WMD's Found!!!

“Hey Phaedrus, regarding the Niger stuff, the British Intelligence still backs it and they are not relying on one single document, as your little report thingy suggested. Even so, that is not a "lie", but unverified information. I know you want so much for all this to be a big fat lie, but it's just the angry libs who feel this way. The American populace, in general, trusts G-Dub and they plain like the feller. I know, the American populace is stooooopid and only the angry left is really really really smart, but maybe the anger and pessimism and doom and gloom and conspiracy theories from the left ain't so catchy?”

“??

Can you debate a topic without trying to make it all about left/right? EVER?”

“nope! Things were a lot better without this parrot around.”

“Hmmmm... maybe you should ask Violin and the beeeellions of constant Republican and religion bashers here this question? Why ask this now, of me, when I'm rarely here, but Repubs and Christians are continually trashed on this forum day in and day out? You don't see it? I didn't think so. But that's okay.

Anyway, Phaedrus, my original response in this thread was to the continual claims that Bush lied. If you're gonna call me on politics, fine, that's cool, but why not call the others as well? I tink it's because you, uhh, agree with them? NOOOoooOOOO! I must be jumping to massive conclusions! :Þ”

“WASHINGTON, D.C., Jan 8 (IPS) - The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites) ''systematically misrepresented'' the threat posed by Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons of mass destruction (WMD), three non-proliferation experts from a prominent think tank charged Thursday

Link

The entire article is on another thread from earlier yesterday.”

“And yeah, you're not around here much or you'd see that I do that very thing.”

“One more thing....





Show me the WMD.



Oh yea, ya can't.”

“Hey Mr. Blinderman, sing a song for me.....”

“By the way, Buck, I'm about halfway through the Carnegie report, and so far, it seems to be a pretty tight case.”

“they're far from the wmd stock piles Bush claimed Iraq had. Those are left overs from the iraq/iran war. They're used. They are no justification for killing 5000 innocent iraqis.”

“Bush using the deaths of thousands of Americans to further his own goals.

Clinton getting a hummer and lying about it.

There both SOB's, but I'd party with Clinton any day, Bush I wouldn't trust.”

“Hey mtnsteve, you should have been asking Saddam, "Show me that you destroyed the WMD's... oh, you can't". I see, you give Saddam the benny of the doubt, but not our own Prez. Hmmm. Oh well.

Oh, and Clinton didn't lie about a mere hummer, that's small stuff... Clinton, while holding the highest legal office in the United States of America, lied directly to the face of the American people, and worse, directly to a Grand Jury. That's big. That's huge. That's perjury. That's not pie-in-the-sky conspiracy stuff, that's recorded history. Libs make it seem all about some intern hummer... no, it's Grand Jury perjury, and the highest office holder in the U.S. should not mock our own laws.”

“: "They are no justification for killing 5000 innocent iraqis"

Hey nashville, if you were TRULY concerned for the welfare and well-being of the Iraqi people, you'd be excited that their ruthless dictator was gone, that they can now take their own country into their own hands and create their own destiny, that they can speak out without fear of being tortured and murdered, and that women do not have to be worried about being rape dolls for Saddam's regime, nor the populace gripped in fear and tortured and shot and killed by the thousands. That's why I think this is all politics with you and the rest of the angry left. Saddam would have never left on his own under any circumstances, and when Saddam eventually passed on, his brutal sons were next in line to terrorize the Iraqi people. We did a good thing and we saved many many many thousands of Iraqi lives and have given them hope for the future. Yep, darn that Bush feller anyhow.”

“Show me the weapons, other wise all your doing is blowing smoke.


Thousands of American lives, think about it. He is worse then Clinton. Using our grieving Nation to his advantage, thats sick.”

“Phaedrus, doood, you're giving me "proof" posts from "Yahoo News"!?? that keeps quoting the NY Times and the Washington Post and some Peace Councils who no-duh despise Bush in the first place? Come on, man! That's like asking NewsMax to do an inquiry into Hillary's trip to Afghanistan or sumpthin'!”

“Show me the WMD.




Oh yea, ya can't.”

“: "Show me the weapons, other wise all your doing is blowing smoke." -mtnsteve

Got another gig, perhaps another angle? This is the fourteenth beeellion time you've said this, without responding to one point. I'll humor you. It was SADDAM's duty to PROVE to the world through documentation that he DIDN'T have WMD's. We went in to VERIFY the status of Saddam's WMD program that he refused to account for himself! The U.N. beat around the Bush for so long, Saddam had lots of time to deploy his WMD's elsewhere, or wait for the smoke to clear and then jump right back into the same dangerous game he was playin' before. The Dems thought he had WMD's too, doh? They're own quotes verify this, even Clinton said Saddam had WMD's after he left office (I know you won't respond to these devastating truths, you'll just ignore them and say, "where's the WMD's?"). The fact is Saddam had them, no doubt, and had used them, no doubt, and no doubt he CANNOT use them ever again, whether he got rid of his current stash or not, he knows how to make them and is too willing to use them. Period. The threat exists no more, thank God!”

“We went to war because of an eminent threat of WMD, not because he was a bad guy.

He was about to use them any time....we had to act immediately.

Something wrong with your memory?”

“Hey Mr. Dismissive man, Sing a song for me......”

“Now your really getting funny.”

“Gee, I was soooo scared of Saddam.



Where the hell is Bin Laden, the Guy we should have been going after...sing it now!”

“Hi mtnsteve! Oh, do you think Saddam still poses a threat? Okay, now WHO'S really gettin' funny! :^D”

“I wasn't scared of him before.”

“Where is Bin Laden?

We diverted all our resources to Iraqi. Now our Army is stretched to the breaking point and we still don't have the guy who killed all those Americans, seems like our priority's were just a tad screwed up.

Oh yea, the right was scared of Saddam, or was it because he was a nasty leader or the WMD. We should have been scared of Bin Laden. After all, he actually killed over 3000 people.”

“OUR PEOPLE!”

“The fact libs keep saying Bush said Saddam posed an imminent threat is completely false. I think liberals say this out of ignorance, I'd hate to think they are deliberately lying and trying to be deceptful or taking cheap shots on such an important issue. Bush never said Saddam posed a imminent threat. He mentioned an existing and growing threat, but not an imminent one. Even most Democratic politicians backed him on this one, even apart from Bush's statements, but on their own information sources.

I repeat, for you libs, we did not go to war with Iraq because of your supposed (and false accusation) "imminent threat" claim. Other than that, how YOU doin'?”

“"We diverted all our resources to Iraqi. Now our Army is stretched to the breaking point and we still don't have the guy who killed all those Americans, seems like our priority's were just a tad screwed up." - mtnsteve

Hi again! What do you mean we diverted all our resources to Iraq? Why do you guys claim this? It's silly! How many tens of thousands of soldiers and thousands of tanks does it take to track down one man, Osama? Finding Osama is not through our traditional military. We don't send in brigade after brigade of soldiers and tanks and missiles and weapons to go search for a frail man wearing a turban hiding out with a few other guys in desperate need of a shower. Finding Osama is done through intelligence, through wheeling and dealing and covert operations figuring out codes and methods and electronically tracking him through communications and secret bank accounts, etc. How has our presence in Iraq subtracted from THAT? If anything, our presence in Iraq is attracking foreign terrorists and Al-Qaeda members INTO the region so they can help fight against the Great Satan. Now we have Osama praising Saddam and helping the tiny percentage of resistance fighters, making the presence of Al-Qaeda even more visible. You say we've forgotten about Osama and we don't have enough resources going after him? Surely you know how covert ops work better than that?”

“How can you possably see anything with your head so far up there?

Gotta go to bed now, had a long day skiing.

Seeeeeeee ya”

“Hey steve, even though we disagree on these issues, I respect you and I don't think you have your head far up anywhere, it's just different worldviews, I guess. Take care, hope you had a great day skiing! Adios, my friend!”

“Anyone that spends time in the mountains can't be all bad ;-)

Had a great time skiing, even hauled out all the stuff we left from Winterfest.

Peace to ya.”

“Phaedrus, doood, you're giving me "proof" posts from "Yahoo News"!?? that keeps quoting the NY Times and the Washington Post and some Peace Councils who no-duh despise Bush in the first place? Come on, man! That's like asking NewsMax to do an inquiry into Hillary's trip to Afghanistan or sumpthin'!"
Buck
12:05:19 AM
01/11/04

Duh, Buck. If you don't know who the carnegie endowment employs, that's YOUR ignorance. The think tank has done its homework, and if you're too lazy to read it, that's YOUR ignorance. Further, the half-assed attempts to hide behind the so called liberal media myth is also a stab at YOUR ignorance.

You can have your own opinions, but unless your contention is that proof and critical thinking are solely "liberal" ideals, you need to supply evidence for them. BTW, evidence for your opinions does not mean wholesale discount of mine due to source.

Oh, and if you still question the Carnegie Endowment's credentials, I'll supply a few of them:

Joseph Cirincione:
nine years in the U.S. House of Representatives: six years on the professional staff of the Committee on Armed Services and three and one-half years on the Committee on Government Operations, and served as staff director of the Military Reform Caucus under Congressmen Tom Ridge and Charles Bennett. He is the author of numerous articles on proliferation and nuclear weapons issues, the editor of Repairing the Regime (Routledge, 2000), the producer of the CD-ROM, Proliferation 2001, and the publisher and editor of the Internet site, ProliferationNews.org. He has held positions at the Henry L. Stimson Center, the U.S. Information Agency, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and previously at the Carnegie Endowment.


He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He is an honors graduate of Boston College and holds a Masters of Science with highest honors from the Georgetown School of Foreign Service.

Jessica Tuchman Mathews:
Expertise:
Chemical and Biological Weapons; Corruption; Environment (Global); Global Governance; Information Revolution; Non-Governmental Actors; Non-Proliferation; Transnational Issues

Mathews is a director of Somalogic Inc. and a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, The Century Foundation, and the Nuclear Threat Initiative. She is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. She has previously served on the boards of the Brookings Institution, Radcliffe College, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Surface Transportation Policy Project, and the Joyce Foundation among others.

George Perkovich:
A prolific writer, Perkovich’s work has appeared in a range of publications, including Foreign Affairs, Atlantic Monthly, Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. He wrote India’s Nuclear Bomb, which Foreign Affairs called “an extraordinary and perhaps definitive account of 50 years of Indian nuclear policymaking” and the Washington Times called an “important…encyclopedic…antidote to many of the illusions of our age.” The book received the Herbert Feis Award from the American Historical Association and the A.K. Coomaraswamy Prize from the Association for Asian Studies.

Before his work with the Jones Foundation, Perkovich served as a speechwriter and foreign policy advisor to Senator Joe Biden. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Foreign Languages: French, Russian

Education: B.A., University of California at Santa Cruz; M.A. in Soviet studies, Harvard University; Ph.D. in foreign affairs, University of Virginia Selected Publications: India’s Nuclear Bomb (University of California Press, 1999; updated paperback edition, 2001)


Now, I've supplied you with a bit of background into their credentials, so you know you aren't wasting your time in reading the study.”

“: "BTW, evidence for your opinions does not mean wholesale discount of mine due to source." - Phaedrus

Hi Phaedrus! I never said your opinions are discounted, I just can't personally take them serious with the biased sources you use to make your own points. Others may be fine with them. The American people see liberal bias in general news (newspapers, magazines, TV, etc., but conserves do well in radio). It's obvious to most of us, even if you don't see it. I can't "prove" it to you, other than what I see and what the polls from the American public say. I would guess you respect "Gallop"? Here's their poll:

--------------------
Are the News Media Too Liberal?
Forty-five percent of Americans say yes

Forty-five percent of Americans believe the news media in this country are too liberal, while only 14% say the news media are too conservative. These perceptions of liberal bias have not changed over the last three years. More generally, a little more than half of Americans have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the news media when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Trust in the news media has not changed significantly over the last six years.

http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13968
-----------------

So you are free to call my attempts at saying the general media is liberal-biased as "half-assed attempts", but you're saying this to the America public and Gallop as well. Which should make you stop and stink. I mean, think.

You wanna bash Bush's policies by quoting Yahoo! News, or the Washington Post, that's fine with me, but I already know those orgs biases. They fit yours, but not mine. I wonder why Fox News has hit such a strong chord with the American public? Maybe the feel they found something that's NOT so obviously biased. Of course you would differ. I'll let the numbers do the talking for me though.

As for Carnegie, I don't doubt their "qualifications", I doubt their agenda. Check out the Nobel Peace Prize outfit... there's some smart fellers in there... but they obviously just wanna slam the crud out of Bush. Of course I don't take the Nobel guys seriously, despite their intelligence, they have an agenda. I mean, you're giving me credentials in this Carnegie list of guys who worked with liberals like Joe Biden, for cryin' out loud!

But I don't mean to discredit YOUR opinions, feel as you wish and believe as you wish, and I shall do the same, and we'll both enjoy our differing worldviews. It's all good!”

“As for your poll: That's nice. I don't generally rely on polls for my opinions, nor to tell me the truth, but even with that poll says 55 percent of those polled did not find the media to be too liberal.

I've also read a few books on the subject, including BIAS by Goldberg, Culture of Fear by Glassner, and What Liberal Media by Alterman, and I've come to a rather objective conclusion that the media as a whole, does not have a left-leaning bias, despite what we are told. You don't like yahoo, fine. Sort out the bias in the article and come up with the truth. You don't like Carnegie, fine, sort out the truth from the bias and tell me what you think, but don't discount it based on associations.

I've done a good bit of reading from New American Century, and I can promise you that I disagree with much of the slant, but I still find some bits of truth there.

It seems like you may not be interested in examining YOUR bias.”

“In other words, even if there's bias, you may want to read it, just in case it makes sense.”

“Hey Phaedrus, the difference between you and me (apparently) is that I FREELY ADMIT my bias! I'm conservative and proud of it! I'm a Christian and thankful because of it! I am VERY biased! I am always saying we just have different worldviews (aka biases). I am biased towards hiking, I am biased towards fishing, I am biased towards German Shepherd's, I am biased towards my family, I am biased towards my country and my God, I am VERY biased! But I can still see the truth for what it is, and understand others have biases that will differ than mine and be okay with it. When I see a glass at the mid-point with water, I see it as half-full, not half-empty. That's my optimistic bias. But it's the same exact fact. How we look at the same facts in this world doesn't make the facts different, just our interpretation of those facts according to our bias. I spend a lot of time reading liberal bias stuff. Lots. I like reading/listening to points from liberals from themselves in their own media formats, not from a previously biased interpretation from a conservative (unless I wanna seek a conservative take on it separate than mine). That's why I say if you wanna say something against Bush about the war, it holds no credibility when it comes from an already biased source. I reviewed the article, and it said nothing new. I'm sure when Colin Powell opens his mouth in defense of Bush's policy, you automatically have pre-judged notions of how credible he is to you personally. To me, Colin Powell is right on, to you, he's probably a lying son-of-a-snickerbar. Same with Bush. I don't agree with everything Bush says or does, but he's a wonderful leader of this country to me and meeeeellions of others... to some he's the Anti-Christ.

You bettah believe I admit my bias.”

“Yep, there's the difference. You believe your truth is already set in stone. I believe mine can be altered.

That said, Bush still OBVIOUSLY systematically exaggerated claims of Iraq's threat to the world, and it's really too bad. A competent statesman would have been able to lead a UN security council-sactioned force into Iraq.”

“As for Gallop Poll, they just randomly ask questions of the American public and share the perceptions of the people.

45% of the people said the media was biased liberal.

Only 14% said the media was biased conservative.

Now, through your OWN personal bias, the only information you gleaned from this was that 55% of Americans don't think there's a bias.

But if you were truly honest with yourself, you would see the different between the 45%-liberal bias and 14%-conservative bias perceptions and see the stark difference that the American public sees in media bias compared to YOU. But that's okay, you filtered that info out with your own bias.”

“No, I understood it. 55% of the people can see past the "useful myth" of the "liberal media".

You'll notice there isn't a collective effort anywhere at attempting to point out that the media is too conservative. That might have a bit to do with what people believe, in general.”

“: "No, I understood it. 55% of the people can see past the "useful myth" of the "liberal media".

Ahhhh... I guess the rest of America, that huge portion that disagrees with you, is merely living in myth land, yet you can see things for what they really are! I read ya!”

“Regarding polling.... please keep in mind that even though Bush finally admitted there was no link between Saddam and Osama, 69% of the American populace still believe there is one according to a poll by the Washington Post. By way of explanation, I can only refer you to "The "S" Factor & W's Popularity".

Is it some twisted Bush personality cult, or or is it simply the result of 'growing up reagan'? LMAO”

“Buck's blind faith is troubling and sad. The purest example of a "lock step Republicaint".”

“it was not our job to take Saddam out of the pictue. The war was illegal, bottom line. There is no legitimate justification for the war in Iraq. Bush will be looked back upon in history in the same catagory as Hittler, Osama Bin Laden, Stalin, Atilla the Hun and Pilot. He is an evil, evil man and only cares about himself and whoever's turn it is to stick their self preserving hand up Bush's ass (cheyney and/or Rumsfeld).”

“If TTers determined who the next US president would be I wonder who would win?”

“O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11
In new book, ex-Treasury secretary criticizes administration
Saturday, January 10, 2004 Posted: 7:21 PM EST (0021 GMT)



Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet.

(CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

The CBS report is scheduled to be broadcast Sunday night; the book is to be released Tuesday by publisher Simon & Schuster.

Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.

"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."

In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.

Suskind also described a White House meeting in which he said Bush seemed to waver about going forward with a second round of tax cuts.

"Haven't we already given money to rich people... Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" Suskind says Bush asked, according to what CBS called a "nearly verbatim" transcript of an economic team meeting Suskind said he obtained from someone at the meeting.

O'Neill also said in the book that President Bush "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people" during Cabinet meetings.

One-on-one meetings were no different, O'Neill told the network.

Describing his first such meeting with Bush, O'Neill said, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [him] on. ... I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening. It was mostly a monologue."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan brushed off O'Neill's criticism.

"We appreciate his service, but we are not in the business of doing book reviews," he told reporters. "It appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinion than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people. The president will continue to be forward-looking, focusing on building upon the results we are achieving to strengthen the economy and making the world a safer and better place."

A senior administration official, who asked not to be named, expressed bewilderment at O'Neill's comments on the alleged war plans.

"The treasury secretary is not in the position to have access to that kind of information, where he can make observations of that nature," the official said. "This is a head-scratcher."

Even before the interview is broadcast, the topic became grist for election-year politics.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who is the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued a statement in response.

"I've always said the president had failed to make the case to go to war with Iraq," Dean said. "My Democratic opponents reached a different conclusion, and in the process, they failed to ask the difficult questions. Now, after the fact, we are learning new information about the true circumstances of the Bush administration's push for war, this time, by one of his former Cabinet secretaries.

"The country deserves to know -- and the president needs to answer -- why the American people were presented with misleading or manufactured intelligence as to why going to war with Iraq was necessary."

Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts also issued a statement. In 2002, Kerry voted to support a resolution giving Bush authority to wage war against Iraq if it didn't dismantle its presumed illegal weapons program.

"These are very serious charges. It would mean [Bush administration officials] were dead-set on going to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, Congress, and the world," Kerry said. "It would mean that for purely ideological reasons they planned on putting American troops in a shooting gallery, occupying an Arab country almost alone. The White House needs to answer these charges truthfully because they threaten to shatter [its] already damaged credibility as never before.”

“Scientist Exposed to Deadly Ebola Virus

By Avram Goldstein

A scientist who works in a maximum containment laboratory at Fort Detrick has been placed in isolation after she accidentally stuck herself with a needle while working with mice infected with a weakened form of the Ebola virus.

The woman, whom officials at the Army base declined to identify, has shown no symptoms of the deadly Ebola hemorrhagic fever during eight days of medical observation in a special isolation facility, said Army spokesman Chuck Dasey. He said she was exposed to the Zaire strain of Ebola, the deadliest of the three types of the virus.

more...”

“I thought this was going to be about Dugway Proving Ground.



"Sir, there's a fire..."”

“Reports out Iraq that a (singular) WMD was found.... serin gas in an artillary shell. Now if they had found 2, it could be pluralized and George would have a case to make the world stop calling him a liar.”

“"Reports out Iraq that a (singular) WMD was found.... serin gas in an artillary shell......"



Did it say "Made in the U.S.A." written on it!?!”

“They did find two, didn't they? Mustard gas and Sarin gas?”

“I bet this was the one that was going to blow the mainland U.S. into oblivion in 45 minutes...”