George W. Bush

[BB]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:33:47 -0500, Ian St. John wrote:

> Whatever is your problem, get over it.

My "problem" is I read the resolutions, not old newspaper articles. And
I'm more concerned about what the Security Council does, not why you think
they did it.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

[Stephen Baker]

Ian Sinjun says:

<snip>

>Simpley reading the facts and making logical predictions. Hardly prophecy.
>

That's "simply", Ian.

Why don't you take this "discussion" back to alt.politics.whogivesafuck ?

Steve

 

[The Horny Goat]

Speaking of Dubya is there any public indication of what he rides?

 

[BB]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:19:41 GMT, The Horny Goat wrote:
> Speaking of Dubya is there any public indication of what he rides?

Google is your friend:

http://outside.away.com/outside/decision04/index_2.html

See picture capture: " George W. Bush on his Trek mountain bike. (AP)"

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

[Lady Chatterly]

In article <t%[email protected]> B i l l S o r n s o n <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>V.Simkins wrote:
>> first of all, ken, would you mind supplying a link proving what you
>> just wrote, to humour me?
>>
>>> dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will
>>> soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
>>
>> it has never been proven with hard evidence that saddam had such
>> things, at least not to my knowledge. besides, even if he did torture
>> and rape men and woman, american soldiers have been, and are probably
>> at this moment, doing the same.
>
>I think "Simkins" should be spelled with a 'p' in the middle.

Glutton: one who digs his grave with his teeth.

--
Lady Chatterly

"LOL. I'll have to pop over there. You know somebody is a waste of
oxygen if they get plonked by a bot, jeezus tap dancing christ." --
Rev Turd Fredericks

 

[Ian St. John]

BB wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:33:47 -0500, Ian St. John wrote:
>
>> Whatever is your problem, get over it.
>
> My "problem" is I read the resolutions, not old newspaper articles.
> And I'm more concerned about what the Security Council does, not why
> you think they did it.

The problem lies in your rather simplistic and unfounded interpretation of
real politics.

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ken [NY] wrote:

>> "I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The Vice
>> President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al
>> Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.
>
>No. That was the repeated claims that were finally admitted to be false by
>Rumsfeld. If this is a quote from Cheney, then congratulations for proving
>the positive that Cheney did make connections between Iraq and 9/11.

If anyone wants proof that "Ian St. John" is a troll, consider that
first he trims off the portion of Ken's post that clearly indicates
the quote is from Lee Hamilton, the Democrat vice-chairman of the 9/11
commission, then constructs a strawman based on the quote being from
Cheney.

I will not feed the troll... I will not feed the troll...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

"B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ian St. John wrote:
>> The 9/11 attacks are pretty much assumed or believed to be Al-Quaeda,
>> so a link between Iraq and 9/11 is about a link between Iraq and
>> Al-Quaeda.
>
>If that's an example of his critical thinking skills, then why are we
>wasting our ions on Ian?!?
>
>Freshman Logic...

Pre-freshman logic, actually.

I'm absolutely convinced "Ian St. John" is a troll, and I've resolved
not to feed the troll any longer. You're right - he's not worth the
virtual oxygen it takes. It would be more productive to debate with a
turnip.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>> >
>>> >>You really are that stupid too,
>>> >>aren't you? Besides, WMD wasn't given as THE reason to go to war.
>>> >
>>> > Then you just fell off the turnip truck. That's all we were told.
>>> ==================
>>> No, your hate has blinded you, but that's typical. that wasn't THE
>>> reason
>>> given.
>>
>> do you know how to read, Rick?
>=========
>Yes, I do. Apparently better than you. WMD was not THE reason for the
war.

Welcome to 1984, where neocons think they can rewrite history.

>

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> You want to spin numbers now? How about the fact that so many
>>>women have voted in Afghanistan, the increase between zero during the
>>>Clinton administration to about 40 percent now?
>>
>>Would you cite a source for that, or are you still confusing registered
to
>>vote with actually voting?
>
>http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/arr/arr_200410_142_3_eng.txt
>
>In some provinces it was 50% or higher.
>
>>> Do yourself a favor and understand that I offered what the
>>>White House reported that the UN said. In response, you offered
>>>nothing.
>>>
>>
>>Uh, the white house said Saddam had WMD. You're not helping your
>>credibility.
>
>Uh, I guess the previous White House saying the same thing doesn't
>help his credibility either. And I guess the UNMOVIC weapons
>inspection report saying the same thing doesn't help his credibility
>either.

The Clinton WH said 50% of the people who voted in Afghanistan in 2004
were women? Did that come from the Dept. of Clairvoyance?

>
>http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/iraq/fulltext/unmovic_jan6.pdf
>
>Oh wait, it DOES, doesn't it?
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>> "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Do you really belive that the people he had already used them on
>>>died from the "lie" that he had them?
>>
>>Bush didn't claim Saddam had had WMD in the past; he claimed Saddam had
>>them in 2003.
>
>So did the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors. Were they lying? Why else
>would the UN keep the sanctions in place?

The inspectors never said Saddam had WMD in 2003.

>
>>>You really are that stupid too,
>>>aren't you? Besides, WMD wasn't given as THE reason to go to war.
>>
>>Then you just fell off the turnip truck. That's all we were told.
>
>Yeah, that explains calling the invasion "Operation Iraqi Freedom"...
>that's code for "WMD" I guess.

Did you bother to listen to Bush last year at all?

>
>>>That is
>>>the myth, fool. You really believe that Sadman didn't have WMD at any
>>>time, and didn't want to have WMD in the future?
>>
>>We were told he had them in 2003.
>
>By the UN weapons inspection organization (UNMOVIC)

No. Never.

> and by every
>credible intelligence source available (and by previous
>administrations, etc.).

No previous adminstration was in office in 2003 when we invaded.

>But none of that seems to have remained on
>the collective memory of those that didn't vote for Bush.

Perhaps because we remember what Bush did say was the reason.

>
>>> You truely are as
>>>brainwashed as Ian St. Stupid here.
>>>
>>>So, to prove you stupidity you cite from sites that are in some cases
>>highly
>>>suspect, and they still do not say that WMD was THE reason for the war.
>>
>>The sites are objective. You are not.
>
>Read up on the actual history - I posted the link to the 2003 UNMOVIC
>report in a previous posting. Re-read the actaul speeches made by
>Bush prior to the war. Here's a bit from the January 2003 SOTU
>address:
>
> "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons

So he's claiming Saddam has WMD. And he was wrong.


> has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his
> own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how
> forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while
> their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups
> have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq:
> electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin,
> mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If
> this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
>
> And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of
> Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is
> ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are
> removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)"
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I do. Apparently better than you. WMD was not THE reason for the
>>war.
>>> Maybe if you tried you could find out there were more than several
reason
>>> given.
>>
>>i won't deny that Bush had more "reasons" up his sleeve.... but the
>>possibility of the usage of WMDs was the ONLY reason given to go to war
to
>>the public, AT THE TIME IT WAS FIRST STARTED.
>
>Not true.

Yes it was. You neocons have to wait a few decades before you can get away
with rewriting history.

>Consider that the effort is titled "Operation Iraqi
>Freedom". Yes, eliminating the WMD threat posed by Iraq was the
>primary reason, but we were also told many times about the repression,
>murder and torture of the Iraqi people by Saddam, and about the
>disruption in the region he had caused, and the fact he would almost
>certainly do so again.

And the people would never have supported an invasion costing billions of
dollars and over 1000 American lives just for that.

>
>>as far as his "reasons" go, well..... at one of his presidential debates,
>>Bush debated that his troops were in Iraq, because "The enemy attacked
us".
>>Now, stop and think for a moment: aside from the anti-american rebels
>>fighting your troops over there to get thier country back, when has Iraq
>>ever attacked the U.S? remember, they had nothing to do with 9/11.......
>>Kerry quickly took advantage of that quote....
>
>That's nothing but twisting words and obfuscation. The enemy DID
>attack us,

Not Iraq.

>and the possibility of that same enemy finding a state
>sponsor to supply them WMD (chemical, biological or nuclear) was a
>real danger.

Except the state we invaded didn't have them.

>
>>could you really trust the words of someone who makes excuses like that?
I
>>sure couldn't.
>>
>>But, now i guess it really doesn't matter, anymore..... Bush has turned
it
>>into a "Holy War" claiming that it is the "Christian thing to do".
>
>That is truly nonsense. I'll challenge you to post ANY citation that
>backs up your wild assertion.
>
>> funny, i
>>always thought the Bible discouraged killing other people..... Next thing
>>you kow, George might be proclaiming himself to be jesus.....
>
>You're ventuing into serious whacko territory there... careful. I've
>seen those who convince themselves that GWB is the reincarnation of
>****** (Godwins law attempt) become increasingly irrational as the
>cognitive dissonance level increases. 51% of the voters would never
>elect someone as off-center as you are trying to portray the
>President.
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $695 ti frame
>
>>"rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>You really are that stupid too,
>>> >> >>aren't you? Besides, WMD wasn't given as THE reason to go to war.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Then you just fell off the turnip truck. That's all we were told.
>>> >> ==================
>>> >> No, your hate has blinded you, but that's typical. that wasn't THE
>>> >> reason
>>> >> given.
>>> >
>>> > do you know how to read, Rick?
>>> =========
>>> Yes, I do. Apparently better than you. WMD was not THE reason for the
>>war.
>>> Maybe if you tried you could find out there were more than several
reason
>>> given. Nah, that's burst your bubble of hate, and you wouldn't want
>>that,
>>> now would you fool?
>>>
>>>
>>> Rather, are you afraid to read, because you
>>> > simply cannot accept that your beloved "Good ol' Georgie" is not
>>exactly
>>> > what he seems? or, are you merely too blinded by the radience coming
>>from
>>> > a
>>> > man who claims that he is continuing the war, because "God" told him
it
>>> > was
>>> > the right thing to do??
>>> >
>>> > here is a small section from the CNN link i posted yesterday:
>>> > ___
>>> > "The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with
time,"
>>> > Bush
>>> > said in the speech delivered October 7, 2002. "If we know Saddam
Hussein
>>> > has
>>> > dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for
the
>>> > world
>>> > to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even
more
>>> > dangerous weapons?"
>>> >
>>> > Speaking on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Bush maintained
>>Wednesday
>>> > that the war was the right thing to do and that Iraq stood out as a
>>place
>>> > where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction.
>>> >
>>> > "There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass
weapons
>>or
>>> > materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world
after
>>> > September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take,"
Bush
>>> > said.
>>> >
>>> > ___
>>> >
>>> > Don't believe me? check it out for yourself :
>>> > http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
>>> > perhaps Ian's intelligence is not in question here, if you still
refuse
>>to
>>> > see what has been right in front of you, all this time..... unless,
you
>>> > want
>>> > to challenge the credibility of America's own News network? the news
may
>>> > be
>>> > biased, but their reporters aren't paid to spread lies. Except for,
>>maybe,
>>> > "Fox News"........
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> > news:[email protected]...
>>> >>
>>> >> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> >> news:[email protected]...
>>> >> > In article
<%[email protected]>,
>>> >> > "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> >> >>news:[email protected]...
>>> >> >>>> >
>>> >> >>>> > let's see..... the war was started under the accusation that
>>> >> >>>> > Saddam
>>> >> > had
>>> >> >>>> > WMDs, and was willing to use them against the U.S, right?
>>> >> >>>> ====================
>>> >> >>>> No. Nice myth you've got going though...
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> hmm... let's see... about Bush (and others) proclaiming that
Saddam
>>> > has
>>> >> >>> WMDs, and that they wanted to get rid of him for that reason,
>>> > therefore
>>> >> >>> starting the war...........
>>> >> >>> ==========================
>>> >> >>He did.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Not in 2003.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>Do you really belive that the people he had already used them on
>>> >> >>died from the "lie" that he had them?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Bush didn't claim Saddam had had WMD in the past; he claimed
Saddam
>>had
>>> >> > them in 2003.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>You really are that stupid too,
>>> >> >>aren't you? Besides, WMD wasn't given as THE reason to go to war.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Then you just fell off the turnip truck. That's all we were told.
>>> >> ==================
>>> >> No, your hate has blinded you, but that's typical. that wasn't THE
>>> >> reason
>>> >> given.
>>> >>
>>> >> Try some objectivity and learn the other reasons. You won't,
because
>>> > your
>>> >> hate is much too important to you.
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>That is
>>> >> >>the myth, fool. You really believe that Sadman didn't have WMD
at
>>any
>>> >> >>time, and didn't want to have WMD in the future?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > We were told he had them in 2003.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> You truely are as
>>> >> >>brainwashed as Ian St. Stupid here.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>So, to prove you stupidity you cite from sites that are in some
cases
>>> >> > highly
>>> >> >>suspect, and they still do not say that WMD was THE reason for the
>>war.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The sites are objective. You are not.
>>> >> ================
>>> >> LOL
>>> >>
>>> >> But they make the case that it wasn't G. Bush only that went to war.
>>> >> Practically the whole world thought the same, and the leading demos
>>> > thought
>>> >> the same as well, as proof of their claims and statements. So,
other
>>> >> that
>>> >> displaying your ignorance, because the sites I did look at don't
back
>>up
>>> >> what you are claiming, you've made the case that it wasn't GWs
'war'.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam/
>>> >> >>>

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>
>>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> no assertions are
>>>> being made that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in September
>>>> 11th.
>>>
>>> Except by Cheney.
>>
>> I'll bet you can't back that up.
>
>So? Proving a negative is hard. That does not mean it is true or false.
The
>only proof would be if YOU could come up with a quote by Cheney directly
>claiming that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Be my guest.
>
>Or exit, stage right, whining and whimpering as usual.
>
>

Cheney on the Iraq war: "We will have struck a major blow right at the
heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists
who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on
9/11."

And Bush: In his May 1 speech announcing the end of major combat in Iraq,
Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began
on September the 11th, 2001." He added: "With those attacks, the terrorists
and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what
they got."

Now if you continue to link those 2 in the same breath...

And this from Wesley Clark: "It came from the White House, it came from
other people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on
9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'you got to say
this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be
connected to Saddam Hussein.'"

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> no assertions are
>>>>> being made that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in September
>>>>> 11th.
>>>>
>>>> Except by Cheney.
>>>
>>> I'll bet you can't back that up.
>>
>>So? Proving a negative is hard. That does not mean it is true or false.
>
>LOL. You're claiming that just because there's no record of Cheney
>actually saying something, that doesn't mean that he didn't actually
>say it in a manner that convinced many millions of Americans to
>believe what it is he didn't say? Heh heh heh...
>
>>The
>>only proof would be if YOU could come up with a quote by Cheney directly
>>claiming that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Be my guest.
>
>LOL even harder. Now to prove my assertion that Cheney never linked
>9/11 and Iraq, I have to prove that he DID link 9/11 and Iraq?

Even after the 9/11 commission's report, Cheney was saying "Was there a
link? We don't know." Those who read the commission's report did know,
however.

>
>You've gotta quit watching those Michael Moore "documentaries"...
>they're affecting any logic abilities you may have had at one time.
>
>>Or exit, stage right, whining and whimpering as usual.
>
>Swish - strike three. To the bench with you.
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>>> Uh, the white house said Saddam had WMD. You're not helping your
>>>> credibility.
>>>
>>> Uh, I guess the previous White House saying the same thing doesn't
>>> help his credibility either.
>>
>>No. Because the previous white house would not have been concerned with
the
>>WMDs that they helped to provide. Iraq was not then under U.N. cease fire
>>conditions.
>
> "The risk that the leaders of (Iraq) will use nuclear, chemical or
> biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
> security risk we face". Clinton's SOS Madeleine Albright, Feb
> 1998.
>

Sigh. We didn't invade in 1998. Are you claiming Bush's invasion in 2003
was due to Iraq's possession (maybe) of WMD 5 years earlier?

>What's that you were saying about "not concerned"???
>
>>> And I guess the UNMOVIC weapons
>>> inspection report saying the same thing doesn't help his credibility
>>> either.
>>
>>UNMOVIC went in to remove the weapons that Iraq was known to have. None
of
>>this establishes that there were any WMDs in 2003, which was the pretext
for
>>war.
>>
>>> http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/iraq/fulltext/unmovic_jan6.pdf
>>>
>>> Oh wait, it DOES, doesn't it?
>>
>>No. Still confused are you? Stop taking so many stupid pills.
>
>Learn to read. The UNMOVIC report says that (among MANY other things)
>Iraq almost certainly possessed 10,000 or more liters of anthrax, and
>maintained the capability of producing more WMD on short notice.

Did it say Iraq possessed it or not? The answer is it did not.

>
>Of course, you can go on pretending that wasn't the case, but those
>cognitive dissonance headaches are just gonna keep getting worse.
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>
>>>> "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Do you really belive that the people he had already used them on
>>>>> died from the "lie" that he had them?
>>>>
>>>> Bush didn't claim Saddam had had WMD in the past; he claimed Saddam
>>>> had them in 2003.
>>>
>>> So did the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors.
>>
>>No. They did not. http://www.unmovic.org/ was in the job of CONFIRMING
the
>>destruction of WMDs and they had a list of POSSIBLE discrepancies, NOT a
>>list of WMDs. If any such stockpiles were known to exist, then U.S.
troops
>>could have just marched into the secured sites and there would have been
no
>>question about where are they?
>
>Have you ever actually READ any of that report, or is your reading
>comprehension just that bad? It's gotta be one or the other. Or, you
>could be living in a dream world (that's my bet).
>
>>> Why else would the UN keep the sanctions in place?
>>
>>Because they were not through the inspection process. They were working
to
>>'prove a negative' which takes a lot of work and brains. IF there were
any
>>unreported or unsecured WMDs to their knowledge then they would have
>>immediately destroyed them or, if the destruction was blocked, reported
the
>>violation and the U.N. would have a justification for war.
>
>**IF** there were ANY UREPORTED OR UNSECURED WMD???? LOL. I don't
>think you've read the bloody cover page of the UNMOVIC report.
>
>>>> We were told he had them in 2003.
>>>
>>> By the UN weapons inspection organization (UNMOVIC)
>>
>>Lie. http://www.unmovic.org/
>
>LOL. You post a link to UNMOVIC's home page, yet don't bother reading
>the actual report you're saying is a lie. LOL.

OK, there were quarterly reports. I looked at Nov. 02 and Feb. 03 (the
most recent before the invasion); none mention any evidence of WMD. Have
you looked at them?


>
>>> and by every
>>> credible intelligence source available (and by previous
>>> administrations, etc.).
>>
>>Lie.
>
>Does the word "history" mean anything to you? Or do you assume that
>since much of the world's media is in electronic format history can be
>changed retroactively to suit your particular fantasy?
>
>>> But none of that seems to have remained on
>>> the collective memory of those that didn't vote for Bush.
>>
>>What seems to be missing is some sort of reality check, even after the
fact
>>that no WMDs were found and the sources for the propaganda were exposed
as
>>not credible or with motives to lie.
>
>Much of the intelligence WAS faulty... but that came to light AFTER
>Saddam was deposed.
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>> Learn to read. The UNMOVIC report says that (among MANY other things)
>>> Iraq almost certainly possessed 10,000 or more liters of anthrax, and
>>> maintained the capability of producing more WMD on short notice.
>>
>> No. And if you are so sure it is there, then please show it on TV. You
>> will
>> be believed if you can provide evidence, rather than endless ****.Ten
>> thousand liters is enough for a tanker truck at least so it should be
>> pretty
>> visible. So far, not even the U.S. has been able to show any stockpiles
>> of
>> WMDs and believe me they TRIED.
>
>If the Iraqi AF can bury several MiG's in the desert (only found because
the
>sand shifted and exposed the tips of the tails), a few hundred 55 gal
drums
>should be no problem.

Sorry, but all inspections done by the US say this is a flight of fancy.

>
>Do you admit that, at one point, Iraq had documented stocks of various
>WMD's?

Do you admit at one time Bush was a drunkard?

>Do you admit that the UN inspectors, in their various configurations, did
>not find (and destroy) all of it?

Do you admit they said there's none there to find?

>
>If the answer to these is yes...then why do you so adamantly maintain that
>there are none? Why would you take Saddam at his word?

I take the myriad of inspectors, both UN and US, at their word.

>When did 'there are no WMD's' become a true statement? It certainly wasn't
>true in 1988. Nor in 1995. Nor in 1999.
>
>Point to the date.
>1988---------------------------------2004
>
>And why didn't whoever was in power at the time tell us? Seems to me that
>would have been a *major* political coup for someone.
>
>Pete
>
>

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:38:25 -0500, "Ian St. John"
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>Ken [NY] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Nov 04 17:02:31 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>><snipo>
>>>>> Truly amazing.
>>>> What's truly amazing is you right-wing fanatics who think we don't
>>>> listen to the news, who regurgitate the propaganda you're given.
>>>
>>> Are you really saying that the bipartisan 9/11 Commission -
>>> all those Republicans and Democrats - who after looking at the
>>> evidence, agreed that there were extensive connection between Iraq and
>>> al-Qaeda before 9/11, were engaging in a huge Democrat/Republican
>>> conspiracy to lie to you? No matter you guys keep losing everything
>>> you engage in.
>>
>>http://www.9-11commission.gov/
>>http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
>>http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch10.pdf
>>
>>No. They assumed that there were links. They created a hypothesis that
>>islamic extremists were allied to Iraq. They did NOT find any evidence
for
>>this supposition, and this has been admitted by Rumsfeld and others in
the
>>administration. Nor are any facts documented in the report on 9/11 that
>>establish any links or ties.
>
>"I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The Vice
>President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al
>Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that.
>What we have said is just what [Republican co-chairman Tom Kean] just
>said: We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative
>relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with
>regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me that
>sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn,
>are not that apparent to me."
> -9/11 Commission vice chairman, former Democratic congressman Lee
>Hamilton, defending Vice President **** Cheney against his attackers
>in the media:
>
>WAR ON TERROR
>Osama-Saddam links
>9-11 commission missed
>Overwhelming evidence of connection
>between al-Qaida, Iraq before attack
>Posted: June 18, 2004
>1:00 a.m. Eastern
>
>By Joseph Farah
>© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
>
>WASHINGTON – In concluding there was "no credible evidence" of
>cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida before the Sept. 11, 2001,
>terrorist attacks on America, the commission charged with
>investigating events leading to 9-11 overlooked more than 10 years of
>connections and cooperation between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama
>bin Laden's network, WorldNetDaily has found.
>

Then they're liars and take us for fools.

>While acknowledging that bin Laden made overtures to Hussein in the
>mid-1990s while he was in Sudan and again after he went to Afghanistan
>in 1996, they "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative
>relationship," the commission's staff said in a report released
>yesterday. The report also seems to rely heavily on the word of two of
>bin Laden's most senior associates who "have adamantly denied that any
>ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq'' during interrogations.
>
>President Bush, who minimized the bin Laden-Iraq connection as a
>pretext for the invasion of Iraq, quickly responded to the report by
>affirming that "numerous contacts" between Iraq and al-Qaida did
>indeed justify the U.S.-led war on Hussein's regime.
>
>"There was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida,'' Bush
>told reporters after meeting with his Cabinet at the White House.
>"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were
>orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida. We did say there were
>numerous contacts between Saddam and al-Qaida.''
>
>Bush added: "Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he
>had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a
>threat because he was a sworn enemy of the United States of America,
>just like al-Qaida. He was a threat because he had terrorist
>connections."
>
>"The world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam
>Hussein in power," the president said.
>
>Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, the four-term U.S.
>senator from Massachusetts, responded to the report from the
>commission by saying Bush misled the nation.
>
>"This president failed the test in Iraq," Kerry, 60, said while
>campaigning in Ohio yesterday. "When it comes to war and peace, I will
>tell the truth to the American people."
>
>Vice President **** Cheney also said there were clearly ties between
>Hussein and the al-Qaida terrorists going back to the early 1990s, and
>he called the New York Times coverage of the story "outrageous."
>
>"It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts between
>Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials," he told CNBC. "It
>involves a senior official, a brigadier general in the Iraqi
>intelligence service going to the Sudan before bin Laden ever went to
>Afghanistan to train them in bomb-making, helping teach them how to
>forge documents."
>
>Cheney pointed to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, still in Iraq today, who, he
>points out, "is an al-Qaida associate who took refuge in Baghdad,
>found sanctuary and safe harbor there before we ever launched into
>Iraq."
>
>He also noted the link provided by Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the
>chemicals used in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. He fled to
>Iraq "and we found since when we got into Baghdad, documents showing
>that he was put on the payroll and given housing by Saddam Hussein
>after the '93 attack; in other words, provided safe harbor and
>sanctuary. There's clearly been a relationship," said Cheney.
>
>"What the New York Times did today was outrageous," added Cheney. He
>says the suggestion that there is a fundamental split between what the
>president said and what the commission reported is preposterous. "What
>they were addressing was whether or not they [Iraqis] were involved in
>9-11. And there they found no evidence to support that proposition.
>They did not address the broader question of a relationship between
>Iraq and al-Qaida in other areas, in other ways."
>
>In the Zarqawi case, Cheney added: "Here's a man who's Jordanian by
>birth. He's described as an al-Qaida associate. He ran training camps
>in Afghanistan back before we went to war in Afghanistan. After we
>went in and hit his training camp, he fled to Baghdad. Found safe
>harbor and sanctuary in Baghdad in May of 2002. He arrived with about
>two dozen other supporters of his, members of the Egyptian Islamic
>Jihad, which was (Ayman) al-Zawahiri's organization. He's the number
>two to bin Laden, which was merged with al-Qaida interchangeably.
>Egyptian Islamic Jihad, al-Qaida, same-same. They're all now part of
>one organization. They merged some years ago. So Zarqawi living in
>Baghdad. We arranged for information to be passed on his presence in
>Baghdad to the Iraqis through a third-party intelligence service. They
>did that twice. There's no question but what Saddam Hussein really was
>there. He was allowed to operate out of Baghdad. He ran the poisons
>factory in northern Iraq out of Baghdad. ... There clearly was a
>relationship there that stretched back over that period of time to at
>least May of '02, a year before we launched into Iraq. He is the worst
>offender. He's probably killed more Iraqis than any other man in Iraq
>today. He is probably the leading terrorist still operating in Iraq
>today."
>
>With regard to the reports that Mohammad Atta, the Sept. 11
>mastermind, met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague April 9,
>2001, Cheney pointed out that the 9-11 commission merely found no
>evidence to confirm the information. Some reports have suggested the
>commission found that the meeting never took place.

No evidence is tantamount to that. If I find no evidence you murdered your
parents, doesn't that pretty much clear you?

>
>"The notion that there is no relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida
>just simply is not true," Cheney asserted.
>
>Yossef Bodansky, author of "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on
>America," written and published well before the Sept. 11 attacks,
>documents numerous contacts and meetings between bin Laden's agents
>and agents of Hussein. In addition, Bodansky, the U.S. Congress' top
>terrorism adviser, said the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida
>predated the Sept. 11 attacks by a decade, and continued thereafter.

I'll take the 9/11 commission over this yahoo.


>
>CIA reports of Iraqi-al-Qaida cooperation number nearly 100 and extend
>back to 1992, according to WorldNetDaily sources.

So is Madonna lip-synching, according to their sources?

>
>According to a Dec. 9, 2002, report in the Los Angeles Times, shortly
>before the Sept. 11 attacks, a group of al-Qaida fighters left
>Afghanistan and set up shop in Iraq as a backup base. Bin Laden's
>jihadists established such a base in town of Al Biyara and nearby
>mountain villages where Kurdish militants had begun imposing the
>strict Islamic rule much like Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime,
>according to the Times report.
>
>Last year the London Guardian reported the deadly poison ricin
>discovered at a makeshift lab in a north London apartment was linked
>to a group of Algerian extremists with ties to al-Qaida and Iraq.
>
>The Associated Press reported a senior U.S. official traveling in
>Europe said men arrested in the alleged ricin plot were linked to
>Ansar al-Islam, a terrorist group in northern Iraq with ties to
>al-Qaida and possibly to Saddam Hussein's regime. The official spoke
>on condition of anonymity.
>

Yeah, that makes it real credible.

>Four men were arrested in the apartment raid Jan. 5 and charged with
>attempting to develop a chemical weapon.
>
>Ansar al-Islam is led by an Iraqi Kurd named Nejmeddin Faraj Ahmad
>(also known as Mullah Krekar) who trained with bin Laden in
>Afghanistan in the 1980s. Senior al-Qaida leaders fled Afghanistan for
>Iraq and received safe harbor before Hussein was overthrown by U.S.
>forces, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

And we know the credibility of those Iraqis who were trying to curry favor.
Those mobile WMD labs?

>
>On Jan. 27 of last year, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said
>terrorist detainees from Afghanistan had implicated Iraq in providing
>training and support to al-Qaida.

After suitable torture?

>
>WorldNetDaily reported exclusively that Iraqis were among the
>detainees captured in Afghanistan.

Which makes them what, Bush stooges?

>
>Fleischer said the U.S. knows Iraq has supported al-Qaida in the past
>and there have been "contacts between senior Iraqi officials and
>members of the al-Qaida organization, going back for quite a long
>time."
>

So a press secretary is more credible than a bipartisan commission? Not in
this universe.

>"We know, too, that several of the detainees, particularly some of the
>high-level detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to
>al-Qaida and chemical weapons development," said Fleischer. "There are
>contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida. We know that Saddam Hussein has a
>long history of terrorism in general. And again, if you are waiting
>for the smoking gun, the problem is, when you see the smoke coming out
>of the gun, it's too late; the damage has been done."
>
>Perhaps more interesting is the contention of terrorism expert Laurie
>Mylroie, author of "The War Against America." She says senior al-Qaida
>operative Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, captured in Pakistan, is not the man
>he claims to be. He is actually an Iraqi intelligence agent – a fact
>that would serve as smoking-gun evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the
>terror of Sept. 11.

Gee, now an unheard-of author.

>
>Mylroie, an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute,
>explains that Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, March 1,
>2003, and has been providing interrogators with critical information
>about al-Qaida operations and ongoing attack plots, according to U.S.
>officials.

Gee, the AIE again. Bzzzt.


Neocons have to wait longer to rewrite history -- we remember what really
happened.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 00:29:52 -0500, "Ian St. John"
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>> I also submit that the U.S. has stockpiles of various WMDs, all
>>in weaponised forms and with the capability of hitting just about
anywhere
>>on earth. What is your point?
>
> Have you seen those US stockpiles of WMD? No? Then they don't
>exist, right?
>
>"It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis. But the
>lesson was learned. ... Not seeing an indication of something does not
>lead automatically to the conclusion there is nothing."
> --Hans Blix, UN Chief Weapons Inspector Sept. 2002

But since then we've had many more inspections, and they've concluded there
were no WMD. What does it take to convince you neocons?

>
>>> Do you admit that the UN inspectors, in their various configurations,
>>> did not find (and destroy) all of it?
>>
>>No. I can find no evidence that there are missing stockpiles.
>
> Some people did believe there were missing stockpiles,
>including these:
>

Inspectors concluded there were none. Again, what does it take to convince
you?

>"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
>authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
>because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
>in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
>- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Congress doesn't have its own inspection team. The administration does.

>
>"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
>aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
>weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have
>always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
>weapons of mass destruction."
>- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
>
>"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
>every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
>destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
>This he has refused to do" Rep.
>- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
>
>"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
>show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
>biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
>nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
>terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that
>if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
>capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying
>to develop nuclear weapons."
>- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
>
>"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
>Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
>capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
>destruction."
>- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
>
>"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
>murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
>particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
>miscalculation ... And now he is is calculating America's response to
>his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
>destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
>destruction is real ..."
>- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
>
>"I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear
>threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around
>the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."
> -Senator John Edwards, Senate floor speech, September 12, 2002
>http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1214247/posts
>
>We know that he has stored secret
>supplies of biological and chemical
>weapons throughout his country.
> --Albert Gore, 23 September 2001
>
>"...we have from the outset found ourselves up against a problem, an
>Iraq which obviously possessed weapons of mass destruction, which were
>in the hands of an indisputably dangerous regime and consequently
>posed a definite threat to the world. So it was essential to disarm
>that regime, that country, to eliminate its weapons of mass
>destruction."
> --M. JACQUES CHIRAC, PRESIDENT OF FRANCE March 10, 2003
>http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/France/MFA/france-mfa-chirac-031003.ht
m
>
>
>Cordially,
>Ken (NY)
>
>email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>spammers can send mail to [email protected]
>
>http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6402

And every one of those said let the inspectors do their job. If we had,
we'd have known there were no WMD. Of course, Bush would have lost his
main rationale for invading, something we know his adminstration wanted to
do since they took office.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:43:31 -0500, "Ian St. John"
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>> Would Kerry have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq?
>>
>>Almost certainly not Iraq, as I think he is more honest and harder to
>>manipulate by the hawks than Bush.
>
> Oh, my. LOL!:
>
>"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
>authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
>because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
>in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
>- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

See those words "if necessary" there? Turns out it wasn't.