WMDs - Words of Mass Deception

[13788]

gigantikok: LOL, well said, nene. (applauds) Not only did you shut up jay_too, but you caused him to do a common thing when someone is one-uped in a political debate...CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Oh, and stop using the term "bushies", it's degrading and childish. It obviously shows that you are more interested in bush-bashing then you are in actually getting educated and knowing what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[13788]

mindseye: [quote author=Pecker link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=0#18 date=07/22/03 at 07:03:48]We've got a man now who's willing to go it alone if necessary, who feels the urgency, who feels the loneliness of leadership.  The man has balls.[/quote]

If he were "going it alone", I would have more respect for him.  Calling what he's doing "going it alone", however, is a real slap in the face to the families of the 148 soldiers who gave their lives in this effort.  

He's 'going it alone' at other people's expense.  And frankly, if you're going to sacrifice other people's lives for political ends, at the very least you should be completely honest about the reasons for doing so.  

That hasn't happened here.

---

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=20#20 date=07/22/03 at 15:30:51]Oh, and stop using the term "bushies", it's degrading and childish.  It obviously shows that you are more interested in bush-bashing then you are in actually getting educated and knowing what the fuck you are talking about.[/quote]

And that wasn't degrading and childish?  

Think what you want of jay_too's opinions, but implying that he's not interested in "actually getting educated" is a pretty unfair blow.  Go back and re-read his post -- he's done the research and cited sources and quoted them, which is a lot more than most debators on this issue have done.

---

Speaking of data, here's enough data to establish a pattern:  

• George Bush, 7 October 2002, Cincinnati OH: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
  
  The assertion that the aluminum tubes could be used to enrich uranium has been thoroughly debunked.  (Source)
  
• George Bush, 28 January 2003, State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  
  These are the now-famous "16 words" that has garnered so much media attention.  The implication is patently false.
• Dick Cheney, 16 March 2003, on CBS "Meet The Press": "We believe he [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
  
  George Bush, 8 Feb 2003, national radio address: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established."
  
  Colin Powell, 5 Feb 2003, speaking to the UN Security Council: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."
  
  Donald Rumsfeld, 30 Mar 2003, press conference "We know where they [Iraq's WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."
  
  Three different types of weapons are asserted here:  nuclear, biological, and chemical.  The assertion isn't that their development is imminent -- he states that it has already occurred.  
  
  And the quantities:  100 to 500 tons!  Not a drop of these alleged weapons have been found, and there's no way that so much material could be 'sneaked' out of the country.
  
  I love Rumsfeld's comment -- these weapons are all over the place; to the east, west, south, and north.
• George Bush, 1 June 2003, Poland: "We found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited."
  
  The laboratory was, in fact, a weather station sold to Iraq by our British allies. (Source)

Either our nation's intelligence is embarrassingly inept, or the Bush administration has engaged in a pattern of repeated misinformation and deception regarding the threat Iraq posed to the US.  Whichever the case, it deserves investigation and reporting.  


[sub]Edited by me to clean up an HTML tag; no content was altered.[/sub]

 

[13788]

gigantikok: [quote author=mindseye link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=20#21 date=07/22/03 at 17:09:40]

If he were "going it alone", I would have more respect for him.  Calling what he's doing "going it alone", however, is a real slap in the face to the families of the 148 soldiers who gave their lives in this effort.  
[/quote]

Would u rather the 1000's of lives during Sept 11th go unnoticed? You obviously don't know about the documentation recovered directly linking Saddam to Osama and all the funding he gave him to be able to attack us. Is it just for bush to go to war? No. Are those soldier's lives lost in vein? No. They died fighting for their country, they died fighting for what they believed in, and they all were there because they wanted to be there. And stop bitching, because frankly, ALOT more lives could have been lost trying to fight this cause.

Oh, and i was calling jay_too ignorant about his views on the wars. He's obviously going spewing ignorance about it being an oil war and using terms like "bushies" without really knowing what he is talking about. I guess it's just cool to anti-war when youre young.

 

[13788]

bustyredhead: Yeah, GWB lied, and he lied a lot. That's very, very wrong, especially given how his entire campaign for the presidency was to restore ethics and honesty to the White House. That's tragic and abhorable.

However, using this as an excuse to delegitimize the value of the war overall is a bit unfair, IMO. As far as I'm concerned, Saddam declared himself the illegitimate ruler of his nation when he decided that using chemical weapons on his citizenry was a sound policy. If you like the UN, you know what the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights is. Is it wrong to want to help free a people from someone who flagrantly violated it repeatedly?

- Nene (On A Different Wavelength)

 

[13788]

mindseye: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=20#22 date=07/22/03 at 17:51:32]You obviously don't know about the documentation recovered directly linking Saddam to Osama and all the funding he gave him to be able to attack us.[/quote]

Since I 'obviously don't know' about it, can you cite a source? I'm aware that they met a few times in the early 1990's (during the other George Bush's presidency); but I'm not aware that any more followed from that.

And frankly, your tone of discourse -- dismissing the views of others with loaded words like "ignorant", "obviously", and "spewing" -- is unappealing.

 

[D_Martin van Burden]

[quote author=bustyredhead link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=20#23 date=07/22/03 at 18:14:26]Yeah, GWB lied, and he lied a lot. That's very, very wrong, especially given how his entire campaign for the presidency was to restore ethics and honesty to the White House. That's tragic and abhorable. However, using this as an excuse to delegitimize the value of the war overall is a bit unfair, IMO.... If you like the UN, you know what the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights is. Is it wrong to want to help free a people from someone who flagrantly violated it repeatedly?[/quote]

Two comments.

The first: Especially in a delicate situation such as war and lately the notion that fumbled intelligence and false reports lead to the Iraqi situation, now is as good a time as any to call into question the ability of an effective leader. Maybe I'm a bit naive when it comes to the politics, but a leader who can, without regard to conscience or the many lives being shipped out in this waiting-for-a-good-reason struggle, furthered perhaps by private interests [e.g., oil] or retribution [e.g., his father's antecedent], engage in such a war seems as tyrannical as the ruler he's trying to depose. Sure, we don't know what went on in those intelligence findings, but the last thing we have received as a nation is a reason why we went to war -- a straightforward, honest, and consistent reason. We keep hearing Iraq's intentions and this intangible, unverified "proof." Sad to say, Bush seems entangled in his own moral noose.

I got an e-mail bulletin urging me to write my representative, asking him to support investigations into this "intelligence," and I willingly sent my fax along with the thousands of [link=http://www.moveon.org]Moveon.org[/link] members. I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't mind getting a second opinion on why things went down the way they did in the East; none of this moral, freedom, patriotic rhetoric, but some real facts.

By the way, did you know the latest single by the Black Eyed Peas says that we're suffering as a national from terrorism, but that even in our country, terrorists that threaten our peace include the Ku Klux Klan and the Central Intelligence Agency?

The second: How many countries in the world have agreed to uphold the Declaration of Human Rights? Quite a few, a good constituency among our United Nations. The last thing the world demonstrated in this war is that, for many reasons, the countries didn't come together; in the meantime, Bush labeled all the other countries unwilling to act (hell, without good reason or a more thorough intelligence sweep) terroristic themselves! Where's the dignity again?

Again, something that always bothered me about the war was that Bush, metaphorically, went in Iraq guns blazing and demanding that Hussein step down, get killed, whatever. But Bush had nothing to personally lose from the war; the people of 9-11 joined the soldiers who died and are dying out there. The death toll rises and the questions remain unanswered.

When will it stop? Can you answer that, Gigantikok? Can anyone?

 

[13788]

bustyredhead: [quote author=DeeBlackthorne link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=20#25 date=07/22/03 at 21:28:08]Especially in a delicate situation such as war and lately the notion that fumbled intelligence and false reports lead to the Iraqi situation, now is as good a time as any to call into question the ability of an effective leader.[/quote]

I agree with this, sorta. GWB had legitimate moral reasons to want to take care of Saddam. I feel that his original efforts to call for a liberation on these grounds was turned down by some of his staff, who decided that doctoring information was necessary to make the war more desirable to the people. An ignoble means to a just end. The soldiers who have died in Iraq did not die in vain yet. We can still help the people of Iraq finally have the basic freedoms we take for granted. I'm not a soldier, but I would be willing to take a risk for a noble venture like that.

[quote author=DeeBlackthorne link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=20#25 date=07/22/03 at 21:28:08]...but the last thing we have received as a nation is a reason why we went to war -- a straightforward, honest, and consistent reason.  We keep hearing Iraq's intentions and this intangible, unverified "proof."  Sad to say, Bush seems entangled in his own moral noose.[/quote]

Yeah. Future pollsters take note, in the long term, had GWB merely stated the truth, that he wanted to free the Iraqi people from a cruel, heartless leader that oppresses their every right, then GWB would be an international hero now, instead of a reviled imperialist.

[quote author=DeeBlackthorne link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=20#25 date=07/22/03 at 21:28:08]I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't mind getting a second opinion on why things went down the way they did in the East; none of this moral, freedom, patriotic rhetoric, but some real facts.[/quote]

Uhm... not sure what you mean. Asking why Saddam gained power?

[quote author=DeeBlackthorne link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=20#25 date=07/22/03 at 21:28:08]By the way, did you know the latest single by the Black Eyed Peas says that we're suffering as a national from terrorism, but that even in our country, terrorists that threaten our peace include the Ku Klux Klan and the Central Intelligence Agency?[/quote]

Not sure how the CIA's commiting terrorist acts, though the Patriot Act means your freedoms are effectively moot. (shrug) The KKK, on the other hand, has done many terroristic things. I think they end up harming their cause, however, by making any non-inclusivist thought associated with their hateful, destructive ways.

[quote author=DeeBlackthorne link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=20#25 date=07/22/03 at 21:28:08]The second:  How many countries in the world have agreed to uphold the Declaration of Human Rights?  Quite a few, a good constituency among our United Nations.  The last thing the world demonstrated in this war is that, for many reasons, the countries didn't come together; in the meantime, Bush labeled all the other countries unwilling to act (hell, without good reason or a more thorough intelligence sweep) terroristic themselves!  Where's the dignity again?[/quote]

I never accused GWB of being articulate when left to his own devices. However, I feel that some leaders, particularly Chirac (I remembered it!), had a lot to gain by maintaining peace with Iraq. China made tens of millions by supplying Saddam with the most advanced fiberoptic network anywhere, as French and Russian oil companies secured exclusive rights to several Iraqi fields. Clinton was wise in how he handled Saddam... he warred with Iraq for years without anyone raising a fuss, because we merely kept clipping Saddam back.

[quote author=DeeBlackthorne link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=20#25 date=07/22/03 at 21:28:08]When will it stop?  Can you answer that, Gigantikok?  Can anyone?
[/quote]

When people can accept that there is a time for force, and a time for flow. When we can stop thinking about party lines and Gallup polls and just be true to ourselves. When we can feel sympathy for the plight of our foes. When we, as a global society, take out our pacifier, pull off our diaper, and start taking the first real steps towards trying to want to be a unfied species, and try to come to terms with our differences, and see all that which we have in common.

We are still so blind and weak as a moral people, all of us. We cry and moan like babies, kicking our legs without concern when things don't go as we like. When you're a little kid, one of the first things you're taught is how to share. And yet, as a society, we adamantly refuse to take this lesson to heart. The US and many of the developed nations have so much, and yet even the best of them do not do enough to help fellow men and women to share in this bounty. It's not for lack of trying, necessarily, so much as that we don't seem to want to commit to the methods by which we can truly help develop a world that is good for all people, and the basic right to a fair chance at success is had regardless of whether you were born in California or Karachi.

- Nene (, Her Halo Taken Off In Respect)

 

[13788]

7x6andchg: NeNe-

Your point (quoted below) is well taken...but can we expect a country (ours) that doesn't take care of its own to aspire to this?

The US and many of the developed nations have so much, and yet even the best of them do not do enough to help fellow men and women to share in this bounty. It's not for lack of trying, necessarily, so much as that we don't seem to want to commit to the methods by which we can truly help develop a world that is good for all people, and the basic right to a fair chance at success is had regardless of whether you were born in California or Karachi.

I tend to think not. The United States was and is based on individualism and sadly we haven't realized that bettering our fellow man betters ourselves in the process. :-/ We leave our fellow men within our own borders without food, water, shelter, health insurance, etc., etc.

And I am not saying that those who are not able to work should not be working...but we don't even take that good of care of those who aren't able, nor educate those who can't work at their current skill level or survive on the wages available at that level....

I agree with you - my only problem is that I don't see how it can be done within the current framework.

Opinion, folks...please avoid the ad hominem attacks. Just my opinion.

7x6&C

 

[13788]

bustyredhead: Excellent point, Sev. (That's short for 7? ) If you haven't figured it out, I'm pretty socialistic. I think that we need to really try to make a world where everyone can at least have a fair start in life. I'm not saying everyone gets everything in perfectly equal portions, but merely that everyone is entitled to the right to be able to live a meaningful life. Anything we can do to help, here or abroad, improves our species as a whole. Sometimes, things like war become necessary to preserve the better existance of the society as a whole. If the choice was between war and allowing a free people or peace at the cost of a people being oppressed, I'd suffer the war.

- Nene (So Socialistic Her Hair Is Red)

 

[jay_too]

hey man..

i did agree with nene and do believe that sometimes the end does justify the means. i thought we had some level of agreement on a goal of open and accurate information used in the decision process.

i thought i was continuing a discussion on the white house credibility by pointing out that the infastructure for nuclear facilities should be easily identified and located due to the very large energy needs. one measure of credibility in the science and engineering community is "does the plan/activity/design make technical sense?" searching concrete warehouses as suspected nuclear facilities does not. so i concluded that either it was not a credible search or it was a made for tv "news documentary" for prime time news.

i appologize for using "bushies"...but ya know, i remember all the news stories during the run-up to impeachment of clinton where everyone in the clinton white house was tarred by the actions of a couple of individuals. i was sorry for the unfortunate individuals who had an important job to do and probably felt dirt by association. yes, i was/am attacking bush et al. for cavalierly putting american lives at risk. why? the facts did/do not support the decision. perhaps, if the bush white house no longer has a 70 percent approval rating, they will feel more responsibility to make rational and defensible decisions. i think this is what 80 percent of americans want.

thanks for sharing your views.

jay

 

[Pecker]

[quote author=jay_too link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=20#29 date=07/23/03 at 07:17:40]yes, i was/am attacking bush et al. for cavalierly putting american lives at risk. why?[/quote]

After September 11 that question makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[13788]

mindseye: Bah. It's nothing less than fear-mongering to use September 11 to justify governmental abuse.

September 11 was certainly a tragedy, but it's a red herring as far as Iraq is concerned. The government's made allegations of Iraq's involvement, and dropped furtive and not-so-furtive suggestions that Saddam Hussein's behind this.

None of these insinuations have been proven. At best, we know only that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden met a few times, several years ago.

And even if Saddam were Osama's #2 man, what sense is there in going after #2 while #1 is still at large?

The Iraq-9/11 link is tenuous at best, but it's been exaggerated and overemphasized in order to manipulate public support for the war.

We couldn't march into Canada, kill Hubert and Michel Chrétien, and pretend we're 'making the post 9/11 world safe again'. We're getting away with this in Iraq, though.

If 9/11 still has you cowering in fear, believing war will make you safer, you should be demanding that we move our troops from Iraq to North Korea. Iraq certainly poses no threat now.

 

[Pecker]

One dangerous dictator at a time, mindseye, one at a time.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: [quote author=mindseye link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=20#31 date=07/23/03 at 13:12:46]And even if Saddam were Osama's #2 man, what sense is there in going after #2 while #1 is still at large?[/quote]

Um, if you don't recall, Bush successfully took out and disbanded the Taliban. It is terminated, it is over. Osama is presumed dead, but even if he isn't, what is the gov going to do, spend millions of dollars to try and track him? It's a pretty safe bet he's not going to be immerging any time soon. So, the natural course of action was to then move onto saddam and Iraq, which has had a history of funding terrorist organizations.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: [quote author=mindseye link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=20#31 date=07/23/03 at 13:12:46]We couldn't march into Canada, kill Hubert and Michel Chrétien, and pretend we're 'making the post 9/11 world safe again'.  We're getting away with this in Iraq, though.  

If 9/11 still has you cowering in fear, believing war will make you safer, you should be demanding that we move our troops from Iraq to North Korea.  Iraq certainly poses no threat now.
[/quote]
Ok smart guy? then what should we do, huh? Sit on our assess and let terrorist groups grow stronger? You obviously have a better idea, so come on, share it with us.

 

[13788]

mindseye: Pecker: Saddam Hussein may have been 'dangerous' to his own citizens, but he posed no danger to us. The atrocities he committed on his own people, while tragic and offensive, are moderate compared to the brutal tortures that are carrried out in Myanmar or Zimbabwe, for example.

Your pat, toe-the-line "one dangerous dictator at a time" retort sidesteps the fact that we seem to focus solely on dictators in oil-rich, lucrative countries, while ignoring dictators in third-world impovershed countries like those I mentioned above -- and also ignoring dictators in superpower nations with whom we have favorable trade relations, like China.

---

Gigantikok: I'm still waiting for documentation of that Saddam-Al Qaeda money trail you've claimed twice now.

Your question is based on a shaky assumption. In fact, we are already 'sitting on our asses' by squandering our military expertise, personnel, and capital on the one area of this planet where WMDs are known not to exist!

Besides, the Bush administration's emphasis on WMDs as a terrorist threat completely ignores the reality of 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. The 9/11 attack was carried out, not with these supposedly terrible WMDs, but with boxcutters and airplane fuel.

We're going after the wrong target, and too stubborn to change course. You want "a better idea"? Here are three:

• Stop giving terrorists a reason to hate us. In particular, stop turning a blind eye toward's Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians and Arabs in the occupied territories.
• Be noble and inspiring enough to get involved even where we don't have economic interests. For example, take a greater role in reducing the spread of HIV in Africa, or in assisting flood victims in Bangladesh. These efforts will go a long way toward persuading other countries that the actions we take on the world stage aren't self-serving and greedy.
• Save the money we're wasting in Iraq and invest it in bolstering our intelligence program (which, as we've seen recently, is disorganized and faulty). If we were accurately informed of, and prepared for, terrorist attacks, we wouldn't get caught with our pants down. We could defend against them and take timely action.

On a more personal note, Gigantikok, I still don't appreciate your arrogant, sarcastic tone. You obviously have a huge vocabulary, and you obviously are fantastically well-read, and you obviously understand this issue so deeply, and you obviously have a phenomenal IQ . . . If you go back and count how many times you've used the word "obviously" to belittle someone with whom you disagree, you might see why you're starting to sound like a broken record.

 

[Pecker]

George:

"OK, men, let's go get Saddam!"

Advisors:

"Uh, sir, maybe we'd better go get that guy in N. Korea first."

"No, wait, sir. What about Iran?"

"Sir, we've gotta get that guy out of Liberia!"

"Don't forget there's Myanmar, sir..."

"Sir, the Democrats will skewer you if you don't do something about Zimbabwe."

"Well, sir, I think we should ignore the threats and devote all of our resources to the AIDS epidemic in Africa and the flooding in Bangladesh.!"

George:

"You're all fired."

 

[13788]

mindseye: If you're characterizing Bush as a man who's so limited by his tunnel-vision that he'd dismiss advisors rather than consider alternative courses of action, then we are far more in agreement than I had previously though possible.

If you were just being sarcastic, Gigantikok asked for my suggestions (since I'm obviously so smart), and I don't work for the president's office.

 

[Pecker]

I think you and jonb and others are so blinded by your partisan hatred of George W. Bush that you'd find fault if he trimmed his right toenails before his left.

 

[jonb]

No, we just think that the $10[sup]9[/sup] he spent this week in Iraq could go to more important things. If anything, that characterizes us as paleo-conservatives (instead of neo-conservatives like Bush).