement and 17 U.N. resolutions. We ended fighting in Gulf War (1991) only because Saddam signed that cease-fire agreement; breaking it allowed the U.S. to resume action.

Once the cease-fire agreement was broken, the U.S. had "permission."
Besides, would you rather have Saddam still in power? Would you still want parents being dragged out of their house during the night to be taken to torture and rape rooms? Would you still want Saddam and his henchmen putting innocent Iraqi citizens into grinding machines while they're still alive?

[my porsche]

USA actually wanted the Oil
ok, so we go to war for oil, i can understand that, we invade, we take over, we start the rebuilding and government building process, we take the oil

sounds logical, ill give you that, BUT if thats what you say went down, why are gas prices at an all time high? can you explain this?

im not trying to get into this argument, im just pointing out the inconsistency in that theory

or is Bush hoarding it all away to himself? :rolleyes:

[crisis]

You liberals are hilarious! You actually think that Iraq (when Saddam was in power) had no links to terrorists or terrorism? You've got to be kidding. There were terrorist training camps found in Northern Iraq.

You probably forgot this so I will show you again. Apologies to everyone with good memories or those who dont have selective ones.



RICHARD CLARKE
They wanted to believe that there was a connection but the CIA was sitting there the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying ‘We’ve looked at this issue for years, there’s just no connection.’


GRAHAM FULLER
Al Qaeda has had total contempt for Saddam Hussein himself, he’s been a socialist. He’s been very harsh, he’s treated Islamic leaders, Islamist leaders extremely harshly.

MEL GOODMAN
Iraq, and we have very good intelligence on this, was not part of the picture of terrorism before we invaded. Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden were enemies. Bin Laden considered and said that Saddam Hussein was the socialist infidel. These were very different kinds of individuals competing for power in their own way and Saddam Hussein made very sure that Al Qaeda couldn’t function in Iraq, that terrorists couldn’t function, except for the small northeastern quadrant of the country where there was an extremist group but he had no control over that, it was near the Iranian border.

NARRATOR VO
There’s no doubt that Ansar Al Islam is a radical Islamic terrorist group with ties to Al Qaeda but they operate in a part of Iraq that is not controlled by Hussein. The leaders say they seek to overthrow Hussein and his government.


http://www.truthuncovered.com/interviews.php#robertbaer


And Im not a liberal.





The Kay Report, from CIA.GOV, showed that Saddam was trying to restart his chemical weapons programs- he was giving his scientists money to develop WMD. That was one of many violations of the cease-fire agreement. The Deulfer report also confirms this. Maybe you think we should have attacked Saddam once his arsonal was complete and the number of civilian casualties could sky rocket?

Abdul Rahmar Yasin, the man who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was on the payroll of the Iraqi government and receiving safe haven there until the American invasion. IIS documents back this up.





MEL GOODMAN
What the Bush administration did was try to round up as many people as they could who would make the case for them.

ROBERT BAER (Robert Baer is a former CIA operative who served for twenty-five years in Iraq and Lebanon. In 1998 the CIA awarded him the Career Intelligence Medal.)
What the white House wanted was the CIA to give it talking points to justify this war. It’d already made up its mind.


JOHN KIESLING (a member of Bush's Foreign Service Corps and Political Counselor to the American Embassy in Greece. Kiesling has been a diplomat for 20 years, a civil servant to four Presidents.)
They were not given the opportunity to speak because no one wanted to hear what they said.

ROBERT BAER
I was in chief of collecting information on Iraq through the mid-nineties. I know what we had, and what we didn’t have, and I’m here to tell you there was no information.


DAVID C. MACMICHAEL
And the very heavy leaning on the director of Central Intelligence and his staff to produce precisely the language which would allow them to make the statements which they have been making to support the decision to go into Iraq.

RAY MCGOVERN
Well, not only by their physical presence, but by the questions they asked, by the, “well don’t you think,” sort of things, “well, couldn’t it be possible that…”


MEL GOODMAN
And the overwhelming opinion from the scientists of this government, at the department of energy, and even at the CIA and some at the state department, were arguing against using weapons of mass destruction as a case to go to war.

RAY MCGOVERN
You’re talking about the vice president of the united states, and you’re talking about a GS13 or 14, a mid-level analyst in the Central Intelligence Agency, you’re talking about a person who should have career protection for telling it like it is, but who knows that his chief, the director of CIA, is a member of the team, you know? A lot of pressure on that. Shouldn’t happen.



Dossier: “National Intelligence Estimate: Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction”
Becomes:
“Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs”
Caption: “Although we have little specific information on Iraq’s CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents…”
Becomes Caption: “Saddam probably has stocked a few 100 metric tons (MT) of CW
agents…”

Most of their qualifications were simply filtered out.


RAY MCGOVERN VO
The sanitization of the original estimate was not true to its real meaning. How all the modifiers were dropped off.

Caption: “We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs”
Caption Becomes: “Iraq has continued weapons of mass destruction programs”

DAVID ALBRIGHT VO
It was a prosecutor making a case, using what benefited his case, ignoring evidence that would undermine his case, and there was no defense attorney to give us the other side.

Caption: “The activities we have detected do not however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment.

Caption becomes lined-out.



-and the end product used by policymakers, particularly in its discussion with the American public, were much more forceful than could have possibly been when originally written by CIA, DIA, or State Department’s intelligence and research.

Caption: “The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, U.S. Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents.”

Caption becomes lined-out.

Caption: “We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, cyclosarin and VX.”

Caption becomes: “Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard cyclosarin and VX.

RAY MCGOVERN VO
It was a bizarre warping of the intelligence process and they thought they were going to get away with it because who was going to see the classified version? Well, later, several months later, they release parts of the classified version. They thought no one would notice.

Caption: “Revelations after the Gulf War starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq’s WMD programs.”
Caption becomes: “Revelations after the Gulf War starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.”

Caption: “INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began.”
Caption becomes lined-out.

Caption: “We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.
Caption becomes: “Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland.”

LARRY JOHNSON
So this was not a case where the National Intelligence Estimate was driving the war. This was to provide an excuse after the fact.

MILT BEARDEN
Going to war based on intelligence is yet another example I think, of intelligence simply not being able by nature, by definition to live up to that kind of requirement. You may produce intelligence that could keep you out of a war but I doubt that you’ll ever get one, two, three reports of intelligence that would in any way allow you to go to war.




Zarqawi ran terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, was wounded and ended up in a hospital in Baghdad... what was he doing there if Iraq had "no connections" to terrorism?
Zarqawi worked with Ansar Al Islam, which was funded by the Batthists, and he coordinated the assassination of an American diplomat for USAID in 2002 in Jordan.


Just to make sure you dont forget.


There’s no doubt that Ansar Al Islam is a radical Islamic terrorist group with ties to Al Qaeda but they operate in a part of Iraq that is not controlled by Hussein. The leaders say they seek to overthrow Hussein and his government.

America had terrorists training there too. For 9/11.

[crisis]

ok, so we go to war for oil, i can understand that, we invade, we take over, we start the rebuilding and government building process, we take the oil

sounds logical, ill give you that, BUT if thats what you say went down, why are gas prices at an all time high? can you explain this?

im not trying to get into this argument, im just pointing out the inconsistency in that theory

or is Bush hoarding it all away to himself? :rolleyes:
You dont take the oil. You get access to it through a friendly government you helped into power. Iraqs oil fileds will be far better exploited with help form internationals and gues who gets first dibs on all Iraqi contracts. Those who were with you. ;)

[Fleet 500]

Let me ask again, crisis... do you really believe Iraq/Saddam had no links to terrorists?
What about the $25,000 Saddam was paying to the families of homicide bombers?

[Fleet 500]

You dont take the oil. You get access to it through a friendly government you helped into power. Iraqs oil fileds will be far better exploited with help form internationals and gues who gets first dibs on all Iraqi contracts. Those who were with you. ;)
More like we PAY for every drop of oil we obtain.

[crisis]

Let me ask again, crisis... do you really believe Iraq/Saddam had no links to terrorists?
What about the $25,000 Saddam was paying to the families of homicide bombers?
Let me tell you again. No according to the evidence I have seen. I seem to remember that the "homicide" sic (sorry :D ) bombers you are talking about were Palestinians fighting the Israelis? If not can you elaborate?

[crisis]

More like we PAY for every drop of oil we obtain.
Yes , not fair is it? But you do secure the resources.

[Fleet 500]

Let me tell you again. No according to the evidence I have seen. I seem to remember that the "homicide" sic (sorry :D ) bombers you are talking about were Palestinians fighting the Israelis? If not can you elaborate?
Come on... everyone knows that Saddam was paying the families of homicide bombers. Even CNN reported that!

[Fleet 500]

Yes , not fair is it? But you do secure the resources.
No, we don't secure the resource. Iraqi oil belongs to Iraq. Just like Kuwaiti oil belongs to Kuwait (notice we didn't "take over" Kuwait's oil wells).

[crisis]

Come on... everyone knows that Saddam was paying the families of homicide bombers. Even CNN reported that!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html

Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people. The men at the top table then opened Saddam's chequebook and, as the names of 47 martyrs were called, family representatives went up to sign for cheques written in US dollars.
Those of two suicide bombers were the first to be paid the new rate of $US25,000 and those whose relatives had died in other clashes with the Israeli military were given $US10,000 each. The $US500,000 doled out in this impoverished community yesterday means that the besieged Iraqi leader now has contributed more than $US10 million to grieving Palestinian families since the new intifada began 18 months ago.


Very disingenuous Fleet. Nothing to do with the US. And the US hasnt invaded any other countries for paying for terrorist operations on other nations before. It sounds like a trumped up excuse.

[Matra et Alpine]

ok, so we go to war for oil, i can understand that, we invade, we take over, we start the rebuilding and government building process, we take the oil

sounds logical, ill give you that, BUT if thats what you say went down, why are gas prices at an all time high? can you explain this?

im not trying to get into this argument, im just pointing out the inconsistency in that theory

or is Bush hoarding it all away to himself? :rolleyes:
Because you make the mistake thinking it was for cheap oil,

it's about CONTROL of oil.

Perversely higher prices is beneficial to those who would control the world powers. Look at who is building the new refineries around the world ? Does higher oil hurt the US or CHina more ? China need the oil to get production and manufacturing. Most of the west needs oil to get their kids to school in an SUV and go to the mall. We can walk. They can't really start-up a new economy if the returns aren't as big !!!

[Matra et Alpine]

Let me ask again, crisis... do you really believe Iraq/Saddam had no links to terrorists?
What about the $25,000 Saddam was paying to the families of homicide bombers?
You were given EVIDENCE of where those payments were going and their intentino.

I see age hasn't increased your ability to read an dcomprehend.
Thankfully Crisis has produced the post that you can be referred back to every time you repeat your brain-washed nonsense. Thanks Crisis, will save lots of typing in future !!

See the difference ? Crisis didnt' repet my words on UCP or henks. He has repeated reputable sources involved in the process and up-to-date comments. THAT is the difference between seeking truth and cowardly retreating in patriotism

[Matra et Alpine]

No, we don't secure the resource. Iraqi oil belongs to Iraq. Just like Kuwaiti oil belongs to Kuwait (notice we didn't "take over" Kuwait's oil wells).
The oil companies control the extraction and production.
Before it was under the control of a nationa leader who didnt' agree with America.

NOW it is under control of the US created Iraqi adminstration, soon it will be private companies with their own agendas and needs. Companies who are already heavily lent to the 'western' ideals.

[henk4]

See the difference ? Crisis didnt' repet my words on UCP or henks. He has repeated reputable sources involved in the process and up-to-date comments.

since when have I stopped being a reputable source??? :D

[Wouter Melissen]

ok, so we go to war for oil, i can understand that, we invade, we take over, we start the rebuilding and government building process, we take the oil

sounds logical, ill give you that, BUT if thats what you say went down, why are gas prices at an all time high? can you explain this?

im not trying to get into this argument, im just pointing out the inconsistency in that theory

or is Bush hoarding it all away to himself? :rolleyes:

The people profiting from high oil prices are the oil companies. With no extra costs, they can shift the same amounts of oil for twice the price. Pretty sweet deal. Especially considering the fact that Bush has been in oil all his live, and so are many of his (financial) supporters.

[my porsche]

You dont take the oil. You get access to it through a friendly government you helped into power. Iraqs oil fileds will be far better exploited with help form internationals and gues who gets first dibs on all Iraqi contracts. Those who were with you. ;)
exactly, so if we went to oil, why are the prices at an all time high, you failed to mention that part :D

[Matra et Alpine]

exactly, so if we went to oil, why are the prices at an all time high, you failed to mention that part :D
CONTROL of the oil.
It's not necesarily about the price you're paying.
That's a short term hurt and one that wont' 'damage' the interests of all.
So the porr working guy has to struggle harder in middle America. Do you think that REALLY concerns everyone making the decisions ?? Especially IF they can convince everyeon it's not ther fault and nasty terrorists are the reason. 'war' has always been used to justify :(

[Fleet 500]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html

[I]Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people. The men at the top table then opened Saddam's chequebook and, as the names of 47 martyrs were called, family representatives went up to sign for cheques written in US dollars.

Very disingenuous Fleet. Nothing to do with the US. And the US hasnt invaded any other countries for paying for terrorist operations on other nations before. It sounds like a trumped up excuse.
The fact remains that Saddam did pay the families of terrorists to commit murder.

And there is no "trumped up" excuse. Once again, just breaking the cease-fire agreement allowed the U.S. to resume military action against Saddam. He probably would have been removed before Bush was elected, except for the fact that the last President was more concerned about his approval ratings than anything else.
The person below makes a good point:

[Fleet 500]

The people profiting from high oil prices are the oil companies. With no extra costs, they can shift the same amounts of oil for twice the price. Pretty sweet deal. Especially considering the fact that Bush has been in oil all his live, and so are many of his (financial) supporters.
There have been big jumps in oil prices before Bush was President. I remember it going up in 1995 and 1999. And even before then.

[Matra et Alpine]

The fact remains that Saddam did pay the families of terrorists to committ murder.
SO have most leaders of most nations over the last 100 years.

For ONCE try to be objective and realise that this war has created that SAME justification for hundreds of Iraqi and their families.

:(

And there is no "trumped up" excuse. Once again, just breaking the cease-fire agreement allowed the U.S. to resume military action against Saddam. He probably would have been removed before Bush was elected, except for the fact that the last President was more concerned about his approval ratings than anything else.
The person below makes a good point:
Sadly the person abouve (YOU) fails to again realise that loonies writing letters that gets published is irrelevant. They could be as well educated on the situation as Casey SHeehan is !!! You're fast enough to condemn her and yet dont' question this ? Blind patriotism is not healthy you know Fleet !!!!!
You are lying again about UN 1440 and this was gone over with you befor eand PROVEN./ You still wnat to believe your brain-washing. Fine. Just stop repeating it here, you're frightening the childred :)

[Fleet 500]

SO have most leaders of most nations over the last 100 years

Sadly the person abouve (YOU) fails to again realise that loonies writing letters that gets published is irrelevant. They could be as well educated on the situation as Casey SHeehan is !!! You're fast enough to condemn her and yet dont' question this ? Blind patriotism is not healthy you know Fleet !!!!!
You are lying again about UN 1440 and this was gone over with you befor eand PROVEN./ You still wnat to believe your brain-washing. Fine. Just stop repeating it here, you're frightening the childred :)
So, because other leaders have done it, it's okay for Saddam to have done? I sure glad you are not the leader of a country!

What? Cindy is "educated" on the situation? Now you've really lost it!
Even the left-wing website moveon.org is backing away from Cindy!

Did or did not Iraq sign the 1991 cease-fire agreement?

[Matra et Alpine]

So, because other leaders have done it, it's okay for Saddam to have done? I sure glad you are not the leader of a country!
That is NOT what was said and I see you are again twisting things so you think it says something you can try to ridicule :)

do you have to work at it to be SO DENSE ?
:)
You just cannot THINK sensibly about things or is it really that you are brainwashed.

Let me spell it out ....

IF other nations have done it ( and our own - the US records are there for the support of terrorism and assassinations ) then they would be condemned by you. After all you made a lot about attempted assassinations of US presidents !! Shame you can't actually follow any logic or the failings you repeat would be obvious and become less embarrassing !!!!!

Before rep[lying this time, THINK.

What? Cindy is "educated" on the situation? Now you've really lost it!
Even the left-wing website moveon.org is backing away from Cindy!
everything confirmed.
You dont' understand the word educated do you ?? or the phrase "as well educated" ??
And again proven that you dont' understood comparison or analogies.
Another two words to put on a crib-sheet above your bed, right alongside LIE.
At least you'll start to learn proper English at this rate :)
Don't be a diddy and go back and read it all over again and TRY to comprehend.

Did or did not Iraq sign the 1991 cease-fire agreement?
Been through it and PROVEN it wrong.
You are acting hyper dense. You've not got a job as Ford CEO have you :D ?

[crisis]

The fact remains that Saddam did pay the families of terrorists to commit murder.

And there is no "trumped up" excuse. Once again, just breaking the cease-fire agreement allowed the U.S. to resume military action against Saddam. He probably would have been removed before Bush was elected, except for the fact that the last President was more concerned about his approval ratings than anything else.
Your all over the place arent you. One minute refuting that Bush lied about Iraqi terrorist links that are a threat to the US and thereore a reason for pre emptive action and the next throwing in tenuous links with Palestinians who are at war with Israel. :rolleyes:
As I said if Bush was so altruistic why hasnt he invaded and "liberated" every country who has given more than $20,000 to terrorists?
Then we throw to breaking the ceasfire. OK. If the UN (whos resolution it was) agreed that was reason to invade I have no pronblem. But Bush complicated it with a range of fabrications to give more strength to his argument and some of those fabrications were lies as shown . Come on Fleet just say Bush lied. It doesnt mean you dont love him and Ronny.com dont come here snooping (do they?) so they wont disown you. I want to believe Consevatives can think and make judgements for themselves. Help me believe.





The person below makes a good point:
According to that idiot he would advocate the US invading every country that broke UN resolutions like Isreal, Pakistan and Turkey (whome the US are actually quite friendly towards) and every country involved in genocide like parts of Africa.
He makes no opoint and please Fleet, tell me you didnt cut that out for "evidence" that Bush was right.

[Fleet 500]

That is NOT what was said and I see you are again twisting things so you think it says something you can try to ridicule :)

do you have to work at it to be SO DENSE ?
:)
You just cannot THINK sensibly about things or is it really that you are brainwashed.

Let me spell it out ....

IF other nations have done it ( and our own - the US records are there for the support of terrorism and assainations ) then they would be condemned by ou. After all you made a lot about attempted assasinations of US presidents !! Shame you can't actually follow any logic or the failings you repeat woudl be obvious and become less embarrassing !!!!!

Before rep[lying this time, THINK.

everythign confirmewd.
You dont' understand the word educated do you ?? or hte phrase "as well educated" ??
And again proven that you dont' understood comparison or analogies.
Another two words to put on a crib-sheet above your bed, right alongside LIE.
At least you'll start to learn proper English at this rate :)
Don't be a diddy and go back and read it all over again and TRY to comprehend.

Been through it and PROVEN it wrong.
You are acting hyper dense. You've not got a job as Ford CEO have you :D ?
Well, because of your multiple spelling errors, I couldn't understand half of what you wrote! Doesn't your computer have "spell check?" I've noticed you frequently misspell words when you are overexcited (which is most of the time). :p
(And you say I have to learn "proper English"... look who's talking!)

Anyway, are you trying to say that Iraq did not sign the cease-fire agreement?

[Fleet 500]

Then we throw to breaking the ceasfire. OK. If the UN (whos resolution it was) agreed that was reason to invade I have no pronblem. But Bush complicated it with a range of fabrications to give more strength to his argument and some of those fabrications were lies as shown . Come on Fleet just say Bush lied. It doesnt mean you dont love him and Ronny.com dont come here snooping (do they?) so they wont disown you. I want to believe Consevatives can think and make judgements for themselves. Help me believe.

Investigations have revealed that Bush neither "lied" or "fabricated" anything, so get over it already.

[Matra et Alpine]

Well, because of your multiple spelling errors, I couldn't understand half of what you wrote! Doesn't your computer have "spell check?" I've noticed you frequently misspell words when you are overexcited (which is most of the time). :p
(And you say I have to learn "proper English"... look who's talking!)
I've often explained my disability.

It's not that hard to understand as most folks seem to manage.

At least mine is physical !!

To help you cope with your mental disability, I will go back and tune it for you.
EDIT: done. There were 7 typos. What a Richard Cranium you are !!!!!

Anyway, are you trying to say that Iraq did not sign the cease-fire agreement?

You are hiding again Fleet.

Stop being ignorant ( another word to add to your flash card list ) and go back over the facts given and the points made.

It is not possible to conclude I was saying Iraq didnt' sign it.

EXCEPT for someone who is trying to avoid the fact that they've exposed their stupidity ( another word for the flash cards )

Do you REALLY not remember all the explanations and links given over 1440 ?
Have you REALLY forgotten the evidence presented that the US diplomats agreed with the UN stance and then the next day refuted it after GWB told them what to say ?

[Matra et Alpine]

Investigations have revealed that Bush neither "lied" or "fabricated" anything, so get over it already.
Tell me you have read the Downing Street memos or the British legal reports and Robin Cooks autobiography ?
If not, then you are KNOWINGLY LYING yourself as you KNOW the evidence is out ther and reported.

[Esperante]

Tell me you have read the Downing Street memos or the British legal reports and Robin Cooks autobiography ?
If not, then you are KNOWINGLY LYING yourself as you KNOW the evidence is out ther and reported.
Funny you should mention it. When the Downing St. memo was in the news (not really in the news, because it got next to nil airtime in the US) we got several lenghty updates about Paris Hilton and her dysfuncional relationship with Nicole Richie. Joy.

[Fleet 500]

Tell me you have read the Downing Street memos or the British legal reports and Robin Cooks autobiography ?
If not, then you are KNOWINGLY LYING yourself as you KNOW the evidence is out ther and reported.
The original Downing Street memo is gone, there are only copies, which means they are not credible.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

So because many people can't actually read the original Declaration of Independance, copies of it are less credible?

Amended copies are not credible no matter what the document, but seriously, because the original is gone does that make the unamended copies uncredible?

[Fleet 500]

I've often explained my disability.

It's not that hard to understand as most folks seem to manage.

At least mine is physical !!

To help you cope with your mental disability, I will go back and tune it for you.
EDIT: done. There were 7 typos. What a Richard Cranium you are !!!!!


You are hiding again Fleet.

Stop being ignorant ( another word to add to your flash card list ) and go back over the facts given and the points made.

It is not possible to conclude I was saying Iraq didnt' sign it.

EXCEPT for someone who is trying to avoid the fact that they've exposed their stupidity ( another word for the flash cards )

Do you REALLY not remember all the explanations and links given over 1440 ?
Have you REALLY forgotten the evidence presented that the US diplomats agreed with the UN stance and then the next day refuted it after GWB told them what to say ?
This is the first time I've heard about your disability. If I somehow missed it, I'm sorry.

However, I think saying a member of UCP has a mental disability is against the rules of this board- no personal attacks (just who moderates this board?).

If you admit Iraq signed the cease-fire agreement, what's the problem, then.

-Fleet 500
(Who can debate without name-calling)

[Fleet 500]

So because many people can't actually read the original Declaration of Independance, copies of it are less credible?

Amended copies are not credible no matter what the document, but seriously, because the original is gone does that make the unamended copies uncredible?
Unlike the Downing Street memos, the original copy of the Declaration of Indpendence exists. If anything in the copies are questioned, it can easily be checked.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

So you can just walk up and ask to access the Declaration of Independance.

The Bible mustn't be credible because it's been translated and the original copies don't exist.

The Downing Street Memo's don't exist because they've most likely been shredded, in a delibrate attempt to hide the true facts and add doubt to any copies because "They can't be crossed checked with the originals".

[Fleet 500]

So you can just walk up and ask to access the Declaration of Independance.

The Bible mustn't be credible because it's been translated and the original copies don't exist.

The Downing Street Memo's don't exist because they've most likely been shredded, in a delibrate attempt to hide the true facts and add doubt to any copies because "They can't be crossed checked with the originals".
I'm not even going to answer your ridiculous question- you're going way off base.
As for the Downing Street memos, I think the original was destroyed because it couldn't find Bush guilty about anything.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44876

[IBrake4Rainbows]

How am I going off Base? It's a more important document that 2000 years of faith has been based upon, but the originals have not been uncovered.

Perhaps the same type of faith required to believe that the Downing street memo's were completely free of any material hurtful to the US or UK govt's.

[Fleet 500]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/20/105038.shtml
"The Downing Street Memos are actually a manually recreated copy- with the source of the memo now admitting he destroyed the originals."

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Your Link Isn't working.

[Fleet 500]

Your Link Isn't working.
That's strange... I just clicked it (from my post) and it worked. :confused:

[IBrake4Rainbows]

It's Strange too, because It's working now on mine :p Damned Windows XP......

Anyhow, it brings me back to the point of the Bible being an example. It's been translated into hundreds of languages, and yet everytime it is it's somehow seen as correct, despite translation and Interpretation flaws.

The Downing Street Memo originals have, according to all sources, been destroyed and the copies were used by both sides, one Defending, the other attacking. Interesting that even though the documents were "Falsified" the Bush and Blair Admin's still bothered to defend themselves..........

Perhaps they didn't know either?

[Matra et Alpine]

The original Downing Street memo is gone, there are only copies, which means they are not credible.
BULLSHIT !

"There are no WMDs so any claim there were is not credible." :D

You really have a warped thinking whch can ONLY apply a rule to suport your own position.

Learn to be OBJECTIVE.

The memo is there verbatim and NOBODY has claimed it's invalid.
Likewise the Attorney Generals report and the Robin Cook speech and autobiography.

[Matra et Alpine]

This is the first time I've heard about your disability. If I somehow missed it, I'm sorry.

However, I think saying a member of UCP has a mental disability is against the rules of this board- no personal attacks (just who moderates this board?).
As said before Fleet.
if it walks like a duck. talks like a duck. IT's a DUCK !!

You continue to NOT read information given. You continue to avoid direct requests for evidence. You NEVER acknowledge facts others present which 100% refute your claims.

YOUR favourite board bans folks who fail to give them evidence even when it's still on-going. Do you REALLY want to have some ethereal 'rules' for banning applied. You'd have been gone years ago :( BUT we prefer honest debate and alternative views.

YOU need to grow up.

I am NOT attacking your person. I AM attacking your thought processes.
If you want to be a barrack-room-layer, there IS a difference :)

Grow up and debate like a man !!!!
The best debating chambers in the WORLD have bandied personal abuse.
But I suspect you know very little about REAL debate :D


If you admit Iraq signed the cease-fire agreement, what's the problem, then.

-Fleet 500
(Who can debate without name-calling)
WHO CANNOT DEBATE !!
Another word to add to the flash card list for you :)

The 'problem'; is you again avoid the fact that 1440 superceded the original cease-fire UN mandate. The evidence was given to you that the US agency agreed with that position UNTIL a day later when GWB over-ruled it and came up with the 'new' rules. You NEVER responded to that FACT.

[Matra et Alpine]

I'm not even going to answer your ridiculous question- you're going way off base.
As for the Downing Street memos, I think the original was destroyed because it couldn't find Bush guilty about anything.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44876
OMFG.

THe originals were not used to protect the source. Dont' you beleive in a free press where journalists are permitted to protect sources ? As long as they qualify and validate them ?? No you won't. I see a few are in prison in the USA as we type :(

NOW you are quoting dubious sites who are quoting BLOGS.

Wow, now I know why you think there were WMDs :eek:

The CEO of 'world net daily' co-authored a book with Rush Limbaugh and receives funding from far-right Scaife.
He previously resigned from The Sacramento Union paper where he was accused of taking the paper in an even more conservative direction than it had been and skewing stories to reflect conservative ideas. Under his editorship, the paper's circulation declined approximately 30 percent.

yeah, good source of your 'facts' there Fleet.

See, you dont' like 'abuse' but you dont research ANYTHING you post.
As has been suggested before you need to do some FREE research and thinking. Dipping in to the 'facts' of the buddy-net isn't working and you WILL be pulled up for it and I WILL call anyone who does that kind of thing an IDIOT. Otherwise someone may believe the BS completely. At least NOW they know ther eis another side to the story and will maybe think about it.

Just as we would call anyone who drove 120mph on public roads an idiot.
Just as we would call anyone who wanted to produce 1000bhp in a stock Civic an idiot.
Just as we would call anyone who wanted to make any other stupid, unresearched non-factual claim about cars - yep an idiot.

quack-quack-quack

[Fleet 500]

As said before Fleet.
if it walks like a duck. talks like a duck. IT's a DUCK !!

You continue to NOT read information given. You continue to avoid direct requests for evidence. You NEVER acknowledge facts others present which 100% refute your claims.

YOU need to grow up.

Grow up and debate like a man !!!!


WHO CANNOT DEBATE !!
Another word to add to the flash card list for you :)

LOL! I need to grow up? Do I call other members names? Do I insult other members? I can see why several members don't bother replying to you (slicks, for instance).

If there was actual evidence that Bush lied, meaning that he made false statements with a deliberate intent to deceive, and it's documented, you can bet that the Democrats in Congress would be on TV 24/7 calling for Bush to resign.

[Fleet 500]

The CEO of 'world net daily' co-authored a book with Rush Limbaugh and receives funding from far-right Scaife.
He previously resigned from The Sacramento Union paper where he was accused of taking the paper in an even more conservative direction than it had been and skewing stories to reflect conservative ideas. Under his editorship, the paper's circulation declined approximately 30 percent.
[/I]
So? Has it been proved that world net daily is an inaccurate source of news? Have they had scandals in which they distorted news?

[Rockefella]

So? Has it been proved that world net daily is an inaccurate source of news? Have they had scandals in which they distorted news?
Innacurate/Scandal =/= Exaggeration/Tainted News

[Matra et Alpine]

So? Has it been proved that world net daily is an inaccurate source of news? Have they had scandals in which they distorted news?
erm the link to Scaife is scandal enough !!
DID YOU READ the link about his previous job and the problesm there ?

WHY DONT YOU BOTHER READING THINGS ??

BTW, cite me when the BBC had a 'scandal' please.
Or the Telegraph, or the Times or the dozens of other ones you chose to ignore and say are lying ?

REALLY wearing the HYPOCRIT badge tonight, huh :D

[Matra et Alpine]

LOL! I need to grow up? Do I call other members names? Do I insult other members? I can see why several members don't bother replying to you (slicks, for instance).
ha-ha the claiming others are like you is the last bastino of the weak-minded :)
You really DONT get debating DO YOU !!!

Do you 'insult' members ?
The answer is a million times more than any petty words can do.
BECAUSE you ignore evidence presented. You say what people are syain is not truth - and we've already made sure your flash-card set has the clearest meaning of LIE possible.
Your 'insult' is to the intelligence of the human race by your blind ignorance.

If there was actual evidence that Bush lied, meaning that he made false statements with a deliberate intent to deceive, and it's documented, you can bet that the Democrats in Congress would be on TV 24/7 calling for Bush to resign.
they were !
But who controls what you think ?
After all you dont watch or read things that are at odds with yoru brain-washing.
Crisis has already filled two pages of posts of folks saying all you ask for !
That you're driven by patriotism rather than democracy is for you to resolve, not us.
The evidence is there already.
There never was an imminent 45 minute danger of WMD attacks !!!!!!

[Esperante]

I'm not even going to answer your ridiculous question- you're going way off base.
As for the Downing Street memos, I think the original was destroyed because it couldn't find Bush guilty about anything.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44876
Are you kidding? If it didn't find Bush guilty of anything, then why would an innocent document be destroyed? I suppose we should promote a massive book and newspaper burning, where you destroy and materials that don't prove Bush wrong.

[my porsche]

i thought you were a republican espy?

[Esperante]

i thought you were a republican espy?
Absolutely. But when someone starts spreadin BS or acting stupid I have to step in. I don't like Bush, but I hated Kerry.

[my porsche]

i havent fully read all this thread or any of the fleet v. meta threads but i hated kerry too :D

[crisis]

Investigations have revealed that Bush neither "lied" or "fabricated" anything, so get over it already.
Denail can lead you down a dark path Fleet. You will end up an insular little ostriche like the nazis on Ron.com. ;)

[crisis]

However, I think saying a member of UCP has a mental disability is against the rules of this board- no personal attacks (just who moderates this board?).



C'mon Fleet, your mates at Ronn.com use harsher insults than that and I dont hear you complaining. Although they only reserve them for people who wont tow their line. Luckily the moderators here tolerate people with different opinions. Even if to a man the may think that some of those opinions are irrationale and based in deep seated predjudice. Unlike less tolerant sites we choose to debate the issue. Those who are foolish and have no weight to their argument will eventually be exposed by their own words. :rolleyes:

[crisis]

Your Link Isn't working.
Dont bother. One refers to "Blogs" refuting it and the other mearly says the originals were destroyed "to protect" the source. The point being made is that they cannot be proved for certain.
CIA and US government officials have gone on record and said what happened leading up to the invasion and I posted it. Fleet has not been able to say why those testimonies should be discounted. He just sticks his head back under the conservative sand and says "did not!"

[crisis]

If there was actual evidence that Bush lied, meaning that he made false statements with a deliberate intent to deceive, and it's documented, you can bet that the Democrats in Congress would be on TV 24/7 calling for Bush to resign.
I showed it to you. False statments made on false information his governement manipulated with a deliberate attempt to decieve. Address those statments I posted by US government sources and tell me why I shouldnt believe them.

[Fleet 500]

I showed it to you. False statments made on false information his governement manipulated with a deliberate attempt to decieve. Address those statments I posted by US government sources and tell me why I shouldnt believe them.
Was it Bush himself who came out and lied? No.
And you are forgetting yet again that WMD was not the only reason for resuming military action against Iraq...

[Fleet 500]

Dont bother. One refers to "Blogs" refuting it and the other mearly says the originals were destroyed "to protect" the source. The point being made is that they cannot be proved for certain.
CIA and US government officials have gone on record and said what happened leading up to the invasion and I posted it. Fleet has not been able to say why those testimonies should be discounted. He just sticks his head back under the conservative sand and says "did not!"
You haven't proved that Bush knowingly changed or twisted info he received. He did tell his aides to "find anything you can" against Saddam, but that's not lying.

[Matra et Alpine]

You haven't proved that Bush knowingly changed or twisted info he received. He did tell his aides to "find anything you can" against Saddam, but that's not lying.
that's OK neither is "i had no sexual relations" but you are so biased you can't grasp the (non)difference.

and you STILL confuse what a lie is.
Please get your flash cards out and get someoen to go through them with you to help you learn these new words you're struggling with :D

[crisis]

Was it Bush himself who came out and lied? No.
And you are forgetting yet again that WMD was not the only reason for resuming military action against Iraq...
http://www.tlhs.org/car092.jpg
Thats a split hair.
Bush's administration lied and he himslef said Iraq had WMDs. It didnt and his administration forced the CIA to submit reports that showed they did. I dont really care if the words came from Bush's mouth or not (but some did). What matters is his governement lied and cannot be trusted.
I know that WMDs were not the only reason.
The others were-
Links to terrorism - also debunked.
Rufusal to allow inspectors in - not an overwhelming reason for invasion.
Tyrannical rule - Subjective and a reason that has not previously forced the US to invade.

WMDs may not have been the only reason but they, and terrorism, were the main reason used to scare the American people into beliving there was a urgency to invade. Im sure if Bush went to Americans and said we have to save Iraqis from their tyrranical leader who has ignored UN resolutions (which was also not entirely true) they would have not been so eager to send their sons to die (neo con drones excepted).

[IBrake4Rainbows]

WMD's. The Main reason that the United Nations didn't act was because they could find no proof of such a program.

The US thought it could and that the End's would justify the means of removal.

Is Iraq in a Better position than it was? Are more people dying every day after the fall of saddam?

To say the US "Did a good thing" by removing a dictator is not untrue, but they were happy to support him before, what changed?

The US has a history of helping Dictators who protect their interests.......

The US is in iraq now, the least they can do is help with the clean up of their mess. Not try to leave things half-baked.

[Fleet 500]

Links to terrorism - also debunked.

WMDs may not have been the only reason but they, and terrorism, were the main reason used to scare the American people into beliving there was a urgency to invade. Im sure if Bush went to Americans and said we have to save Iraqis from their tyrranical leader who has ignored UN resolutions (which was also not entirely true) they would have not been so eager to send their sons to die (neo con drones excepted).
What? There are definite links to terrorists/terrorism. I already listed some. Zawqari was IN IRAQ, in a Baghdad hosptial. What is a known terrorist doing in a country that had "no links to terrorism?" I have a feeling I'll never get through to you and people who think like you.

Saddam was supposed to show evidence of his WMD... those he had and those destroyed. He never did.

[Fleet 500]

that's OK neither is "i had no sexual relations" but you are so biased you can't grasp the (non)difference.

and you STILL confuse what a lie is.
Please get your flash cards out and get someoen to go through them with you to help you learn these new words you're struggling with :D
Again, Bush did not knowingly distort or change info he received. Just get over it.

[Fleet 500]

The US is in iraq now, the least they can do is help with the clean up of their mess. Not try to leave things half-baked.
Strange... I thought that's what we are doing!

[crisis]

What? There are definite links to terrorists/terrorism. I already listed some. Zawqari was IN IRAQ, in a Baghdad hosptial. What is a known terrorist doing in a country that had "no links to terrorism?" I have a feeling I'll never get through to you and people who think like you.

Saddam was supposed to show evidence of his WMD... those he had and those destroyed. He never did.
Im sure there are terrorists in many countries. The 9/11 terrorists were IN the USA. The clincher is are they welcomed or invited?

Further -

By Josh Meyer
The Los Angeles Times

Saturday 02 August 2003

WASHINGTON - The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document.

One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes "very direct, very specific links" between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators " that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental."

The nearly 900-page report, released last week, concluded that a series of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence failures preceded the Sept. 11 attacks and that there was evidence of financial support for the hijackers by an unnamed foreign government. U.S. officials have confirmed that that government is Saudi Arabia, but nearly all the details supporting that claim are contained in the lengthy redacted section of the document.

I dont see the US rushing in with "regime change" there depsite their questionable human rights issues.

Now put your head back in the sand. ;)

[crisis]

Again, Bush did not knowingly distort or change info he received. Just get over it.
Yes he did, just admit it.

[PsychoChimp22]

what ever happened to loyalty, pride, and patriotism.. i swear to god "freedom" isnt worth letting assholes do whatever they want.

[Matra et Alpine]

what ever happened to loyalty, pride, and patriotism.. i swear to god "freedom" isnt worth letting assholes do whatever they want.
patriotims isn't always a good thing.

Something known for centuries and yet seemingly missed by some who think all out support for their leader is required regardless of acts or facts :(

Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them! ~Albert Einstein

Patriotism, the virtue of the vicious. ~Oscar Wilde

The interests, rights, and liberties of American citizens are no more dear to us than are those of the whole human race. Hence we can allow no appeal to patriotism, to revenge any national insult or injury. ~William Lloyd Garrison, Declaration of Sentiments, Boston Peace Conference, 1838

169 years old and not being listened too :(


SOME patriotism is certainly a good thing, it's when it becomes blind I think it's dangerous. Worth rememberign the freedom of speech and thought should come bafore political attitudes litke 'patriotism'. ANY nation shodul be strong enough to have the different views shared openly and publicly and spread widely.

[Fleet 500]

Yes he did, just admit it.
No, he didn't.
If there was actual evidence he lied by changing or altering information he received, the Democrats in Congress would be on TV constantly complaining about and they haven't.

[Esperante]

No, he didn't.
If there was actual evidence he lied by changing or altering information he received, the Democrats in Congress would be on TV constantly complaining about and they haven't.
But I suppose all actual evidence of that was burned because it didn't prove anything. :rolleyes:

[Matra et Alpine]

I love how you think external evidence presented and proven by cross-referencing sources is somehow void because of the vagaries of American politics, reporting and media manipulation.

WOW :D

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the dean of the U.S. Senate, recently said that while "the administration sought to portray Iraq as a direct and deadly threat ... there is a great difference between the hand-picked intelligence that was presented by the Bush administration ... when compared against what we have actually discovered."

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, was more blunt when he told Congress on June 10 that "I have seen the American people apparently deceived into supporting invasion ... on the basis of what now appear to be false assurances. ... The administration wanted to attack Iraq for a variety of ideological and geopolitical reasons. But the President knew that the American people would not willingly risk shedding the blood of thousands of Americans and Iraqis without the immediate threat of deadly attack on the United States."

You are part of the problem in not demanding an open and published full analysis of all the inaccuracies reported. Where is the proof that the Downing Street memos are false ? Where is the denouncement from Bush ( or Blair ) that it is fabrication - they dont' because even THEY know if they did the whistle would be blown :(

That these thinds dont get more than a few hours coverage by the media is criminal in a free democracy where the press/media have always been expected to use the freedom of speech to investigate fully any concerns by our leaders.



Nazi leader Hermann Goering said during the Nuremberg trials in 1946, "Naturally the common people don't want war; ... But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along ... . All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."