Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on January 22, 2008, 08:54:30 PM
-
Not a shock...
WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
ADVERTISEMENT
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat
cont... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study
-
Dude, you've gone Berserk with the posts. :)
-
Hello Michael "Berserker" Moore
-
Hello Michael "Berserker" Moore
I'm actually related to both Michael Moore and Hugo Chavez, can you image that :D
Don't tell anyone!
-
Not a shock...
WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
ADVERTISEMENT
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat
cont... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study
what a dumb study. funny they didn't study the statements below...
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.”
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
“It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.”
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
John Kerry > January 23, 2003“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.”
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.”
John Kerry > October 9, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Senator Hillary Clinton > October 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, 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.”
Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002 “There was 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 that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there’s been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn’t mean he won’t. This is a bad guy.”
Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of ‘98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.”
Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face — and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.”
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Jane Harman > August 27, 2002“I certainly think (Hussein’s) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good.”
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002“I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain.”
Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.”
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002“[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously.”
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002“In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program.”
Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002“Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.”
Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002“(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you’ll get a debate about whether it’s one year away or five years away.”
Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002“I’m inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others.”
Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002“With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues.”
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”
Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003“Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.”
Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003“I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States.”
John Kerry > January 31, 2003
“If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn’t vote for me.”
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002“We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.”
Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002“I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he’s trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us.”
Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003“The question is whether we’re going to allow this man who’s been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where — if we’re going to stop him if he invades a country around him — it’ll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives.”
Al Gore > September 23, 2002“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002“First of all, we don’t know exactly what he has. It’s been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one.”
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”
Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 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.”
Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.”
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.”
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Al Gore > December 16, 1998“f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…”
.....nuff said
-
what a dumb study. funny they didn't study the statements below...
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.”
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
“It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.”
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
John Kerry > January 23, 2003“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.”
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.”
John Kerry > October 9, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Senator Hillary Clinton > October 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, 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.”
Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002 “There was 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 that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there’s been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn’t mean he won’t. This is a bad guy.”
Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of ‘98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.”
Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face — and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.”
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Jane Harman > August 27, 2002“I certainly think (Hussein’s) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good.”
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002“I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain.”
Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.”
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002“[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously.”
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002“In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program.”
Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002“Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.”
Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002“(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you’ll get a debate about whether it’s one year away or five years away.”
Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002“I’m inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others.”
Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002“With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues.”
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”
Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003“Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.”
Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003“I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States.”
John Kerry > January 31, 2003
“If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn’t vote for me.”
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002“We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.”
Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002“I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he’s trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us.”
Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003“The question is whether we’re going to allow this man who’s been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where — if we’re going to stop him if he invades a country around him — it’ll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives.”
Al Gore > September 23, 2002“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002“First of all, we don’t know exactly what he has. It’s been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one.”
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”
Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 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.”
Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.”
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.”
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Al Gore > December 16, 1998“f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…”
.....nuff said
Ah yes. The facts again. :)
-
....nuff said
I don't get it, how is Bush vindicated by what a bunch of asswipes POS politicians swept up in the neocon's united we stand propaganda?
-
Ah yes. The facts again. :)
yeah got to agree.
-
Ah yes. The facts again. :)
Yea, I think I remember, you were one of those that liked to excuse Bush's ways because Clinton did it too ::) Same logic here I guess, but it doesn't even really apply. had you spent the time to look at things I tried to show you over and over and over you would know these statements were all made based partially or in whole on a briefing prepared by the administration which was filled with lies created out of the fake intelligence agency concocted in the pentagon because the CIA wouldn't say what they wanted. But good god, try to get you to read more than 50 words or watch more than 3 minutes. Never... Some of us will be informed while others only want the spark notes of the spark notes and talk like they have the facts ::)
-
yeah got to agree.
but of course you do.
-
Thats hilarious.....How is a "SCUD" missle a WMD!! Of course the FACTS show no weapons of Mass destruction.
Saddamn was just posing like he was a tuff guy, cuz the bully down the street had a hard-on for him.
Clinton as it turned out was right again......patience my little war-mongers! ;)
I heard when we hung saddamn his head came off.... :o
-
but of course you do.
Of course I do. funny after the fact now we have "independent" groups guarding and claiming they have uncovered the truth. Where were they with their fundraisers and grants into this subject 6 years ago?
To point blame at one individual and others around him, is hardly scientific.
I guess they counted that lie, when he told his wife he loved the shirt he bought her?
Even world psychologists will agree this study is subjective to the max. The real study now is to uncover the donors of this "study" and reveal their bias.
-
part of an article
UPDATE:
AP Ignores 'Bush Lied' Study Funded by Ultra-leftist George Soros
Well, the AP has done it again. They have given us leftist propaganda and painted it as news. This time they have published the results of a "study" that claims that "Bush lied" in the run-up to Iraq and somehow the AP forgot to mention that the organization that released this study was funded by extreme leftist George Soros, who has spent billions funding the Democrat Party and many far left think tank and advocacy organizations. Yeah, THAT study is going to be legitimate!
This one may as well have been just a reprint of the press release of the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity, but the AP dressed it up as an actual story written by reporter Douglass K. Daniel. Headlined "Study: False statements preceded war," the AP reveals how, "A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks."
-
part of an article
UPDATE:
AP Ignores 'Bush Lied' Study Funded by Ultra-leftist George Soros
Well, the AP has done it again. They have given us leftist propaganda and painted it as news. This time they have published the results of a "study" that claims that "Bush lied" in the run-up to Iraq and somehow the AP forgot to mention that the organization that released this study was funded by extreme leftist George Soros, who has spent billions funding the Democrat Party and many far left think tank and advocacy organizations. Yeah, THAT study is going to be legitimate!
This one may as well have been just a reprint of the press release of the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity, but the AP dressed it up as an actual story written by reporter Douglass K. Daniel. Headlined "Study: False statements preceded war," the AP reveals how, "A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks."
You dont like the truth, do you? Any blind man can see the war is corporate BS and LIES are what convinced most to "Shock&Awe" Iraq. ::)
-
You don't need an ultra liberal study to know Bush lied, he did period... didn't you get that memo ;)
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
-
Yea, I think I remember, you were one of those that liked to excuse Bush's ways because Clinton did it too ::) Same logic here I guess, but it doesn't even really apply. had you spent the time to look at things I tried to show you over and over and over you would know these statements were all made based partially or in whole on a briefing prepared by the administration which was filled with lies created out of the fake intelligence agency concocted in the pentagon because the CIA wouldn't say what they wanted. But good god, try to get you to read more than 50 words or watch more than 3 minutes. Never... Some of us will be informed while others only want the spark notes of the spark notes and talk like they have the facts ::)
You remember wrong. I never said any such thing about Bush and Clinton.
What the facts show is vast sections of our country and the world thought Saddam was a threat and had or was trying to obtain WMDs. The argument that Bush misled the world is just ridiculous. The comments in the link mightymouse posted show the same concerns expressed both before and after Bush took office, dating back to 1998, from both Democrats and Republicans.
-
Dec 14, 2006.
Bush stood in the Rose Garden and said we needed to invade Iraq so that they were not able to hold our economy hostage with oil. He said we couldn't allow anyone but ourselves to control the flow, to ensure stability of our economy.
It might have slipped out, after being asked about the real reason for the war, on a cold day in DC. Maybe he was irritated with the Qs, maybe he just wanted to be straight with us. I don't know.
Bush admitted the war was to ensure the flow of oil to the USA.
You can say "yeah, but, but, it was also about..." and list a million reasons. Maybe it was to rescue trapped pixies from a cotton candy lake. It doesn't matter. We are there to control oil and keep it sold to us, in dollars. Period. Bush admitted it, and now the contracts are in place which absolutely prove it.
Iraq was about oil. No one is denying it anymore, in case you haven't noticed. Except relics here on the Politics board.
-
A George Soros funded study..again what the Left says is the truth..only the Right plays fast and loose with the facts right. yeah.... ::)
-
A George Soros funded study..again what the Left says is the truth..only the Right plays fast and loose with the facts right. yeah.... ::)
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
Sorry HH6, I looked for a Nazi translation but there isn't one. You'll have to go with English on this one.
-
You remember wrong. I never said any such thing about Bush and Clinton.
What the facts show is vast sections of our country and the world thought Saddam was a threat and had or was trying to obtain WMDs. The argument that Bush misled the world is just ridiculous. The comments in the link mightymouse posted show the same concerns expressed both before and after Bush took office, dating back to 1998, from both Democrats and Republicans.
Well I guess you get the facts you want when you only look at what you want to see. ::) You guys are really good at denoucing information for coming from a left leaning source and only holding rightwing sources up as valid--I'm sure that works out real well for you guys. ::) and you do note that past presidents did X too so there's nothing to see here, move on.
-
all those dem quotes from 1998....
that was BEFORE we sent in UN inspectros in 2002.
What did they find? Nothing.
Saddam let them look at everything except his private bathrooms, which he took a cultural front to. Yes, it was dumb, but did anyone believe he had WMD in there?
Anyway, all those quotes were dispoven by new intel in 2002-3.
The UN believed he DID NOT have WMD, but the US invaded anyway.
Not that I care, but be honest if you're using 1998 quotes - that was before inspections.
-
all those dem quotes from 1998....
that was BEFORE we sent in UN inspectros in 2002.
What did they find? Nothing.
Saddam let them look at everything except his private bathrooms, which he took a cultural front to. Yes, it was dumb, but did anyone believe he had WMD in there?
Anyway, all those quotes were dispoven by new intel in 2002-3.
The UN believed he DID NOT have WMD, but the US invaded anyway.
Not that I care, but be honest if you're using 1998 quotes - that was before inspections.
Saddam blocked inspections for years and violated resolution after resolution. This is not how someone with nothing to hide behaves.
The fact is Saddam used WMD's multiple times against the Iranians and his own people. Where did these weapons go? Nobody knows.
-
Saddam blocked inspections for years and violated resolution after resolution. This is not how someone with nothing to hide behaves.
The fact is Saddam used WMD's multiple times against the Iranians and his own people. Where did these weapons go? Nobody knows.
we found a lot of them. They were decrepit, 15 year old canisters with the killing power of bug spray.
Also noteworty is that we gave his universities those WMD strains to begin with.
Saddam was an ass, and I'm glad he's gone, and I'm glad we have iraqi oil now. I support the war.
I just don't support the delusional story you're selling here. The UN inspectors found no WMD. We bombed them anyway. Can you admit that much?
-
we found a lot of them. They were decrepit, 15 year old canisters with the killing power of bug spray.
Also noteworty is that we gave his universities those WMD strains to begin with.
Saddam was an ass, and I'm glad he's gone, and I'm glad we have iraqi oil now. I support the war.
I just don't support the delusional story you're selling here. The UN inspectors found no WMD. We bombed them anyway. Can you admit that much?
Delusional stories? I'm just recalling recent history, I'm not even implying anything. Saddam may have scrapped his program years ago, who knows? But he did not behave that way leading up to the war. He made the weapons inspectors job very difficult back in 02, it's not like he was leading them to the site where his WMD's were destroyed or anything.
But in a nutshell, yes we didn't find any WMD's and we bombed him anyway. The thing is that we're talking about a dictatorship run by the Butcher of Baghdad, he earned that nickname. People on the left reacted to the war like America invaded Switzerland or something.
Not only that but Gaddaffi was so terrified after he saw Saddam pulled out of his rathole and humiliated, that he voluntarily gave up his WMD program. Two for the price of one!
Basically I'm not all that concerned if the evidence against toppling a murderous dictator isn't totally airtight. I guess that makes me a total nazi :)
-
Thats fine i speak some German.....i would prefer u find neutral sites...because nope i don't believe a fucking thing the left says..they're blinded by Bush hate to the point of wishing the US to collapse.
-
Basically I'm not all that concerned if the evidence against toppling a murderous dictator isn't totally airtight. I guess that makes me a total nazi :)
He didn't murder Americans.
Do you give a shit what a n korean dictator does? I sure don't. Unless they fck with americans.
but, americans DID die in iraq - when we went to war with them.
saddam was the butcher, sure. He butchered those animals that are butchering each other still to this day. SHould 3000 men and 1 tril be spent - just to prevent him from killing them? Fck now. We have crime here that needs stopped. We have hungry people HERE. I don' want to spend US money and manpower stopping bad guys from hurting their own people in other nations, when there are still unsolved murders here in the USA.
-
wait!!!!!!!!!! You mean...... WE'RE MARCHING AROUND THE WORLD, SEIZING RESOURCES, TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO LIVE INVADING AND OCCUPYING COUNTRIES AND KILLING EVERYONE WHO FIGHTS AGAINST IT...
NO NAZIS HERE, MOVE ALONG :P
-
Delusional stories? I'm just recalling recent history, I'm not even implying anything. Saddam may have scrapped his program years ago, who knows? But he did not behave that way leading up to the war. He made the weapons inspectors job very difficult back in 02, it's not like he was leading them to the site where his WMD's were destroyed or anything.
....
The job was met with some mixed results in '02 but in '03 the Iraqis were leading the to the sites to which the inspectors requested access. They were very cooperative in '03.
What kind of policy does that set for recalcitrant countries down the road?
US: Well, you better give in to inspections or else.
Iraq: ok, ok, come on in and inspect away.
US: We are finding no weapons so....Attack!
That's horrible policy.
-
Well I guess you get the facts you want when you only look at what you want to see. ::) You guys are really good at denoucing information for coming from a left leaning source and only holding rightwing sources up as valid--I'm sure that works out real well for you guys. ::) and you do note that past presidents did X too so there's nothing to see here, move on.
Dude I do not denounce info from a "left leaning source" and only hold "rightwing sources up as valid." Where are you getting that from? I actually post stories from conservative and liberal sites on this board all the time.
That said, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that a "study" was funded by a Bush hater.
I have never said past wrongs justify present wrongs. Not true at all.
-
Thats fine i speak some German.....i would prefer u find neutral sites...because nope i don't believe a fucking thing the left says..they're blinded by Bush hate to the point of wishing the US to collapse.
-
Delusional stories? I'm just recalling recent history, I'm not even implying anything. Saddam may have scrapped his program years ago, who knows? But he did not behave that way leading up to the war. He made the weapons inspectors job very difficult back in 02, it's not like he was leading them to the site where his WMD's were destroyed or anything.
But in a nutshell, yes we didn't find any WMD's and we bombed him anyway. The thing is that we're talking about a dictatorship run by the Butcher of Baghdad, he earned that nickname. People on the left reacted to the war like America invaded Switzerland or something.
Not only that but Gaddaffi was so terrified after he saw Saddam pulled out of his rathole and humiliated, that he voluntarily gave up his WMD program. Two for the price of one!
Basically I'm not all that concerned if the evidence against toppling a murderous dictator isn't totally airtight. I guess that makes me a total nazi :)
I agree with this.
-
I agree with this.
We didn't just topple a murderous dictator.
We ravaged a country.
We destroyed families.
We ended the lives of tens of thousand of people that had no beef with us.
We crippled men, women and children..
And we pocketed as much of their loot as we could.
We destroyed their lives and livelihoods.
The facile answer that Saddam wasn't a good man and deserved to be overthrown...how does that make the US's killing of thousands of Iraqis the right thing to do?
No wonder Americans are hated worldwide. With that kind of thoughtless arrogance, I'd say a bit of that hatred is well deserved.
-
We didn't just topple a murderous dictator.
We ravaged a country.
We destroyed families.
We ended the lives of tens of thousand of people that had no beef with us.
We crippled men, women and children..
And we pocketed as much of their loot as we could.
We destroyed their lives and livelihoods.
The facile answer that Saddam wasn't a good man and deserved to be overthrown...how does that make the US's killing of thousands of Iraqis the right thing to do?
No wonder Americans are hated worldwide. With that kind of thoughtless arrogance, I'd say a bit of that hatred is well deserved.
True words. Its too easy for us to shake that part off, because of the bigger picture.
-
Dude I do not denounce info from a "left leaning source" and only hold "rightwing sources up as valid." Where are you getting that from? I actually post stories from conservative and liberal sites on this board all the time.
That said, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that a "study" was funded by a Bush hater.
I have never said past wrongs justify present wrongs. Not true at all.
I said you guys because your cohorts do and you frequently just pop in with a yup or I agree. You align with these guys so much, no doubt in my mind you're a righty. Your rightwing cohorts, just like HH6, simply won't consider anything deemed leftwing. Do they denounce rightwing sources? Hell no... How do you get a site sure to be deemed lefty? any site that is critical of anything the right doesn't want to be criticized on... wow, how convenient.
-
We didn't just topple a murderous dictator.
We ravaged a country.
We destroyed families.
We ended the lives of tens of thousand of people that had no beef with us.
We crippled men, women and children..
And we pocketed as much of their loot as we could.
We destroyed their lives and livelihoods.
The facile answer that Saddam wasn't a good man and deserved to be overthrown...how does that make the US's killing of thousands of Iraqis the right thing to do?
No wonder Americans are hated worldwide. With that kind of thoughtless arrogance, I'd say a bit of that hatred is well deserved.
Decker your list of American atrocities is absurd.
Who said Saddam needed to be overthrown solely because he wasn't a good man? Saddam needed to go for a variety of reasons, including his failure to comply with multilple UN resolutions going back to Desert Storm, the belief by much of the world that he had or was trying to acquire WMDs, the fact he had previously used WMDs on his own people, the fact he had previously invaded another country and was about to invade another before we stopped him, the fact he had unlimited resources, the fact he was sponsoring terrorism, the fact he was pilfering his country's resources and had tortured and murdered his own people.
Americans are and will always be hated by some and that hatred has nothing to do with your so-called "thoughtless arrogance." We will always be hated by some, particularly many in the Middle East, because they want to exterminate our way of life.
In spite of that, we lead the world in immigration. People are dying to come here, because we are the greatest country in the history of the world.
-
I said you guys because your cohorts do and you frequently just pop in with a yup or I agree. You align with these guys so much, no doubt in my mind you're a righty. Your rightwing cohorts, just like HH6, simply won't consider anything deemed leftwing. Do they denounce rightwing sources? Hell no... How do you get a site sure to be deemed lefty? any site that is critical of anything the right doesn't want to be criticized on... wow, how convenient.
Whatever dude. I could care less what labels you want to use. Doesn't matter to me.
I consider huffington post about as liberal as they come and I visit that site everyday. I've posted a number of articles from that site on this board, including a recent one about Huckabee's ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens.
-
I won't post stuff from the National Review or the Daily Standard..because while they're right..they are biased and their facts would be in doubt. U've swallowed the Leftist coolaid way to much
-
Decker your list of American atrocities is absurd.
Who said Saddam needed to be overthrown solely because he wasn't a good man? Saddam needed to go for a variety of reasons, including his failure to comply with multilple UN resolutions going back to Desert Storm, the belief by much of the world that he had or was trying to acquire WMDs, the fact he had previously used WMDs on his own people, the fact he had previously invaded another country and was about to invade another before we stopped him, the fact he had unlimited resources, the fact he was sponsoring terrorism, the fact he was pilfering his country's resources and had tortured and murdered his own people.
Americans are and will always be hated by some and that hatred has nothing to do with your so-called "thoughtless arrogance." We will always be hated by some, particularly many in the Middle East, because they want to exterminate our way of life.
In spite of that, we lead the world in immigration. People are dying to come here, because we are the greatest country in the history of the world.
No, we are hated in the Middle East because he interfere in their affairs and countries. If the propaganda machine you are advocating were true then Norway, New Zealand and Australia would be globally despised as well and they are more 'liberal' societies than the USA's and would be more offensive to Muslims. If however you mean by our way of life, CIA sponsored assassinations, puppet dictators, toppling of elected leaders and theft and pillaging of other's resources then I would say you are right.
-
No, we are hated in the Middle East because he interfere in their affairs and countries. If the propaganda machine you are advocating were true then Norway, New Zealand and Australia would be globally despised as well and they are more 'liberal' societies than the USA's and would be more offensive to Muslims. If however you mean by our way of life, CIA sponsored assassinations, puppet dictators, toppling of elected leaders and theft and pillaging of other's resources then I would say you are right.
I disagree. There are segments of the Middle East that would hate us if we didn't have a single service member in the region. They hate our way of life. They believe our western culture is corrupt, evil, etc. They also hate the fact Israel is our ally and that we support them. I'm sure our presence in the region helps fuel their hatred, but it's not the cause.
-
Decker your list of American atrocities is absurd.
Absurd? The list is true to every word. Please point out where I have misstated something and I'll admit it.
Who said Saddam needed to be overthrown solely because he wasn't a good man?
Do you deny agreeing with the following statement: "But in a nutshell, yes we didn't find any WMD's and we bombed him anyway. The thing is that we're talking about a dictatorship run by the Butcher of Baghdad, he earned that nickname."
No one is saying anything about 'good men', we are discussing the aptness of overthrowing a murderous dictator, are we not?
Saddam needed to go for a variety of reasons, including his failure to comply with multilple UN resolutions going back to Desert Storm,
Did Iraq comply with inspections ultimately? Yes:
IRAQ COOPERATING WITH DISARMAMENT PROCEDURES, BUT MANY BANNED WEAPONS
REMAIN UNACCOUNTED FOR, INSPECTORS TELL SECURITY COUNCIL http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm
Blix asked for more time for inspections and Bush kicked him out of the country and ordered his murderous attack.
the belief by much of the world that he had or was trying to acquire WMDs,
When has the US ever gone to war over a "belief"?
the fact he had previously used WMDs on his own people,
With the US's support, when told of this monstrosity, Pres. Bush almost interrupted his golf game...almost, here's his thoughts on the matter: 'That's not our problem, those people have been killing each other for years.'
the fact he had previously invaded another country and was about to invade another before we stopped him,
Check your calendar, that was almost 20 years ago. Are you still worried about the threat posed by Viet Nam?
the fact he had unlimited resources,
After the US bombed his country to the stoneage and wrung out it's economic prowess with sanctions, I'd say you are overstating your point a bit. Iraq was and is surrounded by enemies.
the fact he was sponsoring terrorism,
Too bad it wasn't Al Qaeda he was sponsoring. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11....not the guys Hussein worked with. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter--you could have asked Ronald Reagan about that one.
the fact he was pilfering his country's resources and had tortured and murdered his own people.
Great. That puts him in league with just about every other dictator in the world.
Americans are and will always be hated by some and that hatred has nothing to do with your so-called "thoughtless arrogance." We will always be hated by some, particularly many in the Middle East, because they want to exterminate our way of life.
Yes, they hate our freedoms. BB, you are so much smarter than that. I find that kind of justification the worst sort of political propaganda. But to each his own.
In spite of that, we lead the world in immigration. People are dying to come here, because we are the greatest country in the history of the world.
(fade out the Battle Hymn.....) Of course people want to come to our country. It's a great country with lots of opportunity.
-
I disagree. There are segments of the Middle East that would hate us if we didn't have a single service member in the region. They hate our way of life. They believe our western culture is corrupt, evil, etc. They also hate the fact Israel is our ally and that we support them. I'm sure our presence in the region helps fuel their hatred, but it's not the cause.
It is both. I am not a one trick pony. I think Islam is very dangerous AND so are our policies.
By way of analogy: Islam=Oil USA Foreign Policy=Fire
Segments....yes, but occupation is the key word. Iran tried to radicalise people over 'Western Style' habits in the 80's and it didn't work; occupation however is an exellent motivator. Yes, our unqualified support for Israel helps fuel the flames; that is why we shouldn't do it.
In any event, you ignored the main point; why aren't Australia, New Zealand and Norway globally despised for their way of life?
-
Absurd? The list is true to every word. Please point out where I have misstated something and I'll admit it.
Do you deny agreeing with the following statement: "But in a nutshell, yes we didn't find any WMD's and we bombed him anyway. The thing is that we're talking about a dictatorship run by the Butcher of Baghdad, he earned that nickname."
No one is saying anything about 'good men', we are discussing the aptness of overthrowing a murderous dictator, are we not?
Did Iraq comply with inspections ultimately? Yes:
IRAQ COOPERATING WITH DISARMAMENT PROCEDURES, BUT MANY BANNED WEAPONS
REMAIN UNACCOUNTED FOR, INSPECTORS TELL SECURITY COUNCIL http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm
Blix asked for more time for inspections and Bush kicked him out of the country and ordered his murderous attack.
When has the US ever gone to war over a "belief"?
With the US's support, when told of this monstrosity, Pres. Bush almost interrupted his golf game...almost, here's his thoughts on the matter: 'That's not our problem, those people have been killing each other for years.'
Check your calendar, that was almost 20 years ago. Are you still worried about the threat posed by Viet Nam?
After the US bombed his country to the stoneage and wrung out it's economic prowess with sanctions, I'd say you are overstating your point a bit. Iraq was and is surrounded by enemies.
Too bad it wasn't Al Qaeda he was sponsoring. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11....not the guys Hussein worked with. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter--you could have asked Ronald Reagan about that one.
Great. That puts him in league with just about every other dictator in the world.
Yes, they hate our freedoms. BB, you are so much smarter than that. I find that kind of justification the worst sort of political propaganda. But to each his own.
(fade out the Battle Hymn.....) Of course people want to come to our country. It's a great country with lots of opportunity.
Decker every single item you listed is wrong. We didn't ravage Iraq, destroy families, cripple people, pocket "loot," etc. You know it's pretty much impossible to prove a negative. What we did was remove Saddam and his regime. It was actually Saddam who was looting his country's resources. I've talked to soldiers who have been in many parts of Iraq, where people live like cavemen. They live that way because Saddam pilfered his country's resources, built numerous palaces, lived like royalty, and handed out peanuts to his people. Saddam is the one who built torture chambers for his own people. He is the one who gassed his own people.
The insurgents are the ones blowing up men, women, and children. We don't.
Our country does not own or control Iraq's oil. I assume that's what you mean by "loot"?
We didn't find any WMDs after the fact. Does that mean he didn't have them or wasn't trying to obtain them? No. It's possible he was fooling the entire world into believing that he was in possession of these weapons and/or trying to acquire them, but I think it's more likely he moved them out of the country before we invaded.
I do not believe one item was necessarily reason enough to invade. It's the totality of the circumstances IMO. When you look at his history (all of the items I mentioned and more) and put that together with what the world believed, I think removing him was the right thing to do. He was a unique dictator.
Some of my military friends disagree with me. We have debated this many times. :)
I don't think my views on why they hate us is propaganda at all. I've seen, for example, Iranians teach their children to hate Americans for nearly thirty years. I've seen Middle Eastern children burn American flags for decades. I've seen Middle Eastern children chant "death to America"! I've listened to many in the Middle East call us "the Great Satan" for decades. I've talked to people who have lived in the region and who say they hate our way of life and there is really nothing we can do about it except die.
-
It is both. I am not a one trick pony. I think Islam is very dangerous AND so are our policies.
By way of analogy: Islam=Oil USA Foreign Policy=Fire
Segments....yes, but occupation is the key word. Iran tried to radicalise people over 'Western Style' habits in the 80's and it didn't work; occupation however is an exellent motivator. Yes, our unqualified support for Israel helps fuel the flames; that is why we shouldn't do it.
In any event, you ignored the main point; why aren't Australia, New Zealand and Norway globally despised for their way of life?
Australia, New Zealand, and Norway don't have near the combination of prosperity, influence, and power of the U.S. We are essentially the center of the world. That is true of our economy, entertainment, education, military, freedom, opportunity, etc. Part of our problem is we are the biggest, baddest kid on the block. They also don't have people flocking to the borders like we do.
Also, do those countries provide foreign aid to Israel?
-
Decker every single item you listed is wrong. We didn't ravage Iraq, destroy families, cripple people, pocket "loot," etc.
So those 80,000 Iraqis just died falling out of the bathtub? And the children lost their limbs playing stickball, and the oil PSAs just magically appeared giving foreign companies the bulk of the revenue.
But for the US led invasion, those things do not happen in Iraq.
You know it's pretty much impossible to prove a negative. What we did was remove Saddam and his regime. It was actually Saddam who was looting his country's resources.
And we blew up those infrastructural resources and rebuilt them at a nice profit.
I've talked to soldiers who have been in many parts of Iraq, where people live like cavemen. They live that way because Saddam pilfered his country's resources, built numerous palaces, lived like royalty, and handed out peanuts to his people.
7 out of 10 Iraqis still have no access to a steady supply of clean potable water. Iraq was generating 5 megawatts of electricity before the invasion. Now it's generating about 4 megawatts. The Electricity Ministry puts current demand at about 7 megawatts. Major cities used to have 9 hours of electricity per day, today they have about 3.
About 80% of Iraqis still lack decent sanitation. In other words, the Iraqi people had higher living standards living under Hussein than they do under US occupation.
Saddam is the one who built torture chambers for his own people. He is the one who gassed his own people.
Torture...does that ring a bell...Alberto? Yes BB, Hussein was a bad man. How does that give the US the right to do what it did?
The insurgents are the ones blowing up men, women, and children. We don't.
No, our guns shoot magic sedative bullets and our mortars are really puffball sleepy bombs. I think you know better than that.
Our country does not own or control Iraq's oil. I assume that's what you mean by "loot"?
Right. The profit and royalty split between the foreign oil companies and the Iraqi people were entered into willingly and fairly.
We didn't find any WMDs after the fact.
We didn't find any WMDs before the fact either.
Does that mean he didn't have them or wasn't trying to obtain them? No. It's possible he was fooling the entire world into believing that he was in possession of these weapons and/or trying to acquire them, but I think it's more likely he moved them out of the country before we invaded.
It's a good thing we had the worldclass scientist WMD inspectors in Iraq BEFORE the invasion to show that Iraq indeed had no WMDs.
But I do like your conspiracy theories.
I do not believe one item was necessarily reason enough to invade. It's the totality of the circumstances IMO. When you look at his history (all of the items I mentioned and more) and put that together with what the world believed, I think removing him was the right thing to do. He was a unique dictator.
Are beliefs of wrongdoing and, let's face it, the harmless 'threat' posed by the tiny Iraq country, reasons enough to go to war? I look at the pictures of the destruction that, but for the US led invasion, would not have happened and I think, "No."
Some of my military friends disagree with me. We have debated this many times. :)
You should listen to your friends (like me).
I don't think my views on why they hate us is propaganda at all. I've seen, for example, Iranians teach their children to hate Americans for nearly thirty years. I've seen Middle Eastern children burn American flags for decades. I've seen Middle Eastern children chant "death to America"! I've listened to many in the Middle East call us "the Great Satan" for decades. I've talked to people who have lived in the region and who say they hate our way of life and there is really nothing we can do about it except die.
It is understandable that the Iranians have hated us for over 30 years...it's been 40+ years since the US helped install the murderous Shah of Iran as their leader.
Would you warm up to a country that overthrew your government and installed a murderous dictatorial strongman?
I know I wouldn't.
-
Australia, New Zealand, and Norway don't have near the combination of prosperity, influence, and power of the U.S. We are essentially the center of the world. That is true of our economy, entertainment, education, military, freedom, opportunity, etc. Part of our problem is we are the biggest, baddest kid on the block. They also don't have people flocking to the borders like we do.
Also, do those countries provide foreign aid to Israel?
I agree, they do not provide aid to Israel and it is something we should really stop doing; we should stop giving aid to all countries. The epicentre theory is a silly one. It is much simpler; they do not intervene abroad, invade other countries, assassinate elected leaders and pillage other nations; if they did, they would be targets as well.
-
Decker every single item you listed is wrong. We didn't ravage Iraq, destroy families, cripple people, pocket "loot," etc. You know it's pretty much impossible to prove a negative. What we did was remove Saddam and his regime. It was actually Saddam who was looting his country's resources. I've talked to soldiers who have been in many parts of Iraq, where people live like cavemen. They live that way because Saddam pilfered his country's resources, built numerous palaces, lived like royalty, and handed out peanuts to his people. Saddam is the one who built torture chambers for his own people. He is the one who gassed his own people.
The insurgents are the ones blowing up men, women, and children. We don't.
Our country does not own or control Iraq's oil. I assume that's what you mean by "loot"?
We didn't find any WMDs after the fact. Does that mean he didn't have them or wasn't trying to obtain them? No. It's possible he was fooling the entire world into believing that he was in possession of these weapons and/or trying to acquire them, but I think it's more likely he moved them out of the country before we invaded.
I do not believe one item was necessarily reason enough to invade. It's the totality of the circumstances IMO. When you look at his history (all of the items I mentioned and more) and put that together with what the world believed, I think removing him was the right thing to do. He was a unique dictator.
Some of my military friends disagree with me. We have debated this many times. :)
I don't think my views on why they hate us is not propaganda at all. I've seen, for example, Iranians teach their children to hate Americans for nearly thirty years. I've seen Middle Eastern children burn American flags for decades. I've seen Middle Eastern children chant "death to America"! I've listened to many in the Middle East call us "the Great Satan" for decades. I've talked to people who have lived in the region and who say they hate our way of life and there is really nothing we can do about it except die.
Man, if you really took the time to listen to men like UN Inspector Scott Ritter and paid more attention to any media other than the ones that come out of America's major outlets you would see things in a whole new light. Your looking at things through pin hole shades and I don't know if it's more sad or frustrating to hear people still believe such notions as the ones you mention in some of your posts.
There are fanatics in every culture and country, you just happen to get your information from one group of them, don't let it blind you to the truth.
-
Mr. Ritter wanted to meet the 14 year old girl he was chatting online with at a local Burger King. Except that the 14 year old girl was a cop pretending to be a 14 year old girl. He was actually warned about this twice, and had the records sealed. He got away with it for a while because his first name is 'William', but he goes by 'Scott', so it didn't click with the media when a person named "William Ritter" was arrested for attempted solicitation of sex from a minor...that Scott Ritter or this one....
Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.
or perhaps its this one...
Former U. N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter has spent the past few years imagining himself a great geopolitical riddle, independent and unfathomable. Like a half-baked military version of Arianna Huffington, he made his fame as a flamboyant dissenter. Now, revelations about a benefactor may force him to stop playing Peter Pan and grow up: It's time for him to decide whether he wants to go down in history as a shill, or a tool.
The big news (if sadly predictable) was the confirmation that the financier of Ritter's Iraq propaganda film "In Shifting Sands" was among an elite cabal that received "oil allocations" from the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. The confirmation comes from Shakir Khafaji himself, the Iraqi businessman in Detroit who set up Ritter with a $400,000 "loan" to make his film and also helped him get interviews with members of the Baathist regime.
All this was happening about the time Khafaji was evidently benefiting under a program in which Saddam Hussein's regime gave its external friends and supporters vouchers for Iraqi oil at below-market prices. The vouchers could be flipped for instant wealth without ever touching oil. This systematic perversion of the U.N.'s oil-for-food program was first revealed in the Iraqi press, based on found documents, and the scandal has now reached to the highest ranks of the U.N.
It also sheds a new, though unsurprising light, on Ritter's strange film.
The film, remember, caused a great stir in 2001 for its claim that the Iraqi regime had been "defanged.'" Some wondered aloud if Ritter was acting of his own free will. Three years before, in 1998, the former Marine had quit his job as weapons inspector in an indignant tantrum, saying he could not continue his work if the Clinton administration was not willing to pursue a showdown with the recalcitrant Iraqi regime.
-
Mr. Ritter wanted to meet the 14 year old girl he was chatting online with at a local Burger King. Except that the 14 year old girl was a cop pretending to be a 14 year old girl. He was actually warned about this twice, and had the records sealed. He got away with it for a while because his first name is 'William', but he goes by 'Scott', so it didn't click with the media when a person named "William Ritter" was arrested for attempted solicitation of sex from a minor...that Scott Ritter or this one....
Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.
or perhaps its this one...
Former U. N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter has spent the past few years imagining himself a great geopolitical riddle, independent and unfathomable. Like a half-baked military version of Arianna Huffington, he made his fame as a flamboyant dissenter. Now, revelations about a benefactor may force him to stop playing Peter Pan and grow up: It's time for him to decide whether he wants to go down in history as a shill, or a tool.
The big news (if sadly predictable) was the confirmation that the financier of Ritter's Iraq propaganda film "In Shifting Sands" was among an elite cabal that received "oil allocations" from the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. The confirmation comes from Shakir Khafaji himself, the Iraqi businessman in Detroit who set up Ritter with a $400,000 "loan" to make his film and also helped him get interviews with members of the Baathist regime.
All this was happening about the time Khafaji was evidently benefiting under a program in which Saddam Hussein's regime gave its external friends and supporters vouchers for Iraqi oil at below-market prices. The vouchers could be flipped for instant wealth without ever touching oil. This systematic perversion of the U.N.'s oil-for-food program was first revealed in the Iraqi press, based on found documents, and the scandal has now reached to the highest ranks of the U.N.
It also sheds a new, though unsurprising light, on Ritter's strange film.
The film, remember, caused a great stir in 2001 for its claim that the Iraqi regime had been "defanged.'" Some wondered aloud if Ritter was acting of his own free will. Three years before, in 1998, the former Marine had quit his job as weapons inspector in an indignant tantrum, saying he could not continue his work if the Clinton administration was not willing to pursue a showdown with the recalcitrant Iraqi regime.
source?
-
How does impugning Scott Ritter's character change the fact that his statements jibe with the WMD inspectors reportts and not with the pro-war Bush Administration's claims re WMDs in Iraq?
Isn't objectivity the essence of truth?
-
Follow the money....He had reasons to ignore certain things...he got money from a bathist to fund his movie....connect the dots..maybe they don't add up but if this guy was doing something froma pro-Bush pro Republican angle then u Libs would be all over this. As for my sources..i cut and pasted from a number of media outlets....
-
Follow the money....He had reasons to ignore certain things...he got money from a bathist to fund his movie....connect the dots..maybe they don't add up but if this guy was doing something froma pro-Bush pro Republican angle then u Libs would be all over this. As for my sources..i cut and pasted from a number of media outlets....
please give us the sources
-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/ritter.html
[CNN excerpt starts here]
….someone's going to have to show to me how Iraq suddenly went from being, you know, contained and fundamentally disarmed [to the opposite].
And remember, even though I say we couldn't account for everything -- even although I say we couldn't account for everything, from 1994 to 1998, we monitored Iraq's weapons programs, their factories, with the most intrusive on-site monitoring inspection program in the history of arms control, and never once found any deviation, never once found retained prohibitive capability or reconstituted [capability].
[CNN excerpt ends here]
And here are two statements Ritter made four years earlier, in 1998, during his Hawk period. The first is from an interview on the National Public Radio program, 'Morning Edition.' This was on August 28th, just after he resigned from UNSCOM: [5]
[Excerpt from NPR starts here]
RITTER: [...] The problem with disarming Iraq right now is that Iraq has failed across the board. There are major questions in chemical. Iraq has a VX program. VX is one of the most deadly substances on the face of the Earth. And we've uncovered this. They refuse to even address the issue.
We have major problems with stocks of chemical weapons and chemical agents that are unaccounted for. The entire biological program, which (unintelligible) horrible weapons, is a black hole, as Richard Butler says. Ballistic missiles -- there's absolute concern that they still retain the capability to deliver chemical and biological weapons through ballistic missiles that they haven't declared.
[Excerpt from NPR ends here]
The second Hawk statement is from an interview on the US television network, ABC. It’s from the 'Good Morning America’ program, November 2, 1998: [6]
[Excerpt from 'Good Morning America' starts here]
[…]
Lisa McRee: What are they hiding?
SCOTT RITTER: They are hiding their retained capabilities in biological, chemical, nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems.
Lisa McRee: Can you be more specific about what you believe they have?
Scott Ritter: I think one of the things that has been in the news recently is the VX nerve agent, one of the most deadly substances known to mankind. Iraq clearly produced this agent in large quantities and put it on ballistic missile warheads. They have lied about that, they have said that they have not done this, despite the fact that we have the proof in our hands.
Lisa McRee: What's our appropriate response, then?
Scott Ritter: It's time to call the game for what it is. This is Saddam Hussein's attempt to keep weapons of mass destruction and get sanctions lifted. Saddam is linked with these weapons, there is no way of dealing with the weapons without dealing with Saddam.
Lisa McRee: But do what? Should we have a military strike against Iraq? Should it be unilateral or should we do it only with allies? What do you suggest?
Scott Ritter: These are issues that have to be addressed by the national security policy team in Washington, DC, that's what they get paid the big bucks for.
Lisa McRee: What do you think will work, though? You've been there.
Scott Ritter: I know what won't work, continuing to provide concessions to Iraq only feeds their strength. Iraq is in charge of this game right now. They are the ones calling the shots. It's time for the United Nations, the [national] security council of the United States to seize the initiative to start taking more proactive measures to counter Saddam Hussein. And whatever measures they take, they are going to have to be decisive and not the half steps that have been taken so far.
-
From Ritters own book....
B]y 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, there was no more production capability in Iraq because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq’s industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control.
Scott Ritter in 1999 (extract from Ritter’s Endgame):
In 1995 Unit 2001 conducted tests on live human subjects taken from the Abu Ghraib prison, using BW and binary CW agent. Around fifty prisoners were chosen for these experiments, which took place at a remote testing ground in western Iraq. The purpose of these experiments was to test the toxicity of available agent to ensure that the biological agent remained viable. As a result, all the prisoners died.
have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never!
Scott Ritter in 1999:
I have grown convinced that there has been a total breakdown in the willingness of the international community to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein is well on the road to getting his sanctions lifted and keeping his weapons in the bargain.
Scott Ritter last month:
[W]e ... allowed ourselves during the decade of the 1990s to be pre-programmed into accepting at face value without question anything that was negative about Saddam Hussein’s regime, and this made selling the war on Iraq on the basis of a lie the easiest task ever faced by the Bush Administration.
Scott Ritter in 1999:
A resurgent Iraq, reinvigorated economically and politically by standing up successfully to the United States and the United Nations, will be a very dangerous Iraq ...
-
ritter makes good points - but - he advocates WALKING AWAY from iraq and letting their neighbors chistle up the oil. Idiocy.
-
My point was Ritter is all over the map. Walking away at this point..not a good idea. Our foreign policy since the early 70's oil crunch has been to make sure that we could never be held hostage to OPEC. It was a long term strategy and we're seeing the ultimate pay-off from it.
-
My point was Ritter is all over the map. Walking away at this point..not a good idea. Our foreign policy since the early 70's oil crunch has been to make sure that we could never be held hostage to OPEC. It was a long term strategy and we're seeing the ultimate pay-off from it.
agreed... i'm starting to like you, HH6. you're being very honest.
Bush will be remembered as redefining US energy policy. Getting control of afghan/caspian and Iraqi oil, and setting up bases in those countries. Yeah, he was unpopular at the time, but in 20 years, no one will remember the dead soldiers, the WMD lies, or the 3000 people from 911 who were allowed to die. They'll just shrug and be happy their Yukon is still running.
-
ritter makes good points - but - he advocates WALKING AWAY from iraq and letting their neighbors chistle up the oil. Idiocy.
The short term gain we get from the foreign oil raises the issues that:
-The more the US screws with foreign countries for oil, the more terrorist acts will be directed at our troops and at us
-Putting R&D for a renewable source of energy on the backburner until necessary insures the above point
-We thought Bush was bad with his constitutional assaults, wait till the US is hit again. Then we'll see what will be done to our liberties to keep us safe
-The access to oil is just that, access. The price is going to continue to rise as will all other costs related to the energy source (oil is finite/scarce) Food prices, durable goods...any product that is shipped/transported will inflate the costs to account for the increase in gas prices---we are seeing that already. We have what?, at best 70 years of gasoline left on the planet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel#Levels_and_flows
-
He didn't murder Americans.
Do you give a shit what a n korean dictator does? I sure don't. Unless they fck with americans.
but, americans DID die in iraq - when we went to war with them.
saddam was the butcher, sure. He butchered those animals that are butchering each other still to this day. SHould 3000 men and 1 tril be spent - just to prevent him from killing them? Fck now. We have crime here that needs stopped. We have hungry people HERE. I don' want to spend US money and manpower stopping bad guys from hurting their own people in other nations, when there are still unsolved murders here in the USA.
I care, and I do give a shit about what a North Korean dictator does. Kim Jong Il has turned his people into prisoners and slaves, and he deserves a bullet in the head for it.
So basically Hitler shouldn't have been stopped until everybody was full and there were no unsolved crimes, which is pretty much never. Wonderful.
People are hungry here? In case you haven't noticed we have a bit of an obesity problem here. The issue isn't lack of food, it's excesses of it.
See after 911 we learned that our oceans cannot protect us from our enemies anymore. A bunch of religious nutjobs with box cutters did more damage to the American mainland than Hitler with his 18 million man army could.
If only Iran can be stopped before it develops its nuclear weapons. I'm afraid we can't do anything about Iran because of the crippling effect of the never ended propaganda spewed by people like you day in and day out.
-
See after 911 we learned that our oceans cannot protect us from our enemies anymore. A bunch of religious nutjobs with box cutters did more damage to the American mainland than Hitler with his 18 million man army could.
Dude, stop right there.
911 was allowed to happen.
NORAD stood down, specific threats were ignored.
You cannot use that as a support. Sure, maybe it was allowed to happen to squish the islamic bug while it was a puppy instead of letting it grow into a pitbull (once they learned to use their oil).
But until you can answer the many questions surrounding 911, including the insider trading and condi telling mayor willie brown not to fly tomorrow, you can't use 911 as an example for anything, other than a convenient catalyst for already-planned war.
-
I care, and I do give a shit about what a North Korean dictator does. Kim Jong Il has turned his people into prisoners and slaves, and he deserves a bullet in the head for it.
Please place a value on the # of american soldier lives that should be sacrificed to deliver that bullet.
My # is zero.
Yes, Il is a luniatic and evil dictator. But... it's their problem, not ours. Do you want to be the world's police? When a man like Hitler takes aggressive action into other countries, yes, you crush him like we did saddam in 1991/2. But you don't barge into every house on your block where the hubby slaps wifey, do you? No. When they bring that noise into the yard, and mess up your sleep, theyn by all means go fck him up. But in-house shit shouldn't cost our troops their lives.
-
Dude, stop right there.
911 was allowed to happen.
NORAD stood down, specific threats were ignored.
You cannot use that as a support. Sure, maybe it was allowed to happen to squish the islamic bug while it was a puppy instead of letting it grow into a pitbull (once they learned to use their oil).
But until you can answer the many questions surrounding 911, including the insider trading and condi telling mayor willie brown not to fly tomorrow, you can't use 911 as an example for anything, other than a convenient catalyst for already-planned war.
So your telling me that government allowed the worst attack on US history to happen so that Bush could engage in an unpopular war, in order to secure oil (which is at around $100 per barrel today).
All this insiders trading and Condi telling whoever to stay home, are just rumors, just because they are repeated frequently doesn't mean they are true.
Tell me if Condi warned Willie Brown, why didn't she warn Barbara Olsen? Ted and Barbara Olsen were much closer to the Bush Administration than Willie Nelson ever was.
-
So your telling me that government allowed the worst attack on US history to happen so that Bush could engage in an unpopular war, in order to secure oil (which is at around $100 per barrel today).
All this insiders trading and Condi telling whoever to stay home, are just rumors, just because they are repeated frequently doesn't mean they are true.
Tell me if Condi warned Willie Brown, why didn't she warn Barbara Olsen? Ted and Barbara Olsen were much closer to the Bush Administration than Willie Nelson ever was.
bullshit - the insider trading is very real, look it up yourself.
Bulshit - the warnings were real. newsweek reported the pentagon brass admitted all their flights were cancelled for the 11th, and mayor brown told ABC that condi warned him 8 hours ahead of time.
LOOK IT UP.
Also, Olsen was on the plane that hit the pentagon. When you can show me one of the 85 missing clips of the plane hitting the pentagon, I'll believe you on that one.
BTW - oil at 100 a barrel is a GOOD thing for US dollar stability, and many believed it was cheney's goal 5 years ago.
-
Please place a value on the # of american soldier lives that should be sacrificed to deliver that bullet.
My # is zero.
Yes, Il is a luniatic and evil dictator. But... it's their problem, not ours. Do you want to be the world's police? When a man like Hitler takes aggressive action into other countries, yes, you crush him like we did saddam in 1991/2. But you don't barge into every house on your block where the hubby slaps wifey, do you? No. When they bring that noise into the yard, and mess up your sleep, theyn by all means go fck him up. But in-house shit shouldn't cost our troops their lives.
You know, it seems US soldiers never make this argument your making, they actually believe in the mission which is why you almost never see them in the media commenting on the war, they just don't have the "right" opinion about it. The troops are willing to fight for other peoples' freedom, they don't need you to tell them what cause is worth them risking their lives for, that's up to them.
Dude, do you think we live an a vacuum? The world is one big interconnected place, and situations in one country can affect the entire planet. Kim Jong Il is everybody's problem, and no one knows what to do about him. The situation is that if we invade North Korea, then Seoul will be annihilated instantly. Il has about 150,000 pieces of artillery pointed at Seoul. It's a mess.
And yes I want us to be the world police, who else is going to do it, the UN?
But we can't do anything about it since that pudgy little pervert has us by the balls.
-
And yes I want us to be the world police, who else is going to do it, the UN?
well, that is where you and I differ.
Should we invade darfur and stop the abuses there? Nothing there except dirt. NKorea has nothing but rocks. We only seem to help nations out when they're on oil.
Which is fine.
But are you advocating the US be involved in every nation's humanitarian crisii?
That would cost a great deal of $. Where shuld that $ come from?
-
bullshit - the insider trading is very real, look it up yourself.
Bulshit - the warnings were real. newsweek reported the pentagon brass admitted all their flights were cancelled for the 11th, and mayor brown told ABC that condi warned him 8 hours ahead of time.
LOOK IT UP.
No, you look it up, your the one making the claim. Show me all this overwhelming evidence, from credible sources please, and no Moveon.org is not a credible source.
Also, Olsen was on the plane that hit the pentagon. When you can show me one of the 85 missing clips of the plane hitting the pentagon, I'll believe you on that one.
If she wasn't on the plane where the hell is she? What missing clips? Where do you get this information?
BTW - oil at 100 a barrel is a GOOD thing for US dollar stability, and many believed it was cheney's goal 5 years ago.
Actually the US dollar is very weak right now.
Please explain to me how high oil prices are good for US dollar stability, I haven't heard that one yet, I'd like to know the specifics of how that works.
-
man i hae such a headache from debating politics. i keep telling myself i'll stop.
believe what you'd like about 911. The FBI admitted there are 85 videos of the plane hitting. pentagon said just one, the blurry 9 screenshots. You believe who you want.
dollar has to stay in play in middle east, and price high means the reserves stay in dollar. you study your own economics, or pay me to explain it better lol... i just have been debating too much and really need a brak. ciao.
-
well, that is where you and I differ.
We differ in a lot more places than that :)
Should we invade darfur and stop the abuses there? Nothing there except dirt. NKorea has nothing but rocks. We only seem to help nations out when they're on oil.
Which is fine.
Yes we should, just like we should have in Rwanda.
It's unfortunate but we do spend a lot of energy on nations that have something that we value. But when you want to limit your foreign involvement, it only makes sense to get involved in conflicts when your countries interests are involved.
I have no problem with securing the free flow of oil, without oil our whole way of life will collapse which will result in disaster. But I have no problem with intervening in situations that involve genocide.
But are you advocating the US be involved in every nation's humanitarian crisii?
Not every, only in the case of genocide or foreign invasion.
That would cost a great deal of $. Where shuld that $ come from?
We could stop the idiotic War and Drugs and free every prisoner convicted of simple possession of marijuana and we'd free up plenty of cash to aggressively stop genocide and slavery around the world with the overwhelming force of our US military.
We could even give our soldiers huge pay raises and increase benefits which would encourage more people join so we wouldn't have a shortage of personnel.
See, problem solved.
-
man i hae such a headache from debating politics. i keep telling myself i'll stop.
believe what you'd like about 911. The FBI admitted there are 85 videos of the plane hitting. pentagon said just one, the blurry 9 screenshots. You believe who you want.
dollar has to stay in play in middle east, and price high means the reserves stay in dollar. you study your own economics, or pay me to explain it better lol... i just have been debating too much and really need a brak. ciao.
Yeah, I'm wasting a lot of time arguing about stuff that nobody is going to change their minds on.
-
If she wasn't on the plane where the hell is she? What missing clips? Where do you get this information?
This is one of the funniest parts of this conspiracy theory. I think they have alleged she was secretly released overseas. Where are the rest of the passengers too? You won't get a straight, sane answer to this.
-
This is one of the funniest parts of this conspiracy theory. I think they have alleged she was secretly released overseas. Where are the rest of the passengers too? You won't get a straight, sane answer to this.
You're a sheep, plain and simple.
5 of the 10 911 commissioners have called for a second investigation.
you're trying to sell a recalled car here.
The authors don't even believe it anymore. But YOU DO!
hahahahaha oh brother what a sucker.
-
You're a sheep, plain and simple.
5 of the 10 911 commissioners have called for a second investigation.
you're trying to sell a recalled car here.
The authors don't even believe it anymore. But YOU DO!
hahahahaha oh brother what a sucker.
Hey are you an old squad member? >:(
;D
-
man i hae such a headache from debating politics. i keep telling myself i'll stop.
believe what you'd like about 911. The FBI admitted there are 85 videos of the plane hitting. pentagon said just one, the blurry 9 screenshots. You believe who you want.
dollar has to stay in play in middle east, and price high means the reserves stay in dollar. you study your own economics, or pay me to explain it better lol... i just have been debating too much and really need a brak. ciao.
I hear you there. lol