WMDs VS CBS

[kmack]

I wish someone could explain to me how President Bush can get away with being dead wrong about Weapons of Mass Destruction, base a war around that incorrect theory, and then flip-floop, say that the war is to spread freedom and liberty, even thouugh there are no WMDs, and not be held responsible. Then a few CBS reporters make slight lies about a report on Bush's military service and are promptly fired amid much scandal.

Which got more publicity, the lies of our president which resulted in the deaths of many young soldiers for a cause that has yet to be defined, or the mistake of some journalists which resulted in wrong information that no one cares about.

It is the media destroying our society, they manipulate all which we do, and do so through such a veil of opinion and bias it is impossible to find truth.

 

[CptStern]

the rise of the right ..nuff said

 

[burner69]

I too have asked this question a few times. I don't get it. If I was Blair or Bush I would have resigned out of honour - I said there were WMDs, there wasn't, my nation went to war.

But I'll be quite honest I think they knew it was very unlikely that they would find any - all the evidence pointed that way, they just chose to ignore it.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I said there were WMDs, there wasn't, my nation went to war.

So Clinton should have also resigned correct? (he bombed Iraq the night of his impeachment hearing for this reason) Kerry shouldnt have run for the Presidency correct?

 

[No Limit]

So Clinton should have also resigned correct? (he bombed Iraq the night of his impeachment hearing for this reason) Kerry shouldnt have run for the Presidency correct?

Kerry wasn't the one that said this evidance of WMDs was concrete; Bush said there is no way this evidance could be faulty. The entire world disagreed with him and there was a bit of intelligence that said otherwise; Bush never presented that. That lead congress to approve the resolution. Also, do you understand that in March 03 70% of Americans thought Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11? Who do you think gave them that idea, Kerry?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Kerry wasn't the one that said this evidance of WMDs was concrete

He said Iraq had WMD. Final answer.

Also, do you understand that in March 03 70% of Americans thought Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11?

I wonder where they got that thought? Perhaps it stemmed from the fact they had been hostile to the US over the past decade? Perphaps it stemmed from the Iraqi attempted to assasinate ex- President Bush? Perhaps it stems from the belief that Iraq was responsible for the 1st attack against the WTC?

 

[kmack]

Clinton bombed Yugoslavia, it was Bush SR who bombed Iraq. Good try though Seinfeld, good try.

 

[CptStern]

I wonder where they got that thought?

ya I wonder where:


In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

"Iraq has sent bombmaking and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."


source

 

[seinfeldrules]

Stern, 9/11 and al Qaeda are two different things. One is an organization, the other is an event.

But at the time President Bush said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]."

 

[CptStern]

Stern, 9/11 and al Qaeda are two different things. One is an organization, the other is an event.

hmmm I wonder who provided the info in the first place


oh ya this guy too:


"Chalabi even participated in a secret Defense Policy Board meeting just a few days after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and the Pentagon in which the main topic of discussion, according to the 'Wall Street Journal', was how 9/11 could be used as a pretext for attacking Iraq"

The Telegraph reported that Chalabi merely shrugged off accusations his group had deliberately misled the administration. ''We are heroes in error'', he said.

''As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful'', he told the newspaper. ''That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants''.

It was an amazing admission, and certain to fuel growing suspicions on Capitol Hill that Chalabi, whose INC received millions of dollars in taxpayer money over the past decade, effectively conspired with his supporters in and around the administration to take the United States to war on pretences they knew, or had reason to know, were false."



source

 

[Bodacious]

Stern, 9/11 and al Qaeda are two different things. One is an organization, the other is an event.

Give up seinfeld. Read my sig. No amount of fact will change their minds. No limit, stern, and the thread starter fit that mold perfectly.

 

[CptStern]

No amount of fact will change their minds

how ironic

 

[kmack]

The question remains, wouldn't it have been prudent (hahahhah Bush Sr. does give us some good quotes), for the President of the United States to acknowledge that there are no WMD's. The whole reason we went to Iraq was to stop the immenent threat of WMD's. We balked at NATO's reluctance and went ahead with very few allies (British and Polish really) on a wild goose chase, over a thousand US soldiers are dead, and there are no, and never were (during Bush's presidency at least) WMD's in Iraq. As for the argument that they have ties to terrorists well so does Afghanistan, and I should not that Afghanistan has fallen off the maps, and I would not be surprised for a major pull-out from there. And why not attack Saudi Arabia they are known sponsers of terrorists, 13 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the reason is, they are generous with their oil trade to us. Iraq is not. Now that it has been proved that there were no WMD's the war becomes one of freedom and liberty (the same type of war we had in cuba, and the phillipines at the turn of the 20th century, which killed over 200,000 phillipino civilians who wanted nothing more than the right to govern themselves, we are still a presence in the Phillipines and Cuba to this day) in which we force our ideals on the country, while noble, it is certainly not a reason that NATO, Congress, and the American public would tolerate going to war over.

What it boils down to is that we went to war to stop WMD's, not to spread freedom. Bush is sidestepping the issue and forging forth costing more Americans and Iraqi lives each and every day.

It is time to stop allowing ourselves to be mislead, to be convinced a war in Iraq was necessary to stop WMD's that ARE NOT, and perhaps WERE NOT there in the first place. It is a grand lie, and the motives of which we will not know for sure for a few years to come, but I assume it has a lot to do with OIL, just like the 1990 war lead by, you guessed it Bush Sr.

What we need now is a voice we can trust, the media is too biased and opinionated, they follow a strict if it bleed's it leads mantra. They care only about getting the average American in front of their news program and to do that they need violence, without any substance. If we can't get the truth from the White House, or the majority of the media, where can we turn?

 

[kmack]

Bodacious, Rush Limbaug is a pain killer addict who never worked a day in his life. His words mean less than nothing to me.

May I remind you this thread is not intended to Bush bash, it is simply to discuss why the fact that
THE UNTITED STATES OFFICIALLY announced that Iraq has no, and did not have any weapons of mass destruction, and the basis of our war was in fact defraught.

And why that got less media attention than the three CBS employee's who made some documentation errors and provided false documents.

 

[Bodacious]

What it boils down to is that we went to war to stop WMD's, not to spread freedom. Bush is sidestepping the issue and forging forth costing more Americans and Iraqi lives each and every day.

What left wing propaganda machine have you been reading?

Here is the resolution congress voted on to go to war with Iraq

Read it and weep. Here are the Highlights:

These are quoted directly from the link above.

raq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace.

Now then, knowing the fact that CONGRESS voted to go to war on Iraq, not only based on WMDs, but also for humanitarian reasons, are you still going to reply back to me and say the only reason we went to war with Iraq was WMDs? I won't be surprised if you do, you won't be the first person on here to be ran over by this overbearing fact and still try and refute it. Hell, even member of congress look past it.

 

[seinfeldrules]

hmmm I wonder who provided the info in the first place


oh ya this guy too:


"Chalabi even participated in a secret Defense Policy Board meeting just a few days after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and the Pentagon in which the main topic of discussion, according to the 'Wall Street Journal', was how 9/11 could be used as a pretext for attacking Iraq"

The Telegraph reported that Chalabi merely shrugged off accusations his group had deliberately misled the administration. ''We are heroes in error'', he said.

''As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful'', he told the newspaper. ''That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants''.

It was an amazing admission, and certain to fuel growing suspicions on Capitol Hill that Chalabi, whose INC received millions of dollars in taxpayer money over the past decade, effectively conspired with his supporters in and around the administration to take the United States to war on pretences they knew, or had reason to know, were false."



source

Stern, 9/11 and al Qaeda are two different things. One is an organization, the other is an event.

 

[Bodacious]

Bodacious, Rush Limbaug is a pain killer addict who never worked a day in his life. His words mean less than nothing to me.

May I remind you this thread is not intended to Bush bash, it is simply to discuss why the fact that
THE UNTITED STATES OFFICIALLY announced that Iraq has no, and did not have any weapons of mass destruction, and the basis of our war was in fact defraught.

And why that got less media attention than the three CBS employee's who made some documentation errors and provided false documents.

Like I care what you think about Rush Limbaugh. If you ignore what I just posted above you will have proved Rush right.

Not a thread to Bash Bush? I just posted the basis for the war. Humanitarian reasons are cited there, plain as day.

At the end of the day, I proved you wrong and the 3 cbs employees are still jobless.

Anything else?

 

[CptStern]

"1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"

well. ..that was a lie: no american has ever been killed by saddam


"but also for humanitarian reasons,"


oh that's rich

 

[seinfeldrules]

It is time to stop allowing ourselves to be mislead, to be convinced a war in Iraq was necessary to stop WMD's that ARE NOT, and perhaps WERE NOT there in the first place. It is a grand lie, and the motives of which we will not know for sure for a few years to come, but I assume it has a lot to do with OIL, just like the 1990 war lead by, you guessed it Bush Sr.

I scanned over the first part because I really had no interest in what you were saying, then I hit this. I guess we (and the world) should have allowed to Saddam to conquer an independent, free nation and place its resources under his control correct?

 

[kmack]

What did we hear about in the media? What was presented to us as the MAIN purpose for the war. What was the word intended to incite fear and outrage in the american citizens. What one thing justified our going against NATO, we went against the will of NATO to do this. what was the main focus of Bush's speeches, if you tell me anything other than WMD's you are lying.

Can you honestly say that you think it is worth the lives of more than 1000 american soldiers, undoubtedly younger than you (whom im sure has never served his country) to spread freedom in Iraq?

Is it worth the over 100 BILLION dollars? I just don't think that it is, im sorry if you dont like it.

And as a final note, can you tell me about Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani.

 

[seinfeldrules]

"1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"

well. ..that was a lie: no american has ever been killed by saddam


"but also for humanitarian reasons,"


oh that's rich

Sigh, you keep going on off unrelated tangents. For the last time:

Stern, 9/11 and al Qaeda are two different things. One is an organization, the other is an event.

But at the time President Bush said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]."

 

[Bodacious]

"1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"

well. ..that was a lie: no american has ever been killed by saddam

But palestinian famlies were paid to kill people. That quote is obvious reference to Saddam's suppport of terror.

"but also for humanitarian reasons,"


oh that's rich

Doesn't change congress' resolution to go to war with Iraq does it?

 

[CptStern]

who cares? I'm supporting No Limit's assertion that bush gave americans the idea there was a link between saddam and 9/11

oh and never ever use the humanitarian excuse again ..or I'll have to bust out the tried and true "we think it was worth it" quote

 

[seinfeldrules]

Can you honestly say that you think it is worth the lives of more than 1000 american soldiers, undoubtedly younger than you (whom im sure has never served his country) to spread freedom in Iraq?

Stay away from personal attacks and go back to debating. And yes, the war was worth it, even if it accomplishes nothing besides the advancement of freedom into the ME. Iraq has the huge potential to become a country which all Muslims living in the ME look at with immense respect.

oh and never ever use the humanitarian excuse again ..or I'll have to bust out the tried and true "we think it was worth it" quote

Then I'll be forced to bust out what she really meant, but this thread isnt about that.

 

[kmack]

We are acting as Imperialist's the rest of the world is upset (aside from mighty poland and the brits). Without NATO's consent, we should not have entered this war, except to defend ourselves from WMD's. There are no WMD's, we have ignored NATO for what, to be humanitarians? what do you think nato is. If we want to spread freedom why not to the Congo, the atrocitites committed there are much worse than anything in Iraq, that is a fact. But there is no oil in the Congo.

 

[CptStern]

But palestinian famlies were paid to kill people. That quote is obvious reference to Saddam's suppport of terror.

how? where? it clearly says:

"1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"

Doesn't change congress' resolution to go to war with Iraq does it?

what does that have to do with anything ..I'm non-partisan remember?

 

[seinfeldrules]

If we want to spread freedom why not to the Congo, the atrocitites committed there are much worse than anything in Iraq,

I think the Sudan and NK are better places to begin.

 

[burner69]

I wonder where they got that thought? Perhaps it stemmed from the fact they had been hostile to the US over the past decade? Perphaps it stemmed from the Iraqi attempted to assasinate ex- President Bush? Perhaps it stems from the belief that Iraq was responsible for the 1st attack against the WTC?

So surely everyone should have thought that any country who's been hostile to the US over the past decade carried out 9/11.

They didn't.

They thought it was Iraq, and 70% is a lot of people. I watched the reports and although they sometimes slipped a line in to cover their asses, the amount of times Saddam was said alongside 9/11, the amount of times he had ties with 9/11 terrorists, the amount of times I heard how much he hated us, and how much of a blow 9/11 was to us, all in the same breath.

70% of people fell for the propaganda machine, it's irresonsible to allow that to happen, and foolish to shrug it off. I wonder where that little machine will lead us next? I wonder how long it will take for people to realise that Bush cannot be trusted to give us accurate information, without either spinning it insanely, or just outright lying about it.

 

[CptStern]

Then I'll be forced to bust out what she really meant, but this thread isnt about that.

and then I'll bust out the multitudes of documents that proves what she said is true

 

[kmack]

Exactly what I am saying, North Korea HAS WMD's they admit it! they commit atrocities to their people, there are more than 1 high ranking officials who speak of genocide. The congo is perhaps one of the most destitute, dangerous, impoverished, suppressed and horrible places on earth, yet we do nothing. If we must spend American lives, and billions of dollars, can it be on somewhere that HAS WMD's, or somewhere that has SEVERE problems.

The Congolese have more problems than the Iraqi's. North Korea has more (which means 1) WMD's than Iraq.

Why Iraq?
Why defy NATO for Iraq?
Why divide a nation for Iraq?

I honestly dont know.

 

[CptStern]

Why Iraq?
Why defy NATO for Iraq?
Why divide a nation for Iraq?

I honestly dont know.

short answer: $

 

[kmack]

Yes i'm sure money has something to do with it, Oil as well is an Underlying condition for the war in Iraq.

But we do also want to spread freedom and democracy. The elections are a great step forward. Life there is better than with Saddam.

But Iraq had it easy compared to other places in the world, such as Africa (again the congolese which no one in the government, democrats included, will acknowledge), so freedom from oppression isn't the only motive, or we would be doing things elsewhere first, or at least as well.

 

[Bodacious]

What did we hear about in the media? What was presented to us as the MAIN purpose for the war. What was the word intended to incite fear and outrage in the american citizens. What one thing justified our going against NATO, we went against the will of NATO to do this. what was the main focus of Bush's speeches, if you tell me anything other than WMD's you are lying.

Bush can make speeches about WMDs till he is blue in the face, but congress doesn't vote on Bush's speech do they?

Can you honestly say that you think it is worth the lives of more than 1000 american soldiers, undoubtedly younger than you (whom im sure has never served his country) to spread freedom in Iraq?

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS!!

I served in Iraq during major combat operations. I was there for 9 months. I was 40 miles away from Baghdad when Saddam's statue fell. I am greatly offended by your assumption.

Hell yes it was worth it, want to know why?

There is 2 reasons why? Want more?

Is it worth the over 100 BILLION dollars? I just don't think that it is, im sorry if you dont like it.

Try 200 billion. Worth every penny.

And as a final note, can you tell me about Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani.

What would you like to know?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Exactly what I am saying, North Korea HAS WMD's they admit it! they commit atrocities to their people, there are more than 1 high ranking officials who speak of genocide. The congo is perhaps one of the most destitute, dangerous, impoverished, suppressed and horrible places on earth, yet we do nothing. If we must spend American lives, and billions of dollars, can it be on somewhere that HAS WMD's, or somewhere that has SEVERE problems.

The Congolese have more problems than the Iraqi's. North Korea has more (which means 1) WMD's than Iraq.

Why Iraq?
Why defy NATO for Iraq?
Why divide a nation for Iraq?

I honestly dont know.

I agree with your assesment on NK. Why Iraq? I believe it is because they were a proven aggressive nation. The casualty count of invading NK would also be at least 50X higher.

 

[kmack]

Exactly what I am saying, North Korea HAS WMD's they admit it! they commit atrocities to their people, there are more than 1 high ranking officials who speak of genocide. The congo is perhaps one of the most destitute, dangerous, impoverished, suppressed and horrible places on earth, yet we do nothing. If we must spend American lives, and billions of dollars, can it be on somewhere that HAS WMD's, or somewhere that has SEVERE problems.

The Congolese have more problems than the Iraqi's. North Korea has more (which means 1) WMD's than Iraq.

Why Iraq?
Why defy NATO for Iraq?
Why divide a nation for Iraq?

I honestly dont know.

That is my question. Bush has not been up front, and congress when controlled by the republicans, votes for whatever bush says, thats how government works.

It just seems our priorities are governed not by compassion or we would be in the Congo.

It seems our priorities are not driven by fear of WMDs or we would be in North Korea.

 

[Bodacious]

We are acting as Imperialist's the rest of the world is upset (aside from mighty poland and the brits). Without NATO's consent, we should not have entered this war, except to defend ourselves from WMD's. There are no WMD's, we have ignored NATO for what, to be humanitarians? what do you think nato is. If we want to spread freedom why not to the Congo, the atrocitites committed there are much worse than anything in Iraq, that is a fact. But there is no oil in the Congo.

First, it is not NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization had nothing to do with the United Nation's intenet to veto our resolution to go to war.

Second, you want to rely on UN for humanitarian causes? Where was the UN in Rawand? Where was the UN in Kosovo? Where is the UN in the Congo for that matter?


The UN has no crediblity.

 

[Bodacious]

how? where? it clearly says:

"1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"

Are you denying saddam paid palestinian famlies to blow Israelies up? Saddam supported terror, there is no question about that. That was the continuing threat.

what does that have to do with anything ..I'm non-partisan remember?

Past mistakes (your water treatment assesment) don't change the Congress' Iraq war resolution does it?

 

[kmack]

you did not answer my question. And what you say is true where is the UN in rwanda, they are there more than we are.

 

[seinfeldrules]

It seems our priorities are not driven by fear of WMDs or we would be in North Korea.

But we (as a country, not a party) believed that Saddam also had WMD. It wasnt something Bush made up, it wasnt something Kerry made up, it was what our nation's intelligence community was telling us.

 

[CptStern]

hah! the UN has no credibility? if that's true then the US never had any to begin with ..you've blown your credibility for generations to come:

citizen 1: "oh look the US is starting to make noise about Madagascar and WMD"

citizen 2: "meh Haliburton must need some more cash"

cheney: "**** OFF!"