Kay eats crow. The war was a lie. Kay to quit with no report made.

[Ivan Seeking]

In the news tonight.
Oh yes, no link between Iraq and terrorism.

Whom shall we hold accountable for these lies?

Hmmmmm.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
In the news tonight.
Oh yes, no link between Iraq and terrorism.

Whom shall we hold accountable for these lies?

Hmmmmm.

Hillary Clinton? Atheists? The French?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zero
Hillary Clinton? Atheists? The French?

I think the Republicans should ask Bush to step down in 2004. If he doesn't, he could still lose. I can only pray.

Watch this build and build until it peaks in late October.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I think the Republicans should ask Bush to step down in 2004. If he doesn't, he could still lose. I can only pray.

Watch this build and build until it peaks in late October.

The Republicans are too power-hungry to ask him to step down, even though he goes against the traditional conservative behavior. This newest case is just one of a few dozen lies and misrepresentations that Bush is responsible for.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
In the news tonight.

mmm, which news? link? please :)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kat
mmm, which news? link? please :)

NBC evening news. This should be available on the net shortly.

The source: Powell.

 

[Zero]

Don't worry...the administration will keep 'looking'. LOL, you know what they remind me of? Those crackpot holistic 'medicine' people who claim that the negative results of science are 'inconclusive'.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
NBC evening news. This should be available on the net shortly.

The source: Powell.

I'm sorry, here's the actual text of Powell's briefing that I'm sure NBC was quoting...can you point out what exactly in the actual text you're referring to?

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/28008.htm

 

[Zero]

Wow, Powell has memorized all the stupid bull**** Republican spin and lies, hasn't he? He works as many into his answers as possible...he might as well have not even been there and had Bill O'Reilly answering questions...


F-ing retards.

 

[member 5645]

I don't care if Iraq was sponsoring terrorism or not :)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
I don't care if Iraq was sponsoring terrorism or not :)

Dubya, is that you? Admit is, you just wanted Iraq so you could actually strike oil for one of the few times in your oilman life. Couldn't find any in Texas, so you had to attack the Middle East, I see you for what you are, buddy!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is the NBC report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The source: Powell.

Colin?

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Here is the NBC report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/

Ah. Thanks.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The source: Powell.

The source of what exactly?

Awful, awful article. First paragraph:

Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no “smoking gun [or] concrete evidence” of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

What policy and how did he reverse it? The actual Powell quote with context (much later in the report):

“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed,” he said.

and:

Powell, speaking at a news conference at the State Department, stressed that he was still certain that Iraq had dangerous weapons and needed to be disarmed by force, and he sharply disagreed with a private think tank report that maintained that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States.

Doesn't seem to me to be much different from what the administration has said all along.

The point of the story is to highlight this report and distort Powell's reaction to it:

Powell came under intense questioning at his news conference Thursday about a new report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which accused the administration of systematically misrepresenting the weapons threat from Iraq.

Endowment for International Peace? Anyone think such a "think tank" would ever support any war? Didn't think so. They'd be arm and arm with Neville Chaimberlain. Oops.

Seems the Liberal media disinformation service pulled a fast one on you. They are hoping (probably correctly) that most people won't read past the subtitle or form their own conclusions from the quotes. Heck, even Zero has pointed out that media tactic before.

 

[Zero]

Russ, I have told you again and again to stop repeating the 'liberal media bias' lie...it just makes you look silly!

 

[Adam]

On Colin Powell's speech to the UN:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=138664&sid=6583a1ebfef1b6eca4e8d7aae50a1e0a

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Let me see, we had certainty enough to start a war, but almost a year later we still can't prove it. Gee, maybe if we wait another ten or twenty years they'll find something.

Edit: I should add that I did misunderstand the intial news report. Powell admits that we cannot show any link between Iraq and terrorism. The comments about Kay were obviously from other sources. I posted the text as soon as I found it.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Let me see, we had certainty enough to start a war, but almost a year later we still can't prove it. Gee, maybe if we wait another ten or twenty years they'll find something.

Geee, I've got major DAAAAAY JAAA VOooooOO..this sounds hauntingly familiar to what people were saying about the Balkans prior to uncovering mass graves.

Edit: I should add that I did misunderstand the intial news report. Powell admits that we cannot show any link between Iraq and terrorism.

that is definitely not what Powell states. Go back and read the link I gave..his words, verbatim...not someone elses interpretation.

The comments about Kay were obviously from other sources. I posted the text as soon as I found it.

I think you should read Kay's interim report before you start making claims of crow eating and the lack of reports.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kat
Geee, I've got major DAAAAAY JAAA VOooooOO..this sounds hauntingly familiar to what people were saying about the Balkans prior to uncovering mass graves.

Not even near the scale required for a weapons facility. It ain't there. They had their chance and they us into war based on a lie.

that is definitely not what Powell states. Go back and read the link I gave..his words, verbatim...not someone elses interpretation.

You should listen as well as read. Comments made in interviews count just as well; even better sometimes.

“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed,” he said.

Well, he will probably die believing it as well. We don't start wars based on personal beliefs. They have produced no evidence.

I think you should read Kay's interim report before you start making claims of crow eating and the lack of reports. [/B]

Uh huh.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

Kay to quit with no report made.

Originally posted by kat
I think you should read Kay's interim report before you start making claims of crow eating and the lack of reports.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

Uh huh.

MmmHmm

 

[Nereid]

1984 anyone?

Even Tony (remember, Dubya's lapdog?) was honest enough to re-state things in terms of WMD program(s)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Russ, I have told you again and again to stop repeating the 'liberal media bias' lie...it just makes you look silly!

Actually, Zero, I was going to put an asteresk in there next to "Liberal media disinformation service" because I put that into mirror your language usage style. I don't believe there is a coherent propaganda machine of course, but the media IS liberal. But this isn't the thread for that discussion.

In any case, Zero, feel free to rebut my analysis if you have a case to make. I consider OT comments an intentional distraction.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Going in I was against this war for lack of evidence. For crying out loud, some of the so called evidence could have been high school kids on CB radios messing with the CIA. I remember being appalled that this kind of garbage was being used to justify a war. Then, when it was clear that we were going in, I hoped and prayed that the Bush administration had good classified information that we simply couldn't be told. Now it is clear that they didn't.

This war was illegal and Bush must be held accountable. If they had found an “immanent threat" as was promised as the key justification for the war, then I would sadly acknowledge that this war was unavoidable.

Nereid, I think WMDs now refers to Weapons of Moderate Destruction.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking


This war was illegal and Bush must be held accountable.

This war has yet to be proven illegal, but you're welcome to your opinion.

If they had found an “immanent threat" as was promised as the key justification for the war, then I would sadly acknowledge that this war was unavoidable.

Only one problem, Bush never said there was an imminent threat. However, Not waiting until there was an imminent threat WAS given as one reason.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
This war has yet to be proven illegal, but you're welcome to your opinion.


Only one problem, Bush never said there was an imminent threat. However, Not waiting until there was an imminent threat WAS given as one reason. [/B]

And you don't have a problem with that. Generally, there should be an imminent threat(I believe that is the wording that Bush's 'pre-emptive strike' policy uses) before attacking a country. Do you get the impression that Bush was saying 'let's attack Iraq because maybe in 15 years they could attack us'? And, do you think that is a good policy?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
And you don't have a problem with that. Generally, there should be an imminent threat(I believe that is the wording that Bush's 'pre-emptive strike' policy uses) before attacking a country. Do you get the impression that Bush was saying 'let's attack Iraq because maybe in 15 years they could attack us'? And, do you think that is a good policy?

A few questions if you don't mind...


Stopping the proliferation of WMD of any kind is a goal that is needed.

How long do you sit with a thorn in your side, that is clearly NOT going to budge?

All Saddam had to do was hand over evidence of the weapons destruction, and war would have be averted. What I'd like to know, is why do YOU think he didn't do so?
This totalitarian regime, like most others, has some serious record keeping on just about everything else. Why would he not cooperate after all these years?

Would keeping sanctions on Iraq stop clandestine operations, and if you think so, are said sanctions the best route for the people in Iraq?
Are the sanctions the best route for the rest of the world, possibly as a detterant?

Let me remind you, according to the cease fire Saddam signed, it was HE who held the burden of proof that the weapons were destroyed. It's not up to the inspectors to run around like Sherlock Holmes sniffing them out. Based on this, why SHOULD the inspectors continue doing just that, when Saddam could easily produce records of the destructed weapons, had that been done?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'd like to point out that nearly everybody thought that Saddam had at least some WMD, based on his actions (and not just based on what Bush and Blair said). He certainly acted like somebody with something to hide, and he was! He was hiding his total helplessness.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
And you don't have a problem with that.

Actually I DO have a few problems with it. BUT, what I also have a problem with is the rampant lying from the anti-war side. Maybe you should note that it ruins any credibility you may have with those "on the fence" (so to speak).

Generally, there should be an imminent threat(I believe that is the wording that Bush's 'pre-emptive strike' policy uses) before attacking a country.

Gee, what country in the last 20 years that we've attacked were imminent threats? Rwanda?? Or maybe there was there an imminent threat to us from the Balkans??

Do you get the impression that Bush was saying 'let's attack Iraq because maybe in 15 years they could attack us'? And, do you think that is a good policy?

No, I get the feeling that Bush was saying that Iraq failed to live up to the ceasefire, that they have not met their obligations, Obligations that Saddam specificly agreed to and did not ever follow through on. I get the feeling that the cost of continued containment was to high in various ways including human life and finally that the policy of containment could not just be dropped because Saddam would and could quickly re-arm himself and had every intention to do so. That because of the history of Saddam this was not something he was willing to risk.
And personally, I get the feeling genocidal maniacs as a rule should never be allowed to remain in place, and personally I get the feeling that people who ignore that are not only immoral but the real barbarians in this chapter of history.

 

[Zero]

Day I concede that the fighting in Rwanda and the Balkans was worse than Iraq, can you concede that the war in Iraq was orchestrated in a less-than-perfect way?

Also, can you accept that it is possible for someone to believe that the Iraq war needed to happen, but not in the manner it was conducted? What bothers me about Bush is the specifics of his administration's behavior in this conflict. Iraq was not a threat to the U.S or Israel in the short term, so there was certainly plenty of time to hash out a better plan, involving true international support, a more realistic exit strategy, etc. Your personal knowledge of the region should lead you to knowing, for instance, that the current Iraq unrest was easily predictable, and that no one should have expected that the fall or capture of Saddam would have made Iraq suddenly peaceful.

The biggest reasoning that most people seemed to follow in the Iraq war was that Iraq could attack another country with WMD, or give them to terrorists. That is why we couldn't wait for inspections to conclude, or to bother to convince the rest of the world that there was a real strategy in Iraq. The fact that there are no WMD(statistically speaking) should mean something, don't you think?