UN experts - WMD material removed from I raq

“"It has been said by Bush and his people that the war on terror is vast.
Sarge
10:06:59 AM"

Yeah that's part of my problem with him. Terror has been used by many sides in many conflicts. Terror is a means, not an entity or even a set of entitities... more precisely it is an abstract category of a variety of means that have been linked together. It seems to suggest that a hand delivered bomb is bad, whereas a plane delivered bomb is good.
last edited: 7/05/05 10:17:04 AM”

“If you're going to argue pacifism, we can stop now. This wasn't a debate about what to do about terror.

If your "problem with him" isn't that you think he lied, but you don't like that he uses force to disrupt worldwide terrorism, then that is another discussion which we can engage, but in the meantime, please don't change the subject ... I ask once again of the left .....”

“Sarge. It is odd that you should link these illusions to the "liberal media" - when they were much higher amongst consumers of conservative media like the Ailes and Murdoch's Fox News. How could these illusions result form liberal media bias if consumers of liberal media had these illusions far less than consumers of the radically pro-Bush Fox network??

See for example: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ04Ak01.html”

“The other thing is that the misperceptions were highest amongst supporters of the war. From the same link:

"It found a high correlation between respondents with the most misperceptions and their support for the decision to go to war. Only 23 percent of those who held none of the three misperceptions supported the war, while 53 percent who held one misperception did so. Of those who believe that both WMDs and evidence of al-Qaeda ties have been found in Iraq and that world opinion backed the United States, a whopping 86 percent said they supported war."”

“Sarge - I'm not arguing pacifism. The war in Afghanistan made sense. What I'm arguing is that terror is not a force or an enemy - it is a means available to all. It is a mistification to claim it as an opponent.”

“I don't believe I commented on Fox News reporting as being any better than the others, and I certainly don't put any credibility in any liberal polls. And, I MOST CERTAINLY don't put any stock in a liberal's reporting of a liberal poll. You might as well just get Al Franken to make stuff up. Regardless, this is nothing that I've been arguing for/against this entire discussion.

Again, you change the subject.

Bush did not lie. You may have misunderstood, for whatever reason, but he did not lie.

As I've mentioned previously, I do not watch Fox News. (I don't even have cable)”

“That liberal Buddhist yin/yang crap about terrorism is just that.

Tell me, since we're apparently changing the subject ... What is your solution to terrorism? Or would you have us simply ignore it?”

“Sarge - There is nothing Buddhist about my position. A war on terror is like a war on conventional weapons or on air-assaults. You fight a war against specific opponents. Sometimes that war makes sense, some times it doesn't. We went into Afghanistan to root out the organization that attacked us. We weren't attacking some abstraction called "terror." We were attacking Al-Qeda and the folks who supported them. To me, that made strategic sense and was justified by 9/11 and the earlier attacks.

The US went into Iraq for strategic reasons. Calling it a war on terror muddies the waters.”

“BTW: The poll results are significant. Another interesting finding:

"Among Bush supporters, those who said they follow the news "very closely", were found more likely to hold misperceptions. Those Bush supporters, on the other hand, who say they follow the news "somewhat closely" or "not closely at all" held fewer misperceptions.

Conversely, those Democratic supporters who said they did not follow the news very closely were found to be twice as likely to hold misperceptions as those who said they did, according to PIPA. "”

“There are terrorists is Iraq who are trying desparately to take over the Iraqi government.

If you want to call them foreign revolutionaries, fine, ... symantics.”

“re: the significant polls, read my comments above - they still are pertinent.

By the way, who decided who perceived things "correctly" in that poll? Based on who's vantage point?”

“I think we understand them better if we talk about their goals and not their means, e.g.: Radical Islamists or extreme arab nationalists. Even "Radical Islamist terrorists," "arab nationalists."”

“Their goal is to rule people who don't want to be ruled by their iron fists. Likely their "president" would be one who has cut off heads himself. These are not reasonable people. A great majority are too ignorant to know what they're fighting for. The people in charge are after one thing, power of other people. They are controlled by one thing - hate. They have ZERO respect for life.

You want to talk to them? Maybe over a cup of tea?”

“pedxing - Your life experiences have taught you respect for life, correct?

Think of the person you have become.

Now think of the opposite person.

That is them, the terrorists. They are without conscience.

Negotiations happen with them more than the press releases. They don't work. They're meaningless. Think of North Korean negotiations, but much worse. Why do you want to give these people a chance, but somebody like Bush who truly wants freedom for all you offer no respect?

Free your mind. Some day I predict you will have an epiphany. You will realize reality as it is, not as you have come to believe. You will join us. We will welcome you pedxing with open arms. Be strong pedxing. Be strong.”

“Sarge - I said nothing about giving terrorists a chance or sympathizing with them. I keep being surprised by what you read into things.”

“Funny considering you read into Bush's comments and then argued he lied, until you changed the subject to this.

You did not give your solution to the problem. You criticized Bush's, but do you have a solution?”

“The Yellow Cake/Plame/Karl Rove incident goes to the very heart of the WMD issue. George Bush used this supposed Iraqi attempt to purchase material to make a nuclear weapon as one of the main reasons to go to war. As you well know he did this in his SOU address of 2003. But before he made the claims on national TV the intelligence documents were proven to be forgeries by the CIA. The Bush administration still sent Joseph Wilson down to Nigeria to investigate. When he advised them there was nothing to the story they ignored him and made a flase claim in the SOU address. When Wilson went to the press someone in the administration, out of spite, let it be known that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame was in the CIA. This cost at least one CIA operative his life. If the Bush administration knowingly lied about the yellow cake could it be possible that he lied and/or implied much of the rest too?
Are you going to tell us about patriotism and wave flags after the truth of this matter comes out? You need to start thinking this stuff through because you're looking like a fool to me.

You and pedxing are hung up on parsing out every exact phase Bush used to justify this war. Everything you two argue about is irrelevent bull$hit now.

The fact is we're over there. We can't find any WMD. Our military (manpower and material)is being attrited at a greater and greater rate. We will have spent 300 billion by the end of the year and have nothing to show for it. The very fact of our presence has recruited a jihadist army to fight against us and given them a training ground.
We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan. We are creating the reasons for its existance. Any logical person know this.
If you have any ability to reason left in you think about this.
last edited: 7/05/05 12:12:27 PM”

“So you are arguing that Bush argued he was pursuing WMD?

Kind of hard to attack in 45 minutes if you're still pursuing the weapons, right?

sh - Thanks for making my point.”

“Not at all. I'm saying Bush knowing lied about WMDs. He wasn't seeking them or worried about an imminent attact. WMD and terrorim were the excuses he used to secure both Israeli hemogeny in the Middle East and oil.”

“I know what you're saying. You're saying Bush said (1) Saddam was seeking them, and (2) he was going to use them in 45 minutes.

Which is it?

Which did Bush say? Saddam was pursuing them, or could use them in 45 minutes against the United States?

How could he say he was going to use them on us if he thought he was only in the "pursuing" stage?”

“Sarge... I've felt Bush and company misled people. I think the record speaks for itself. You want to frame it into a debate about one specific claim. I say Bush and company kept implying and suggestign things and those who listened most closely tended to believe them. I think Solitary Hiker is right about this becoem a time wasting exercise.”

“There will be more debates in the future and very interesting ones.

You were oddly dismissive about the stats on misconceptions among pro-war people and Fox news consumers. I think it clearly demonstrates what the Bush propaganda machine was trying to push. Remember, Roger Ailes was something like the Karl Rove of the Reagan era.”

“pedx - The one who is framing it is you. I simply state facts. You are the one "interpreting" the facts. Don't accuse me of "framing" anything. You misunderstood reality (what was said). Not me.

You were odly dismissive of my question as to "who decided who perceived things "correctly" in that poll? Based on who's vantage point?"

Think about that question and you'll understand why I'm dismissive of the "stats".”

“I was seeking a gazzel, but found an antelope!

Them is a plural term. There are many types of WMD, antelope, and ways Sarge can twist words.
There are also many types of cows. I once owned a cow zoo. Although I had a few species of bovine, I was always looking to increase the herd with other species.
A weapons of mass distruction arsenal would not be complete without several species of WMD. Seeking "them" certainly doesn't mean you don't already have some.

I'm kinda thinking that when Bush said Saddam could attack us in 45 minutes, he was meaning that "us" includes our NATO alli Turkey. We do have bases inside Turkey. Not sure, but I think that the soil our bases are upon are considered American soil?

Anything else I have to say on this topic would be better expressed on the "Impeach Bush" thread.”

“Impeach the lying turd.”

“I have been thinking of ways to describe the legions of Bush fans that for all practical appearances are plain out wingnuts. They are as dogged in their defence of the obvious war criminal-in-chief as the bozos who defended Clinton. At least those bozos were only defending a man's right to get laid when his old lady was.... well Hillary. I mean when looking back on it even I, the most anarchist libertarian gun advocating antifederalist, non-recontructed confederate susessionist can see that what Bill did pales in conparison to what the mincing, strutting little Chimp-in-Charge has done.

So what shall we call these Bush people? I'm beginning to favor a mixture of Bush and buffoon. How about Bushfoons?
last edited: 7/05/05 2:38:00 PM”

“goat - the "Turkey" threat was in reference to them aiding us as a jumping point - not about our bases. It was not in reference to American soil.

Context is everything.”

“Than what was the 45 minute issue based on?”

“Tell us why Saddam would have attacked the Turks when the Turks were suppressing Kurdish nationalism just like he was. And the oil that was being traded illegally outside the auspices of the UN oil for food program was all leaving the country by Syria or Turkey. You guys are really stretching.”

“When the Bush administration said that we could be attacked by Iraq with WMD in 45 minutes, I wonder what piece of us could be attacked in that time. Because our NATO ally is Turkey, I'd think that this is the place that they were speaking of.
If not Turkey, where? And if not where, why again a lie?”

“sh - Since you obviously don't remember ... Turkey was in question to help us attack Iraq. I think whatever connecting you think Saddam had with Turkey would have been overridden if they help us kill him. Don't you?

goat - it's more and more apparent you aren't familiar with the "45 minute" quote, so why are you trying to argue against it? Wishful thinking perhaps.

I love how it's come down to this quote for you guys, which by the way, was in reference to him reconstituting WMD, not attacking U.S. soil in 45 minutes, and was in reference to attacking Turkey, no attacking U.S. soil, and was a reference to BRITISH INTELLIGENCE, which reaffirms even more it wasn't a lie, even if (if) it were not true but misinformation for their spy agencies.

You guys have NOTHING! LOL

You guys hate him so much you want to prove he lied but you got NOTHING! LMAO

And then you accuse ME of spinning (framing) this when it's I who am keeping his quotes in context and YOU guys who are ADMITTADLY assuming things by mixing various quotes of his from various conversations to try to connect dots that aren't there.

LOL

typical”

“Of course Bush had to refer to British intelligence for the 45 minute claim because, as reported in the Washington Post, US intelligence didn't trust the source and omitted the claim from their NIE....

but I'm sure he had the best of motives for doing so.”

“So you admit he did not lie then Violin. Great! We finally agree on something.”

“I was trying to avoid beating a dead horse, but this is pretty clear:

"Q Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it. Secretary Powell said it. And I may point out to you, as you may know, there is a news conference at Department of Defense today at 2:00 p.m. to discuss one element in this.

And so we have always had confidence, we continue to have confidence that WMD will be found. He's had a long period of time to hide what he has in a variety of different places, and there is a whole protocol of the search that is underway, that is being conducted in a very methodical fashion."

Full context:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-7.html”

“And, to reitereate one last time:

1) I dumped the quotes to assert my claim of fear mongering by Bush, not because each quote specificially met your formula.

2) I've not joined the Bush lied and should be impeached crowd. I do think he and his team were responsible for misleading the American people, for fear mongering regarding WMDs and Saddam Al-Qeda ties.

Still, here you have Ari asked about WMD's and imminent threat and he responds "absolutely."”

“pedx - Regarding your first post of these two, what is your point? Is there a contradiction here or something I should be aware of?

If you haven't joined the Bush lied crowd then great. Bush didn't lie. We agree.

Why don't you tell your liberal friends to give it up because they're only alienating themselves, which incidentally, I don't mind.

If instead you want to argue if you were misled, that I believe. I believe you were misled by the way the information was presented to you, via the media. I don't deny that at all. Like I said, I was furious AS IT WAS HAPPENING. Let me make that very clear. Think about this. AS THE MEDIA WAS PRESENTING THIS, I was saying "that's not representative of what the administration said". I stood up and said "we are not going to Iraq for the main reason that Saddam can take out the United States via WMD. That was NOT the gist of the argument for ousting him. It was presented that way by the media, not the administration. I noticed this BEFORE the war.
last edited: 7/06/05 10:09:12 AM”

“typical”

“My point is that Fleischer acknowledged that the US gov't line was that Saddam had WMD that were a direct and imminent threat to the US. This is precisely what I have said that the Bush administration was conveying. This is only strengthened if you read the whole press conference.”

“I agree he said that. But I don't think they said that Saddam can attack us on short notice via WMD on our homeland. If you'll read what I've posted on here, I agreed that Saddam was a threat to the U.S. b/c of WMD, but not in the sense that is portrayed by the left - as you have just agreed.

I also agree that he was right about the threat he WAS talking about in that conference. Don't believe me if you don't want to. Just please remember this conversation.”

“http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_1.pdf
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_2.pdf
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_3.pdf
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_4.pdf
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_5.pdf
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_6.pdf”

“It's going to be really fun watching you slow twist in the wind. Don't expect any sympathy. You've been warned and still, you ramble and fawn on about your president. And it's going to be especially delightful to watch this sad man, only 6 months into his second term, become a lame duck imcumbent, hiding out in White House like some 21st century Richard Nixon. He may not pay any attention to his poll numbers but you can bet there are some Republican senators that are quaking in their boots. And the House Republicans? I bet the collective a$$pucker factor of House Republicans is bordering on coal-to-diamond crusher right now. Even some the flagwaving jingoistic kooks in my state (SC) are beginning to see the light. Sen. Linsey Graham has mentioned it and when he did I knew (thank Allah!) that Bush's bombastic days were on the wane. So beat the "he said he didn't say" horse to death if you want. You're just going to look that much stupider in the end. But maybe (hope springs eternal) you'll also be a little wiser at the end of Bush's sordid adventure.”

“And maybe you will.

I believe by the liberal media's count and the Democratic count, Bush's numbers have been plummeting since before he took office.

I believe his approval rating should be somewhere around -478% at this point, give or take.”

“Violin and solitary hiker.

Everything you have said, everything you believe, is discredited here.

typical”

“Sure it has Sarge sure.... Now for you folks sitting on the fence out there who still don't think we went to Iraq for Israeli hemogeny and oil you need to go over to www.whatreallyhappened.com and start reading it everyday. Below is a link to just one story about the Pentagon Office of Special Plans/Israeli spying story that the mass media doesn't want you to think about. They're desparately looking for another Scott Petersen murder story, a Michael jackson pederast sound bite, a Terri Schivo angle, or a Tom Cruise Scientology scandal etc. to get you distracted but the story is there and it's going to get bigger if the internet has anything to do with it.

http://www.sw-asia.com/People/Bio916.htm
last edited: 7/06/05 2:44:21 PM”

“If we agree that the the Bush consistently portrayed Saddam as having WMD's that were a signigicant direct and imminent threat to the US and to every american, then I guess our dsagreement lies with 1) the accuracy of the statements, and 2) the extent of the scare mongering over that "imminent threat."”

“Imaginary WMDs and the coming Bush Rove fiasco.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/politics/06cnd-leak.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=0cf3bf4cb26d50fb&hp&ex=1120708800&partner=homepage”