Did Bush really lie, or all of those before him that talked about weapons of mass destruction? Testimonies like this (along with plenty of discovered evidence) keeps popping up, but the mainstream US press tries so hard to ignore it...
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/ ... m=storyrhs
WMD Lies
Moderator: Priests of Syrinx
-
EndlesslyRocking
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:08 pm
- Location: California
Re: WMD Lies
Plenty of discovered evidence?ElfDude wrote:Did Bush really lie, or all of those before him that talked about weapons of mass destruction? Testimonies like this (along with plenty of discovered evidence) keeps popping up, but the mainstream US press tries so hard to ignore it...
I don't think so. Other than this guy saying it, I don't see any evidence at all. We've been there for over a year. Where are these bunkers? Where are the designs? How were they built?
Bush is lying warmonger who's bankrupting our nation, morally and financially. That's what I think.
JMHO
Life in two dimensions is a mass-production scheme...
-
ElfDude
- Posts: 11085
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
- Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
- Contact:
Let's look at evidence then. I'll quote the Boston Globe here...
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... _wmd_news/
At about the same time that Kay was on Capitol Hill, an international organization called the Iraq Survey Group, or ISG, was disclosing what its highly regarded scientists -- many of them former UN inspectors -- had discovered about Saddam's weapons programs. Far from undermining the administration's rationale for war, many of the ISG's findings strengthened it -- decisively.
It found, for example, that Iraqi officials engaged in "deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs" before, during, and after the war.
It found proof that WMD supplies and facilities had been concealed from UN inspectors, including "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses . . . that contained equipment . . . suitable for continuing" chemical and biological warfare research.
It found, in a grisly echo of Dr. Mengele's sadistic experiments, "a prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials . . . were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN." ISG inspectors interviewed one Iraqi scientist who had hidden in his home "a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B." -- a precursor for botulism toxin, the deadliest poison known. They spoke with a Iraqi chemical weapons official who said Saddam's regime could have produced weaponized mustard gas within two months and Sarin, a lethal nerve agent, within 24 months. And they concluded that only the US invasion stopped Saddam from assembling missiles with ranges of up to 600 miles -- far more than the 90-mile range Iraq was allowed.
There is much more, but the ISG's bottom line removes any doubt that Saddam was in flagrant violation of Security Council Resolution 1441: "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."
In short, what President Bush asserted in his State of the Union address -- "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming; to the contrary, he is deceiving" -- has now been confirmed. The ISG has vindicated the administration's case for war: that Saddam continued to flout the UN's explicit mandates; that his WMD programs had not been dismantled; that he went to elaborate lengths to conceal them; and that it was only a matter of time before he used them to unleash another 9/11.
So why did the ISG's highly newsworthy findings get so much less press attention than David Kay's announcement that he hadn't found any WMD weapon stockpiles -- something we already knew anyway? That's a good question. Especially since the Kay report and the ISG report are in fact one and the same.
It's true: There was only one report last week, not two. Kay is head of the 1,200-person ISG, and he briefed Congress on everything his team has learned to date, not just the failure (so far) to find stores of ready-to-fire WMDs. That failure is puzzling, and it raises tough questions about the quality of our prewar intelligence.
But far more significant was what the Kay/ISG inspectors did find: massive evidence that an unrepentant Saddam was in willful defiance of Resolution 1441 right up to the end. That was the menace Bush repeatedly cited -- the threat he said must be crushed before it grew imminent. Kay's report proves he was right. You wouldn't have known it from the headlines.
[/url]
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... _wmd_news/
At about the same time that Kay was on Capitol Hill, an international organization called the Iraq Survey Group, or ISG, was disclosing what its highly regarded scientists -- many of them former UN inspectors -- had discovered about Saddam's weapons programs. Far from undermining the administration's rationale for war, many of the ISG's findings strengthened it -- decisively.
It found, for example, that Iraqi officials engaged in "deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs" before, during, and after the war.
It found proof that WMD supplies and facilities had been concealed from UN inspectors, including "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses . . . that contained equipment . . . suitable for continuing" chemical and biological warfare research.
It found, in a grisly echo of Dr. Mengele's sadistic experiments, "a prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials . . . were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN." ISG inspectors interviewed one Iraqi scientist who had hidden in his home "a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B." -- a precursor for botulism toxin, the deadliest poison known. They spoke with a Iraqi chemical weapons official who said Saddam's regime could have produced weaponized mustard gas within two months and Sarin, a lethal nerve agent, within 24 months. And they concluded that only the US invasion stopped Saddam from assembling missiles with ranges of up to 600 miles -- far more than the 90-mile range Iraq was allowed.
There is much more, but the ISG's bottom line removes any doubt that Saddam was in flagrant violation of Security Council Resolution 1441: "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."
In short, what President Bush asserted in his State of the Union address -- "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming; to the contrary, he is deceiving" -- has now been confirmed. The ISG has vindicated the administration's case for war: that Saddam continued to flout the UN's explicit mandates; that his WMD programs had not been dismantled; that he went to elaborate lengths to conceal them; and that it was only a matter of time before he used them to unleash another 9/11.
So why did the ISG's highly newsworthy findings get so much less press attention than David Kay's announcement that he hadn't found any WMD weapon stockpiles -- something we already knew anyway? That's a good question. Especially since the Kay report and the ISG report are in fact one and the same.
It's true: There was only one report last week, not two. Kay is head of the 1,200-person ISG, and he briefed Congress on everything his team has learned to date, not just the failure (so far) to find stores of ready-to-fire WMDs. That failure is puzzling, and it raises tough questions about the quality of our prewar intelligence.
But far more significant was what the Kay/ISG inspectors did find: massive evidence that an unrepentant Saddam was in willful defiance of Resolution 1441 right up to the end. That was the menace Bush repeatedly cited -- the threat he said must be crushed before it grew imminent. Kay's report proves he was right. You wouldn't have known it from the headlines.
[/url]
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
-
Zivo
- Posts: 1830
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: "A place not too far from here, as a matter of fact
Elfdude, you know by now that I respect your comittment, and any political reply from me is NEVER personal. That understood, I must put in my 3 cents worth:
It amazes me that the same right-wing voices who impeached a president for lying about a sexual affair have decided that the ends justify the means when a president lies to a nation about the most serious cause we collectively can be involved in: war. This lie isn't about whether or not Saddam Hussein was evil or brutal, or if it is good or not that his regime has fallen. Those facts are not in dispute. The issue at hand is the credibility of our government. If a president lies about why we're going into war, regardless of the upside, do the ends justify the means? The case for war in Iraq was not made for humanitarian reasons but instead because our president claimed that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. Repeatedly the spectre of 9.11 was raised, and the fear of "another" 9.11 became the justification for the war.
It amazes me that the same right-wing voices who impeached a president for lying about a sexual affair have decided that the ends justify the means when a president lies to a nation about the most serious cause we collectively can be involved in: war. This lie isn't about whether or not Saddam Hussein was evil or brutal, or if it is good or not that his regime has fallen. Those facts are not in dispute. The issue at hand is the credibility of our government. If a president lies about why we're going into war, regardless of the upside, do the ends justify the means? The case for war in Iraq was not made for humanitarian reasons but instead because our president claimed that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. Repeatedly the spectre of 9.11 was raised, and the fear of "another" 9.11 became the justification for the war.
I'm neither a republican or a democrat...somewhere in the middle. I believe a woman has the right to choose, that the word 'God' needs to be off of our money, out of our schools, and out of our pledge. So there's the democrat in me. I also believe in the importance of a strong military, that bussinesses create jobs, not governments, and that I should not be penalized via more taxes for making more money. So there's the republican in me. With that being said...
Just remember boys and girls, for every report/article/whatever you find that says one thing, there is always going to be a contridicting report....no matter what side of the fence you're on, and how green the grass is.
Not that I supported the impeachment of Clinton, the cases are different (I'll point that out below). FWIW, I would have had alot more respect for Clinton if he just came out and said, "Yes, I got a blowjob. I'm the president, what are you going to do?"Zivo wrote:It amazes me that the same right-wing voices who impeached a president for lying about a sexual affair have decided that the ends justify the means when a president lies to a nation about the most serious cause we collectively can be involved in: war.
Unlike Clinton, it has not been shown that Bush lied. What has been shown is that the pre-war intelligence was wrong. Until someone shows me that Bush knew the intelligence was wrong, I will continue to give him the benifit of the doubt (even Clinton backed the pre-war intelligence). I don't want to believe that a President of the United States, democrat, republican, or otherwise, would intentionally send the fighting men and women into harms way just to take care of a personal agenda.Zivo wrote:This lie isn't about whether or not Saddam Hussein was evil or brutal, or if it is good or not that his regime has fallen. Those facts are not in dispute. The issue at hand is the credibility of our government. If a president lies about why we're going into war, regardless of the upside, do the ends justify the means? The case for war in Iraq was not made for humanitarian reasons but instead because our president claimed that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. Repeatedly the spectre of 9.11 was raised, and the fear of "another" 9.11 became the justification for the war.
Just remember boys and girls, for every report/article/whatever you find that says one thing, there is always going to be a contridicting report....no matter what side of the fence you're on, and how green the grass is.
Don't tell me about rock and roll I'm out there in the clubs and on the streets and I'm living it! I am rock and roll!
-
Zivo
- Posts: 1830
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: "A place not too far from here, as a matter of fact
Heh-heh...By-tor...he doesn't speak often, but when he does, it's pretty much gold 
Cigar anyone?
Yes, and I don't want to believe that Clinton received hummers from that slouch, but we all know how that turned outI don't want to believe that a President of the United States, democrat, republican, or otherwise, would intentionally send the fighting men and women into harms way just to take care of a personal agenda
Cigar anyone?
-
Kares4Rush
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:31 am
- Location: New York
After reading...not the place for my ideas...
Last edited by Kares4Rush on Fri Apr 02, 2004 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Freeze this moment a little bit longer...
-
EndlesslyRocking
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:08 pm
- Location: California
When I see barrels full of sarin or bunkers full of anthrax, then I'll believe Bush was telling the truth. Unfortunately, since we ignored almost the entire world opinion and went it alone, even if we did find something, most people would think we planted it.
Saddam is a bad guy, no question. I'm glad he's gone.
I just despise GW. His assaut on the American way of life knows no boundaries. He's a liar and a hypocrite, lining the pockets of his buddies at the expense of the environment, the world community, and the Veterans who will suffer for his arrogance years after he's gone.
He was born on third base, and thinks he hit a triple.
Saddam is a bad guy, no question. I'm glad he's gone.
I just despise GW. His assaut on the American way of life knows no boundaries. He's a liar and a hypocrite, lining the pockets of his buddies at the expense of the environment, the world community, and the Veterans who will suffer for his arrogance years after he's gone.
He was born on third base, and thinks he hit a triple.
Life in two dimensions is a mass-production scheme...
-
Kares4Rush
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:31 am
- Location: New York
One would think that the President of the United States could do better than that.Zivo wrote:Yes, and I don't want to believe that Clinton received hummers from that slouch, but we all know how that turned out
Cigar anyone?
Don't tell me about rock and roll I'm out there in the clubs and on the streets and I'm living it! I am rock and roll!
Hell, you just fingered 95%+ of all the politicians in Washington.EndlesslyRocking wrote:He was born on third base, and thinks he hit a triple.
Who was the last president who actually had to pull up his bootstraps and work for a living before becoming president?
Don't tell me about rock and roll I'm out there in the clubs and on the streets and I'm living it! I am rock and roll!
-
EndlesslyRocking
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:08 pm
- Location: California
Bill Clinton.by-tor wrote:Hell, you just fingered 95%+ of all the politicians in Washington.EndlesslyRocking wrote:He was born on third base, and thinks he hit a triple.
Who was the last president who actually had to pull up his bootstraps and work for a living before becoming president?
And, John Kerry was slogging through the jungles of Vietnam while GW was busy guarding dental records in Alabama, but your point is well made.
Power rarely begins upon election to the Presidency. Some remember that better than others, though...
JMHO
Life in two dimensions is a mass-production scheme...
If memory serves, Clinton had money long before becoming president. While his family might not have been loaded like the Kennedy's, he wasn't a poor working stiff by a long shot.EndlesslyRocking wrote:Bill Clinton.by-tor wrote:Hell, you just fingered 95%+ of all the politicians in Washington.EndlesslyRocking wrote:He was born on third base, and thinks he hit a triple.
Who was the last president who actually had to pull up his bootstraps and work for a living before becoming president?
John McCain kind of tops them all in military service, but I don't want him to be president either.....Ex-military heros don't make good presidents, eg Kennedy, Ike, Grant, etc.EndlesslyRocking wrote:And, John Kerry was slogging through the jungles of Vietnam while GW was busy guarding dental records in Alabama, but your point is well made.
The real power in Washington isn't in the hands of the President however. That distinction belongs to the special interest groups.EndlesslyRocking wrote:Power rarely begins upon election to the Presidency. Some remember that better than others, though...
Don't tell me about rock and roll I'm out there in the clubs and on the streets and I'm living it! I am rock and roll!
-
EndlesslyRocking
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:08 pm
- Location: California
Bill Clinton was not born into priviledge or wealth. He worked for what he had. I don't think he was rich as the Governor of Arkansas.
I can't argue with you about McCain. I think military leaders have a mixed record overall. No better or worse than anyone else. My point was that Kerry went through real hardship to get where he is. Bush did not.
As for the power of special interests, I can't really argue there, either. Their influence over the legislative process is truly disheartening.
Back to the original post, I should clarify: I think Bush has deliberately lied about many things, but I don't think he made up the WMD thing all by himself, or necessarily on purpose. I guess only he knows for sure...
I can't argue with you about McCain. I think military leaders have a mixed record overall. No better or worse than anyone else. My point was that Kerry went through real hardship to get where he is. Bush did not.
As for the power of special interests, I can't really argue there, either. Their influence over the legislative process is truly disheartening.
Back to the original post, I should clarify: I think Bush has deliberately lied about many things, but I don't think he made up the WMD thing all by himself, or necessarily on purpose. I guess only he knows for sure...
Life in two dimensions is a mass-production scheme...