PDA

View Full Version : How long till the UN admits the US was right?



eg8r
06-11-2004, 04:18 PM
Here is an article (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html) with the UN admitting Saddam had WMDs prior to the war and during the war. [ QUOTE ]
The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared. <hr /></blockquote> How long will it take for the US media to run with this great information? Any bets Ross?

eg8r

moblsv
06-11-2004, 06:01 PM
great, I deleted my earlier reply because I wanted to make sure this was the same thing I read earlier :-(

It appears to be. he is an article from "Main Stream" media.
http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=31386

moblsv
06-11-2004, 06:13 PM
I went back in my browser cache and found the earlier post
------------
These were not WMD they were engines

The weapons inspectors, in Feb. of 2003 in their computer models of this engine could, under the right conditions, exceed the allowed range of 150 kilometers. The computer model showed that under ideal conditions, in the conventional warhead, it could go 162 kilometers.
when put into a lighter missle, it could go up to 193 kilometers. at those ranges, maybe 1 of 10 would make it that far, and maybe 1 of 200 would come within a few kilometers of the actual target.

In engineering, it is critical that the operational performance of an item be exceeded by the maximum performance. For example, your car will not self destruct if you go beyond redline on the tach, but redline is your maximum rpm range.

The inspectors felt uncomfortable granting a maniac the engineering leeway, so in febuary of 2003, the decision was made that they must declare, mark and destroy those engines.
The process was starting on these engines when the U.S. "advised" the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq on March 17th.

Maybe that is why there is no hoopla over the find.
These missle engines were not developed for a banned warhead that we knew of, and the design specs were well within the range we imposed on them.
We decided he was too loony to have them, (probably the right choice) and ordered their destruction.

highsea
06-12-2004, 08:15 AM
The UN and the rest of the world will NEVER admit that we were justified in overthrowing Saddam. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence is presented, it is politically safer to condemn the US, because the world knows we won't do anything about it.

France has 2.5 million muslim "refugees" alone. Germany has 2 million. The Netherlands has 850,000, and there is another 2 million in the US. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US. Look at Indonesia, The Philipines, Maylasia, and every country that ends in -stan.

At least 1/4 of all the mosques in France are run my imams who preach jihad against the west. Germany is just as bad. Simply put, Europe is being overrun with Islamic extremists, and with the exception of Britain, the governments are all cowering in fear.

Europe knows the US will not be intimidated, so it is safer for them to vent their outrage against the US, while secretly hoping we will solve the problem singlehandedly.

Every one knows Saddam had active Nuclear, Bio and Chem programs before the invasion. Iraqi nuclear scientists were working with Libyans on a bomb. We would have never known about it except that Qadafi decided he didn't want to suffer the same fate as Saddam. It's clear that most of this crap was hidden or moved out of Iraq before we could get out hands on it. As these weapons get in the hands of al Qaeda and Hizbollah, guess who will take the blame? It will be us, for not containing these nonexistant weapons.

Iran just finished hosting the first world conference on suicide bombers. Great news, huh? A private group in Iran created a database of 15,000 people who have volunteered for suicide missions against the US. What began as a Palestinian phenomenon has become mainstream among muslims.

A recent poll in Saudi Arabia stated that over 1/2 the population is sympathetic to bin Laden's jihad against America. The Saud Royal Family is facing a crisis, and there is a very real possibility they will face the same fate as the Shah in Iran, and another extremist government will take their place. This is their idea of reform: They may actually let women get drivers licenses. Maybe. They're thinking about it.

-CM

Harold Acosta
06-12-2004, 11:20 AM
eg8r:

You can't really believe this bull$hit? Can you?

Specially the statement about "the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war."

Yeah, right!

My question now goes: When will the US admit that Saddam didn't have any freaking Weapons of Mass Destruction?

There is no way in hell, the US and President Bush will come out clean of this mess....

Sid_Vicious
06-12-2004, 11:35 AM
Well said Harold. It is funny that a guy who works at researching exact facts like Ed does, shoots holes in what he calls liberal news reporting sites simply because they do not align with his own beliefs, NOW wants to jump on the sketchy reporting that this speedy moving of these weapons was performed, and performed so well that our entire army has not produced some strong, definitive, leftover evidence,,,the Iraqis aren't that good, even we aren't! I guess it all figures, now that I think about it. This admin hosed-up and won't admit it, plain and simple, and now the next admin(s) will have to live with it for years to come. Somebody in this government should have to accout for this, far more than Bill's hazy definition over what's sex and what ain't! People are getting killed with ol' GWB's push into war, a wrong war...sid

bluewolf
06-12-2004, 12:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> Well said Harold. It is funny that a guy who works at researching exact facts like Ed does, shoots holes in what he calls liberal news reporting sites simply because they do not align with his own beliefs, NOW wants to jump on the sketchy reporting that this speedy moving of these weapons was performed, and performed so well that our entire army has not produced some strong, definitive, leftover evidence,,,the Iraqis aren't that good, even we aren't! <hr /></blockquote>

I do not believe in the wmd destruction but bellieve there was sketchy and inaccurate intelligence that was presented to congress as fact to get them to agree to the war on Iraq.

But...Eds profession of choice really has nothing to do with his beliefs, imo, because there are liberals and conservervatives in every type of profession.

Agree with you politically but think this was kind of a low blow... /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Laura

Sid_Vicious
06-12-2004, 12:56 PM
I don't believe I eluded to his profession, just his ways of objectiveness. My term "works at" was pointed toward the vergabe traded here on this board..sid

eg8r
06-13-2004, 07:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Iran just finished hosting the first world conference on suicide bombers. Great news, huh? <hr /></blockquote> I think the first great news about this story is that they are finally calling these people the correct names. They are suicide bombers, not homicide.

eg8r

eg8r
06-13-2004, 08:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
My question now goes: When will the US admit that Saddam didn't have any freaking Weapons of Mass Destruction? <hr /></blockquote> When will you first understand the absolute most simplistic fact...SADDAM ADMITTED TO HAVING THE WMDs????? This is such a basic statement and the whole world continues to stumble on it. Now given that it is so completely basic and easy to understand one must wonder why it is so tough. Surely the only reason is that there is an agenda, and highsea might be on to something.

Saddam said he had them, but you have more top secret intelligence? Your argument against Bush would hold more water if you just said why do you believe Saddam now, after calling him a liar for everything else. What you offer is complete nonsense, and it is "reported" to you by the mainstream media.

eg8r

eg8r
06-13-2004, 08:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Well said Harold. It is funny that a guy who works at researching exact facts like Ed does <hr /></blockquote> If we are talking about being funny, lets not ignore your ability to make one liner additions to another person post, however never reply when asked? Kind of like you say what you want then you are back to hiding. Funny.

[ QUOTE ]
It is funny that a guy who works at researching exact facts like Ed does, shoots holes in what he calls liberal news reporting sites simply because they do not align with his own beliefs, NOW wants to jump on the sketchy reporting <font color="blue"> don't fool yourself, my post was not based on the Boston Herald, or their ability to use the AP. Unless the AP was the contributor to the World tribune. Secondly, since the subject matter is not usually clear for you, let me try to clear it up. The post was not made in order to prove ONE liberal outlet reported the incident (this is probably where you bumped your toe), the intent is to question when ALL the media would mention it, and would it ever reach the same level of proportion as those other stories that are negative towards the administration. Now is the second time in very recent events (do you even remember the sarin gas that would found and could kill 60,000 people) that the liberal mainstream media has done its best job to cover up the story. I heard next to zero about this on CNN and local TV. I had to search it out on the internet after first seeing it on Drudge. </font color> that this speedy moving of these weapons was performed, and performed so well that our entire army has not produced some strong, definitive, leftover evidence <font color="blue"> You couldn't know if this was true or not. Why do I know you would not know...because of the simple reason for this post. The liberal media does not want to tell you everything that is good that is happening. Answer me this...did you hear about the oil lines that the Saddam loyalist blew up late last week? I am sure you did. Now, tell me, did you ever hear anything in the media prior to the bombing about how well that line was running. Have you heard any good news. Do you honestly think everything happening over there is bad? Come on Sid, I know you run and hide when questioned but maybe you can appease me just once. I doubt it. </font color> ,,,the Iraqis aren't that good, even we aren't!<hr /></blockquote>

We still have not heard from Qtec and his country helping Saddam hide the stuff.

Thanks for playing.

eg8r

eg8r
06-13-2004, 08:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
do not believe in the wmd destruction but bellieve there was sketchy and inaccurate intelligence that was presented to congress as fact to get them to agree to the war on Iraq. <hr /></blockquote> I would guess you are finished reading Clarke's book. It just so happens he was the first guy to get caught lying in front of the 9/11 review board. Nice.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bw:</font><hr> But...Eds profession of choice really has nothing to do with his beliefs, imo, because there are liberals and conservervatives in every type of profession.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sid:</font><hr> I don't believe I eluded to his profession, just his ways of objectiveness. My term "works at" was pointed toward the vergabe traded here on this board..sid
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> I understood what Sid was saying. However BW, you are correct about fellow workers being conservative, liberal, and tight rope walkers (alright, I added the last one /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ). My boss in Texas hated Bush so much that he would get mad at work when he and I would start talking (not a fuming mad, just mad) about the Bush administration. He was here in Orlando (a few weeks ago) on business and we had dinner and I asked him what he thought of Kerry. His reply was, "He (kerry) cannot do any worse than Bush". I asked him, then why vote for a change if he already agrees he would never do any better. He just laughed.

eg8r

moblsv
06-13-2004, 12:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>(do you even remember the sarin gas that would found and could kill 60,000 people) that the liberal mainstream media has done its best job to cover up the story. I heard next to zero about this on CNN and local TV. <hr /></blockquote>

I saw this all over the news and I thought it was made quite clear that it was a pre 1991 leftover. The Military downplayed it's significance as "a different category" but the "right" has blown it into a WMD. Same with the shell with "traces" of mustard gas. If the military or Bush won't submit them as WMD then why would the ligitimate press?

When or if WMD are found ( and I would not be surprised if eventually something is found ) it will get reported by the main stream press and receive the attention it deserves. I also expect the "right news" to blow it way out of proportion.

eg8r
06-13-2004, 02:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I saw this all over the news and I thought it was made quite clear that it was a pre 1991 leftover. <hr /></blockquote> Without continuing any more with what you have to say....What the heck does this matter. The left is continually saying there are no WMDs. Now that some have been found (i use that term loosely) the left tries to write it off as older stuff that Saddam has had for awhile. So now, which is it going to be, they have none, or don't worry about the WMDs that are there since pre-91?
[ QUOTE ]
The Military downplayed it's significance as "a different category" but the "right" has blown it into a WMD. Same with the shell with "traces" of mustard gas. If the military or Bush won't submit them as WMD then why would the ligitimate press?
<hr /></blockquote>
I do not remember the military downplaying it all. Where have you read that, and is it still available to read. All I heard was that they did not know what they had and used it improperly. I can gaurantee you, if that was shot through the air and mixed during flight and it killed a thousands of soldiers, the military would not be downplaying anything. As far as the right blowing it out of proportion, where is the evidence of that? Would you be talking about Talk Radio, because it sure was never an issue in the mainstream media?

[ QUOTE ]
When or if WMD are found ( and I would not be surprised if eventually something is found ) it will get reported by the main stream press and receive the attention it deserves. <hr /></blockquote> Would you say it deserves at least as much as the prison story? More?

eg8r

moblsv
06-13-2004, 03:12 PM
a quick search turned up a couple of links
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040527/news_1n27sarin.html
http://www.wokr13.tv/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=83E2BD4A-5F1C-4E84-9166-4E3A8E847643

a couple of relevant quotes

"Neither find is being offered as evidence of Saddam Hussein's alleged illegal weapons programs"
"That was a pre-Gulf War shell, a different category than the weapons being sought by the Iraq Survey Group -- Brig. Gen. David Rodriguez"

Last I heard it was probably old (maybe even a 'dud' found in the desert), improperly stored and not very potent. I haven't heard a final statement on this though.

another quote:

"Defense Department spokesman Larry Di Rita told reporters: "It could be a lot more. It could be nothing. It's just too early to tell.""

I admit that this does concern me. Is it still too early to tell? I haven't heard a definate answer or anything about further investigation.

bluewolf
06-13-2004, 04:42 PM
I read an interesting article in the ny times about the undecided voters. They had profiled them and they were very different than in previous elections. Apparently many of them are going to wait til right before the election to decide who to vote for and some said it will depend on what is going in the world and the economy. Both parties were scratching their heads trying to figure out how to appeal to this group. They reported that these voters cluster in 'swing states'.

Laura

Righty
06-14-2004, 07:36 AM
the UN will never admit it they are all a bunch of cowards and terorist appeasers.

SecaucusFats
06-14-2004, 06:01 PM
The ability of the UN as an institution, and the French, Russian and German governments and their cronies to rake in illicit millions of dollars from oil-for-food contract kickbacks across the misery of Iraq's weakest citizens required a continual program of ineffectual inspections - perpetually seeking and never finding the WMD/nuclear components.

That's the dirty secret; that's why they would NEVER have gone to war against Saddam and why the French double-crossed us on Res. 1441 and why they hate President Bush and resent the liberation of Iraq. It is OUR war because THEY didn't want their cozy scheme to end.

But it did end. Oil-for-food is over and the UN's own Mr. Perricos has blown the cover. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

SF

striker_3
06-15-2004, 06:31 PM
As a NBC (Nuc,Bio,Chem) guy for the military, I believe the that the two findings were not downplayed. Yes the projectile was from a R and D program from the early 90's, but "supposedly" they were all destroyed.

eg8r
06-16-2004, 06:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Yes the projectile was from a R and D program from the early 90's, but "supposedly" they were all destroyed. <hr /></blockquote> Exactly, it does not matter if the projectile was R&amp;D or not, the opportunity for that to kill thousands of US soldiers is being brushed off because of the simple fact that it never did kill all of those soldiers. The naysayers said there were no WMDs in the country, yet we find some, enough to possibly kill 60k people, and that is "trace" evidence as far as our all knowing media. This was a much more important story than a bunch of killers being forced to wear panties on their heads while some soldiers take pictures.

eg8r

Ross
06-16-2004, 11:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> This was a much more important story than a bunch of killers being forced to wear panties on their heads while some soldiers take pictures.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

And just when I thought there might be some hope for you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
06-16-2004, 11:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> This was a much more important story than a bunch of killers being forced to wear panties on their heads while some soldiers take pictures.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

And just when I thought there might be some hope for you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif <hr /></blockquote>

I agree with eg8r. I guess there's no hope for me either /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
06-16-2004, 11:38 AM
LOL, I threw that one in for you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
06-16-2004, 12:04 PM
eg8r and Wally are beyond help. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

Ross
06-16-2004, 02:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> This was a much more important story than a bunch of killers being forced to wear panties on their heads while some soldiers take pictures.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

And just when I thought there might be some hope for you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif <hr /></blockquote>

I agree with eg8r. I guess there's no hope for me either /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

Probably isn't Wally! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

No, seriously, the difference is that I see you looking at facts and coming up with a different conclusion than I do. That's life and the American way. But when I read eg8r's postings I see so many repeated blatant distortions of facts, or such slanted reporting of facts, that he doesn't even really seem to be trying to be intellectually honest.

I responded to his particular quote "This was a much more important story than a bunch of killers being forced to wear panties on their heads while some soldiers take pictures." because this statement is blatantly misrepresenting the facts and he knows it. He knows that it wasn't just "panties on heads" - for example some of the prisoners were smothered and some were beaten to death (some while covered in blankets, another while nude in the shower). Some were sodomized, some of the women and boy prisoners were raped. He also knows, or should know if he reads news accounts of the military's own internal investigations, that a lot of the Iraqi's being interrogated at Abu Ghraib were not killers as he describes them. The coalition was rounding up suspects and common criminals, not just "high-value" targets. That is why the CIA over there stopped participating in the torture and murdering of prisoners. As they said, many of the prisoners were low level suspects - taxi drivers thought to know something or brothers-in-law of another suspect, etc.

I don't mind a debate over the issues. That's healthy. And we all have our own views and biases. But at least have an open mind enough to admit reality when it hits you in the head. You may not like the fact that the media gives attention to Abu Ghraib, but be a man about it and tell it like it is. If you think the media should not give so much attention to the humiliation, sexual abuse, torture, and murder of imprisoned Iraqi suspects, then make an argument why you believe this. But don't bury your head in the sand, convincing yourself that this was just some naughty teasing of evil killers, and write statements designed to whitewash the incidents like the one above, no part of which is even remotely true. Or do, if you don't care at all about truth and honesty or the credibility of your views.

striker_3
06-16-2004, 02:23 PM
I'm not saying that they shouldn't show the prison story, but the media should give equal amounts of air time to the different stories. There are other things happening in the desert other than death, destruction and wearing underwear on your head.

eg8r
06-16-2004, 04:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I responded to his particular quote "This was a much more important story than a bunch of killers being forced to wear panties on their heads while some soldiers take pictures." because this statement is blatantly misrepresenting the facts and he knows it. He knows that it wasn't just "panties on heads" - for example some of the prisoners were smothered and some were beaten to death (some while covered in blankets, another while nude in the shower). Some were sodomized, some of the women and boy prisoners were raped. He also knows, or should know if he reads news accounts of the military's own internal investigations, that a lot of the Iraqi's being interrogated at Abu Ghraib were not killers as he describes them. The coalition was rounding up suspects and common criminals, not just "high-value" targets. That is why the CIA over there stopped participating in the torture and murdering of prisoners. As they said, many of the prisoners were low level suspects - taxi drivers thought to know something or brothers-in-law of another suspect, etc. <font color="red"> By reading your statements you come across to me as believing there is equal amounts of death, torture (is it alright for you to be this vague), rape and humiliation. I don't believe I am "mis-representing" any facts. What I said is absolutely true. I did not include every single different type of instance, as I have seen in the past you do not either. I am saying the vast majority of what happened in that jail (as far as has been told) was humiliation. If you honestly believe there have been equal amounts of death, as have been humiliation, then prove it, until then the deaths are no where near as many, so I don't believe they are part of the same category. I also would like to question your use of the word murder. Are you stating that the ones that have died, were killed with intention to kill? How is torture being defined? I think stripping them down is a form of torture because of their beliefs but is it as bad as cutting a guys head off? The soldiers were using dogs to bark at the prisoners (some might have gotten out of hand and no one is ignoring that or avoiding them but in the whole scheme of things were the ones bitten or killed by the dogs equal to the quantity that were tortured with the dogs barking?), is that equally as bad a cutting off a head. Besides arguing all the facts, why don't you go back to the beginning when the media started making all this the center of their newscasts, what were they talking about? Was it murder? You have decided to take in all the "extra" details that are not broadly told to the public (by the media) and add it in as it is the equal to what was being described the majority of the time. This is where you and I are not coming together (my description is what is being told on a day to day basis, not the exceptions). The average joe blow public is not out reading military internal reports. I guess the big barrier is that the average public only knows about the things that I have talked about which is the humiliation. The whole point of these posts is to not include people like you or I who want to know the rest of what is going on. As far as what they main-stream media is conveying to the public for the past month is the humiliation of the prisoners. During which time, there was 2 maybe 3 days of coverage about an American who was beheaded, and even less time was spent on the WMDs that were found. This the point I am trying to make and you are refusing to open your eyes and see it.</font color>

I don't mind a debate over the issues. That's healthy. And we all have our own views and biases. But at least have an open mind enough to admit reality when it hits you in the head. You may not like the fact that the media gives attention to Abu Ghraib, but be a man about it and tell it like it is. <font color="blue"> You don't like it when we tell it like the media tells it? I would venture to guess about 98% of all the Abu Ghraib coverage has been about the humiliation that has gone on. Very, very little is told on the nightly news about prisoners who have died or were tortured (still wonder why you use a term as broad as torture). As far as the average citizen who watches the news is concerned, the media is more interested in talking about the humiliation of prisoners than talk about the beheading of an American. The media never even called out Muslims to protest the beheading, all they did was give it a day or so then swept it under the rug. </font color> If you think the media should not give so much attention to the humiliation, sexual abuse, torture, and murder of imprisoned Iraqi suspects, then make an argument why you believe this. <font color="blue"> I just wonder when the mainstream media is going to cover everything you have talked about. My guess from above is that 98% of all coverage has been over the humiliation (I willing to bet what we call humilitation is considered torture to them so that would cut your list down a little more). </font color> But don't bury your head in the sand, convincing yourself that this was just some naughty teasing of evil killers, and write statements designed to whitewash the incidents like the one above, no part of which is even remotely true. Or do, if you don't care at all about truth and honesty or the credibility of your views. <font color="blue"> I think you might want to try just watching the news and see what is being reported rather than searching out military documents to see what happened. Maybe only then will you understand what the rest of America is seeing. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote> I know that there are plenty of other things going on over there which is why I denounced it in the beginning. If it was only about prisoners being stacked naked, the I would have blown it off. My problem has been that for one solid week (now it has been a month or more), the media thought it was a good idea to show 5 pictures a day of more humiliation. They kept showing the same stuff over and over. I believe it was one of your insensitive posts about the beheading that stated what else should they talk about, he is still dead. I said if you believe that nonsense, then apply it to the prison scandal and tell me why we need to be told about more humiliation every day. Sure there are other things that have happened, but, what is being reported on the whole/majority is only the humiliation. As far as that goes, I stand by what I said, "this was a much more important story than a bunch of killers being forced to wear panties on their heads while some soldiers take pictures." You are correct in that they are not all killers in the prison. Given the opportunity to kill a US soldier, I believe they all would have taken it, so call this a pre-emptive imprisonment for those that had not already killed. I think it is better to pick them up before they have the chance to kill.

eg8r

eg8r
06-16-2004, 04:13 PM
Well, I am sure Ross has dug up some wonderful stories about what is happening over there and he thinks if he found it on the net then surely it is being broadcast on the nightly news. Surely the news is not biased is it? We are hearing every day about the hospitals and schools that have opened up. We are hearing tons of good news every night, well except for the prison scandal.

eg8r &lt;~~every once in a while I can be a teensy weensy bit sarcastic /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

bluewolf
06-17-2004, 06:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I would guess you are finished reading Clarke's book. It just so happens he was the first guy to get caught lying in front of the 9/11 review board. Nice.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I have heard this about Clarke from another conservative, my brother. What lies did he tell?

Actually, the topic at hand was addressed more by Dean, Krugar, Woodward and others. Interesting that Woodward was given many exclusive interviews with Bush and Bush actually thought his book 'Plan of Attack' was a good book. Not that he always painted Bush in a perfect light, but it seems to me to be not as biased as some things I have read.Krugar and Dean were actually more biased IMO.

Although the president is ultimately responsible, to a large degree, the pres depends on the reports of others. If those reports are not accurate, then the decision the pres based on those reports is sometimes not the best decison, either.Of course there is the part of hindsite being 20/20 also.

IMO, Woodward had the opinion that Cheyny was 'hot to go' to war, more so than Bush.In woodward's book, he states that BUSH voiced disagreement of Woodward's asessment of Cheyny. The picture was painted, IMO, of a BUSH who was willing to hold off for the possibility of diplomated solutions in the UN, while Cheyny sat on pins and needles.

Laura

Righty
06-17-2004, 07:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote striker_3:</font><hr> I'm not saying that they shouldn't show the prison story, but the media should give equal amounts of air time to the different stories. There are other things happening in the desert other than death, destruction and wearing underwear on your head. <hr /></blockquote>

Yes you right, and the stinkin liberal media doesnt wanna show anything else other than death and detruction. Any time they ever show a postive thing in iraq, its only for a shortwhile, but when its negative, they show it every day all day for weeks. I bet half of it is stories blown out of preportion.

eg8r
06-17-2004, 09:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bw:</font><hr> I have heard this about Clarke from another conservative, my brother. What lies did he tell?
<hr /></blockquote> This is a shortcut to get your answer, it is from Neal Boortz. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote boortz:</font><hr> RICHARD CLARKE EITHER IS .. OR WAS .. A LIAR

The proceedings of the committee to elect John Kerry President continued yesterday, this time with walking contradiction Richard Clarke testifying. This is the guy that wrote the book blaming 9/11 on President Bush and praising Bill Clinton's 8 years of inaction on terrorism as somehow better. What an absolute crock...perhaps he's been hired to revise the Clinton legacy because the facts just aren't on this guy's side.

Surprisingly, this egomaniac's head actually fit through the door of the hearing room. Clarke kicked off his testimony with an apology to "the loved ones of the victims of 9/11....your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you." His statement should have more truthfully been "to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11...the Clinton administration failed you. Prior to the slaughter of your loved ones on 9/11 by Islamic terrorists, Bill Clinton turned down the direct handover of Osama Bin Laden on numerous occasions. The Clinton administration refused to allow the CIA to kill Bin Laden, with only capture as the stated policy. Those entrusted with protecting you, including myself, were abject failures who viewed terrorism as a law enforcement problem. And don't forget to buy my book."

Well ... let's get to the rest of Clarke's testimony. We can basically wrap it up this way. Clarke told the commission, as he told America in his book, that the Bush administration did virtually nothing to address the threat of Al Qaeda until the attacks of 9/11. Nothing. He said that Bush was virtually unprepared to act as though it's a major problem.

Uh oh. Small problem. The White House was a few steps ahead of Clarke yesterday ... as was Fox News Channel. Jim Angle is a reporter for Fox. As the news about Clarke's book started to hit Angle remembered a briefing he received from a White House spokesman in August of 2002. That briefing was for background. That means that the seven reporters on the telephone conference call could not identify who their source was .. .only what their source said. Angle remembered that the person who delivered that briefing was ... Richard Clarke.

As luck would have it, Angle had a recording of that briefing. He listened to it and found that what Clarke was saying then was markedly different from what Clarke was saying now. So Angle went to the White House to seek permission to release a transcript of that 2002 briefing, and to identify Richard Clarke as the source. The White House, after conferring with the National Security Council, agreed.

So what did Clarke have to say in the 2002 briefing?

Let's start with a statement Clarke made to the 9/11 Commission yesterday. Clarke told the commissioners that early on in the Bush administration he told the president: " ... and I said, well, you know, we've had this strategy ready ... ahh ... since before you were inaugurated. I showed it to you. You have the paperwork. We can have a meeting on the strategy anytime you want."

So .. there's Clarke telling the media and the commissioners yesterday that he had presented paperwork to Bush on a strategy for dealing with Al Qaeda and was ready to discuss it. But what did he say to Jim Angle in 2002? This: "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration."

Lying then? Or lying now?

And what about this "Bush did virtually nothing" claim?

In the 2002 background briefing Clarke said: "When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that triggered the NSPD (National Security Presidential Directive) from one of roll back to one of elimination." "NSPD" is National Security Presidential Directive. So Clark was telling reporters in August of 2002 that the directive from the president in March of 2001 was to stop swatting at flies ... to eliminate Al Qaeda. This is what calls doing virtually nothing?

In the 2002 briefing Clarke also told Angle and the rest of the reporters that Bush had ordered an increase in CIA resources by five times .. .including funding for covert actions against Al Qaeda. Again ... doing virtually nothing?

Here's the kicker. It comes from the transcript of the 2002 Clarke briefing ... near the end.

Jim Angle: "So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the months just after the administration came into office?

Richard Clarke: "You got it. That's right.

So .. while the terrorist threat was increasing Clinton made no changes in his plan of action against terrorism during the last two years of his presidency, but Bush got on the stick immediately. That is what Clarke is now describing as "doing virtually nothing."

Obviously Clarke is lying. We just have to figure out which statements are the lies? Was he lying in 2002 when he was working in the Bush White House? Or is he lying now when he's trying to sell a book?

Figure it out.
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r