PDA

View Full Version : Lies of the Kerry mid-night speech - THIS IS GETTING GOOD!



TruthSpeak
04 Sep 04,, 20:41
Kerry and Edwards gave a midnight speech in Springfield, Ohio as a sort of response to the president's speech. The Democrats know they have to carry Ohio, so the choice of venue was not a surprise. It was the standard sKerry stump speech, but contained a number of outright lies that are worth nothing.

Right off the bat, The Poodle said "For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander-in-chief." Sorry, folks. That's a lie. It's the Max Cleland lie. There was not one single speaker at the Republican National Convention attacked John Kerry's patriotism. In their dishonest desperation, the Democrats are resorting to simply repeating over and over what they know not to be true. Then The Soufflé continued with his nonsense: "I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq." So .. there you go! It's the leftist standard "If you didn't serve in Vietnam you can't comment on anyone who did" line.

First of all Senator Kerry, I thought whether you served in the military or not didn't matter? Kerry had no problem with Bill Clinton, who dodged the draft outright. Does is sound to you like the Kerry campaign is getting desperate? They know they cannot refute the message, so it's time to attack the messenger. Is this all they have? Are we going to have to sit through two months of the same broken record over and over? Ahhhhh yes ... 'fraid so.

And what of this nonsense that we were "misled" on Iraq? Didn't we just learn that two government reports have now exonerated President Bush on intelligence used as the basis to invade Iraq. There was no misleading. You can only mislead someone if you know to be untrue what you are telling them. If anything, The Poodle is the one misleading people. Don't expect the mainstream media to call him on it, though.

He also took a lame, weak personal shot at the president by calling his speech "All hat, no cattle." That's a reference to the president somehow being a phony cowboy. John Kerry ... mounting his trusty windsurfer and skipping across the waves into the sunset. All wetsuit .... all wet.


At the same speech last night, The Poodle also took a shot at Vice President Cheney's deferments he received while not serving during the Vietnam War. Amazingly, Kerry still can't let go of the Vietnam War. "The vice president even called me unfit for office last night. I guess I'll leave it up to the voters whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty."

So let me get this straight...five deferments to avoid serving is wrong, but three questionable Purple Hearts used to get out of Vietnam after four months is better? Right.

Let's recap: The Kerry/Edwards plan for winning the presidency seems to revolve around a few central themes:

* My patriotism is being attacked by the evil Republicans (it isn't, and never has been)

* They didn't serve in Vietnam, I did (So what...neither did Bill Clinton, and his opponents in '92 and '96 were both war heroes)

* President Bush misled the nation on Iraq (He didn't, and the evidence exonerates him)

* Don't bring up my Senate voting record. This is all about my Vietnam service record. Any mention of my Senate voting record is an attack on my patriotism.

* I snowboard and windsurf. Wouldn't I look good in the White House?

Where's the beef? What are their issues? The economy is taking off like a rocket...they've got nothing to talk about, and it shows.

TruthSpeak
04 Sep 04,, 20:49
Not to mention the fact that Kerry did not serve 2 tours of duty. He wants to claim Bush misled the nation, yet he is claiming he did two tours of duty in Vietnam???

That is an outright misleading statement, if not a lie.

The first year of Kerry's overseas service was spent on a guided missle frigate that sailed anywhere from California to Australia while he was on it. It was in Vietnamese WATERS for less than 5 weeks out of the entire year.

I dont think any real Vietnam Veteran would label a year on a guided missle frigate sailing around the ocean as a "tour in Vietnam"

And what about his second tour???

1. It was 8 months short of being a full tour.

2. The first entire month was spent in Cam Ranh Bay in a training camp so safe that political leaders stayed there during their trips to Vietnam.

3. The second month was spent on Swift Boats before they were given combat duty. This is listed as Kerry's reason for choosing a Swift Boat Command..."I wanted to see what was going on, but I really didnt want to get involved in the war" - Kerry's own words. When Swift Boat missions were changed to river patrols involving direct combat, Kerry petitioned wildly up the chain of his command to be removed from the Swift Boat arena.

4. The last two months of his four months were actually spent on combat missions for which much controversy is present. In a little over two months he was able to receive 5 medals. Three purple hearts (for minor injuries that didnt take time away from his combat, two of which were self-inflicted. One of those injuries he self-proclaims that fact) which sent him home (other veterans turne down their third, fourth, fifth purple hearts so they could stay with their comrades). He also received a bronze star for bravery, even though he has repeatedly changed his story on what really happened and many veterans at the scene claim there was no enemy fire. There were no other casualties from that hour and a half on a 75 yard wide river in which he claims there was enemy fire from both banks. There were also no bullet holes in any of the 5 swift boats, including the one that was damaged by the mine. Kerry also claims to have received a silver star with a combat V. Combat V's, according to the U.S. military, are not awarded with silver stars.

How can anyone still vote for this man???

ChrisF202
05 Sep 04,, 01:58
His campaign is collasping, he will suffer a stunning defeat on November 2nd.

Gio
06 Sep 04,, 02:01
I agree, it doesn't look too good for him at all.

Static Caster
06 Sep 04,, 02:41
I was just wondering, what do you Americans think about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 ???

ChrisF202
06 Sep 04,, 03:04
I was just wondering, what do you Americans think about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 ???
A bunch of made up lies and distortions

Confed999
06 Sep 04,, 16:30
A bunch of made up lies and distortions
Same as the rest of his books and movies. MM is just in it for the money.

non-asset
06 Sep 04,, 16:32
He's a good counterpart to all those lying conservative commentators. This way there's inspiring and enraging propoganda for everyone.

Confed999
06 Sep 04,, 16:53
He's a good counterpart to all those lying conservative commentators.
What ones?

jjacobs43
07 Sep 04,, 17:19
What ones?

There is absolutely no difference between what Moore's movie does and what Rush Limbaugh has done on a regular basis for over a decade now. And Ditto heads get brainwashed by Rush on a regular basis.

You can throw in Sean Hannity and Bill O'reily into the mix too. Different faces, same crap.

TruthSpeak
07 Sep 04,, 19:30
There is absolutely no difference between what Moore's movie does and what Rush Limbaugh has done on a regular basis for over a decade now. And Ditto heads get brainwashed by Rush on a regular basis.

You can throw in Sean Hannity and Bill O'reily into the mix too. Different faces, same crap.

Would you like to point out any lies those three people have told...i can point out about 57 lies or misleading portions of farenheight 9/11.

Go ahead...lets hear them. Oh yeah, I expect you to provide evidence of how rush, hannity, or bill lied as well.

jjacobs43
07 Sep 04,, 20:14
Would you like to point out any lies those three people have told...i can point out about 57 lies or misleading portions of farenheight 9/11.

Go ahead...lets hear them. Oh yeah, I expect you to provide evidence of how rush, hannity, or bill lied as well.

Their lies are documented quite thoroughly by "MediaMatters.org" or "WhosLying.org" and other watchdog groups. If I took the time to document all of their lies I could come up with a hell of a lot more than 57 "lies or misleading" things they have said. It amazes me that people can't see what they do.

I like Michael Moore, but at least I can see what he's doing. I know he is very misleading. But I still think he's a lot more honest than the 3 guys I mentioned earlier.

Confed999
08 Sep 04,, 00:48
And Ditto heads get brainwashed by Rush on a regular basis.

You can throw in Sean Hannity and Bill O'reily into the mix too. Different faces, same crap.
It's only the same "crap" if you can show me the word documentary. They have opinionated shows that they do not label documentary, and though I do not watch, listen whatever, to any of them, the lack of that one word puts them miles ahead.

Oh, BTW, after checking out MediaMatters.org and WhosLying.org, they look alot less like "watchdogs" than liberal suporters. Where are the sections on the "lying" democrats?

jjacobs43
08 Sep 04,, 01:10
It's only the same "crap" if you can show me the word documentary. They have opinionated shows that they do not label documentary, and though I do not watch, listen whatever, to any of them, the lack of that one word puts them miles ahead.

Oh, BTW, after checking out MediaMatters.org and WhosLying.org, they look alot less like "watchdogs" than liberal suporters. Where are the sections on the "lying" democrats?

You can have an opinion show without lying. They masquerade themselves under false pretenses and everybody buys into it. That sounds like crap to me.

And, anyway, Michael Moore has never said his movie was not done in his opinion. It's not meant to be a documentary. It is meant in the same way Rush Limbaugh's show is meant. Anybody who condemns Moore and not Limbaugh is being very hyprocritical.

MediaMatters only shows lyers on the right because the creator of the web site is a guy who lied with the rest of the conservatives until he got a conscious and started pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. He, admittedly, started the false rumors about Clinton's days in Arkansas that started the whole sequence of events leading up to Paula Jones and he has a lot to make up for. And the other website points out lies on both sides as far as I've seen.

But I think it's irrelevant. I'm not claiming people on the left don't lie. I'm comparing Michael Moore to Limbaugh remember? Like it or not, those sites document proof of these guy's lies. I guarantee you that if you read MediaMatters regularly and looked into the sources given, you'd have a very different opinion on what gets blasted through the conservative media.

Confed999
08 Sep 04,, 01:28
And, anyway, Michael Moore has never said his movie was not done in his opinion. It's not meant to be a documentary.
You're wrong... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/ "Genre: Documentary / War"
He has even recenty come out and said he wasn't going for the documentary oscar, to try and get the movie on TV sooner. All of his movies are the same kind of "documentary".

I'm not claiming people on the left don't lie.
I'm not saying you are, I'm saying those sites are, from what I saw, largely partisan, if not entirely. I don't call political partisans "watchdogs".

Like it or not, those sites document proof of these guy's lies.
That's super, but unless you can show me the false label "documentary", then it's not the same thing.

through the conservative media.
As a conservative, I can tell you with 100% certainty, the majority of the media is not conservative.

jjacobs43
08 Sep 04,, 01:44
You're wrong... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/ "Genre: Documentary / War"
He has even recenty come out and said he wasn't going for the documentary oscar, to try and get the movie on TV sooner. All of his movies are the same kind of "documentary".

I understand that the movie is labeled a documentary. I'm telling you what he has said in his own words. The movie is his opinion and he doesn't say otherwise. I don't know if you watch a lot of political documentaries, but most of them are like this. Obviously, the filmakers are trying to prove their points.




I'm not saying you are, I'm saying those sites are, from what I saw, largely partisan, if not entirely. I don't call political partisans "watchdogs".

Fine, they're not watchdogs then. There partisan websites that have proof that backs up my statements. Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Neil are all liars.



As a conservative, I can tell you with 100% certainty, the majority of the media is not conservative.

I wasn't claiming the media is conservative. I was talking about the 'conservative media' as in Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Neil (The liars I mentioned above).




That's super, but unless you can show me the false label "documentary", then it's not the same thing.

So you're saying it's ok for Rush Limbaugh to lie to his audience since it's not a documentary? If that's your stance then so be it - you win with semantics. But it doesn't change the fact that Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Niel (did I mention them already!) are liars. And if I have to put up with them then I'm not too concerned about Michael Moore's 2 hours of docu-opinion.

Confed999
08 Sep 04,, 02:03
but most of them are like this. Obviously, the filmakers are trying to prove their points.
Then they aren't documentaries, and I have the same problem with them. I don't descriminate...

There partisan websites that have proof that backs up my statements. Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Neil are all liars.
Real concrete proof? Or just more of the same partisan spin? I mostly saw spin, but I'm not, and will never be, a regular at either, just as I don't go to the RNC for news. I bet those 3 have "proof" they didn't lie too, so who is right?

I wasn't claiming the media is conservative.
Sorry, it's just me, when I hear media I really hear news, and it seems that's not what people are talking about, more often than not.

So you're saying it's ok for Rush Limbaugh to lie to his audience since it's not a documentary?
Is it ok for the "Daily Show" to "lie" to it's audience? Is it ok for "The Day After Tomorrow" movie to "lie" to it's audience?

jjacobs43
08 Sep 04,, 02:26
Is it ok for the "Daily Show" to "lie" to it's audience? Is it ok for "The Day After Tomorrow" movie to "lie" to it's audience?

Sounds like we're starting over. I start out claiming Michael Moore is doing exactly what Limbuagh does and now it's too a point where I have to claim that John Stewart is doing exactly what Limbaugh does. Just replace John Stewart for Michael Moore and here we go again!


Then they aren't documentaries, and I have the same problem with them. I don't descriminate...

So I guess, in conclusion, based on your arguments, what we need is more government regulation on how we label movies. Right? :)

Whether everybody wants to agree with me or not, I'll just make my final statement on this:

I think it's a serious problem when people trust these sources and they distort the news so much. And I know of nobody who has been more sucessful in this game than Rush Limbaugh. I know too many people, including my parents, who take Rush at his word on everything and it's not a good thing. I can't eat dinner with them anymore! :)

TruthSpeak
08 Sep 04,, 02:39
Their lies are documented quite thoroughly by "MediaMatters.org" or "WhosLying.org" and other watchdog groups. If I took the time to document all of their lies I could come up with a hell of a lot more than 57 "lies or misleading" things they have said. It amazes me that people can't see what they do.

I like Michael Moore, but at least I can see what he's doing. I know he is very misleading. But I still think he's a lot more honest than the 3 guys I mentioned earlier.

Do you realize that you didnt answer the question?

I asked for a lie, you beat around the bush.

Put the lie in your post, I dont have time to go hutning on websites. Please, follow the instructions, and post a lie, right here in the thread.

TruthSpeak
08 Sep 04,, 02:43
You can have an opinion show without lying. They masquerade themselves under false pretenses and everybody buys into it. That sounds like crap to me.

And, anyway, Michael Moore has never said his movie was not done in his opinion.

Go look up the word "documentary" - I dont believe it can include opinions.


It's not meant to be a documentary. It is meant in the same way Rush Limbaugh's show is meant. Anybody who condemns Moore and not Limbaugh is being very hyprocritical.

Excuse me? Where do you live, Candy Land?

First of all, Moore touted his movie as a documentary. It was described by the media as a documentary.

You still havent shown one lie told by Rush Limbaugh.


MediaMatters only shows lyers on the right because the creator of the web site is a guy who lied with the rest of the conservatives until he got a conscious and started pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. He, admittedly, started the false rumors about Clinton's days in Arkansas that started the whole sequence of events leading up to Paula Jones and he has a lot to make up for. And the other website points out lies on both sides as far as I've seen.

POST ONE!!! Stop beating around the Bush and post a lie.

Confed999
08 Sep 04,, 02:58
Sounds like we're starting over. I start out claiming Michael Moore is doing exactly what Limbuagh does and now it's too a point where I have to claim that John Stewart is doing exactly what Limbaugh does. Just replace John Stewart for Michael Moore and here we go again!
The point was, neither of those shows I mentioned ever claimed what they were saying is true. I don't know if Rush says everything from his mouth is true, I actually doubt it, but he may. Calling something a documentary is saying it's true, and MM's movies are far from true.

So I guess, in conclusion, based on your arguments, what we need is more government regulation on how we label movies. Right? :)
Yes, as I've said on this board before, one of the few jobs the federal govenment should be doing is regulating an industry standard, not controling, just regulating.

I think it's a serious problem when people trust these sources and they distort the news so much.
Same as I feel about MM, I don't listen/watch any of them.

I can't eat dinner with them anymore! :)
Then you're too into politics, you need to find another hobby. Seriously, you're only hurting yourself if you start to descriminate based on people's political views. BTW, my girl friend is a die hard liberal, and I love her anyway. Your political beliefs aren't really close to mine, but if you're ever in my area I would be happy to meet you, in fact . People are allways going to have different views, don't let that stand in the way of love and friendship.

Confed999
08 Sep 04,, 02:59
Calm down TruthSpeak, no reason to get mad.

jjacobs43
08 Sep 04,, 03:02
Do you realize that you didnt answer the question?

I asked for a lie, you beat around the bush.

Put the lie in your post, I dont have time to go hutning on websites. Please, follow the instructions, and post a lie, right here in the thread.

There's not much "hunting" needed. Search on Limbaugh on the site I gave you. Here I'll save you the trouble of having to type in the word "Limbaugh" and give you a direct link. It comes up with 144 hits.

http://mediamatters.org/search.html?string=Limbaugh

And here's a quick list of some lies from his book

http://members.aol.com/Falconnn/rushlie.html

Confed999
08 Sep 04,, 03:07
http://mediamatters.org/search.html?string=Limbaugh
The headline of the first hit is "Limbaugh just wild about fellow zealot Zell", it's just name calling partisanship.

Confed999
08 Sep 04,, 03:10
The headline of the first hit is "Limbaugh just wild about fellow zealot Zell", it's just name calling partisanship.
LOL! The site even says "Following are some of Limbaugh's observations on Miller's speech". Note the word "observations", can't lie in an observation...

Confed999
08 Sep 04,, 03:27
Your political beliefs aren't really close to mine, but if you're ever in my area I would be happy to meet you, in fact .
Hmmm, I didn't finish that thought...

It should read:
Your political beliefs aren't really close to mine, but if you're ever in my area I would be happy to meet you, in fact, I would be insulted if I wasn't given the opportunity.

jjacobs43
08 Sep 04,, 03:39
LOL! The site even says "Following are some of Limbaugh's observations on Miller's speech". Note the word "observations", can't lie in an observation...

All right, all right. They aren't all lies. It's an attempt to show a biasedness.

Here is my official lie of the day from Rush Limbaugh.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408170001

jjacobs43
08 Sep 04,, 03:40
Hmmm, I didn't finish that thought...

It should read:
Your political beliefs aren't really close to mine, but if you're ever in my area I would be happy to meet you, in fact, I would be insulted if I wasn't given the opportunity.

I appreciate that. I'll have to take you up on that sometime. :)

Confed999
08 Sep 04,, 04:05
It's an attempt to show a biasedness
The name calling shows the bias of the site too.

Here is my official lie of the day from Rush Limbaugh.
Since I do not listen to Rush, and last I heard there were pages missing from Kerry's military record, I'll have to do a bit of research on this, before I believe it or not.

I appreciate that. I'll have to take you up on that sometime. :)
You better, you don't want to insult a southerner. ;)

TruthSpeak
08 Sep 04,, 06:24
All right, all right. They aren't all lies. It's an attempt to show a biasedness.

Here is my official lie of the day from Rush Limbaugh.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408170001

They didnt lie...all kerry's records are not on his website. The only ones he has made available are the ones he has pre-screened. None of the records related to any of the swift boat allegations, nor his medical records which will show his injuries for his medals have been released.

jjacobs43
08 Sep 04,, 06:34
They didnt lie...all kerry's records are not on his website. The only ones he has made available are the ones he has pre-screened. None of the records related to any of the swift boat allegations, nor his medical records which will show his injuries for his medals have been released.

That is just not true. Those are the lies they are flinging around. The records show the same people smearing him now praising him back then. They also show the damage to the boat that supposedly didn't happend according to the propaganda.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9455159.

TruthSpeak
08 Sep 04,, 15:16
That is just not true. Those are the lies they are flinging around. The records show the same people smearing him now praising him back then. They also show the damage to the boat that supposedly didn't happend according to the propaganda.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9455159.

The boat was damaged the day before, per the under oath statements made by more than 5 other swiftees.

There is a form John Kerry has to sign before all his records are released. He has not signed it. The swift boat Vets and the john kerry website have many of his records...but not even close to all of them. He will not release the rest, this is the fact. You need to get your story straight.

You also need to stop calling 254 veterans LIARS when:

1. You havent read the book
2. You werent in Vietnam.
3. You have half the story wrong.

jjacobs43
08 Sep 04,, 17:07
The boat was damaged the day before, per the under oath statements made by more than 5 other swiftees.

There is a form John Kerry has to sign before all his records are released. He has not signed it. The swift boat Vets and the john kerry website have many of his records...but not even close to all of them. He will not release the rest, this is the fact. You need to get your story straight.

You also need to stop calling 254 veterans LIARS when:

1. You havent read the book
2. You werent in Vietnam.
3. You have half the story wrong.

They either lied back then or they're lying now. Their statements contradict themselves. And their statements contradict official records.

You need to quit accusing John Kerry of being a liar when you do not have all of the facts. Read his military records for yourself. They contradict the book.

TruthSpeak
08 Sep 04,, 17:24
They either lied back then or they're lying now. Their statements contradict themselves. And their statements contradict official records.

You need to quit accusing John Kerry of being a liar when you do not have all of the facts. Read his military records for yourself. They contradict the book.

The swift boat vets dont contradict themselves.

Show me once where they contradict themselves.

And no, the military records dont contradict the swift boat claims, prove that as well...and give me proof.

jjacobs43
08 Sep 04,, 17:48
The swift boat vets dont contradict themselves.

Show me once where they contradict themselves.

And no, the military records dont contradict the swift boat claims, prove that as well...and give me proof.

You have no idea what the military records really say. You're basing your beliefs on what the Swift Boat Veterans are telling you, what every right leaning pundit is telling you, and on what you want to believe.

Why don't you give me proof that Kerry, Rasmassun, Langhofer, Russell, Everbody on Kerry's boat, and the official Navy records are lieing. I'll believe what the official records say and what was the official record for the last 35 years before I believe a bunch of guys who obviously hate Kerry for other reasons.

Even Thurow has said the the reports talk about crossfire. His brilliant explanation is that Kerry wrote his own report. Meanwhile, Thurow's own records say there was enemy fire.

The fact that this is even debated shows you the sad state of events are media has become in this day and age.

TruthSpeak
08 Sep 04,, 19:25
You have no idea what the military records really say. You're basing your beliefs on what the Swift Boat Veterans are telling you, what every right leaning pundit is telling you, and on what you want to believe.

Why don't you give me proof that Kerry, Rasmassun, Langhofer, Russell, Everbody on Kerry's boat, and the official Navy records are lieing. I'll believe what the official records say and what was the official record for the last 35 years before I believe a bunch of guys who obviously hate Kerry for other reasons.

Even Thurow has said the the reports talk about crossfire. His brilliant explanation is that Kerry wrote his own report. Meanwhile, Thurow's own records say there was enemy fire.

The fact that this is even debated shows you the sad state of events are media has become in this day and age.


Ok, I asked for you to give me examples, and you failed.

How bout you answer some questions for me....

1. What atrocities did John Kerry commit in Vietnam. (Since he said "I committed attrocities - this would make him a war criminal).

2. Why didnt Kerry report these "atrocities" when he saw them being committed, instead of waiting till he got back from the war? This would mean that he broke the law yet again, for failure of an officer to report illegal activity.

3. Did Kerry receive his first purple heart for a self-inflicted wound? We have the medical reports that say yes, and Kerry says yes in his own words in his diary.

4. For the purple heart and bronze star he received for the incident in which he pulled Rassman out of the water, did he report enemy fire in his after action report?

5. Why did he originally claim that all the other boats left the scene of the rassman incident, only to later change his story that his boat actually fled, only to change his story that his boat had to go down river so the other boats could maneuver, only to change his story that all the boats stayed, only to change his story yet again that his boat fled and came back when they got things figured out?

6. Why did he originally claim to rescue rassman by pulling him out of the water with one arm (because his other arm was wounded), only to change his story to say that he actually dove in after rassman, only to change his story back to the original??

7. Do you really believe that 5 swift boats (not moving) can be on a 75 yard wide river for an hour and a half, recieving fire from both banks (by the viet cong which have proven they can kill americans - 58,000 worth), and not suffer one casualty, KIA, or any damage to ANY of the boats???? Even though Kerry claims there was damage to a boat, the swiftee's say it was from the day before (keep in mind, this damage consists of three bullet holes, so it is really pointless anyway).?? Can you believe that?

8. Is it true that Kerry's third purple heart came from wounds he also inflicted on himself??? The swiftee's say yes, and the medical records havent been provided.

9. Did Kerry meet with Vietnamese communist leaders in the middle of the war, again making him a war criminal? Yes.

10. Why did Kerry alter after action reports for incident after incident after incident, making them say things that the swiftee's say never happened??

11. Why does Kerry claim to have a silver star with a Combat V...even though the U.S. Navy says combat V's are not given with silver stars??

12. Why does Kerry claim to have served two tours in Vietnam, when:

1. His first year (tour) consisted of floating at sea on a guided missle frigate, 5 weeks in vetinamese waters (no where near combat) and 43 weeks at other places around the globe.

2. His second tour consisted of about 1 month of training, 1 month of safe beach patrols, and 2 months of combat duty (when the swift boat missions were changed to combat river patrols).

His "two tours in vietnam" are one year on a missle frigate nowhere near combat and 2 months of being in danger. In these 2 months, he recieved 5 medals (can anyone tell me what the average ammount of medals for a two month time span is?).

13. Last of all, why is Kerry attacking the veterans, instead of challenging what they say? This is the most important question of all. People who are innocent challenge allegations, people who are guilty challenge the challenger.

These are just things off the top of my head. If I really sat down and think, I could make a list of 100 questions John Kerry needs to answer. The man is not fit for command. He is either a war criminal, or a liar (perjury), or both....there is no other choice, and that makes him unfit for command of the country.

Ray
08 Sep 04,, 19:45
All this is bunk.

For starts, I am not involved in this Presidential stuff. I am commenting only on logic.

I wasn't there and so I don;t know the truth.

If the Veterans of the Swift Boat saw that Kerry lied then did not report. Therefore, to pin it down to Kerry tht he didn;t report atrocities is equally stupid.

If his medals were bogus, then the US military and the govt is a total failure! It means ALL your medals are just bunkum and everywone who won a mdeal got it because his citation was in good and imaginative English giving feat of the Superman comics! I am sure those who won these medals fair and square would be squirming at the idiocy of peacetime braive patriotic soldiers lolling in their airconditioned home and battling it out on medals! What a laugh!

Any debate on this issue just insult America and its systems of fairplay, honesty and integrity. In short, the whole system is but a fraud.

While it maybe fine for the Presidential campaign it is ruining the credibility of the 'ethos' and 'prestige' of the US as a great democracy and a champion of truth and fairplay.

All you chaps are just ruining the US' Credibility and making the US a laughing stock. If that is the case of patriotism, then your talk of freedom and peace is hollow.

To be fair, one can fudge a Purple Heart. But to say that a Silver Star can be done so.....wow! Something is seriously wrong somewhere!

Youa re making me change my opinion, not that it matters.

Think over it.

TruthSpeak
08 Sep 04,, 21:46
All this is bunk.

For starts, I am not involved in this Presidential stuff. I am commenting only on logic.

I wasn't there and so I don;t know the truth.

All this is bunk? Why, cause you said so?


If the Veterans of the Swift Boat saw that Kerry lied then did not report. Therefore, to pin it down to Kerry tht he didn;t report atrocities is equally stupid.

Many of the swift boat veterans arent officers...it wasnt their duty to report the way it was Kerry's. Besides, about 95% of the swift boat veterans say they never saw any atrocities be committed.


If his medals were bogus, then the US military and the govt is a total failure! It means ALL your medals are just bunkum and everywone who won a mdeal got it because his citation was in good and imaginative English giving feat of the Superman comics!

This is not true either. Your argument is missing something called logic.

Look, the rest of your argument has nothing to do with anything I posted. Either reply to the argument at hand, or keep your mouth closed. I didnt spend my time writing that last post so some moron like yourself could come cover it up with a subject change because he's too lazy to search out facts for himself.

jjacobs43
08 Sep 04,, 23:12
All this is bunk? Why, cause you said so?



Many of the swift boat veterans arent officers...it wasnt their duty to report the way it was Kerry's. Besides, about 95% of the swift boat veterans say they never saw any atrocities be committed.



This is not true either. Your argument is missing something called logic.

Look, the rest of your argument has nothing to do with anything I posted. Either reply to the argument at hand, or keep your mouth closed. I didnt spend my time writing that last post so some moron like yourself could come cover it up with a subject change because he's too lazy to search out facts for himself.

I think Ray made some good points that you might want to think about for awhile instead of just insulting his post.

I've already searched out the facts. I'm not going to go through all of your "mystery" questions when all you are concerned about is having an excuse to think Kerry is scum. It's the same kind of list Michael Moore has in his book about Bush. And at least his questions are from with the last 4 years and not from 35 years ago.

ALL of John Kerry's records are up on his website. Look at them yourself and quit listening to propaganda.

Confed999
09 Sep 04,, 01:37
all kerry's records are not on his website.
According to the Washington Post you're correct as of August...
". Much information is available from the Web sites of the Kerry campaign and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and the Navy archives. But both the Kerry and anti-Kerry camps continue to deny or ignore requests for other relevant documents, including Kerry's personal reminiscences (shared only with biographer Brinkley), the boat log of PCF-94 compiled by Medeiros (shared only with Brinkley) and the Chenoweth diary.

Although Kerry campaign officials insist that they have published Kerry's full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not permitted independent access to his original Navy records. A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least a hundred pages."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

His records are up at http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html and I do not see the medical records.

Confed999
09 Sep 04,, 01:45
one can fudge a Purple Heart. But to say that a Silver Star can be done so.....wow!
I hate to do this but, Ray, these kinds of things do happen.

"B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam veteran himself, received the highest award the Army gives to a civilian, the Distinguished Civilian Service Award, for his book Stolen Valor. Burkett pored through thousands of military service records, uncovering phony claims of awards and fake claims of military service. "I've run across several claims for Silver Stars with combat V's, but they were all in fake records," he said.

Burkett recently filed a complaint that led last month to the sentencing of Navy Capt. Roger D. Edwards to 115 days in the brig for falsification of his records."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips27.html

Ray
09 Sep 04,, 06:14
Confed,

Thanks.

Pertinent in the Sun are:

"Experts point out that even the official military records get screwed up. Milavic is trying to get mistakes in his own DD214 file corrected. In his opinion, "these entries are not prima facie evidence of lying or unethical behavior on the part of Kerry or anyone else with screwed-up DD214s".

Also the different citations for the same medal. Obviously that is not Kerry's fault even if that is very very bizarre.

Yet, I will go with whatever you say since you are in the USA and have your ears to the ground and not get impressed by the media. Further, you are VERY balanced and while you are a patriotic American, you are not fuzzy with misplaced emotions.

Truthspeak,

I wrote in English and that's why you couldn't get what I said.

What are you trying to convey by :

All this is bunk? Why, cause you said so?

It is true that I am not conversant with pidgin English.

Ray
09 Sep 04,, 08:52
I just saw the TV.

There is some bunk abaout Bush by some organisation. In fact, I wondered what was 527 (its 527, right?). The report cleared my confusion!

However, this is not as exciting as the tennis match volleys at Flushing Meadow.

ADDED LATER:

I won;t comment any further on this since maybe I really don't understand the underlying issues and emotions.

monkeycat
09 Sep 04,, 10:22
Sorry but i have to comment here. You are saying in the original thread that George W didn't mislead you over iraq and that is one of the reasons you should vote for him?

Two questions:

So where are the weapons of mass distruction?

Where is the proof that hasn't since been discredited, that shows that Saddam was about to attack the other nations?

And as for links to between Iraq and Al Qiaida, see my views on that in another link.

I know I can't vote in the US elections (I live in spain and i can't vote there either and that's annoying), but the actions of the US government affect the world in a very negative way. From what I gather from my American friends is that international news in the US is somewhat limited (most actually say that it would be laughable if it weren't so painfully sad). It seems that most americans are either unaware, or unable, or plain just don't care about anywhere outside of the States. I am not critizing or supporting this, I am stating a fact.

A man who is universally hated, and i think that is no exageration, is in the white house ordering the attack of countries on dubious moral grounds.
His environmental policies leave a lot to be desired, and could affect the world much more than any war on terror. (I am trying to find anarticle in the UK newspaper the guardian that argued this vey point, but its website doesn't seem to have it try guardian.co.uk anyway).

Is this really the person you want running the country. Is this really the person i want running the worlds only superpower?

TruthSpeak
09 Sep 04,, 14:48
Sorry but i have to comment here. You are saying in the original thread that George W didn't mislead you over iraq and that is one of the reasons you should vote for him?

Two questions:

So where are the weapons of mass distruction?

Whether there are WMD or not doesnt mean Bush did or didnt mislead the country.

He didnt mislead us because he was basing his information off intelligence from multiple sources for which he beleived to be true.


Where is the proof that hasn't since been discredited, that shows that Saddam was about to attack the other nations?

Saddam had years and years to hide or ship off his WMD's. You can blame the U.N. for not finding any.

And what do you mean where is the proof? Saddam already attacked and invaded Kuwait...do we have to wait for him to murder americans before we go after him??

If the intelligence says he's going to do it, you take him out...unless of course you havent learned the lessons of 9/11.

And no, this doesnt mean we can pre-emptively attack any country we have intelligence about. It means we can attack any country that is in violation of 10 years of U.N. resolutions, cease fire treaties, has murdered 300,000 people, has banned weapons according to the U.N. (not wmd, but missles, warheads, etc.), and a country who funds terrorism.


I know I can't vote in the US elections (I live in spain and i can't vote there either and that's annoying), but the actions of the US government affect the world in a very negative way. From what I gather from my American friends is that international news in the US is somewhat limited (most actually say that it would be laughable if it weren't so painfully sad). It seems that most americans are either unaware, or unable, or plain just don't care about anywhere outside of the States. I am not critizing or supporting this, I am stating a fact.

Thats the media for you. We do care about places outside our country, but other countries like to attack us because we are the example of freedom. Everybody wants to live in America. I'm not being cocky, I'm just stating fact.

Spain really cant say anything about us. They appease terrorists and send the message to all terrorists that terrorist actions work, and that terrorist actions can influence world politics. Spain is in fact working against us in the war on terror.


A man who is universally hated, and i think that is no exageration, is in the white house ordering the attack of countries on dubious moral grounds.

Coming from a person that hasnt seen an ounce of intelligence the president has, doesnt have a clue about what his advisors told him, and someone who is ignorant to the abilities of Saddam.


His environmental policies leave a lot to be desired, and could affect the world much more than any war on terror. (I am trying to find anarticle in the UK newspaper the guardian that argued this vey point, but its website doesn't seem to have it try guardian.co.uk anyway).

Oh boo fucking hoo.


Is this really the person you want running the country. Is this really the person i want running the worlds only superpower?

Yes. Because he's doing a good job. He is succeeding in the war on terror, Iraq, and our economy. NOTHING is more important than security. You guys wanna talk about the environment? The environment doesnt mean shit when you're dead...and if you dont put security first, you're going to be.

Then again, you can elect John Kerry, the fake war hero who has no mission for the country whatsoever and cant pick a side on any issue.

jjacobs43
09 Sep 04,, 17:26
Whether there are WMD or not doesnt mean Bush did or didnt mislead the country.

He didnt mislead us because he was basing his information off intelligence from multiple sources for which he beleived to be true.

We were lied to...plain and simple. The Neocons were going into Iraq no matter what.



Thats the media for you. We do care about places outside our country, but other countries like to attack us because we are the example of freedom. Everybody wants to live in America. I'm not being cocky, I'm just stating fact.

If you're not being cocky then you're just being ignorant. They don't hate us because of our 'freedom'. It's that kind of bullshit that makes the rest of the world have a right to hate us.




Coming from a person that hasnt seen an ounce of intelligence the president has, doesnt have a clue about what his advisors told him, and someone who is ignorant to the abilities of Saddam.

In other words, don't think. Just trust whatever Big Brother tells us.





Oh boo fucking hoo.

Monkeycat - TruthSpeak does not represent the majority of Americans on this. A majority of the people here understand the negative effect we have on other countries. But, when we complain, we get labeled as UnAmerican.




Yes. Because he's doing a good job. He is succeeding in the war on terror, Iraq, and our economy. NOTHING is more important than security. You guys wanna talk about the environment? The environment doesnt mean shit when you're dead...and if you dont put security first, you're going to be.

Then again, you can elect John Kerry, the fake war hero who has no mission for the country whatsoever and cant pick a side on any issue.

Big Brother tells us the economy is good and that we're winning some kind of war on terror but I'm not seeing it. What I see is a loss of jobs and us pissing off the rest of the world with our arrogance.

TruthSpeak
09 Sep 04,, 19:03
We were lied to...plain and simple. The Neocons were going into Iraq no matter what.

Yeah, you're right...we should just ignore all facts, independent comissions that looked at the evidence, and everything that is logical...and just beliefve what we want because we are a sheep of the democratic party.


If you're not being cocky then you're just being ignorant. They don't hate us because of our 'freedom'. It's that kind of bullshit that makes the rest of the world have a right to hate us.

I didnt say they hated us because of our freedom...I said people like spain and people in other countries show disrespect toward us because of it...its called jealousy.

The terrorists hate us because we arent muslim.


Monkeycat - TruthSpeak does not represent the majority of Americans on this. A majority of the people here understand the negative effect we have on other countries. But, when we complain, we get labeled as UnAmerican.

Yeah, we liberated 50 million people in this war alone, we have come to the rescue of half of europe in previous wars, and paid to rebuild half of europe in those previous wars. Not to mention how we have helped countries in the east previously..

What a negative affect we have on other countries. France would be speaking German, the soviet union would be spreading communism around like butter, korea would be fucked, iraq and afghanistan wouldnt be free, jews would still be getting slaughtered, and japan wouldnt be half as powerful as it is today.

I think the world forgets reality.


Big Brother tells us the economy is good and that we're winning some kind of war on terror but I'm not seeing it. What I see is a loss of jobs and us pissing off the rest of the world with our arrogance.

Answer me these two questions:

1. Which president got you your job?

2. If you have ever lost a job, which president lost you that job, and did you wait for another president to come along to give you another one???

And about pissing the world off, the terrorists should be pissing the world off...why is the focus on us?

Ray
09 Sep 04,, 19:16
It takes all sorts to make the world.

jjacobs43
09 Sep 04,, 19:37
Yeah, you're right...we should just ignore all facts, independent comissions that looked at the evidence, and everything that is logical...and just beliefve what we want because we are a sheep of the democratic party.

Well, thank you but I'm not a sheep of the democratic party. While most of the democratic party was voting to give Bush the authority to go to war I was not supporting it. I used some of that so called 'logic' you think I'm ignoring by not believing everything Bush tells us in his Statue of the Union addresses.

I've read every book from every former insider in this administration and there is just no way you can believe that Bush wasn't exagerating the intelligence. If you want to tell me it was sound strategy for other reasons then fine, but it was NOT because of WMD and it was NOT to free the people of Iraq from Hussein.





I didnt say they hated us because of our freedom...I said people like spain and people in other countries show disrespect toward us because of it...its called jealousy.

The terrorists hate us because we arent muslim.

I honestly don't know if other countries are 'jealous' of what we have or not. But the hate they show is for other reasons. It sounds like to me they don't like Bush's attitude. And I can't blame them at all.




Yeah, we liberated 50 million people in this war alone, we have come to the rescue of half of europe in previous wars, and paid to rebuild half of europe in those previous wars. Not to mention how we have helped countries in the east previously..

What a negative affect we have on other countries. France would be speaking German, the soviet union would be spreading communism around like butter, korea would be fucked, iraq and afghanistan wouldnt be free, jews would still be getting slaughtered, and japan wouldnt be half as powerful as it is today.

I think the world forgets reality.

The U.S. has a lot to be proud of in it's history. I'm not saying everything we do has a negative effect. I just don't ignore the things that do have a negative effect and say screw off when these things are pointed out by others.




Answer me these two questions:

1. Which president got you your job?

2. If you have ever lost a job, which president lost you that job, and did you wait for another president to come along to give you another one???

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What I do know is that I make about 25% less now than I did when Clinton was president. But I don't really hold that against Bush.

Whether it's Bush's fault or not, I won't speculate on. But to sit there and tell me how great the economy is doing is a load of crap. A few jobs that were lost at the start of the recession are coming back but for much lower pay. That is not a strong recovery



And about pissing the world off, the terrorists should be pissing the world off...why is the focus on us?

Well I don't know. Is the focus on us? I, personally, focus on us because this is where I live and actually have a vote.

Confed999
10 Sep 04,, 01:44
Pertinent in the Sun are
I just wanted you to know that it does happen, and when it does there are people out there hunting them, and punishing them. ;)

In fact, I wondered what was 527
They're supposed to be private groups that aren't for any candidate in particular. They just put out ads to attack each other, IMHO, and I listen to very little of what either side of these 527s say, because I usually can't find proof.

So where are the weapons of mass distruction?
You mean besides the equipment and live rounds found? Can you show me where anyone in the world, with any credibilty, said Iraq had no WMD? Kerry said they had WMD, and said he would have voted to go to Iraq even knowing what he knows today. Spain said they had WMD. France said they had WMD. Russia said they had WMD. Egypt said they had WMD. Jordan said they had WMD. I could do this all day...

And as for links to between Iraq and Al Qiaida, see my views on that in another link.
Sorry, a bi-partisan commission says there are links. What about his links to Palesinian terrorists? What about his own state run terrorists? Saddam himself was a terrorist.

but the actions of the US government affect the world in a very negative way.
Then Spain should increase it's military budget and take over keeping the world in check. Saddam is the cause of the Iraq invasion, all he had to do was comply with the cease-fire, he didn't.

It seems that most americans are either unaware, or unable, or plain just don't care about anywhere outside of the States.
I've been to Europe and I can tell you this, some people care, others don't, it's the same there.

I am stating a fact.
From your own words, you are not stating a fact, you're repeating what you heard from your friends.

is in the white house ordering the attack of countries on dubious moral grounds.
What was dubious about the moral argument to invade, and liberate, Iraq? Was Saddam not starving, imprisoning, torturing, murdering, gassing and opressing the people of Iraq? I suppose that's all a lie too.

the guardian
Bingo! LOL

Is this really the person you want running the country.
No, but the other choice is Kerry, and he might as well be a socialist. We want to stay a superpower, and to protect our freedoms, we don't need socialists destroying that.

We were lied to...plain and simple.
What was the lie?

The Neocons were going into Iraq no matter what.
Ummm... You do remember Saddam was given the chance to comply with the cease-fire right? He could have, and nobody would have gone anywhere. I do not support this move though, because I actually care about the Iraqis he was killing.

It's that kind of bullshit that makes the rest of the world have a right to hate us.
Freedom is not BS. Much of the world wishes it had the level of freedom we have, even some of western Europe.

A majority of the people here understand the negative effect we have on other countries.
Can't make everyone happy, and most of the world's countries are big enough to take care of themselves.

Big Brother tells us the economy is good
LOL Did you believe it when "Big Brother" told you the economy was doing good when Clinton was in office? How much experience do you really have with the economy to know either way? The best thing for the economy is for the government to stay out of it as much as possable. Government is not responsable for jobs.

pissing off the rest of the world with our arrogance.
I'm mad at the rest of the world for their support and appeasement of terrorists and tyrants, even now when they have a powerful ally to help them stop it instead.

the authority to go to war I was not supporting it.
Yeah, screw the Iraqis, they deserve to be slaves. :rolleyes:

but it was NOT because of WMD and it was NOT to free the people of Iraq from Hussein.
It was for both of those reasons, and many more. Have you been listening to them talk about Iraq for the last 2 decades? This didn't just start 2 years ago. According to Clarke, Clinton made removing Saddam policy, not GWB, and the Dems all said we should listen to Clarke.

great the economy is doing is a load of crap.
It's growing at over 5%. Clinton did no better.

A few jobs that were lost at the start of the recession are coming back but for much lower pay. That is not a strong recovery
Ummm... If these aren't government jobs, what do you want the government to do? The government doesn't provide job security, it's your responsability to do the career planing, anything else would be communism.

jjacobs43
10 Sep 04,, 02:14
What was the lie?

The lie was that there was WMD. It doesn't matter that Clinton or other countries thought that. Bush had the evidence at hand and there was no conclusive evidence that Iraq had WMD in their posession. In fact, there was contradictory information. We were lied to in order to sell the case for war. There are way too many reliable sources that say this for it not to be true in my mind.



Freedom is not BS. Much of the world wishes it had the level of freedom we have, even some of western Europe.

I never said that freedom is BS. I said that it's BS to think that freedom is the reason were hated by other countries. It's the arrogance of the United States that makes us hated.



Can't make everyone happy, and most of the world's countries are big enough to take care of themselves.

Can't help it - by nature I want everybody to be happy. :)



LOL Did you believe it when "Big Brother" told you the economy was doing good when Clinton was in office? How much experience do you really have with the economy to know either way? The best thing for the economy is for the government to stay out of it as much as possable. Government is not responsable for jobs.

I have enough experience with the economy to know when it's not going well. The statistics support what I can see. There is a small amount of job growth but the jobs are not nearly as high paying. And many economists feel like the little momentum we have is not a healthy burst at all. I also know that having a huge deficit is not good for the economy.



I'm mad at the rest of the world for their support and appeasement of terrorists and tyrants, even now when they have a powerful ally to help them stop it instead.

Yeah, screw the Iraqis, they deserve to be slaves. :rolleyes:


It's hard to argue this point without looking like a bad guy. But when all of this started we were supposed to be going after Osama. And economically, we were struggling as a country. To me, it just seemed like a bad idea. If we were actually in danger from Sadamm at the time then I can see it. But we weren't.




Ummm... If these aren't government jobs, what do you want the government to do? The government doesn't provide job security, it's your responsability to do the career planing, anything else would be communism.

I wasn't make any claims about the government's role in our economy one way or the other. I'm just saying the economy is not all that great right now. It's a big stretch for Bush to be talking about how great the economy is doing right now.

Confed999
10 Sep 04,, 02:44
there was no conclusive evidence that Iraq had WMD in their posession
He had them, and since there was no conclusive evidence he had destroyed them, the logical conclusion would be...

There are way too many reliable sources that say this for it not to be true in my mind.
Ever heard the phrase "Monday morning quarterback"?

It's the arrogance of the United States that makes us hated.
We're free to be arrogant, just as they are free to be arrogant back and hate the US. I still don't see what's arrogant about hunting terrorists and tyrants.

Can't help it - by nature I want everybody to be happy. :)
Me too, but it isn't going to happen. So I say lets help those that need help, no matter how unhappy it makes the people that are allready doing fine.

I have enough experience with the economy to know when it's not going well.
Is your local government liberal or conservative? The economy in Florida is one of the tops in the nation, even with hurricanes, thanks to a conservative local government.

The statistics support what I can see.
Actually, the flat statistics, unemployment and GDP growth, say things are going pretty much like they did in Clinton's first term.

I also know that having a huge deficit is not good for the economy.
As a percent of the current GDP, it isn't as big as it was durring Reagan's term, and it's nowhere near Lincolin's term. Another point that was made to me just the other day, we can give countries economic aid, or we can pay them intrest.

It's hard to argue this point without looking like a bad guy.
Now you're living in my world.

But when all of this started we were supposed to be going after Osama.
I'm willing to agree it was the wrong time, but I think it should have happened when the terms of the cease-fire expired, I believe that was 15 days after the Gulf War. Since nobody did anything for over a decade, I believe the US should have waited until Afghanistan was further along. We all have to remember though, Saddam was killing his people at a good rate, everyday more of them were gone forever, with their deaths wrongly blamed on us...

It's a big stretch for Bush to be talking about how great the economy is doing right now.
It's a big streach to say it's doing badly too.

jjacobs43
10 Sep 04,, 04:02
He had them, and since there was no conclusive evidence he had destroyed them, the logical conclusion would be...

Ever heard the phrase "Monday morning quarterback"?

It's not Monday Morning quarterbacking if they were saying it before the war. Based on what I had read BEFORE the war, I never believed there were weapons to be found. When I tried to argue it, it was dismissed as bogus. Now, afterwards, there are a ton of sources who have outlined the lead up to war and it is pretty clear what happened. The Neocons trumped up the evidence to justify the invasion.

Confed999
10 Sep 04,, 04:07
Based on what I had read BEFORE the war, I never believed there were weapons to be found.
From who, and how did they know he didn't have them? BTW, I never cared about the WMD argument, I did care about the humanitarian argument, the defence argument, and the terrorism argument. Still, to prove a lie, you have to show conclusively that not only did Saddam not have WMD, but that they knew he didn't.

jjacobs43
10 Sep 04,, 05:49
From who, and how did they know he didn't have them? BTW, I never cared about the WMD argument, I did care about the humanitarian argument, the defence argument, and the terrorism argument. Still, to prove a lie, you have to show conclusively that not only did Saddam not have WMD, but that they knew he didn't.

The first names that come to mind are Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, and Joseph Wilson. Two weapon inspectors and Joseph Wilson who investigated the so called attempted purchase of uranium for nuclear weapons. If there was solid evidence there was no need to tell us obvious BS like the uranium purchase. You combine that with the common knowledge of the Neocons goals and it is quite obvious that the evidence was trumped up in order to achieve that goal.

I remember arguing with a conservative friend of mine who agreed that Bush had probably lied but he still supported the idea of liberating the Iraqis. Which is a fine argument but not one that was presented to us as the reason for the war. I personally, can not accept the President of the United States lieing us into a war.

Confed999
11 Sep 04,, 00:08
The first names that come to mind are Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, and Joseph Wilson.
None of those people said definitively that Iraq had no WMD. Hans said Iraq wasn't cooperating as they had agreed to.

so called attempted purchase of uranium for nuclear weapons.
There was uranium in Iraq, and they had been caught buying it before. I would have believed the intel too.

Which is a fine argument but not one that was presented to us as the reason for the war.
Actually, that was one of the reasons...

I personally, can not accept the President of the United States lieing us into a war.
Saddam could have complied with the cease-fire and avoided all this, he restarted the war. Can you prove the lie, or is it just assumption?

jjacobs43
11 Sep 04,, 00:52
None of those people said definitively that Iraq had no WMD. Hans said Iraq wasn't cooperating as they had agreed to.

Scott Ritter -

Quote, March 9, 2000:
“... from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has in fact been disarmed... The chemical, biological, nuclear and long-range ballistic missile programs that were a real threat in 1991 had, by 1998, been destroyed or rendered harmless.” [Boston Globe, 3/9/00]

Quote, October 19, 2001
“Under the most stringent on-site inspection regime in the history of arms control, Iraq's biological weapons programs were dismantled, destroyed or rendered harmless during the course of hundreds of no-notice inspections. The major biological weapons production facility—al Hakum, which was responsible for producing Iraq's anthrax—was blown up by high explosive charges and all its equipment destroyed. Other biological facilities met the same fate if it was found that they had, at any time, been used for research and development of biological weapons...No evidence of anthrax or any other biological agent was discovered.” [Guardian, 10/19/01]





There was uranium in Iraq, and they had been caught buying it before. I would have believed the intel too.

Nobody in the know believed that intelligence. It was laughable according to Joesph Wilson who was assigned to investigate it. The Bush administration was warned not to include that information in any of his speeches because it was bogus but it somehow ended up in his State of the Union address anyway.




Actually, that was one of the reasons...

I'm sure it was mentioned but all I remember from back then was what a threat Iraq posed to us because of WMD.



Saddam could have complied with the cease-fire and avoided all this, he restarted the war. Can you prove the lie, or is it just assumption?

Once again, I've heard it from Scott Ritter himself and from a couple of other sources after the war that the weapon inspectors were not allowed to complete there job because of the US. Not because of Saddam.

Confed999
11 Sep 04,, 01:07
long-range ballistic missile programs
That turned out to be false, durring the inspections. I still don't see how he had searched the 437,072 sq km that makes up Iraq, without cooperation. Saddam did have WMD, and if we do not find his disposal site soon there will be a massive ecological disaster.
"When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for:
10 thousand litres of anthrax
a far reaching VX nerve agent programme
up to 6,500 chemical munitions
at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, possibly more than ten times that amount
unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons
an entire Scud missile programme"
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3294.asp

Nobody in the know believed that intelligence.
Let me help you out a bit, when the word intelligence is used in this manner it means educated guess. Oh, and qualitative standpoint, means he still had some...

I'm sure it was mentioned but all I remember from back then was what a threat Iraq posed to us because of WMD.
It's been discussed for about 16 years, the WMD argument was for the people who don't care about others.

the weapon inspectors were not allowed to complete there job because of the US. Not because of Saddam.
All Saddam had to do was cooperate with the inspectors and the disarmament would have been completed in a matter of weeks. Remember South Africa's disarmament? Saddam had plenty of time to cooperate, over a decade in fact, he didn't, so it was because of Saddam.

jjacobs43
11 Sep 04,, 01:48
That turned out to be false, durring the inspections. I still don't see how he had searched the 437,072 sq km that makes up Iraq, without cooperation. Saddam did have WMD, and if we do not find his disposal site soon there will be a massive ecological disaster.
"When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for:
10 thousand litres of anthrax
a far reaching VX nerve agent programme
up to 6,500 chemical munitions
at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, possibly more than ten times that amount
unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons
an entire Scud missile programme"
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3294.asp

They were all old weapons that were useless a decade later. Scott Ritter explains it all in his book.




Let me help you out a bit, when the word intelligence is used in this manner it means educated guess. Oh, and qualitative standpoint, means he still had some...


I'm not really sure what you mean by this. I'm talking about a specific piece of intelligence that was deemed bogus. The papers were obvious forgeries and the whole concept didn't make sense. When you use info like that as a selling point that tells me that you don't have real information to use. That's the only obvious conclusion I can come to.




It's been discussed for about 16 years, the WMD argument was for the people who don't care about others.

Whatever.



All Saddam had to do was cooperate with the inspectors and the disarmament would have been completed in a matter of weeks. Remember South Africa's disarmament? Saddam had plenty of time to cooperate, over a decade in fact, he didn't, so it was because of Saddam.

There were other options. Colin Powell did everything he could to stop Bush from doing it but, unfortunately, Bush only listened to Cheney and the other Neocons who were hell bent on going after Saddam.

You should be upset about being lied to instead of defending the invasion. When a small group of people can effectively take over our country with their personal beliefs it's not a good thing. Yet, conservatives want to give him a free pass on this. It's frustrating. :mad:

Confed999
11 Sep 04,, 02:37
They were all old weapons that were useless a decade later. Scott Ritter explains it all in his book.
1998 wasn't a decade ago. Why should I have believed Scott instead of the intl communities of 1/2 the world, not to mention the corpses of the poisoned? Even Saddam's troops thought there were WMD. Scott was still wrong about the ballistic missile program, and Saddam was required to show the disposal sites for proof. Scott's belief the weapons were not any good anymore, means nothing without proof.

The papers were obvious forgeries and the whole concept didn't make sense.
Saddam had done it before, so someone, anyone, saying he was intent on doing it again, sounds about right. I have no idea how obvious the forgeries were, I was sold on the humanitarian aspects in the late 80s, as well as the fact we were allready in a shooting war with Iraq, so it was unrequired reading for me.

Neocons
If you insist on using that word please provide a solid definition for it. Nobody I've asked has been able to provide anything decent, and I do not know what it is, seems you are either conservative or you are not. I see the Bush administration as being quite liberal myself.

You should be upset about being lied to
I see incorrect intel, but I need proof of the lie. Has it been released where that uranium intel supposedly came from?

defending the invasion.
I'm defending the invasion because it had to be done. I see no other choice, no other way to remove Saddam and his pals. I don't care what each of our representatives motivations were when they voted to go to war, because it doesn't matter. If they had to "lie" about WMD to get it done, super.

When a small group of people can effectively take over our country with their personal beliefs it's not a good thing.
It's not allways a bad thing,the American Revolution was propagated by a small group of people. Their names were: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton, William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn, Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton, John Hancock, Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton, Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross, Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean, William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris, Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark, Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry, Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery, Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott and Matthew Thornton.

Yet, conservatives want to give him a free pass on this.
Just as liberals forgive Kerry, that's just how things are.

jjacobs43
13 Sep 04,, 19:21
1998 wasn't a decade ago. Why should I have believed Scott instead of the intl communities of 1/2 the world, not to mention the corpses of the poisoned? Even Saddam's troops thought there were WMD. Scott was still wrong about the ballistic missile program, and Saddam was required to show the disposal sites for proof. Scott's belief the weapons were not any good anymore, means nothing without proof.

Those weapons that were supposedly 'unaccounted for' were more than a decade old and had a shelf life of about 3 years. So, even if they did exist (which has never been proven) they were harmless. I'm not sure what this ballistic missile program is that you say Scott was wrong about. As far as I know, no weapons have been found and a very large number of people that were involved with intelligence gathering are saying that they never believed there were any weapons to be worried about.



Saddam had done it before, so someone, anyone, saying he was intent on doing it again, sounds about right. I have no idea how obvious the forgeries were, I was sold on the humanitarian aspects in the late 80s, as well as the fact we were allready in a shooting war with Iraq, so it was unrequired reading for me.

Well I'm glad you were sold on the humanitarian aspects because that's all that's left to the argument. From a humanitarian aspect, I would think there were much more effective things we could have done with the resources.



If you insist on using that word please provide a solid definition for it. Nobody I've asked has been able to provide anything decent, and I do not know what it is, seems you are either conservative or you are not. I see the Bush administration as being quite liberal myself.

The Neocons statement of principles...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Note: The letter dated in 1997 seems to have 'lost' any references to preemption that where there before.




I see incorrect intel, but I need proof of the lie. Has it been released where that uranium intel supposedly came from?

The intelligence community as a whole did not believe that Iraq was a threat. So I don't see it as incorrect intelligence. If you want to cherry pick the intelligence you can form any conclusions you want. That's what they did to sell the war.

That Uranium intelligence fiasco is well documented. Even Condolezza Rice went on National TV and made excuses for how that bogus information ended up in the state of the union. Her excuse: Tenet had asked for it to be remove from an earlier speech and it was. But, 6 weeks later, it was forgotten that Tenet had asked for it to be removed and it ended up in the speech.



I'm defending the invasion because it had to be done. I see no other choice, no other way to remove Saddam and his pals. I don't care what each of our representatives motivations were when they voted to go to war, because it doesn't matter. If they had to "lie" about WMD to get it done, super.

Sounds like you're a Neocon too.




It's not allways a bad thing,the American Revolution was propagated by a small group of people.

There's a reason for 'checks and balances'. It is a VERY bad thing when a small group is able to trick the people into getting their way. What they've done has very serious consequences for years to come. Shouldn't there have been a debate on it? (I already know your answer to this).



Just as liberals forgive Kerry, that's just how things are.

I just don't think this is the same thing. To lie to the nation like that in the state of the union address is crossing the line of what's normal politics and what is illegal.

Confed999
14 Sep 04,, 02:06
Those weapons that were supposedly 'unaccounted for' were more than a decade old and had a shelf life of about 3 years.
Then all Saddam had to do was show the disposal site, that doesn't sound so difficult to me. No proof of disposal means he still had them, by the terms of the cease-fire.

So, even if they did exist (which has never been proven) they were harmless.
So, the one detonated near American troops sending them to hospital was harmless? Degraded maybe, but not harmless. Intact, and well maintained, chemical deploying bombs were also found.

I'm not sure what this ballistic missile program is that you say Scott was wrong about.
Al Samoud 2... The nifty thing about this rocket is that it was an anti-aircraft missile with the warhead and guidance removed. As such it's payload was useless for anything other than... chem/bio weapons. It could be mated, by design, to the Hussein rocket giving it enough range to hit anywhere in Israel.

a very large number of people that were involved with intelligence gathering are saying that they never believed there were any weapons to be worried about.
If you say so, but France and Russia said they had 'em, and they were in bed with Saddam.

From a humanitarian aspect, I would think there were much more effective things we could have done with the resources.
Really? What could have been done to save as many thousands of lives, or to give as many millions a chance to be free?

The Neocons statement of principles...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Note: The letter dated in 1997 seems to have 'lost' any references to preemption that where there before.
Interesting... Kerry shares some of those principals, now that he's running for Prez, he never did before though, does that make him neo-con lite?

did not believe that Iraq was a threat.
You mean, besides to his own people, his neighbors and through terrorism...

That Uranium intelligence fiasco is well documented.
That was provided by foreign intel, who gave it to us, anybody know? Anyway, you said GWB lied, so you must have proof he knew the info was forged, when he made the speach, and that he purposely left it in for deception.

Sounds like you're a Neocon too.
If wanting tyrants to be removed from power makes me a neo-con, then I will gladly be one. If wanting freedom for everyone makes me a neo-con, then I will gladly be one. If believing "all men are created equal" makes me a neo-con, then I will gladly be one. If viewing the evidence showing containment does not work makes me a neo-con, then I will gladly be one.

There's a reason for 'checks and balances'. It is a VERY bad thing when a small group is able to trick the people into getting their way. What they've done has very serious consequences for years to come. Shouldn't there have been a debate on it? (I already know your answer to this).
There was well over a decade of debate, with no other viable solution other than to let Iraqis die by the thousands, and to have their deaths blamed on us. The entire time allowing Saddam to create state terrorists, to support international terrorism, and to continue shooting at Americans and British. What part of the "checks and balances" were not followed? The Prez didn't have to sell the WMD argument to our government, there are very few, including all of the Dems, that didn't believe he had them. The WMD argument was for the UN, because it was their argument to begin with.

I just don't think this is the same thing.
Exactly my point. Kerry sat in front of Congress, under oath, and admited to committing atrocities. So, by his own words he is either a war criminal or a liar, yet you forgive him because years later he says he didn't mean him, he meant others. Either way he was giving the enemy "aid and comfort", see article 3, section 3 of the Consitution for what should have been done.

jjacobs43
14 Sep 04,, 18:17
Then all Saddam had to do was show the disposal site, that doesn't sound so difficult to me. No proof of disposal means he still had them, by the terms of the cease-fire.

So, the one detonated near American troops sending them to hospital was harmless? Degraded maybe, but not harmless. Intact, and well maintained, chemical deploying bombs were also found.

Al Samoud 2... The nifty thing about this rocket is that it was an anti-aircraft missile with the warhead and guidance removed. As such it's payload was useless for anything other than... chem/bio weapons. It could be mated, by design, to the Hussein rocket giving it enough range to hit anywhere in Israel.

If you say so, but France and Russia said they had 'em, and they were in bed with Saddam.

Bottom line is this: We did a pre-emptive invasion of a country under false information. If you are in control of the biggest superpower of the world, intelligence failures of this magnitude just can not happen. You can throw out all these little examples of a weapon found here and a weapon found there or something that was barried in somebody's back yard 10 years ago, but stockpiles were not found and the rest of the world knows this. This was a major fuck up and the consequences are going to be severe.



Really? What could have been done to save as many thousands of lives, or to give as many millions a chance to be free?

Well, for one thing, we could have finished the job in Afghanistan. That country is slipping right back to the way it was because we just abandoned our mission there.



You mean, besides to his own people, his neighbors and through terrorism...

That was provided by foreign intel, who gave it to us, anybody know? Anyway, you said GWB lied, so you must have proof he knew the info was forged, when he made the speach, and that he purposely left it in for deception.

Of course I can't prove what Bush knew and didn't know. But, when there is a pattern of lieing and an obvious motivation behind the lieing I can come to some pretty solid conclusions. So, We can argue forever on it and I realize I'll never convince somebody like you, but I am pretty damn confident that we were intentionally lied to in order to sell the war to the world.




If wanting tyrants to be removed from power makes me a neo-con, then I will gladly be one. If wanting freedom for everyone makes me a neo-con, then I will gladly be one. If believing "all men are created equal" makes me a neo-con, then I will gladly be one. If viewing the evidence showing containment does not work makes me a neo-con, then I will gladly be one.

Sounds like you have the start to a good stump speech. :)



Exactly my point. Kerry sat in front of Congress, under oath, and admited to committing atrocities. So, by his own words he is either a war criminal or a liar, yet you forgive him because years later he says he didn't mean him, he meant others. Either way he was giving the enemy "aid and comfort", see article 3, section 3 of the Consitution for what should have been done.

I forgive Kerry because a) Of what I know about war, he was probably right and b) because I was 2 years old when he said it and don't really give a crap about what happened during the Vietnam war. I am more worried about the mess we are stuck in right now.

Confed999
15 Sep 04,, 01:51
Bottom line is this: We did a pre-emptive invasion of a country under false information.
Saddam failed to adhere to the cease-fire, so the cease-fire was technically void, thus we continued a war that was allready happening. He fired on our aircraft in UN airspace, an act of war. He publicly called for, and paid money to fund, terrorism against Israel, the US and the UK. He showed this on his public TV, on a weekly basis for 8 years or so. Only one stand, WMD, has turned out to be false, the terrorism and humanitarian reasons were valid, they were 2/3s correct, and they were correct about what I care about. If WMD is all that matters to someone, then you are right, otherwise you're wrong. Bottom line is: Saddam had the power to stop this, just as his power started it. All that was required was compliance. I actually find it funny that so many blame GB for SH's non-compliance. Personally I'm mad at Bush 1 and Clinton, for letting this go on for so long...

"in a world where oppression and violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal, and freedom and security still need defenders."
-President George W. Bush

This was a major fuck up and the consequences are going to be severe.
From whom? Remember, nearly every country's intel told us they had WMD, most warned they would use them too.

Well, for one thing, we could have finished the job in Afghanistan. That country is slipping right back to the way it was because we just abandoned our mission there.
I agree Afghanistan should have been further along, a decade to finish would be alot of dead Iraqis though. The mission in Afghanistan hasn't been abandoned, it would just be better if the focus were currently there. I don't know what that has to do with money though. In the end all we can really do is give the people living there the chance to be free, they are the ones that must take it.

motivation behind the lieing I can come to some pretty solid conclusions.
So you think he may have committed political suicide lying about WMD? If they knew he didn't have WMD wouldn't they have taken "his" WMD with them?

I'll never convince somebody like you
No you won't, not without concrete evidence. I don't play "Right Wing Conspiracy", or "Left Wing Conspiracy", without real proof.

I am pretty damn confident that we were intentionally lied to in order to sell the war to the world.
The hundreds of thousands exhumed from mass graves makes me pretty damn confident that the rest of the world only cares for themselves.

Sounds like you have the start to a good stump speech.
I hoped you would say something about that. What you don't realize is, I can't be a neo-con by the definition you provided. Neo-cons in that incarnation have their beliefs for America, mine are for humanity as a whole. I don't care where you're from, you're worth no less than anyone anywhere else, "all men are created equal".

I forgive Kerry because
I know you do, as you have through all of his flip-flopping, as you have for his statements that Iraq had WMD. That's politics...

and don't really give a crap about what happened during the Vietnam war
"History is a vast early warning system." -Norman Cousins
And as such every crime against humanity matters to me, even ones committed in the distant past. Aren't liberals supposed to actually worry more about this "caring for people" stuff, than us black hearted conservatives?

jjacobs43
15 Sep 04,, 04:44
"History is a vast early warning system." -Norman Cousins
And as such every crime against humanity matters to me, even ones committed in the distant past. Aren't liberals supposed to actually worry more about this "caring for people" stuff, than us black hearted conservatives?

I'm going to drop the rest of this post as I can see there's really nothing else I can say. Someday, when Colin Powell has no ties to politics and is able to freely speak his mind you will find out that this is more than just a conspiracy theory. I think he's the one insider that people will believe when he confirms what many other former insiders are already saying.

As for my last quote, I know you're taking it out of context in order to throw it in my face but I think you knew what I really meant by that statement. And anyway, if you truly believe that quote by Norman Cousins and you truly do care about what happened in Vietnam, you'd be much more concerned about what's going on in Iraq right now.

Confed999
15 Sep 04,, 06:12
Someday, when Colin Powell has no ties to politics and is able to freely speak his mind you will find out that this is more than just a conspiracy theory.
If he provides proof, I will believe him. I will seek the trial and punishment of all those involved, including him, but I will still believe liberating Iraq was the right thing to do. The truth is what matters to me, not guess work. If I worried about every conspiracy, there would be no time left in the day to post here. I need hard evidence before I convict anyone, "innocent until proven guilty".

I know you're taking it out of context in order to throw it in my face but I think you knew what I really meant by that statement.
No, I don't know what you meant by that statement, unless you meant you don't care what happened in Vietnam. I can only read what you type. It seems to me the only thing worth removing Saddam for, was your own skin, so not caring about Vietnam was no real streach of the imagination. My question was quite honest, a bit smart-a**ed but still honest, it was not "to throw it in [your] face".

truly believe that quote by Norman Cousins and you truly do care about what happened in Vietnam, you'd be much more concerned about what's going on in Iraq right now.
What makes you think I'm not? Why else would I stand against all conspiracy stuff meant to politicize the war, and make the powers that be unwilling to fight it like a war. Vietnam was lost because of the unwillingness to fight a war like a war, due to politics.

I came to a realization sometime ago, and call me silly if you wish but, we are all cousins. It seems, whether you believe in creation or evolution, we came from a small enough group that by now we are all related, cousins or stronger. As such I am forced, not only to care, but to love them, for they are all my family. When I see places like Afghanistan and Iraq, places where the average age of the population is in the teens, I know something must be done as rapidly as possable, for my family is being killed. If I cannot save everyone, I will not give up, I will save all I can. I want nothing less than peace and love, but until those who seek only death and hate are gone, that is but a pipe dream.

mtnbiker
15 Sep 04,, 20:03
The first names that come to mind are Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, and Joseph Wilson. Two weapon inspectors and Joseph Wilson who investigated the so called attempted purchase of uranium for nuclear weapons. If there was solid evidence there was no need to tell us obvious BS like the uranium purchase. You combine that with the common knowledge of the Neocons goals and it is quite obvious that the evidence was trumped up in order to achieve that goal.

I remember arguing with a conservative friend of mine who agreed that Bush had probably lied but he still supported the idea of liberating the Iraqis. Which is a fine argument but not one that was presented to us as the reason for the war. I personally, can not accept the President of the United States lieing us into a war.

http://www.americanintelligence.us/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1968

If you are still using Joseph Wilson to validate your argument you need to update your information. Wilson has been totally discredited. It turns out HE was the one that was lying. British intelligence still stands by the "uranium purchase" information.


Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies.

For starters, he has insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her.

But that's not all. The Butler report, yet another British government inquiry, also is expected to conclude this week that British intelligence was correct to say that Saddam sought uranium from Niger.

And in recent days, the Financial Times has reported that illicit sales of uranium from Niger were indeed being negotiated with Iraq, as well as with four other states.

According to the FT: "European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq."

There's still more: As Susan Schmidt reported ? back on page A9 ? of Saturday's Washington Post: "Contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence."

The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "The documents ? purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq ? were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."


Ironically, Senate investigators found that at least some of what Wilson told his CIA briefer not only failed to persuade the agency that there was nothing to reports of Niger-Iraq link ? his information actually created additional suspicion.

mtnbiker
15 Sep 04,, 20:06
I've read every book from every former insider in this administration and there is just no way you can believe that Bush wasn't exagerating the intelligence. If you want to tell me it was sound strategy for other reasons then fine, but it was NOT because of WMD and it was NOT to free the people of Iraq from Hussein.

jjacobs43, if this is true and you have read all these books, I would suggest you pick up General Tommy Franks new book. You won't like what it has to say as it will require you to relook at a number of things you believe to be true.

jjacobs43
15 Sep 04,, 21:23
http://www.americanintelligence.us/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1968

If you are still using Joseph Wilson to validate your argument you need to update your information. Wilson has been totally discredited. It turns out HE was the one that was lying. British intelligence still stands by the "uranium purchase" information.

Then why did Condoleeza Rice go on national tv and say it was an accident that the uranium purchase information was put in the State of the Union address?

Don't give me a link to some right wing prograganda site and tell me it shows that somebody has been discredited. Everybody who has spoken out against the Bush administration is discredited and every right wing web site and talk show host laps it up. George Tenet was not standing by the uranium claim either.

mtnbiker
15 Sep 04,, 22:47
Just because the article is posted on a "right wing propaganda site" doesn't mean it isn't true. It's not an article written by the site, it's an actual article. The article quotes the Washington Post, the 9/11 commission, etc. Joseph Wilson WAS DISCREDITED by all media and the Senate Intelligence Committe report around 2 months ago.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103795/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

From the Washington Post

There's still more: As Susan Schmidt reported — back on page A9 of Saturday's Washington Post: "Contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence."

The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"


From the Senate panel

The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

More from the Senate panel

For starters, he has insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her.

From the Senate Intelligence Committe Report
But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV — he of the Hermes ties and Jaguar convertibles — has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf


Wilson had very publicly complained that the White House had ignored his report. But the Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA never sent the Wilson report to the White House.


In the U.K., an official independent investigative committee on WMD intelligence, the Butler Report (www.butlerreview.org.uk, section 6.4 of the report) has found that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger as late as 2002. The report declared that Bush's statement in the 2003 State of the Union, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," was "well-founded."


The (senate) panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts.


Wilson's earlier claim to the Washington Post that, in the CIA reports and documents on the Niger case, "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong," was also false, according to the Senate report. The relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after he made his trip. Wilson now lamely says he may have "misspoken" on this.


Now turn to the front page of the June 28 Financial Times for a report from the paper's national security correspondent, Mark Huband. He describes a strong consensus among European intelligence services that between 1999 and 2001 Niger was engaged in illicit negotiations over the export of its "yellow cake" uranium ore with North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and China.

jjacobs43
16 Sep 04,, 00:15
Just because the article is posted on a "right wing propaganda site" doesn't mean it isn't true. It's not an article written by the site, it's an actual article. The article quotes the Washington Post, the 9/11 commission, etc. Joseph Wilson WAS DISCREDITED by all media and the Senate Intelligence Committe report around 2 months ago.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103795/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

From the Washington Post



From the Senate panel


More from the Senate panel


From the Senate Intelligence Committe Report
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

All of that you are reading on sites like the National Review is an attempt to paint Joseph Wilson as a loser and an opportunist. Whichever one sticks to him the best. It's the same technique that is applied to everybody who says the wrong thing against the Bush administration.

I just read those articles and skimmed through the conlcusion in the intelligence report. From what I get out of it, there was no conlusive evidence one way or the other. To me, that would indicate that it is something you would not include in a state of the union address. So, yes, Bush left himself some wiggle room by citing the British intelligence instead of our own but to me that is a deliberate attempt at misleading the American public. If our own intelligence doesn't have a definitive opinion on the matter, then it shouldn't be thrown out as fact.

I go back to my original question to you: Why did Condoleeza Rice make excuses about it being an accident that it was left in? In a speech 6 weeks earlier, it was removed at the request of George Tenet. They forgot to remove it for the State of the Union? Come on!

I do not see any motives for Wilson to lie (at the time of his statements). I do see motives for the Bush administration to lie. And finally, after the fact, I see no evidence out there that Iraq had active nuclear weapons programs. Given that, I have no reason to doubt Wilson's statements.

Confed999
16 Sep 04,, 00:44
mtnbiker,
Thanks for the links. I was pretty sure it was UK intel, and that they stood by it, but I didn't feel like searching it out again.

If our own intelligence doesn't have a definitive opinion on the matter, then it shouldn't be thrown out as fact.
Intelligence isn't definitive, it isn't facts, it's an educated guess.

jjacobs43
16 Sep 04,, 01:04
mtnbiker,
Thanks for the links. I was pretty sure it was UK intel, and that they stood by it, but I didn't feel like searching it out again.

Intelligence isn't definitive, it isn't facts, it's an educated guess.

It's not up to the President and his aids to make that educated guess. They are supposed to report what the real intelligence gatherers are telling them. These people weren't concluding anything. So, as for what Bush & Co. should be basing decisions on, this intelligence did not exist.

That link reminded me of Bush's actual words. He definately left wiggle room for himself by basing it on the British's intelligence. But that just shows me even more that he was intentionally misleading us (and Rice's subsequent comments confirm it).

Confed999
16 Sep 04,, 01:27
It's not up to the President and his aids to make that educated guess. They are supposed to report what the real intelligence gatherers are telling them. These people weren't concluding anything. So, as for what Bush & Co. should be basing decisions on, this intelligence did not exist.
I don't understand... The UK says according to their intel Iraq was trying to buy uranium, so it appears the intel did exist. Intel isn't conclusive, if it were it would be called fact.

He definately left wiggle room for himself by basing it on the British's intelligence. But that just shows me even more that he was intentionally misleading us (and Rice's subsequent comments confirm it).
See what I mean about politics. There is definately a question about this intel, it could easily be true or false, but you're still willing to damn Bush without conclusive evidence. A bi-partisan senate commission doesn't feel the same way you do, and that means a little more, at least to me, than the conspiracy.

jjacobs43
16 Sep 04,, 02:59
I don't understand... The UK says according to their intel Iraq was trying to buy uranium, so it appears the intel did exist. Intel isn't conclusive, if it were it would be called fact.

It's very simple. Intelligence can be wrong. If you know it's wrong and you still use it then you are intentionally misleading the people. Geoge Tenet told them it was wrong. And instead of leaving it out of the state of the union, Bush used it.




See what I mean about politics. There is definately a question about this intel, it could easily be true or false, but you're still willing to damn Bush without conclusive evidence. A bi-partisan senate commission doesn't feel the same way you do, and that means a little more, at least to me, than the conspiracy.

I think you need to look at the report a little closer. There are references backing up what I'm saying throughout the document. For example, look at page 56 - The Whitehouse was informed that the evidence is weak and the reasons are stated.

If your own intelligence is telling you that the evidence is weak then why are you telling it to the American people? If your case is so strong against Saddam then why can't you use stronger evidence? The answer to these questions is that the case was actually weak and they were trying to cherry pick intelligence in order to sell the war to us.

Confed999
16 Sep 04,, 03:43
It's very simple. Intelligence can be wrong.
If you truly believed that then we would be on the same footing. Nothing about WMD, except the stuff that was fact confirmed by people on the ground, wasn't accompanied by "intel shows". I would rather hear about the belief, with the intel qualifier, and have it turn out to be false, than to be surprised.

There are references backing up what I'm saying throughout the document.
And there are references that do not. My point was, in politics people tend to see what they want to see, just as it is with the rest of life. The fact that this may or may not be true, only confirms it is intel. It doesn't prove any lie.

sell the war to us.
They truly weren't selling the war to America, the vote here was going to be the same either way. The Repubs and Dems had all used this same type of evidence for years, they weren't going to go back on it.

"In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.

Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum." December 5, 2001
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html
There are many, many more exmples.

If your case is so strong against Saddam then why can't you use stronger evidence?
Saddam was an ally of France and Russia. They were protecting their investment. I bet if they were America Saddam would have been called a puppet, but they aren't so it's investment. In hindsight, IMHO, they were doing everything they could to shame F & R into doing the right thing.

mtnbiker
16 Sep 04,, 05:02
All of that you are reading on sites like the National Review is an attempt to paint Joseph Wilson as a loser and an opportunist. Whichever one sticks to him the best. It's the same technique that is applied to everybody who says the wrong thing against the Bush administration.

what about the Washington Post?

what about Slate, not exactly a conservative website.

what about the article by Christopher Hitchens?

jjacobs43
16 Sep 04,, 05:40
If you truly believed that then we would be on the same footing. Nothing about WMD, except the stuff that was fact confirmed by people on the ground, wasn't accompanied by "intel shows". I would rather hear about the belief, with the intel qualifier, and have it turn out to be false, than to be surprised.

Hearing about it and invading a country because of it are two entirely different things.



And there are references that do not. My point was, in politics people tend to see what they want to see, just as it is with the rest of life. The fact that this may or may not be true, only confirms it is intel. It doesn't prove any lie.

I don't know what 'references' that you are refering to that go against what I've said. It leaves open the possibility to the fact that it being mentioned in the State of the Union speach was unintentional but that's it. I personally, seriously doubt it was a mistake.



They truly weren't selling the war to America, the vote here was going to be the same either way. The Repubs and Dems had all used this same type of evidence for years, they weren't going to go back on it.

It wasn't just about getting the votes. They were trying to sell the war to the people of America.

I've spent my time reading through as much as that document as I stand looking at. You can say that I'm just seeing what I want to see but I don't think so. I think it's quite clear that the uranium claim was doubtful. I think it's quite clear that the Whitehouse was asked to remove the claim. And it's quite clear that Bush said it in his speach anyway. Intentional or not, we were misled.

jjacobs43
16 Sep 04,, 05:55
what about the Washington Post?

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020426Utwater.html

Notice the reference to Susan Schmidt herself.




what about Slate, not exactly a conservative website.
what about the article by Christopher Hitchens?[/QUOTE]

Christopher Hitchens will say anything in favor of this war. I didn't even know who the guy was until his face was all over tv bashing Michael Moore's movie. If he was a liberal writer I missed all that - all he seems to do now is foam at the mouth about the war. And, in my opinion, he comes across as a real asshole in doing so.

Confed999
16 Sep 04,, 06:25
Hearing about it and invading a country because of it are two entirely different things.
The invasion was technically because Saddam broke the cease-fire. I doubt the war started because of one or two lines in a speach, especially since the vote to go to war would have been the same either way.

I don't know what 'references' that you are refering to that go against what I've said.
UK intel says it's true, that goes directly against what you said. Tennet cited "names and dates" as his reasons, but he didn't really know what names and dates were on them. Sorry, that makes it all questionable to me.

doubt
Hey, if you're starting to doubt, then you're on the right track.

They were trying to sell the war to the people of America.
You don't get to vote on it. Your representitives voted on it, and they were allready sold. They were sold long before GWB entered the White House, they were just waiting for the call. They voted "yes" to go to war, on the basis that Saddam had broken the cease-fire.

You can say that I'm just seeing what I want to see but I don't think so.
There are plenty of reasons to believe the intel is true, and plenty to believe it's false. If you see that, then you are seeing it clearly.

we were misled.
Sorry, it had the "intel" qualifier. He told you it may not be true when he said that.

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020426Utwater.html

Notice the reference to Susan Schmidt herself.


Christopher Hitchens will say anything in favor of this war. I didn't even know who the guy was until his face was all over tv bashing Michael Moore's movie. If he was a liberal writer I missed all that - all he seems to do now is foam at the mouth about the war. And, in my opinion, he comes across as a real asshole in doing so.
Again, we see what we want to see. Because these two cast a shadow of doubt over Tenet's, and your, belief the intel was false they're a** holes, but Tenet himself is correct because he said what you believe. I say the whole thing is questionable, but since I was told it was "intel" I allready knew that. Also if you blame GWB for faulty intel, you must be mad at Kerry too, and furious with Clinton.

jjacobs43
16 Sep 04,, 07:27
The invasion was technically because Saddam broke the cease-fire. I doubt the war started because of one or two lines in a speach, especially since the vote to go to war would have been the same either way.

UK intel says it's true, that goes directly against what you said. Tennet cited "names and dates" as his reasons, but he didn't really know what names and dates were on them. Sorry, that makes it all questionable to me.

Hey, if you're starting to doubt, then you're on the right track.

You don't get to vote on it. Your representitives voted on it, and they were allready sold. They were sold long before GWB entered the White House, they were just waiting for the call. They voted "yes" to go to war, on the basis that Saddam had broken the cease-fire.

There are plenty of reasons to believe the intel is true, and plenty to believe it's false. If you see that, then you are seeing it clearly.

Sorry, it had the "intel" qualifier. He told you it may not be true when he said that.

Again, we see what we want to see. Because these two cast a shadow of doubt over Tenet's, and your, belief the intel was false they're a** holes, but Tenet himself is correct because he said what you believe. I say the whole thing is questionable, but since I was told it was "intel" I allready knew that. Also if you blame GWB for faulty intel, you must be mad at Kerry too, and furious with Clinton.

The beginning of this thread starts off with claims that Kerry is a liar and that he didn't earn 3 purple hearts blah blah blah when clearly the military records confirm his accounts of the war. You have no problem playing right along with that. But then I point out some lies of Bush that has much more substance (especially since it involves the 21st century) you take this holier than thou stance of "you're just seeing what you want to see". You take a few lines out of each of my sentences and try to zing me with it. It doesn't make Bush any more honest.

I'm done looking into this. I'm not going to defend every little detail of this when the big picture is quite clear. There are NO weapons - case closed!!! If everybody in this group wants to believe every little detail they hear about Kerry and dismiss any criticism of Bush then so be it. I'll let everybody get back to the fun of brainless Kerry bashing.

ChrisF202
16 Sep 04,, 14:40
Does Kerry even have a chance anymore? I think Bush will winn by at leasy 60%

Confed999
17 Sep 04,, 01:48
You have no problem playing right along with that. But then I point out some lies of Bush that has much more substance (especially since it involves the 21st century) you take this holier than thou stance of "you're just seeing what you want to see".
Ummmm, I included myself in the "see what you want to see", when I said "everyone does it". I believe you're taking all of this personally, and it isn't personal... Also, you may wish to read the posts here again, before you accuse me of "playing right along", for I only made 2 posts that cast Kerry in a bad light, one calling him a might as well be socialist, and from where I sit he might as well be, but that's only an insult if you don't like socialism. The other citing his admission of committing atrocities, which I used as an example of how people forgive things in politics, something I would like to see investigated, just as much as I would like to see the "Bush lied" investigated. I do my best to be as fair as possable, but I do not convict without evidence. Oh, one other thing, I would have equally supported the decision to go to war with Iraq, if Bush 1 or Clinton or Gore, had decided to do it.

I'll let everybody get back to the fun of brainless Kerry bashing.
From someone who does an awful lot of Bush bashing, calling someone brainless for doing the same seems silly. Sad thing is, I actually liked arguing with you...

Confed999
17 Sep 04,, 02:10
Going back through my posts I noticed this, something I did not see before.

Yet, I will go with whatever you say since you are in the USA and have your ears to the ground and not get impressed by the media. Further, you are VERY balanced and while you are a patriotic American, you are not fuzzy with misplaced emotions.
Ray, thank you so much for all of your kind words. I truly appreciate that you noticed, nearly as much as I appreciate your friendship.