REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Our President

POSTED BY: HOWDYROCKERBABY1
UPDATED: Saturday, May 6, 2023 19:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 39145
PAGE 3 of 5

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 11:21 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Ghoulman wrote:

Quote:

... it just goes to show how hurtful, incestuous, and insane, American culture is. Reading certain posts above I gotta wonder if lobotomies are dirt cheap below the 49th.


Isn't this statement the same type of stereotypical nonsense you are opposed to from some Americans about the French above?

Seems to me that maybe the U.S. has not cornered the market on stereotypes.

Just sayin'.

Oh sure, I see your point. I'm of the opinion that this anti-french thing is so rediculous it demonstrates the insanity of American cultural currents (and assumes I'm correct about the origins of the 'joke' I mention). American cultural hegomany worldwide is not what I'm on about in this case... though I could!

Please, don't make me talk about Canadian culture because it's smug crap! Upper Cans anyho, we Maritimers actually do have a culture unlike the wonks in Ontario. Take that Globe and Mail!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:03 PM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Oh sure, I see your point. I'm of the opinion that this anti-french thing is so rediculous it demonstrates the insanity of American cultural currents (and assumes I'm correct about the origins of the 'joke' I mention). American cultural hegomany worldwide is not what I'm on about in this case... though I could!



I normally just laugh and shrug these things off, but thought otherwise in this case, because it's usage was in such poor elitist taste. If you are going to use words please:
A)Know how to properly spell them
B)know what they mean and use them properly.

hegemony

\He*gem`o*ny\, n. [Gr. ?, fr. ? guide, leader, fr. ? to go before.] Leadership; preponderant influence or authority; -- usually applied to the relation of a government or state to its neighbors or confederates. --Lieber.

Since America is a Leading Member in the UN,by leading I mean a Nation with Veto power and the ability to back itself up (unlike some nations who cower in fear and capitulate to terrorists), I would have to say America is indeed a Hegemony in a good way.

When lightning strikes, someone gets sick, someone stubs their proverbial toes in another part of the world, what country is asked first for Aid? Answer: The U.S.

What country gets condemned when they don't give "enough" Aid? Answer: The U.S.

Our American culture is indeed a Hegemony, built upon freedom and democracy, with one of the World's largest economies, largest free press, most liberal media/entertainment forum on the face of the planet,also a good thing. This is hardly something to scoff at or condemn.

Normally "Hegemony" is used in a negative sense by socially embittered Socialists (this normally falls into the middle to upper class elitists) who find it politically correct to portray a "farcical Socially Conscious, anti-establishment anti-economist" front, when they sit back and reap the benefits of it's very existence.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:21 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Ruxton:
When I moved into my dream house, I naturally expected to breathe good air and experience good health in the latter part of my sixth decade. Instead, after a hike in fine, blue-sky weather that was marred by criss-crossed persistent contrails, I got deathly sick in my upper respiratory tract.

I came to the inescapable conclusion that these aerosols seemed to be a prime cause of my health problems. I have all the symptoms of barium poisoning, and it has been determined by other researchers (Note well: RESEARCHERS, not conspiracy theorists) that barium salts are part of the aerosols. There is no doubt these aerosols exist.



I'm sorry to hear about your health problems from the gas contrails. I guess I'm a bit confused. Why arent you taking your white pill?

I thought everybody knew about the 'little white pill'.


H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:59 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Please, don't make me talk about Canadian culture because it's smug crap! Upper Cans anyho, we Maritimers actually do have a culture unlike the wonks in Ontario. Take that Globe and Mail!


Personally I would think that people in Toronto (and surrounding area) being wonky as they are is what there culture is. You shouldn't really lump Ontario all together, too big. ie I doubt that people in Kenora are the same as those in Toronto.

I as well think that the G&M is well... I really should use that word Let's just say that I do agree with you here.

I'd be curious on your take on us in Manitoba. Contact me through the FFF.net messaging if you don't want to bore the others with these details

----
"Hello, my name is SigmaNunki and I'm addicted to s"
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:25 PM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally Posted by Nervouspete: And by the way, I am English, and I feel very strongly about America. You kicked our arses back in 1776, but we look to you to find your way to the first true ideal of a country. Even though we are cynics and disagree with you frequently, even though we laugh at you and mock you, we secretly are fascinated by you and want you to become something as noble as your heroes wanted it to be, badly. And cheers for putting yourselves on the line in World War II.

And never dismiss me as a liberal. God, that really annoys me.



Thank you Pete, for that..it made me smile. I don't think the US kicked the English arses in The American Revolution, I merely think we were more stubborn...hehe. Personally, I thank god every day for Brits like Tony Blair, and his predecessors,Margaret Thatcher, and Winston Churchill.

One of my favorite Churchill quotes: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

Another :) "Yes, madam, I am drunk. But in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly. -- (replying to Lady Astor's comment 'Sir, you're drunk!')

and finally, that which stands true even today , Prime minister Winston Churchill's summation to the gathered delegates at St. James's Place, London, June 12, 1941
: "This then, my lords and gentlemen, is the message which we send forth today to all states and nations, bound or free, to all the men in all the lands who care for freedom's cause. To our Allies and well-wishers in Europe, to our American friends and helpers drawing ever closer in their might across the ocean, this is the message-lift up your hearts, all will come right. Out of depths of sorrow and sacrifice will be born again the glory of mankind."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:49 PM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by richardecheandia:
Refuses to obey the Geneva convention in our completely lawless treatment of Afghan POWs (many American former POWs fear how nations will treat our soldiers in the future because we've invented something called enemy combatants (whatever the f*ck that is)



to answer this question, taken from Wikipedia of all places..hehe. Hope this clarifies things :)

The term was first introduced in 1942 by a United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):


"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
Other countries, including the United Kingdom, Israel, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand make theoretical distinctions between lawful and unlawful combatants and the legal status thereof."

Historical basis in international law and practice

Prisoners of war
The Second Hague Convention of 1899 defined the requirements for combatants to be eligible for treatment as prisoners of war.


"Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

"Article. 3. The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In case of capture by the enemy both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war."
Those terms thus divide people in a warzone into two classes, each of which is further subdivided into two. There are first armies and militias and then those not in armies and militias. Those in armies and militias have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture and those not in armies and militias do not have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture. The distinction of combatant and non-combatant is then applied. Those in armies and militias, whether combatant or non-combatant have the right to be treated as prisoners of war. An army chaplain or doctor is a non-combatant, whereas an ordinary soldier is a combatant. For those outside of armies and militias, by convention known as civilians, the right of being treated as a prisoner of war does not apply. However, the definition of combatant then becomes critical. A civilian who is a non-combatant is not eligible for the protections of prisoner of war status, but is eligible for protection under other statutes. Those are, for example, not being deliberately targeted by military action and other traditional protections. A civilian who is a combatant on the other hand has neither the protection of being able to be a prisoner of war, nor the protection of being a civilian non-combatant.


Protected persons
Those not eligible for prisoner of war status are called protected persons. They are defined as follows:


Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are. [Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, Art. 4]
Protected persons rights are circumscribed when they commit hostile acts:


Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.[Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, Art. 5]
-------------------------------------------------

Well, I disagree with the statement that Bush lied to us about WMD's. That continual claim, is pure propaganda rubbish, backed by many UN Resolutions and several UN reports. Iraq had WMD's and based on our and the world's intelligence, he still had them. Personally, I suspect many have moved into Syria or Iran or lie buried in the vast deserts of Iraq (like the large number of Migs)

As for the rest, some of which I respectfully disagree with you on, you are entitled to your own opinion and it would behoove me to mock your personal beliefs.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:58 PM

JASONZZZ



I agree here and further that these folks should be damn glad that they are just ambiguously defined as enemy combatants and *not* as "unlawful combatants". Unlawful combatants are generally hung or shot as they are found - although sometimes they are quartered (no, not medieval type 'drawn -n- quarter') , bargained or traded away for our own field spies.


Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Quote:

Originally posted by richardecheandia:
Refuses to obey the Geneva convention in our completely lawless treatment of Afghan POWs (many American former POWs fear how nations will treat our soldiers in the future because we've invented something called enemy combatants (whatever the f*ck that is)



to answer this question, taken from Wikipedia of all places..hehe. Hope this clarifies things :)

The term was first introduced in 1942 by a United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):

...






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:57 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Oh sure, I see your point. I'm of the opinion that this anti-french thing is so rediculous it demonstrates the insanity of American cultural currents (and assumes I'm correct about the origins of the 'joke' I mention). American cultural hegomany worldwide is not what I'm on about in this case... though I could!



I normally just laugh and shrug these things off, but thought otherwise in this case, because it's usage was in such poor elitist taste. If you are going to use words please:
A)Know how to properly spell them
B)know what they mean and use them properly.

hegemony

\He*gem`o*ny\, n. [Gr. ?, fr. ? guide, leader, fr. ? to go before.] Leadership; preponderant influence or authority; -- usually applied to the relation of a government or state to its neighbors or confederates. --Lieber.

Since America is a Leading Member in the UN,by leading I mean a Nation with Veto power and the ability to back itself up (unlike some nations who cower in fear and capitulate to terrorists), I would have to say America is indeed a Hegemony in a good way.

When lightning strikes, someone gets sick, someone stubs their proverbial toes in another part of the world, what country is asked first for Aid? Answer: The U.S.

What country gets condemned when they don't give "enough" Aid? Answer: The U.S.

Our American culture is indeed a Hegemony, built upon freedom and democracy, with one of the World's largest economies, largest free press, most liberal media/entertainment forum on the face of the planet,also a good thing. This is hardly something to scoff at or condemn.

Normally "Hegemony" is used in a negative sense by socially embittered Socialists (this normally falls into the middle to upper class elitists) who find it politically correct to portray a "farcical Socially Conscious, anti-establishment anti-economist" front, when they sit back and reap the benefits of it's very existence.



Hey spelling Nazi... when you call people names why don't YOU look up the meaning?

Quote:

ELITIST - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.


1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.



And I love how you basically rationalized yourself into labeling me an embittered Socialist. You're a real nut.

Still - your kind can only attack people by calling them names while the rest of us post actual facts, opinions, and knowledge.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:03 AM

DORAN


Ruxton, I believe you believe what you have written.. I won't try to convince you otherwise.. however there is one thing you said that I have to object to because it is not true. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. That is, "we are all conditioned from a very young age to trust our government".

This is the USA. We have been conditioned from a young age to not trust governments. To suspect our own but to be even more leary of anyone else's government. Why do you think most Republicans are for smaller government? We don't trust it.. but there are somethings that only a common federal government can accomplish, like the common defense. But I personally don't trust government in general.. absolute power corrupts absolutely.

As far as thinking that the US government faked 9/11 that's just too far off the deep end for me. It doesn't make any sense to me that George Bush or his administration would benefit from doing the things your taking about. Certainly the USA isn't benefiting.

I do think that there are countries that are angry and embarassed for purely economic reasons with the US decision to continue the war on Saddam's Iraq. The anger and embarassment seems to have colored their international politics.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:05 AM

SHINYENDER


When did it become cool to have War's with inanimate objects or intangible ideas.

"War on Drugs", "War on Terror",

Is it because we'd just look silly having a war on druggies. Booze is the best selling drug ever, yet it's legal. Didn't we learn anything from the "war on booze" aka prohibition.

A war on terrorists isn't a terrible, but when did they become Iraq. There were terrorists in Iraq sure, but come on, it was not a threat. In the whole country they couldn't even get one fighter into the air to fight us off. As for WMD's, yeah there bad, but so isn't a carving knife in the wrong hands. I was on the bandwagon with all the it's a "new" kind of war. I feel like they bait and switched this "new warfare" for Iraq.

Since this is already just an incoherent rambling mish mash, let me add on last question: Did we really go from having a Rhodes scholar to a barely C student as our fearless leader???

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:49 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Hey spelling Nazi... when you call people names why don't YOU look up the meaning?


Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELITIST - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And I love how you basically rationalized yourself into labeling me an embittered Socialist. You're a real nut.

Still - your kind can only attack people by calling them names while the rest of us post actual facts, opinions, and knowledge.



It seems that I have struck a nerve by posting actual facts, opinion and well rounded knowledge. I also believe that you did indeed act and post in an embittered elitist fashion, while speciously misusing AND mispelling words outside your vocabulary.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2004 12:45 PM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by ShinyEnder:
A war on terrorists isn't a terrible, but when did they become Iraq. There were terrorists in Iraq sure, but come on, it was not a threat. In the whole country they couldn't even get one fighter into the air to fight us off. As for WMD's, yeah there bad, but so isn't a carving knife in the wrong hands. I was on the bandwagon with all the it's a "new" kind of war. I feel like they bait and switched this "new warfare" for Iraq.



In my opinion there is a grander plan afoot. I believe there were a couple reasons we went into Iraq, other then the WMD's. Though I would like to believe that it was all for a noble cause to free the Iraqi people, I don't kid myself.

There are more selfish reasons(no..I don't believe this is all about the oil. If it was, we'd have already owned Kuwait and probably Saudi Arabia as well).

1st reason -- the de-stabilization and eventual democratization of the Middle East(forcing, if you will,their countries to move out of the biblical age and into the modern age). Can you imagine women having rights in the Middle East? I look forward to the eventual Arabic renaissance, for their artistic culture in many ways is unmatched.

We know that terrorism and its foundation still burns brightly in Iran (Our true Target IMHO). As I see it, Iraq is on one side of Iran and Afghanistan is on the other side. Once you place a country like Iran in a position where it is surrounded by 2 democracies, while fomenting from within by youth yearning for freedoms only known outside their country, there is nothing left to do except watch it implode. Lets call it, squeezing the proverbial pimple.

2nd reason -- Taking the war to their homeland, so we don't have to fight them in our own streets. As we have seen in the last several months, insurgents as well as foreign militants have been surging into the Middle East to fight the "Infidels" (anyone not an Islamafascist,and most specifically America), distracting them and essentially bringing about the Insurgent and Militant demise. Sadly capitulating to the Islamafascists merely strengthens their beliefs that they can actually win through the use of Terror.

Again, this is my own personal perception and belief.

As for the President being a barely "C" student, fortunately, college isn't the end all be all to life. There are many good examples of those who have succeeded in this world without a successful run in the university..for instance Abraham Lincoln, a middle school educated Republican, who of all people gave the Emancipation Proclamation freeing all slaves in the Confederate states.

One of my favorite Lincoln quotes, that can fit todays condition--"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865.

More often then not, more is learned out in the real world then is learned inside the walls of a University.

Personally, I think he is pretty intelligent based on the fact he has surrounded himself with some VERY intelligent people (sans Rumsfeld, who I feel should be fired along with Director of the CIA), even while I laugh at his "Bushisms". One thing I can say for him, is that he is steadfast in his beliefs, right or wrong. Unfortunately, at this time, he is currently the only candidate running for the Presidency that is.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2004 3:05 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Ruxton,

thanks for being so honest with what cannot help but be a very unpopular theory. I understand what you mean by "being conditioned to trust our government." It doesn't mean that we trust any particular candidate or other, but we trust "the system." We are conditioned to believe in democracy like a religion. We are tought to believe absolutely that our votes count. Up until recently we all believed that presidents didn't have extramarrital sex fer cryin' out loud!

Here's what I gotta say about 9/11: I have a friend who currently resides in Pittsburg who is among a few hundred (few thousand?) people who saw with their own eyes that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down. It's common knowledge in the area. Also, sadly, I have another friend who received one of the fateful cel phone calls from the second plane. How do you account for these in light of your information?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2004 8:22 PM

RUXTON


HKCavalier, I have no doubt the Pennsylvania plane was in fact shot down, based on many apparent facts, such as large pieces of it being found miles away from the main wreckage, and many witnesses having seen a second plane near it. Exactly why it was, is open to many interpretations.

However, the phone calls from any of the hijacked planes are, for me, big problems. I have a close friend who installs cell phone towers and I specifically asked him if it was possible for those calls to have been made from aircraft at low altitudes going at the reported speeds they were traveling. He said it was impossible. I have read that from other sources also.

If the calls were phony, why were they hoaxed? Were they part of a ploy to grab people's sympathy, along with the "Let's roll" quote? Some other reason? I have no idea. I'd like to know more about your friend's received phone call, what was said, etc., if that's possible.

Seven or eight of the 19 alleged hijackers are alive and well in other countries, and had nothing to do with the events. But no one has gone to interview even one of them.

Why don't the alleged hijackers appear on the airport security videos of that day? Why aren't there credit card records of their ticket purchases? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists of any of the aircraft? Why did FBI director Robert Mueller say very publicly to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that nothing on paper connected Arab terrorists to 9/11?

And on and on, no answers to hard questions, just repeats of the same rhetoric you are expected to believe without question. The bottom line of all this seems to be money:

"Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed." -Abraham Lincoln, letter to William Elkins, Nov 21, 1864.

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.." President Franklin D. Roosevelt, November 21, 1933

.......Ruxton

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:55 PM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Ruxton:


However, the phone calls from any of the hijacked planes are, for me, big problems. I have a close friend who installs cell phone towers and I specifically asked him if it was possible for those calls to have been made from aircraft at low altitudes going at the reported speeds they were traveling. He said it was impossible. I have read that from other sources also.



.......Ruxton



That sounds like a friend of a friend of a cousin of a next door neighbor of a goatherder I once knew. Can it get more esoteric than that? What exactly does this cell tower installer do for a living? Does he erect the towers? Does he install the dishes and antennaes on the towers? Does he program the transponders? Does he manage the handoff protocols? Does he design cell systems? or does he just lays cables? Under what conditions does a cellphone have problem initializing with the tower? When will a cellphone have problem switching and missing a cell handoff? Somehow all of these details are missed and dismissed with a grunt by a guy who erects towers? In the real world, this is called a fallacy of false authority.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:55 PM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Ruxton:


However, the phone calls from any of the hijacked planes are, for me, big problems. I have a close friend who installs cell phone towers and I specifically asked him if it was possible for those calls to have been made from aircraft at low altitudes going at the reported speeds they were traveling. He said it was impossible. I have read that from other sources also.



.......Ruxton



That sounds like a friend of a friend of a cousin of a next door neighbor of a goatherder I once knew. Can it get more esoteric than that? What exactly does this cell tower installer do for a living? Does he erect the towers? Does he install the dishes and antennaes on the towers? Does he program the transponders? Does he manage the handoff protocols? Does he design cell systems? or does he just lays cables? Under what conditions does a cellphone have problem initializing with the tower? When will a cellphone have problem switching and missing a cell handoff? Somehow all of these details are missed and dismissed with a grunt by a guy who erects towers? In the real world, this is called a fallacy of false authority.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 2:04 AM

LTNOWIS


Ok, there's no way I'm reading a post this long. This is a classic example of the polarization of American politics. There was a Washington Post series about it, where they had a Red state guy and a Blue state guy. Apparantly, people get their info online from people who believe the same thing as them. That's why there's all this disagreement on even the simplest facts, and all these links to conspiracy websites.
But I gotta say that I sure wouldn't vote for Bush, because he wasted all my gorram money! While his tax cuts were helping out the economy last time I checked, his big fat war is costing billions of dollars, and we're still underfunded. While it's really sad some of our soldiers have died, and many more will die, they volunteered to risk their lives for America, and I respect them for that. But I can't vote yet, and the deficit and national debt are going to be costing me a lot of money in the future, not to mention all the poor people we could be helping. We already spend like 10% of our budget just maintaining the national debt, so we really gotta balance the budget.
And just for the record, before 9/11, Hussein and Bin Ladin were mortal foes. They have entirely different ideologies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 2:16 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Ruxton:
HKCavalier, I have no doubt the Pennsylvania plane was in fact shot down, based on many apparent facts, such as large pieces of it being found miles away from the main wreckage, and many witnesses having seen a second plane near it. Exactly why it was, is open to many interpretations.

However, the phone calls from any of the hijacked planes are, for me, big problems. I have a close friend who installs cell phone towers and I specifically asked him if it was possible for those calls to have been made from aircraft at low altitudes going at the reported speeds they were traveling. He said it was impossible. I have read that from other sources also.

If the calls were phony, why were they hoaxed? Were they part of a ploy to grab people's sympathy, along with the "Let's roll" quote? Some other reason? I have no idea. I'd like to know more about your friend's received phone call, what was said, etc., if that's possible.

Seven or eight of the 19 alleged hijackers are alive and well in other countries, and had nothing to do with the events. But no one has gone to interview even one of them.

Why don't the alleged hijackers appear on the airport security videos of that day? Why aren't there credit card records of their ticket purchases? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists of any of the aircraft? Why did FBI director Robert Mueller say very publicly to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that nothing on paper connected Arab terrorists to 9/11?

And on and on, no answers to hard questions, just repeats of the same rhetoric you are expected to believe without question. The bottom line of all this seems to be money:

"Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed." -Abraham Lincoln, letter to William Elkins, Nov 21, 1864.

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.." President Franklin D. Roosevelt, November 21, 1933

.......Ruxton



I live in NY. I've been a resident for all my life. The horrors of September 11th, 2001 will be with me for the rest of my life. I have friends who have lost loved ones. I was fortunate and blessed to not lose anyone.

I personally enjoy reading about conspiracy theories , in terms of UFO's, aliens, Is the Shroud of Turin a hoax, Was Hitler Gay? Was the Moonlanding an elaborate hoax? etc..etc..

However, here there is a horrific line that has been crossed. A very real one.

I would ask out of respect for those unfortunates and families (There were whole families murdered, man, woman and small child) who perished in those planes (that DID NOT have missles attached to them, and were NOT shot down), that you not make a mockery, not post falsehoods or wild conspiracy hoax theories, belittling their deaths. They were living, breathing, beautiful, brave and wonderful people with their futures to look forward to, with things like a Father-daughter dance at a brides wedding, the birth of a child, graduation from a school, a Big business deal to change a life,and all the other things we of the living take for granted every day. If I had the opportunity today, I would give my life in exchange for the lives of any of the children in those planes or the WTC and surrounding area, whose last moments in this life were filled with fear, and their parents couldn't console them, because there was no consolation to be had.

They were not fictitious characters in a favorite TV Show or Video game.

Regardless of politics or the right or wrong of it, 9/11 did indeed happen, was not a vast American conspiracy and many had their lives snuffed out, for no other reason then fanaticism, and the fact that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Before posting such nonsense, please take a moment to consider how great it is to be alive, and how your words (however humorous or intellectual you may find them) will effect others.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 2:19 AM

ZORIAH


Ok I do not buy into the whole conspiracy thing, but I do find that the more I read of the incidents, the more questions I have as to what really happened on 9/11.

Since you asked JasonZZZ here is a link to some allegedly empirical research on using cellphones at different altitudes:

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 2:38 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Ugh..

What a banal and irresponsible site. I wonder if Jayson Blair works for them?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 3:09 AM

LTNOWIS


Quote:

I cannot believe that the attacking forces would have had the stomach to do a prolonged and bloodthirsty attack aiming at survivors.


First of all, nervouspete, you're completely right about the Liberty. The Israelis have enough foes, so they wouldn't bomb the most powerful nation just to no reason.

But people are completely capable of killing survivors. In WWII, one American sub sank a troop ship, and a few thousand Jap soldiers jumped off into the tropical waters. Then the captain drove around for a few hours and killed them all with machinegun and 4 in. gun fire. Of course, other sub captains were horrified. But, they would've done the same to us. Just wanted to point out that people have no problems with shooting up lifeboats.
By the way, I didn't read this on a liberal conspiricy website, but a reputable book about the American sub war, with lot's of military guys helping write it.

Oh yeah, and the 9/11 missile crap is a bunch of lunacy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 5:27 AM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Ruxton,

I'm sorry, my friend in P-burg is one of my closest friends in the world, but the fellow who lost his sister on one of the planes was really just someone I worked with at the time. I don't even know his last name, but he was pretty emotional about the event at the time. So did the people who got on those planes die that morning in your view? Or were the flight numbers entirely ficticious. And if the conspirators had such absolute control of the situation, what could have been the explanation for shooting one of the planes down in the skies over Pennsylvania?

The "cell phone hoax" is very troubling to me, because it really would have been an absolute stroke of genius, and if there were anyone with that kind of vision behind the Bush administration I think they would have handled a whole lot of things so much better than they have. It's really too imaginative for me to buy. Seriously, if Evil is really that clever and imaginative, we're doomed.

You know, but it ain't. The Nazis were really very short sighted and clumsy in their thinking. "Brutish" is the mind behind the camps, not "clever." The "masterminds" behind the war on Iraq should have come up with the "Hussein is a bad human rights violator" argument from the get go instead of in the eleventh hour. Remember how the Bush administration kept coming up with new spins on why we should go to war every week or so in the months leading up to the war? They just came up with one thing after another waiting for one of them to stick. Sloppy, unimaginative and opportunistic.

It's like a drunken father's prevarications about his mistress. Nobody believes his lies because he's brilliant or terribly clever. Some members of the family will deny it out of simple "love" for their father or because they just don't want to deal with the reality of betrayal, but others will be able to withstand the heartbreak of seeing the truth about their dad.

P.S: to connorflynn--I'm sorry this discussion has become so painful to you. It is painful to me as well. No one here is arguing that the events of 9/11 were not devastatingly horrible or that 3000+ people did not lose their lives. We all just want to know why and how it actually happened, if that's possible. Don't you believe the truth is worth investigating? Don't you think that if there is but the slightest chance that anything ruxton has printed is true, that it should be examined?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 5:33 AM

HERO


There you go again, Ruxton...

Quote:

Originally posted by Ruxton:
HKCavalier, I have no doubt the Pennsylvania plane was in fact shot down



I agree. As the matter of fact I have a friend who flies for the navy and he says the only way any plane can crash is if it was shot down.

Quote:


However, the phone calls from any of the hijacked planes are, for me, big problems.



Me too. In the old days you could not use phones on planes. Now they provide phones built into the seat backs for everyone to use. I knew it was a hoax. When my father called me from the plane the other day...who was I really talking to and how did that Govt agent know my dog had been messing on my rose bush?

Quote:


Seven or eight of the 19 alleged hijackers are alive and well in other countries, and had nothing to do with the events. But no one has gone to interview even one of them.



What about the arab media? They'd plaster a living hijacker across the TV. Wait...I bet Bush controls the Arab Tv networks.

Quote:


Why don't the alleged hijackers appear on the airport security videos of that day? Why aren't there credit card records of their ticket purchases? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists of any of the aircraft? Why did FBI director Robert Mueller say very publicly to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that nothing on paper connected Arab terrorists to 9/11?



1. They do, it helped ID them after the attack.
2. They paid with cash.
3. They used Arab names.
4. I guess Director Mueller thought no one would notice. Cause thats just what would happen. An elaborate global conspiracy to fake a massive terror attack spoiled by a trip to San Francisco. Well, it wouldn't be the first time.

Seriously, what conspiracy site do you subscribe to? Come on, share the nonsense for everyone to enjoy.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 6:42 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
P.S: to connorflynn--I'm sorry this discussion has become so painful to you. It is painful to me as well. No one here is arguing that the events of 9/11 were not devastatingly horrible or that 3000+ people did not lose their lives. We all just want to know why and how it actually happened, if that's possible. Don't you believe the truth is worth investigating? Don't you think that if there is but the slightest chance that anything ruxton has printed is true, that it should be examined?



Well..to answer your questions:

The posts above do argue the reality of 9/11, by quoting Conspiracy/hoax theories that are so far fetched, that it doesn't take a well schooled individual to refute them. The websites listed are irresponsible, and in my opinion, merely a motivated way to make money (they all ask for donations), by providing fictional entertainment to gullible or cynically minded people, much in the same way Scientology(Im sure L. Ron Hubbard, a science "FICTION" writer, if he were alive today would be laughing all the way to the bank) has gained a following.

Personally I wish folks spent more time watching Firefly and less time looking for rancid 9/11 theories, maybe it would still be on the air today.

9/11 has been investigated backwards, forwards, upwards and downwards. We know who the terrorists were, we know how they came to commit the crimes. Even now, many work to come up with better ways to prevent or hinder these types of heinous acts from occurring again. In this particular case there isn't the slightest chance that anything Ruxton has posted is true, so no I don't think valuable resources or time should be spent chasing fictitious, hateful in my opinion, theories.

my 2 cents.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 6:42 AM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey Ruxton,

...

The "cell phone hoax" is very troubling to me, because it really would have been an absolute stroke of genius, and if there were anyone with that kind of vision behind the Bush administration I think they would have handled a whole lot of things so much better than they have. It's really too imaginative for me to buy. Seriously, if Evil is really that clever and imaginative, we're doomed.





Not only is it preposterous to think that anything this complicated can be imagined down to the type of details it takes to carry it out, but conspiracy theorists obviously have never carried out any large projects that they believe are going on. How many people it would take to carry out this kind of planning - not just to think it out, but to carry out the shear logistics of it - have all of these people been silenced as well? Even if they didn't know what they were doing at the time ("oh, they told me to turn off the transponder on flight 77 for a test, little off procedure, but the paperwork is there..."). They've got to know afterwards and there will be plenty of talking - where are these people?

Look, most people don't realize the amount of paperwork and number of people it takes just to get the chow for a company of soldiers started and delivered out to the field. Even the simplest thing in the government takes some ooodles of people of "forms in triplicates" to accomplish. I can not imagine the number of folks it would take for this grand of a scheme.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 7:07 AM

POPEBOB


I just want Nathan Fillion to show up at one of the Presidential Addresses and say in mid speech, "Bush. Your mouth is movin.. you may want to look to that."


that would be just shiny as hell.




Ahhhh.. Curse you sudden but inevitable betrayal!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 9:43 AM

SHINYENDER



www.claimvfact.org[/]

claims vs. facts


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 10:42 AM

RUXTON


MAKE THE PIE HIGHER

I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
And potential mental losses.

Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet
Become more few?

How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.

I know that the human being
And the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope,
Where our wings take dream.

Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher!
Make the pie higher!

(All the above are direct quotes of George W. Bush, rearranged for clarity.]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 11:02 AM

DORAN


"Personally I wish folks spent more time watching Firefly and less time looking for rancid 9/11 theories, maybe it would still be on the air today"

Yeah, in fact I believe the whole 9/11 commission is a waste of time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 11:06 AM

RUXTON


Anyone seriously looking for answers and who wants to do some serious digging, I recommend visiting "whatreallyhappened.com" and following the links to news services all over the world on a large variety of subjects. Some of the information is sparse, some opinion, but much of it is hard fact from reputable news organizations worldwide. A thorough reading and analyzing of ALL the material on several related subjects will lead the serious student to some potential answers to serious questions. A few of the posters here clearly can't be bothered with opinions other than their own, but a few might find the above website to be instructive. It will take a tremendous amount of time, I warn you.

Obviously, some of our posters here already have taken time to look into things, and to question the pap they have been fed by liars and/or by a few self-indulgent dummies on this string. Their postings are not worth taking time to read, much less to merit a response.

.........Ruxton

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 12:05 PM

JASONZZZ




Anyone can dream up stuff and make wildass speculations and have the right to do so - not everything has to (or merit) logic and reason either - those things are called fantasies.

But dream up things and not be able to support them with neither fact, a logical though process, nor sound reasoning, then call it fact *and* call folks dummies when they point out the lack of fact and logical flaws - that calls for some self-delusion of the grand type.


You must believe that there were no holocause or Apollo landings either.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 12:23 PM

TALLGRRL


Quote:

Originally posted by howdyrockerbaby1:
Who thinks that our President needs to get his butt out of the White House?

I certainly do.

EDIT: CLARIFICATION: I don't think the war in Iraq was necessary at all, and so far Bush has given no reason for going, I think its great that those people are now free, but Bush shouldn't have been so cocky as to think that we could fix that entire country all on our own without the help of the UN. Besides, we have our own problems in our country to worry about before we try fixing everybody elses.

Besides his Anti-Kerry commercials are just rediculous, almost all of the information (especially on the GAS TOPIC) that he says is at least 10 years old, for instance the 50 cent gas tax information(11 years old!) Plus his speeches annoy the hell out of me

The reason why i have asked this question is because i just wanted to know the general consensus of all my wonder browncoat friends, i'm not trying to start any debate or anything.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Here's to Jayne, the box dropping man-ape-gone-wrong-thing"
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*



Amen.
There are many countries in the world living under far, far worse "dictators"(ones not sanctioned by the U.S.)than Saddam Hussein. The only thing we were intent on "liberating" are Iraq's oil resources.
If we control the country, we can help set the price for oil.
And if people take the anti-Kerry ads as truth and don't do any research on the Bush claims, they're all manner of fools.
The last election was a sham. It was like the kind of thing that happens in so-called "third world" nations.
I'm a Browncoat, and I vote.
He's not MY president. (Neither is his puppet master Cheney.)


"Take me, sir. Take me hard."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 3:10 PM

ZORIAH


Wow that claim vs fact site is hi-larious. It's pretty interesting to see the claims that various people in the govt have made, vs the facts. It shows them up as either severely memory impaired officials, or worse prevaricators of the worst degree.

Example:

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 9/26/2002

Quote/Claim:
“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.”

Fact:
“Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2004 3:16 PM

ZORIAH


Topic: Iraq - Revising History

In answer to that 'immediate threat' claim debate:



Speaker: Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense

Date: 3/14/2004

Quote/Claim:
"You and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase 'immediate threat.' I didn't...It's become kind of folklore that that's what happened."

Fact:
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq." -Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02



Topic: Iraq - Revising History

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 2/8/2004

Quote/Claim:
"I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests."

Fact:
The President made far more dire statements before the war. While Bush did call Iraq a "grave and gathering" threat, that was not all he said. On 11/23/02, he said Iraq posed a "unique and urgent threat." On 1/3/03 he said "Iraq is a threat to any American." On 10/28/02 he said Iraq was "a real and dangerous threat" to America. On 10/2/02 he said, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency" and that Iraq posed "a grave threat" to America. - Bush, 10/2/02, 10/2/02, 10/28/02 11/3/02, 1/3/03


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 1:53 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Double Post

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 1:55 AM

CONNORFLYNN


I was about to give this site a chance, until I hit the propaganda wall LOL.

This is just in their "About us" section.

Quote:

The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all Americans.


followed further down by:
Quote:

Every day we challenge conservative thinking that undermines the bedrock American values of liberty, community and shared responsibility.


Non-Partisan my Arse LOL. If you look, every headline is Pro-Democratic/Anti-Bush administration. Yeah CAP is definitely "Progressive, Open Mided and Non-Partisan"..


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 2:43 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:
Wow that claim vs fact site is hi-larious. It's pretty interesting to see the claims that various people in the govt have made, vs the facts. It shows them up as either severely memory impaired officials, or worse prevaricators of the worst degree.

Example:

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 9/26/2002

Quote/Claim:
“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.”

Fact:
“Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03



I've read David Kays published Public report and you have edited the above, which is misleading. Or the source you obtained it from is misleading you. I have included whole unedited portions, given on October 2, 2003. Removing words like "varied access and reliability" is called propagandic spin and can be misleading. The sources could be anyone from Saddam's cohorts to Saddam himself. It is very easy to get caught up in the propaganda game, especially when you claim something as fact, when it is merely conjecture at this point.

Please understand, I'm not refuting your above statements. Im adding everything you left off, so folks can get the full picture.

Quote:

Let me turn now to chemical weapons (CW). In searching for retained stocks of chemical munitions, ISG has had to contend with the almost unbelievable scale of Iraq's conventional weapons armory, which dwarfs by orders of magnitude the physical size of any conceivable stock of chemical weapons. For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined. As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordinance and to store it at the same ASPs that held conventional rounds, the size of the required search effort is enormous.

While searching for retained weapons, ISG teams have developed multiple sources that indicate that Iraq explored the possibility of CW production in recent years, possibly as late as 2003. When Saddam had asked a senior military official in either 2001 or 2002 how long it would take to produce new chemical agent and weapons, he told ISG that after he consulted with CW experts in OMI he responded it would take six months for mustard. Another senior Iraqi chemical weapons expert in responding to a request in mid-2002 from Uday Husayn for CW for the Fedayeen Saddam estimated that it would take two months to produce mustard and two years for Sarin.

We are starting to survey parts of Iraq's chemical industry to determine if suitable equipment and bulk chemicals were available for chemical weapons production. We have been struck that two senior Iraqi officials volunteered that if they had been ordered to resume CW production Iraq would have been willing to use stainless steel systems that would be disposed of after a few production runs, in place of corrosive-resistant equipment which they did not have.

We continue to follow leads on Iraq's acquisition of equipment and bulk precursors suitable for a CW program. Several possibilities have emerged and are now being exploited. One example involves a foreign company with offices in Baghdad, that imported in the past into Iraq dual-use equipment and maintained active contracts through 2002. Its Baghdad office was found looted in August 2003, but we are pursuing other locations and associates of the company.

Information obtained since OIF has identified several key areas in which Iraq may have engaged in proscribed or undeclared activity since 1991, including research on a possible VX stabilizer, research and development for CW-capable munitions, and procurement/concealment of dual-use materials and equipment.

Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that(this is the part you left off) Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections. (you left this off as well)We are carefully examining dual-use, commercial chemical facilities to determine whether these were used or planned as alternative production sites.

We have also acquired information related to Iraq's CW doctrine and Iraq's war plans for OIF, but we have not yet found evidence to confirm pre-war reporting that Iraqi military units were prepared to use CW against Coalition forces. Our efforts to collect and exploit intelligence on Iraq's chemical weapons program have thus far yielded little reliable information on post-1991 CW stocks and CW agent production, although we continue to receive and follow leads related to such stocks. We have multiple reports that Iraq retained CW munitions made prior to 1991, possibly including mustard - a long-lasting chemical agent - but we have to date been unable to locate any such munitions.




For anyone who would like to read the full report, I've included a link to his speech, here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003
.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 4:16 AM

FLYINFREE


I am posting this but did not write it or research it, take it as you will...

George W. Bush - Resume

The White House, USA

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

LAW ENFORCEMENT:

I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.

MILITARY:

I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

COLLEGE:

I graduated from Yale University with a low C average.

I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.

I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.

With the help of my father and our right-wing friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Kenneth Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.

During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.

I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.

With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.

In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest" millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.

I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

I set the record for fewest number of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period.

After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, and the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in war time.

In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends.

I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 4:46 AM

HKCAVALIER


Hey connorflynn,

I don't really see any substantive difference between the short quotation ("they don't got any") and the long quotation ("we really looked hard and a lot of folks said they might have something, there's still a lot of places that they might hide stuff, but as far as we know, they don't got any"). And what I mean by "substantive" is anything that would take use from "don't and might" to "they do."

And there's still a big difference between 45 minutes and 2 years.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 5:18 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


A lie can get around the world before truth can get its pants on - Winston Churchill, (paraphrasing Mark Twain.)

You just told a whole MESS of lies. I suppose you expect us to do research on each and every lie, distortion and misrepresented statement. Since most of us have real lives and real jobs ( I happen to have 2 jobs, ) I'll just randomly pick 2 items which are false.

- In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends.
*** There was no lie, what so ever. See, all the Left can do is SAY Bush lied, but not ONCE can they cite an example of WHERE he lied. Fact is, not only did Iraq get its nuclear material for its Nuclear power plant ( wonder why a oil rich nation NEEDS nuclear power? hmmm ) from Africa, but the British intell STILL stands by their findings. No lie there, sorry. ***

- I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
*** Good for W! There is absolutely ZERO reason why the *UN has any business trying to have a hand in OUR elections. We've been doing our own elections for longer than the UN has been in existence. We aren't some developing 3rd world country that has never had a national election before. This is ( like so many items on here ) a complete and utter red herring. ***

*The same corrupt UN that skimmed MILLIONS from the Food for Oil scam which oddly enough involved all those countrys who didnt' want the US to invade Iraq. The biggest KNOWN scandal that has been uncovered at the UN, which goes all the way up to the top and is a fair example of why NOT to trust the UN to do much of anything.


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 8:25 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Hey spelling Nazi... when you call people names why don't YOU look up the meaning?


Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELITIST - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And I love how you basically rationalized yourself into labeling me an embittered Socialist. You're a real nut.

Still - your kind can only attack people by calling them names while the rest of us post actual facts, opinions, and knowledge.



It seems that I have struck a nerve by posting actual facts, opinion and well rounded knowledge. I also believe that you did indeed act and post in an embittered elitist fashion, while speciously misusing AND mispelling words outside your vocabulary.


Liar.

You didn't post one little fact. I made a FRICKIN' LIST. What's your problem?

I'll tell ya. You are a liar! If someone says GWB is bad, you will disagree without hesitation. Does that sound rational? No, but it does sound familiar.

I didn't call anyone names but you jumped right up and called me an ELITIST. Dead giveaway as using that word in this context is only found comming from the mouth of GWB and other White House language police. Oh, and elitist doesn't mean that as I've already demonstrated above... which you still ignored just like everything else everyone else posted.

Rush Limbaugh called and he wants his rhetoric back!

And I noticed Connerflynn is far more fast and loose with facts than anyone here and he refuses to offer any facts that he can stand behind. Worse, he childishly side steps issues as if that's an Ok thing to do in a debate. Well, it isn't.

For example - When Connerflynn states that 9/11 has been investigated in detail, why would anyone believe that? We all recently know that the families of the 9/11 Attacks are trying desperately to get the White House to stop CENSORING THAT VERY INFORMATION! Then Connerflynn states he's very close to these victems because he is in New York. Well, if he's so close why did he say this?

Wild guess - He's not in New York. He's not close to anyone related to the 9/11 Attacks. He is a liar.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 8:34 AM

MAUGWAI


Quote:

Originally posted by FlyinFree:
I am posting this but did not write it or research it, take it as you will...

George W. Bush - Resume



Where did you get it?



"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 9:29 AM

FLYINFREE


Quote:

Originally posted by maugwai:
Where did you get it?



Chain email.

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 12:16 PM

DARKJESTER


POLITICAL DEBATE IN AMERICA

aka The Puppet Show

Two puppets enter the "Punch and Judy"-style puppet stage from either wing, and face the audience

puppet1) "The candidate you like is a poopy-head!"

puppet2) "The candidate you like is a doody-head!"

puppet1) "Oh, so original"

puppet2) "Well, nyuh to you!"

puppet1) "It's pronounced 'nee-ah', moron"

puppet2) "Only by backwoods rednecks like you, jackass!. The original French pronunciation is used in sophisticated circles."

puppet1) "French pronunciation, eh? You saying you don't like how we do things here in AMERICA?!"

puppet2) "Stop twisting my words! I said nothing of the sort!"

puppet1) "You said you use French in your conversations. I'll bet you drive a German car too!"

puppet2) "I'm not going to dignify that with a response...LA LA LA LA..."

puppet1) "Guess that means I win"

puppet2) "What? Can't HEAR you...LA LA LA LA"

puppet1) "Like I thought, no answers to the tough questions"

puppet2) "Maybe if you'd ASK some questions instead of making sweeping statements...."

puppet1) "I asked you a question not two minutes ago, and you refused to answer it. Your side just avoids the subjects you can't answer."

puppet2) "Instead of asking about the economy, or the war, or health care, or taxes, you asked a rhetorical question about my views on American speech, right?"

puppet1) "Right. See, right there, I answered your question. Why won't you answer mine?"

..and so on and so forth, ad nauseum....




And as a final note, I learned a LOT about politics in the Bush-Gore election of 2000. Gore's camp insisting that certain areas of Florida be recounted, Bush's camp insisting that the votes had been "counted, re-counted, and counted again" I believe the phrase was. But I then realized that, had the count gone the other way and put Gore on top, he would have been using the EXACT SAME ARGUEMENTS to stop any further re-counting, and Bush would have been shouting JUST AS LOUDLY that the re-counts were essential to the democratic process.
Robert A. Heinlein wrote that politics are only slightly less important to a human being than breathing. I just wish that politics didn't leave such an ugly, noxious taste in the back of my mouth........







MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 1:08 PM

JASONZZZ

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 1:30 PM

CONNORFLYNN


Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Hey spelling Nazi... when you call people names why don't YOU look up the meaning?


Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELITIST - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And I love how you basically rationalized yourself into labeling me an embittered Socialist. You're a real nut.

Still - your kind can only attack people by calling them names while the rest of us post actual facts, opinions, and knowledge.



It seems that I have struck a nerve by posting actual facts, opinion and well rounded knowledge. I also believe that you did indeed act and post in an embittered elitist fashion, while speciously misusing AND mispelling words outside your vocabulary.


Quote:

Liar.

You didn't post one little fact. I made a FRICKIN' LIST. What's your problem?



Awful defensive aren't ya? ;) As for your list of "FACTS" There is a difference between "Opinion" and "Fact". Everything you have posted up to now has been pure conjecture and 100% poorly worded opinion with zero fact.

I posted a number of facts, along with the sources.

Quote:

I'll tell ya. You are a liar! If someone says GWB is bad, you will disagree without hesitation. Does that sound rational? No, but it does sound familiar.


I don't believe I've really disagreed with anyone who has posted a rational (emphasis on rational) thought on this topic. I may correct or add my own 2 cents, but not disagree. Everyone is entitled. If you'll notice, I haven't attacked any politician or nationality or political affiliation (Except for Islamafascism, which I find abhorrent). I don't mock our leaders, even if I find them amusing.

Quote:

I didn't call anyone names but you jumped right up and called me an ELITIST. Dead giveaway as using that word in this context is only found comming from the mouth of GWB and other White House language police. Oh, and elitist doesn't mean that as I've already demonstrated above... which you still ignored just like everything else everyone else posted.


I'm not sure I follow you on this one? Too much rambling. This is actually entertaining. As for the Elitist part..I still believe it fits the bill. The republican administration doesn't have the corner on the market for the use of that word. It has been around for ages.

Quote:

Rush Limbaugh called and he wants his rhetoric back!

Hehe..good one. What rhetoric did I steal from him again? Since I don't listen to him. Maybe I should start listening to him.

Quote:

And I noticed Connerflynn is far more fast and loose with facts than anyone here and he refuses to offer any facts that he can stand behind. Worse, he childishly side steps issues as if that's an Ok thing to do in a debate. Well, it isn't.


One minute I don't use facts, next minute they are loose? LOL. What issue(s) have I sidestepped? Again, I have offerred a multitude of facts and their sources.

Saying Bill Clinton sucks, or George W. Bush is ignorant are opinions not facts(though in some cases I suppose a good argument could be made, with the use of various evidence)

Quote:

For example - When Connerflynn states that 9/11 has been investigated in detail, why would anyone believe that?


WOW..

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html

And that's just one source. How many ya want?

Quote:

We all recently know that the families of the 9/11 Attacks are trying desperately to get the White House to stop CENSORING THAT VERY INFORMATION!


Once again pure conjecture with no basis in reality. Give me "FACTS", not opinion, rumor, or propaganda with no foundation.

Quote:

Then Connerflynn states he's very close to these victems because he is in New York. Well, if he's so close why did he say this?

Wild guess - He's not in New York. He's not close to anyone related to the 9/11 Attacks. He is a liar.



Sorry Ghoulman, I do indeed live in NY.

Oh..and its Connorflynn, with an "o" not an "e" ;)

"Humility is only humility, if you are good enough at something to be humble about it"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 1:43 PM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Darkjester:
And as a final note, I learned a LOT about politics in the Bush-Gore election of 2000. Gore's camp insisting that certain areas of Florida be recounted, Bush's camp insisting that the votes had been "counted, re-counted, and counted again" I believe the phrase was. But I then realized that, had the count gone the other way and put Gore on top, he would have been using the EXACT SAME ARGUEMENTS to stop any further re-counting, and Bush would have been shouting JUST AS LOUDLY that the re-counts were essential to the democratic process.
Robert A. Heinlein wrote that politics are only slightly less important to a human being than breathing. I just wish that politics didn't leave such an ugly, noxious taste in the back of my mouth........



Sadly, I agree with you. Unfortunately the 2000 elections set an ugly precedent. I have heard rumors that both sides are building warchests for Recounts during the next election.

Yes, Bush lost the popular vote. He did win the electoral vote. Which is how our current elections are won and lost.

Heinlein quote..very nice =)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 1:54 PM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey connorflynn,

I don't really see any substantive difference between the short quotation ("they don't got any") and the long quotation ("we really looked hard and a lot of folks said they might have something, there's still a lot of places that they might hide stuff, but as far as we know, they don't got any"). And what I mean by "substantive" is anything that would take use from "don't and might" to "they do."

And there's still a big difference between 45 minutes and 2 years.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.



I'm not sure what you mean by difference between 45 minutes and 2 years? Please clarify.

As for the report,

To me there is a difference between "not having for sure", and "They had them, we just can't seem to find any at the moment..because they aren't exactly facilitating the search" hehe. I guess that was why I posted the unedited paragraphs. Take it as you like. there are many reports. All of which are interesting in their own right.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 2:17 PM

ZORIAH


Whether the site presents itself as nonpartisan or not is not the point.

It doesn't change that it shows up the hypocrisy and spin that is going on.

It still is amusing and alarming to use the database and search out claims the govt officials have made that are apparently completely false, contradictory or deliberately misleading.

I didn't edit anything, that's the way it is presented in the database.

Think of it as a guide. There are sources quoted there, just click on the reference link below the entry. There is nothing stopping you from verifying the facts in question yourself with your own research.

About nuclear/biological weapon proliferation:


Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense

Date: 5/14/2003

Quote/Claim:
"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."

Fact:
"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 3/16/03



Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 9/26/2002

Quote/Claim:
“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.”

Fact:
“Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03






Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense

Date: 3/25/2004

Quote/Claim:
"Indeed, I have no reason to believe that the intelligence that the United States government had and that Secretary Powell presented to the United Nations is anything but accurate.”

Fact:
"Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong." - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, testimony before Armed Services Committee, 1/28/04 Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said. - NY Times, 1/9/04





Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 1/28/2003

Quote/Claim:
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Fact:
On 7/8/03, the Washington Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. “Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere” made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation (7/20/03). In fact, “CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference” removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. - Washington Post, 7/13/03



Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 2/8/2004

Quote/Claim:
"I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible...The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon."

Fact:
The White House was repeatedly warned by the intelligence community about the imprecision of intelligence on WMD's. The day before the President appeared on Meet The Press, The Washington Post reported, "President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons." Specifically, the President made unequivocal statements that Iraq "has got chemical weapons" two months after the DIA concluded that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." He said, "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production" three months after the White House received an intelligence report that clearly indicated Department of Energy experts concluded the tubes were not intended to produce uranium enrichment centrifuges. He said, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," three months after "the CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about" the claim. - Washington Post, 2/7/04; Bush statement, 11/3/02; DIA report, 2002; Bush statement, 1/28/03; NIE, October, 2002; WP, 7/23/03; Bush statement, 10/7/02; WP, 9/26/03





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 1, 2004 2:23 PM

ZORIAH


And for Connorflynn

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 10/7/2002

Quote/Claim:
"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait?"

Fact:
Bush didn't care whether or not Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. When Diane Sawyer tried to make a distinction between stating as a "hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons," Bush snapped back "so what's the difference?" - ABC, 12/16/03


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:38 - 43 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Wed, November 27, 2024 14:38 - 45 posts
NATO
Wed, November 27, 2024 14:24 - 16 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL