So, this time you tried to show "wandering excuses". (Last time it was
flip
flopping, which was disproven, so you again duck and move, change
direction,
and basically wiggle.)
No, I'm saying the same thing over and over again, I can't help it if
you have trouble with reading comprehension.
lol. Wow, nice try, but sadly, everyone knows you don't even know what
you're trying to argue, and that's why you said first, he was "flip
flopping" (not that he couldn't make a charge stick), to which you posted
another parrot's list of sequitor comments all on one side of a coin, that
was that Iraq was going to be taken down. Then you tried to post a link to
a thesis, but rather you just posted a link to an article about a thesis,
which begs the question, did you even know what the thesis said? No. Plain
and simple, because you tried to say it showed a "wandering excuses"
scenario, in which the thesis didn't show, but rather it was a catalog of
the rationales used. But, since you can't admit when you're wrong and your
ego is so huge, you once again try to squirm another direction... how
pleasant.
Bush has not been able to make a single charge regarding Iraq stick.
He's tried 27 different excuses. Why? Because none of them work.
LOL! Proof positive you didn't read the thesis, Parrot. I was going to
list the rationales, etc, but since you'll just snip them and wiggle another
direction, it's kind of a waste of time. I'll give you the benifit of the
doubt... Name your top 7 of the 27 that "didn't work", otherwise, I'll just
sit comforatbly knowing that I, unlike you, read the thesis and know that it
doesn't support your argument at all.
The thesis does make one pretty major error though... when they say
that the whole "imminent threat" thing was played by the media, not
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
lol, and if you type in Bush and "imminent threat" you get... are you ready?
Drum roll please....
No records match your search criteria
Ta da!
(a really good site, but I don't want to consume space discussing all
237 known lies told by this administration regarding Iraq so I'll stay
with the 11 regarding the threat posed by Iraq:)
Oh, yeah! Once again Jordie spastically jumps in another direction rather
than defend his numerous previous fuck ups... Nice. Squirm, bitch.
Snipped the top five because they never said there was an imminent threat
and the explanation tries to say they did. Just them trying to pad
numbers... None the less, the counter point tries to say there was no
imminent threat... but... fucks that up pretty bad when it states...
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that
Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S.
intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view
regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
What? The intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of
view? So... there were some that said there was no imminent threat and,
since there were DEEP DIVISIONS AND DIVERGENT POINTS OF VIEW... those that
believed they DID! Oh well, better be on the safe side and assume they
don't.... lol. Nice try.
Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years, or a week, or a
month, and if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass
destruction and transfer them, either use himself, or transfer them to
the Al-Qaeda, and somehow the Al-Qaeda were to engage in an attack on
the United States, or an attack on U.S. forces overseas, with a weapon
of mass destruction you're not talking about 300, or 3,000 people
potentially being killed, but 30,000, or 100,000 . . . human beings."
Source: Secretary Rumsfeld Live Interview with Infinity CBS Radio,
Infinity-CBS Radio (11/14/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because, by evoking the
specter of thousands of deaths in a time frame as short as "a week, or
a month," it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat.
Wow, the quote is hypothetical to begin with, not a statement that something
was going to happen... yet the explanation is misleading in trying to act
like it was a statement of what was going to happen, not just the outcome if
something was to happen... (BTW, there was missing chemical and biological
agents and missles to launch them, according to Hans Blix... there was US
forces in the area that could have been hit by them...)
The U.S.
intelligence community, however, had deep divisions and divergent
points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Further,
according to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence
community had "low confidence" regarding whether Iraq would provide al
Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction.
Yeah, hence the hypothetical nature of the original quote, silly dipshit...
Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the
security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq."
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that
Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S.
An example of what I was talking about earlier... The original quote doesn't
state he was an urgent threat. In fact, it simply says he's the most
immediate of the threats.
"The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam
Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise
is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is
to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless
gamble. And this is a risk we must not take."
Good quote from Bush, my friend...
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that
Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S.
Again, the same "explanation of why it's a lie"... lol. Grave and
Gathering... not imminent. Once it's gathered up, it's an imminent threat.
Sad thing is that people like you would rather wait until then. :( Looks
like you're parroting without reading... :(
Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons
of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use
against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
Source: Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention, White
House (8/26/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that
Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S.
Ok, that's Cheney, not Bush... first of all... and secondly... it never said
imminent threat. Hans Blix even stated that Iraq had unaccounted for WMD
supplies. So, there's good reason to believe that he still had them. Hans
Blix even stated that Iraq had illegally produced NEW WMD supplies with the
AS2 missle. So, he had and he was amassing... no lie.
It's worth noting that the explanations for each of the above are
explaining why the quote was known to be false at the time it was
made.
Attempted to... but as I have shown, the explanations tend to not match the
quotes and the explanation admits that there was a division on the
philosphies of the intelligence community and that there were some that
believed that it was true.
In retrospect we know them all to be false because no weapons of
this kind have been found in Iraq AT ALL.
Um, again, because you don't find them doesn't mean they didn't exist...
Moronic...
I'm going to have a Subway for lunch, because they are tasty. I'm going
to
have a Subway for lunch, because they are cheap. I'm going to have a
Subway
for lunch, because they are low in calories.
Oh shit, I just wandered! How dare I! Actually, I just have multiple
reasons for going to Subway for lunch today. I never abandoned one for
the
other. I never wandered. I how that since I took it out of the "I hate
Bush!" arena you can see your folly? No? Sigh, so sad.
The difference is that no outside agency proved your first statement
to be incorrect, forcing you to come up with a second and third and
fourth to the 27th statement.
lol. Post which were wrong... but that would actually mean you'd have to
read the thesis, which you don't have the stanima to do because you'd rather
just parrot...
The thesis shows a bunch of non-conflicting, non-disproven rationales.
(BTW, no outside agency disproved anything. Some said thought it wasn't...
some thought it was... hence divisions, you retard. :) )
Oh, BTW, Iraq continued to defy Hans Blix even through March 2003...
when
did the US invade? Oh, that's right, March 2003.
How on earth do you construe the statement from the Blix report "Iraq
has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this
field" to mean "continued to defy Hans Blix"? What color is the sky in
your world? Is up actually down too?
Hans Blix told Saddam to destroy the AS2 missles BY March 1st... Saddam
didn't. See... he defied him.
BTW, I like your selective quoting. Probably because that's all that pops
up in google without having to actually read the report. lol. "in THIS
field" One field... not overall.
Oh, and BTW, Hans Blix stated that Iraq had "Accelerated its
cooperation"
(not that it was cooperating). He also said that they would need more
time
to determine if he was compliant or not... What? 12 years wasn't
enough?
DOH! Read quote in previous paragraph...
lol. Ripe. Classic parroting. You never read the report, you can only cut
and paste the parroting dogma even when presented with a quote from the SAME
report that shows that your little SQUAWK was taken out of context. So sad.
As far as the 12 years... it's not enough time to prove a negative.
Yes, because Iraq, according to Hans Blix, was not doing what it needed to
do to help the process.
If someone doesn't have
something it's very hard to prove they don't have it.
Especially if they aren't cooperating for 12 years.
You have to go
through all the probablities of "maybe they have it here... nope..."
before you can reasonably say that something doesn't exist.
Yes, and hence the UN's explicit requirements to facilitate the inspections
that Saddam violated without failure.
In any case, I'd be willing to give them another 12 years if it had
meant that 1,000 of our soldiers hadn't been killed along with tens of
thousands of Iraqis.
Actually, you wouldn't be willing to, you're just parroting what you've been
told to. Had you actually kept up, you would have understood that another
12 years of Saddam playing in again out again non-cooperation wouldn't have
made a bit of difference, all the while Saddam would continue to try to
build new WMDs.
Mind you, it was too late now anyways. The US had seen the same thing
time
and time again, the world as well. There was already ample evidence of
flagrant violations of the UN that it was pointless and that he had no
intention of cooperating. Mind you, he had 12 years to do so.
The problem is, that before we invaded, as I've said before, Iraq WAS
cooperating.
Who are you that I should care what you say Iraq was doing? I'll stick with
Hans Blix, who said they weren't, thank you very much, my little parrot.
You don't go to war when someone is being cooperative.
lol. Yes, so any time the US would need to use war, he could just
"cooperate" for a week and then kick the inspectors out again and just wait
for the next time the US would need to use war and repeate. You really
should study up on the history, my ignorant little parrot, so that you don't
become one of those people that's doomed to never learn from it.
You go when they're being uncooperative and/or outright dangerous.
Which is what Saddam had been... uncooperative. Only dipshits, like
yourself, didn't see the same exact pattern of action Saddam had done to
hinder the process for the last 12 years... So sad that you still parrot
this bullshit. Had you the ability to put your little ego aside and
actually give thinking yourself a try, perhaps you'd come around...
Hans Blix says that the report was basically rubbish. Go figure. You
should probably quit parroting the 12,000 page document, since it was,
in
Hans Blix's opinion, worthless.
First off, Blix didn't discount the report, the Bush administration
did.
"On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages
in response to Paragraph 3 of Resolution 1441 (2002) and within the
time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and
biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material
and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is
welcome."
lol. More of the parrot's handbook. Let us please take this quote in
context. I'll give you the rest of the quote, my ignorant friend...
"One might have expected that in preparing the Declaration, Iraq would have
tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the
many open disarmament issues, which the Iraqi side should be familiar with
from the UNSCOM document (S/1999/94) of January 1999 and the so-called
Amorim Report of March 1999 (S/1999/356). These are questions which UNMOVIC,
governments and independent commentators have often cited."
Oh, so I guess the report was not as great as you, errr... Mr. Moore or your
puppet master of choice, suggest...
"While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current "unresolved
disarmament issues" and "key remaining disarmament tasks" in response to
requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two
reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not
contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they
exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and
inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out,
if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise."
Yep... Iraq was asked to give information which they just ignored... why
would they do that?
"They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside
as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration,
most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain
any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number.
Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to
the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the
resolution of these issues."
D'OH! Looks like Iraq was dodging an issue that they were REQUIRED not to,
under UN ressolutions... So, Hans Blix's close to final report pretty much
says that Iraq was not cooperating and that the 12,000 page declaration,
which was mostly reprint, didn't answer the SPECIFIC questions the UN had
asked...
Why don't you read the reports you quote from? Most of your follies aren't
but one or two paragraphs away. Why do you rely on people like me to
actually read them and explain them to you? Why, when you are shown time
and time again that you're mistaken, do you continue to act like you have a
figment of a clue?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1208-05.htm
Um, I think you posted the wrong link... There's only a splish about the
12000 page document, and the speculation of this partisent rag is that it
would be exactly what Bush and Blix said it was... full of holes and not in
line with what 1441 required... What's your point?
Why the difference in opinion?
There's no difference in opinion, silly goose. You've either posted the
wrong link or you didn't read it...
Because the Bush administration said it
didn't mention weapons
Actually, Hans Blix said that, had you read the fucking report, :).
that we now know they didn't have.
More of your bullshit... Now we know that we haven't found them, but they
were documented as existing and they weren't accounted for, just as your
buddy Blix said...
OK, so the report didn't mention them,
Yep, after the UN specifically asked about what happened to these documented
WMDs it was known to have, so Hans Blix said they were unaccounted for...
which was a problem since 1441 required them to account for them... So sad
you can't figure it out on your own...
the U.N. weapons inspectors didn't find them,
Due to 12 years of uncooperation from Iraq...
and now that we've invaded the country our troops can't find
them either.
Yep, that's the scarry part... They were known to exist by the UN, et al,
and then they went unaccounted for... Poof gone, with no explanation...
Shouldn't have waited so long. :(
How does that make the report innacurate?
Sigh... Hans Blix said the report ommited specific information that was
requested... the report was rubish. Read the fucking Hans Blix report,
thanks. End of discussion. You lose.
If anything all the subsequent actions have proven the report correct.
lol. Didn't you just say it would take more time to find the WMDs, and now
you're saying that since they weren't found it's proof they didn't exist...
You need to pick a philosophy and stick with it. This flip flopping is
making you look like a tool.
5) Bush demanded evidence that the WMD programs were destroyed.
Again, Hans Blix states that there is problems with that as well since
there
were weapons he was known to have that weren't accounted for.
He also says in the report that the problem isn't that there's
evidence Iraq has the weapons or evidence Iraq doesn't have the
weapons, he says that the data needs to be better cross referenced and
double-checked. He says that there are questions and inconsistencies,
but not necessarily deceptions.
He asked specific questions about specific known weapons that went
unanswered... Iraq was playing the same old game... But, this time 1441
didn't allow a way out.
Of course we now know, via 20/20
hind-sight, that there really were no weapons to be cross referenced
Yeah, if that was so, then why would Saddam go down the path of hindering
the UN inspectors and kicking them out for YEARS... Mind you, those weapons
went missing while he had kicked the UN out... Nothing shady at all,
according to your ignorant camp.
"While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current "unresolved
disarmament issues" and "key remaining disarmament tasks" in response
to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed
in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These
reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in
Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of
evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must
be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and
confidence is to arise."
Um... did you read it? Hans says that there was reason to believe that WMDs
could still exist in Iraq. That's his opinion. So, we have missing WMD
that went unaccounted for and the possiblity that they still exist... and
the fact that Iraq hindered the UN till the last day... Nothing there
points to the conclusion that he still had them and didn't want to give them
up... Nothing at all.... Sigh...
Yes, quite astounding logic there... If you can't see them they don't
exist... Want to play a game of peek-a-boo? Honestly, why do you do
this?
Pure deperation or true ignorance? You just seemed misinformed, but
when
you do stuff like this, you seem stupid.
No, I say it because a CIA report from the last Gulf war showed
evidence that Iraqs WMD program wouldn't last beyond March, 1991...
http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960705/73919_01.htm
2. CIA AND DIA HAVE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS OF THE SHELF
LIFE OF IRAQ'S UNITARY NERVE AGENTS. BOTH AGENCIES AGREE THAT
IRAQ HAS ENCOUNTERED DIFFICULTY OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS WITH
THE SHELF LIFE OF ITS UNITARY NERVE AGENTS. DIA BELIEVES THAT
THE PROBLEM PERSISTS, THAT THE STOCKPILE OF NERVE AGENTS WILL
BE UNUSABLE BY LATE MARCH, AND THAT DAMAGE TO PRODUCTION
FACILITIES WILL FORCE THE IRAQIS TO RELY ON STOCKPILED AGENTS.
and the U.N. reports show no evidence of an active weapons program
past 1994.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
"A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they
now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any
significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who
have seen the document.
....
Why would they go and say something like that? Probably because (if
you do a little research) you'll find that Sarin and tabun chemical
weapons have a shelf life of five years. Anthrax, in liquid form, (the
kind that Bush was talking about being sprayed from a cobbled together
remote controlled airplane held together with duct tape) has to be
kept at the freezing point (32 F, 0 C) and even then it will only last
a single year.
I'm not arguing this until you show the actual document being speculated on.
Sorry, that's just my personal preference to look at the document rather
than a sound bite from a reported who talked to a couple of people that have
seen this undisclosed document.
Cough up the document if it truely says that. The only document I could
find relating to that specific date says that there were WMDs found well
after 1994.
Bush was talking about weapons that Iraq is known to have over TEN
YEARS ago. The chance of them still being there after GWI (Gulf War
I), and after years of weapons inspections and still being usable in
any way shape or form is somewhere between slim and none.
According to... you... Not Hans Blix, et al... just you and your camp.
Actually, Hans Blix claimed that Iraq wasn't doing it... "illegally
demanded"? lol. Actually, that was a possiblity to prevent war. A war
that had been justified by the UN.
If the war was justified by the U.N. they would have supported our
decision to invade, which they did not. Who's in charge of enforcing
U.N. resolutions? Um, that would be the U.N...
Actually, resolution 678 authorized the member states (the US, Britian, et
al) to use all necessary means to implement 660 and consequential
resolutions on the matter, unless Iraq was compliant by Jan, 1991 (he chose
not to be). 1441, et al, say that Iraq will face serious consquences if it
continues to violate UN resolutions, which the member states had been
authorized to enforce.
Please don't talk about things you're ignorant of. In other words, shut up.
Because we had no U.N. support we also had no right to ask
Saddam to step down,
No right to ask him to step down? Sure the US has a right to ask him to
step down, as Castro has the right to ask Bush to do so. Because they chose
to give him one last out, which was uncessary, doesn't make it illegal to
ask. You're a fucktard who just tosses around illegal and immoral because
that's what he's been taught to do... So sad.
Under the authority of the previous UN resolutions which stated there
would
be such consequences.
None of the previous resolutions authorized a war.
War's a serious consequence. No previous resolution forbid it as a means to
enforce the resolutions.
The facts of the matter are that the sanctions were working,
PROOF, thanks. Sanctions only work if the government cares about the
people... Millions died because Saddam didn't care about his people and the
sanctions. Continuing sanctions would have been immoral because it killed
far to many people and Saddam didn't care anyways, especially when he's
getting illegal profits from the illegal France, et al, oil trade.
the inspections were working,
That's not what Hans Blix says, so I can only imagine you're just
parroting...
Saddam had no stockpiles of WMD,
That's not what Hans Blix says, so I can only imagine you're just
parroting...
Saddam had no working relationship with Al Qaida, he posed no threat
to us or his neighbors
Um, he supported suicide bombing in Israel... it's documented proof that
even he agreed upon. Family's poor? Go blow yourself up and Saddam sent
your family a check for lots of money. This is documented.
and we invaded the country anyway losing 1,000 of our soldiers
Yes, soldiers die. It's sad, but it's kind of one of the intricate parts of
signing up for the military. Why don't you get that?
and causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis
As opposed to the millions that died under sanctions imposed by a UN that
had veto power nations in illegal oil trade...
at a cost of billions and billions of dollars.
This is my favorite... How much is a life worth to you? I guess since it's
an Iraqi's life, not much.
All of which is proven to be true after the fact. Saying it wasn't
doesn't disprove it.
How ironic.
Just a quick question... if Iraq didn't have any reason to fear the UN
inspectors, why did he impede them and send that 12000 page recycled
document that didn't address the specific questions about specific WMDs he
was known to have previously had, all the way until the end?
How many more people would you have liked to have died under UN sanctions
while he did the in again, out again cycle with the inspectors?
The sad thing is, you really don't give a fuck about the people of Iraq.
You don't even give enough of a fuck to educate yourself and at least make a
half ass attempt at defending your position. You're just a parrot that has
jumped on the bandwagon Moore's built you so that you can feel like you're
special. Get out there and vote Bush out and make Moore feel all important.
You're a good little democrate, farm raised by years of socialistic hubandry
to get out there and serve your purpose. Go for it. You're a tool.