# More on John Bolton

• News
solutions in a box said:
As for Bolton, he will go down in history as just one of the many players in the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people.
You are referring to the little preplanned war in Iraq I presume. The link below indicates just how deeply the U.S. Department of Energy has looked into the oil in Iraq.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html [Broken]

It is more than coincidence that the planning for the invasion of Iraq began almost concurrently with Iraq's signing of huge oil contracts with; France, Germany and Russia.

Last edited by a moderator:
kat
2CentsWorth said:
Please provide evidence of this. There have been in depth analysis of this 'conspiracy theory,' and the consensus time and again is that this could not have happened without our knowledge. Talk about hyperbole.
Uhhh...evidence of what? what the Duelfer report says or what some people think? You could try reading the Duelfer report...

kat
Archon said:
First, I'm going to assume you don't mean that the servicemen are buying into this so-called "leftist agenda of Anti-Americanism.", you seem to have missed something rather important: by refusing to admit his mistakes, Bush is dividing the country during a time when unity is more important than ever before. This division is certainly a more significant result of his denial than the protection of the troops. Incidentally, how will Bush's open acceptance of reality harm the troops?
Well...lol, who's reality are you speaking of? The lefts or the rights...the shiites, Sunni's, Kurds...the terrorists...the Baathist...or the men and women stationed there? Or yours..or mine? or the erm...very unreliable mainstream media's?....or better yet..idiots like "put me on the front page again, please" Biden?

The battle-cry of the far right: Freedom for all! Freedom of speech for all! But don't say anything anti-American, or else!
Why is it whenever someone points out that speech has consequences the left starts declaring their freedom of speech is threatened?

If anything, it seems pattylou was expressing worry over the possibility that our country will be forced into another (more) dangerous conflict, at great cost to everyone involved. This hardly seems anti-American to me. Nor does the invasion in question seem particularly far-fetched, considering our illustrious president's recent history.
It's pretty farfetched. Do I really need to waste time outlining the differences between Iraq and Iran...hello?

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
The Smoking Man said:
I must say that I am torn between the Burma Pipeline Slavery Deal and the selling of Neutron Pulse Generators to Libya's nuclear program for which they received a $300 odd million fine. What is your favorite? The one where they paid Rove to take the white house? Archon kat said: Well...lol, who's reality are you speaking of? The lefts or the rights...the shiites, Sunni's, Kurds...the terrorists...the Baathist...or the men and women stationed there? Or yours..or mine? or the erm...very unreliable mainstream media's?....or better yet..idiots like "put me on the front page again, please" Biden? You aren't seriously going to suggest that Iraq is going exactly as Bush planned, are you? In fact, from what I gather, Bush believed we would be greeted with open arms by all of those freedom-loving Iraqis, who would then proceed to calmly and efficiently write their new Democratic Constitution. And of course, the terrorists would just disappear. After all, terrorism can't survive a Democracy... Now tell me that what's really happening in Iraq doesn't diverge from this plan. Tell me that Bush hasn't spent more time and resources in Iraq than he originally intended. Tell me that Bush's perpetual misguided statements that everything is going well in Iraq aren't dividing the country. If you can't seriously tell me all of these things, then Bush has made a mistake. As our president, he should be admitting his mistakes to the American people. Why is it whenever someone points out that speech has consequences the left starts declaring their freedom of speech is threatened? Judging by your comments, your perception is that the consequence of disagreement with the actions of our troops in Iraq, and with Bush's actions in general, is that the person making such comments is Anti-American. I don't believe that disagreement with the policies of the government is necessarily anti-American. After all, the president is not America, the president's advisors are not America, and the members of the government are not America. America is a country and an ideal, and mindlessly following one's leader in the name of nationalism is hardly the best way to go about preserving the American way. By the way: bonus points if you can name a system of government which equates strong feelings of nationalism with a single powerful leader. It's pretty farfetched. Do I really need to waste time outlining the differences between Iraq and Iran...hello? The differences are really no more pronounced than those between Afghanistan and Iraq. Except Iran is better armed, right? But why should that stop the worldwide crusade for Democracy and Rights? Last edited by a moderator: vanesch Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member Archon said: You aren't seriously going to suggest that Iraq is going exactly as Bush planned, are you. There was a statement, last year I think, that Chirac made when he was on a visit with Blair, which quite upset Blair. "On ne peut quand-meme pas dire - de facon credible - que le monde est devenu plus sur, grace a votre intervention en Iraq ?", translated: "One can not claim - in a credible way - that the world became a more secure place, thanks to your intervention in Iraq, can you ?" Archon said: By the way: bonus points if you can name an system of government which equates strong feelings of nationalism with a single powerful leader. No wait, don't tell me ... I know this one .... vanesch said: There was a statement, last year I think, that Chirac made when he was on a visit with Blair, which quite upset Blair. "On ne peut quand-meme pas dire - de facon credible - que le monde est devenu plus sur, grace a votre intervention en Iraq ?", translated: "One can not claim - in a credible way - that the world became a more secure place, thanks to your intervention in Iraq, can you ?" Words to be chiseled over the entrance to each tube station and #10 Downing Street. Skyhunter Rev Prez said: If your boss interviewed you about some screw-up on somebody else's watch, would you consider that sworn testimony? The State Department has now confirmed that Bolton did in fact answer some questions during the department's internal investigation and stated. The written answers to the Senate Foreign Relations Committe are expected to be revised by Bolton, reflecting the facts around that investigation. Oops, guess he just forgot about it. Should we give him the benefit of the doubt and believe it was an honest mistake? I would, except he hasn't demonstrated a to me that he has any track record for being honest. Rev Prez said: Or, Bush has no intentions of taking these hyped up charges seriously, Biden (along with Wilson, for that matter) is absolutely wrong about "yellow cake", Rove had nothing to do with blowing anyone's cover, and the Plame's immediate supervisor should be immediately questioned as to why someone's well known husband was permited to gather take for which he lacked qualifications to recieve. So where is your evidence to support your claim? What hyped up charges? Maybe you should get information from some other source besides FOX news. Why don't you read the report from the 9/11 commission, much better source of information. Joseph Wilson was 100% correct about the Niger yellow cake. His wife did not not send him, she did not have the authority to send her husband or anyone else to Niger . The people who did asked if she knew someone who would about a good candidate to go check the story, at the behest of the vice-presidents office. She suggested her husband since he was the last US ambassador to Iraq, (George H. Bush called him a great American hero for this service.) he worked for years in Africa, and had personal connections and good access to Nigerian officials. I think he was as qualified as anyone to check the story. The document that was used to support this claim by "curve ball" the CIA name for Ahmed Chalabi was proven to be a forgery. The forged signature was that of an official who wasn't even in the government at the time it was signed. I think Fitzgerald (R), the prosecuter in the Plame case would disagree with you about Rove. The testimony of Matt Cooper and Robert Novak is also contrary to your assertion he had nothing to do with it. Rev Prez said: Yeah, one of the few Blacks your side couldn't tear down. ???? What in the world are you talking about? I thought we were all Americans and on the same side? So much for Mr. Bush being a "uniter, not a divider." Rev Prez said: The left also entertained this quixotic belief that Powell was one of theirs; they have since long before the 2000 election and they still can't shake it. Again, please cite some supporting evidence for your outrageous claim. Rev Prez said: Let's see, Powell went before the UN and testified about weapons you will swear up and down were known to have never existed. He backed the President every inch up over a war that you will swear up and down was based on lies. So either you're buying into your own or somebody else's fiction or Powell is just as slimy as Bolton. And his testimony was false and the administration knew it. Read the Downing street memo, "the facts and intelligence were being fixed around the policy" He was the only member of the administration to object to the war, yet because he is a good soldier he did the dirty deeds and sacrificed his good reputation (and the lives of 1806 American soldiers as of 8/1/2005) so they could have their war. Ever wonder why he didn't stay for the second term? Ever wonder why Powell doesn't support John Bolton? Rev Prez said: We should first start with being honest with each other. You are anti-Republican... I think you need to be honest with yourself, and stop denying the facts when they don't fit your narrow scope of reality. Rev Prez said: ...as evidenced by your disgust with whatever Republicans are up to. Go to cspan.org and watch Senator Voinavich's (R) speech in opposition to John Bolton. He was in tears because of the harm this man will do to the already badly damaged prestige of the US. Do the world a favor, stop being afraid, educate yourself and learn to check the facts surrounding a story, especially if it is from partisan sources. And please, this is a physics forum, the people here are intelligent and educated, they don't want to listen to extremist rants. Chalabi Ahmad Chalabi had a great influence on the Bush administration. Nearly everything he told them about Iraq was lies lies and more lies. The administration fell for his lies because he was telling them what they wanted to hear, such as "There are mobile bioweapons factories in Iraq", and much much more. The administration paid Chalabi over$33 million for his services.

From the link referring to Chalabi:
"There are also allegations of financial misdemeanours. In 1992, he was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison with hard labour for bank fraud after the 1990 collapse of Petra Bank, which he had founded in 1977."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalabi

The CIA could easily have picked his lies apart. Why didn't they??? Or weren't they allowed to? :grumpy:

Last edited:
Skyhunter
edward said:
Ahmad Chalabi had a great influence on the Bush administration. Nearly everything he told them about Iraq was lies lies and more lies.
Leave it to the Bush administration to trust a man convicted of embezzling.

edward said:
The administration fell for his lies because he was telling them what they wanted to hear, such as "There are mobile bioweapons factories in Iraq", and much much more. The administration paid Chalabi over \$33 million for his services.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalabi

The CIA could easily have picked his lies apart. Why didn't they???
Ever wonder why the head of the CIA got the medal of freedom for doing such a horrible job?

The lie that I found most telling was the one Condi Rice told when she insisted the anodized aluminum tubes were for enriching uranium. Not only were they the wrong size and shape, anodizing renders them useless to the enrichment process.

Anyone who takes the time to research and inform themselves on this subject would have a very difficult time not concluding that this war was sold to us the same way we are sold any other consumer product.

By the way, John Bolton was the main guy going around the CIA making sure that the analysts towed the line and "fixed the facts and intelligence" to fit the administrations policy. He was also on the Bush legal team opposing the democratic principle of counting votes in Florida 2000. Just the guy we need to promote truth and democracy.

Informal Logic
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8786915/

"Bolton appointment sends message to the U.N.
White House looking to shake things up with hard-line appointee"
NBC News - Aug. 1, 2005
What will the political repercussions be of Bush’s recess appointment of Bolton?

Well, he is certainly going to alienate Democrats who don’t feel that Bolton has any credibility and who think he is an undiplomatic choice for a diplomatic post at the United Nations.
So here is a president who has already alienated the world and divided his country... Sounds like a good idea to me to "shake up things" in the international arena and to diss folks on the other side of the aisle again.