Topic: Fox News - Tucker's Fucked.

[4pool]

SMD..

Google search can give you anything.

Please provide any speech from Bush where he claims Saddam was part of 9/11 before going into Iraq as part of his reasoning to "go to war"?

Not newspapers or tv companies who give their interpretations and opinions of what Bush said or meant.


Let's start there.

This has been done to death before. But I await you finding actual evidence before going back into Iraq where Bush claimed Saddam had some part in 9/11 in any of his speeches.

In fact if you'd like..want to bet on it?

[Ole Gunnar]

Ole..I answered your questions one at a time. You only had 2 questions not a paragraph. That meant splitting them up to answer each.

Or would that not occur to you?

So I don't know how you think your were misquoted.

I said: "What point are you trying to make with the fact that Iraqi's wouldn't have voted for Saddam? Does it change the fact that there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and does it justify the war?"

Is my English that bad or do you deliberately misinterpret me?

If I say: "Does the fact that the Iraq people wouldn't have voted for Saddam now, change the fact that there was not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And does it justify the war?"

Does that make it easier to understand? As far as I see it means the same ting, and I think it's pretty obvious what I meant, but I'll accept the fact that I might be wrong.

[4pool]

Yes! Because it's black and white! It's not binary at all. Just because we thought Saddam Hussein was an utter c*nt doesn't mean we all worship at the altar of America.
As for the polls, I find it utterly laughable that you can continually argue in another thread about the findings of one poll based on what you perceive to be bias, yet not even consider for one moment the logistics of surveying the population of Iraq at, well, any time!
You wouldn't have found many Iraqis saying Saddam Hussein was a shit before he was deposed and you won't find many Iraqis answering the fucking door for fear of being shot.

Tell me how many cities in the world are so dangerous thanks to sectarian violence that my entire extended family on both sides have had to either leave or leave the country altogether.

Fucking hell.

So tell me SMD...

What do your families want?

Saddam back?

Or the new government to succeed?


No longwinded answer as to the problems currently being faced in Iraq...that's a given. It's even in the news here believe it or not.

If they had a chance to vote--which way would they vote--current govenment or having Saddam back? I would be interested in you sharing how they would vote. Maybe you could ask them and tell us.

[hansen6]

You have an amazing habit of not answering the questions posed to you while making it seem like you're right.

Are you a politician?

He's a troll. It must be galling for the supporters of the war watching the mess Iraq is in today, most of them have the grace to admit they were wrong.

As for Fox News, here's an item where they make fun of the bombing of Lebannon.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW4wmAmzq5I

[hansen6]

So tell me SMD...

What do your families want?

Saddam back?

Or the new government to succeed?

Did you read his post idiot?. What do you think he meant by
"Yes! Because it's black and white! It's not binary at all."

[4pool]

I said: "What point are you trying to make with the fact that Iraqi's wouldn't have voted for Saddam? Does it change the fact that there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and does it justify the war?"

Is my English that bad or do you deliberately misinterpret me?

If I say: "Does the fact that the Iraq people wouldn't have voted for Saddam now, change the fact that there was not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And does it justify the war?"

Does that make it easier to understand? As far as I see it means the same ting, and I think it's pretty obvious what I meant, but I'll accept the fact that I might be wrong.

Well if you've calmed down..I think i answered your questions.

Why the US and others went into Iraq has been discussed ad naseum.

The resultant chaos that is going on now was not the reasoning to depose Saddam. It was to enforce  UN resolutions. I realize that gets lost in translation with others claiming it was over oil, Bushs vanity, wanting to keep the war machine alive to help the economy and a various other explainations.

The chaos happening now is not the USA's 'fault". Do you think they and most Iraqis want the chance to be hit by a road side bombs, or car bombs, or want sectarian violence, or want others to fund and arm those who are creating the constant fear for ones life? If you think the USA wants all this, then there is nothing I can say. But if you concede the resultant chaos is being directed by others for various reasons...why not lay the blame where it should be and concentrate energies to stop them? They are the ones doing the vast majority of killings and violence. Which means supporting the current government who have been together for 6 months and those trying as best they can to provide security.
Seems simple to me..but i'm a simple person.

[Alan_X]

Boy oh boy...where to start.

There is a mindset that you perpetuate.

Bush had never....repeat never..claimed Saddam was part of 9/11.

Bush has made claims that Saddam and Al Queda had some nefarious links.  Much like to rival gangs working together for a common cause.

As for Niger--there are those who still claim that Saddam was trying to buy in Niger. Because there is not a consensus and some speculation this means others have seized on the point that it wasn't so. So it's a he said--he said issue. But it is not cast in stone that Saddam was not trying to purchase yellow cake in Niger.

I am glad you had your opinion as to what level of concentration any chemical weapons may have been at in 2002-2003.

Can you answer why the United Nations didn't share your opinion?

Can you answer why Blix found chemical weapons capabable labs? Or was that of no concern. Even though just having  those type labs was a violation of UN resolutions.

How long do you think it would take a lab to produce chemical wmds and resupply the military so they could replace exisiting chemicals in warheads?

Can you explain why Saddam had chemical missle warheads which were found by Blix and crew? And why they were not found in previous inspections before 2002/2003. In otherwords they were "new". And if there were "new" items, what makes you think those were the only "new" things to be found---had inspections continued on? Or were you willing to take that chance and give Saddam the all clear after he destroyed the few found?

And as a "new "  lab was found..what guarantees could you assure the World that Saddam would not supply other organizations with chemical wmd's to do his bidding for him? Much like a crime lord who can't be touched because there is no trace to him personally. But everyone knows where it came from.


I will wager any amount of money that should some chemical attack take place in a western country the USA will be blamed. Blamed because they went into Iraq and because of that they allowed the chemicals to be scurried out of country to be used against a target in the West. And if Saddam was still in power, he would have them and they would be controlled with the UN's help and nothing would have happened.

Mark my words...

You went through the 2003 report here:

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=132818.msg2127034#msg2127034

As usual, selecting bits to try and prove your case.

You say that the 2003 report refers to laboratories. It doesn't.

Here's your "proof" that there were laboratories:

Oh and btw..I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor

A new chemical lab to Blix and now just what Saddam going to do with that? Put it in those "old" warheads he buried that have depleted chemical in them? Nah...i'm sure you have a better explaination..

Do a search of the document and the word "laboratory" occurs twice:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared.  Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.

...which as I've pointed out means a tiny quantity, not a laboratory itself. So no reference to laboratories at all. Please show me where this document refers to laboratories as you keep insisting and I'll accept it. Otherwise you are either being dumb or mendacious. Simple question are you stupid or a liar?

Warheads:

So far we have reported on the recent find of a small number of empty 122 mm warheads for chemical weapons (the actual number was eleven).  Iraq declared that it appointed a commission of inquiry to look for more.  Fine.  Why not extend the search to other items? Declare what may be found and destroy it under our supervision?

...see I'm not saying they weren't there but they were for 122mm rockets. That's about the size of a Katyusha, which means it's a battlefield weapon not a WMD. 20km range.

So eleven empty warheads (they'd destroyed over ten thousand) and no chemical weapons found, just a vial of a mustard gas precursor. And that justified the invasion? Oh no it was because Saddam was being difficult.
 
The bottom line, literally, is that inspections were working, Iraq was cooperating, no significant weapons finds had been reported by Unmovic and Blix was asking for the opportunity to complete the task:

UNMOVIC’s capability
 
Mr President, I must not conclude this “update” without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC.
 
In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries.  This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office.  All serve the United Nations and report to no one else.  Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training programme continues — even at this moment we have a training course in session in Vienna.  At the end of that course, we shall have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.
 
A team supplied by the Swiss Government is refurbishing our offices in Baghdad, which had been empty for four years.  The Government of New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team.  The German Government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq.  The Government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a Field Office in Larnaca.  All these contributions have been of assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities.  So has help from the UN in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.
 
In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites.  Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before.  By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work. We now have eight helicopters.  They have already proved invaluable in helping to “freeze” large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.
 
Setting up a field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq.  We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area, where we have already inspected a number of sites.
 
 
Mr. President,
 
We have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air.  Let me end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.
 

It is disgraceful that this was not allowed to happen because the mobilisation had already started and Bush wanted to attack before it got too hot.

By the way, have a look back at your posts and you'll find that apparently I'm full if shit, related to Chamberlain (an appeaser) and other choice insults so don't give me bullshit about how you don't get involved in personal abuse.

Your last paragraph is too ridiculous to warrant a detailed response. What are you saying?!  that when the weapons that were scurried out are used in terrorist attack we'll blame Bush...   err... there weren't any weapons

[hansen6]

Well if you've calmed down..I think i answered your questions.

Why the US and others went into Iraq has been discussed ad naseum.

The resultant chaos that is going on now was not the reasoning to depose Saddam. It was to enforce  UN resolutions. I realize that gets lost in translation with others claiming it was over oil, Bushs vanity, wanting to keep the war machine alive to help the economy and a various other explainations.

No it wasn't because the UN never authorised this invasion, remember the second resolution blair was trying to get to authorise it and failed?. They just went in anyway. It is not for individual member states to decide what resolutions mean, it is for the UN.

The chaos happening now is not the USA's 'fault". Do you think they and most Iraqis want the chance to be hit by a road side bombs, or car bombs, or want sectarian violence, or want others to fund and arm those who are creating the constant fear for ones life? If you think the USA wants all this, then there is nothing I can say. But if you concede the resultant chaos is being directed by others for various reasons...why not lay the blame where it should be and concentrate energies to stop them? They are the ones doing the vast majority of killings and violence. Which means supporting the current government who have been together for 6 months and those trying as best they can to provide security.
Seems simple to me..but i'm a simple person.

Yes they are wholly responsible, the should have had a coherent plan for the days after the invasion and they as the occupying force are responsible for security in that country. End of.

[Ole Gunnar]

I'm very calm 4pool, after reading this thread all I can do is second this:

You have an amazing habit of not answering the questions posed to you while making it seem like you're right.

Are you a politician?

And the debate about what Fox News does to you is settled as far as I am concerned, and should anybody ask me that question in the future, I will just refer to this thread....

[Alan_X]

I'm not posting this for 4pool as he won't accept it anyway but this statement from the Whitehouse website is about as clear as it gets. OK Bush doesn't say in any single sentence that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9-11 but the inference is clear.

"Thirdly --and this is very important for the students to understand, and others -- because oceans no longer protect us, the United States of America must confront threats before they cause us harm. In other words, in the old days we could see a threat and say, well, maybe it will cause harm, maybe it won't. Those days changed, as far as I'm concerned.

Threats must be taken seriously now, because geography doesn't protect us and there's an enemy that still lurks. And so early in my first term, I looked at the world and saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. And let me tell you why I saw the threat.

First of all, there was an immediate threat because he was shooting at our airplanes. There was what's called no-fly zones; that meant the Iraqis couldn't fly in the zones, and we were patrolling with British pilots. And he was firing at us, which was a threat -- a threat to the life and limb of the troops to whom I'm the Commander-in-Chief.

   He was a state sponsor of terror. In other words, the government had declared, you are a state sponsor of terror. And, remember, we're dealing with terrorist networks that would like to do us harm.

There's a reason why he was declared a state sponsor of terror -- because he was sponsoring terror. He had used weapons of mass destruction. And the biggest threat that this President, and future Presidents, must worry about is weapons of mass destruction getting in the hands of a terrorist network that would like to do us harm.

   That is the biggest threat we face. Airplanes were horrible; the attacks of aircraft were horrible. But the damage done could be multiplied if weapons of mass destruction were in the hands of these people.

The world thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't just me or my administration. Our predecessor thought he had weapons of mass destruction. And there's a logical reason why -- the data showed that he likely had weapons of mass destruction, and he'd use them. I told you, the last option for a President is to send troops into combat, and I was hoping that we could solve the issue, the threat, the threat to the United States by diplomatic means.

So I went to the United Nations. Secretary Powell carried our message to the United Nations. It said --- see, now, I actually gave a speech to the United Nations, you might remember, and I said to them, basically, how many resolutions is it going to take before this threat will take us seriously? I mean, we passed, I don't know, 14, 15 different resolutions.

   That's a lot of resolutions. Pretty soon, if you pass that many resolutions, somebody is going to say, well, they may not mean anything. I want this body to be effective. It's important for the world, when it speaks, that people listen.

And so we passed another resolution that said that Saddam is in -- and it unanimously passed, and the reason why is because the world thought he was a danger. It said: disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences. I'm the kind of fellow, when I -- when we say something, I mean it, like I told you before. And I meant it.

And so Saddam Hussein was given a choice. He chose war. And so we moved and he was removed from power.   And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind, America is safer for it, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. (Applause.)"

It's a very clever speech... it's all there, the planes, the WMDs, the state sponsorship of terror... Saddam...  The claim in the final paragraph is fundamental ... "there is no doubt in my mind, America is safer for it...."

Yeah, right! The invasion was to protect America from what?... answers on a postcard!

[4pool]

Thank you Alan...

You can't find where Bush ever makes the claim Saddam participated somehow in 9/11.

And then jump to conclusions on your own. You are in the media aren't you?

[Alan_X]

I'm not posting this for 4pool as he won't accept it anyway but this statement from the Whitehouse website is about as clear as it gets. OK Bush doesn't say in any single sentence that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9-11 but the inference is clear.

It's a very clever speech... it's all there, the planes, the WMDs, the state sponsorship of terror... Saddam...  The claim in the final paragraph is fundamental ... "there is no doubt in my mind, America is safer for it...."

Yeah, right! The invasion was to protect America from what?... answers on a postcard!

Thank you Alan...

You can't find where Bush ever makes the claim Saddam participated somehow in 9/11.

And then jump to conclusions on your own. You are in the media aren't you?

 

[4pool]

If there is any question i haven't answered...and you don't already know my opinion on the subject.... then ask again. I'd be happy to answer any question. But it does get tedious answering the same questions. And seeing the same misinformed replies..

[Ole Gunnar]

And seeing the same misinformed replies..

Oh, the Irony

[hansen6]

4pool, you do know that 45% of Americans think that Saddam had some hand in it don't you?. Cheney when pressed wouldn't deny there wasn't a link....

[SMD]

Yet on the March 18, 2003, President Bush made the following statement in a letter to Congress,

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

That's a quick Google search, link found here. I'm breaking my fast now so I'll be back in a bit.

[SMD]

Oh and here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Have fun chewing on that.

 

[Alan_X]

If there is any question i haven't answered...and you don't already know my opinion on the subject.... then ask again. I'd be happy to answer any question. But it does get tedious answering the same questions. And seeing the same misinformed replies..

Ok one at a time then:

Where does it say there new laboratories in the Umovic 2003 report?

[Alan_X]

Hello!   

[Alan_X]

Labs?...   2003?.....   Blix?.....


I'm waiting....


You've been going on about them for months so you must have the evidence... 

[SMD]

Labs?...   2003?.....   Blix?.....


I'm waiting....


You've been going on about them for months so you must have the evidence... 

I think he's on the phone to Sean Hannity.

[4pool]

No he was offline wrapping his nieces birthday present. Some of us do have other things to do. Along with some washing. And bill paying. As I will be in England the next fortnight--God forbid i know..and i have a lot of things to do this weekend before adding to the CO2 count by flying over there.

But here you go...Blixs words in italics..

We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 litres of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under UNMOVIC seal at the Muthanna site.

One-third of the quantity has already been destroyed. The laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, which we found at another site, has also been destroyed.

So Blix destroyed 50 litres of chemical under lock and key. Then found more precursor to Chemical weapons ( mustard gas) at a  non secured site and destroyed that. This constitutes further production of chemical weapons. And yes, was caught by inspections. But no inspections--futher chemical production. The next step is inspections can't go on forever. As Saddam would always reconstitute which was proven time and again.


Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for.

To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

Hmm..as Iraq couldn't and didn't explain why their own documents show they produced 1,000 tonnes but no one knows nothing. Can't prove it was destroyed. Don't know where it is. Of course now that we are post war..all 1,000 tonnes never existed.

The Iraqi side also informed us that the commission, which
had been appointed in the wake of our finding 12 empty chemical weapons warheads, had had its mandate expanded to look for any still existing proscribed items. This was welcomed.

So Blix found 12 chemical warheads and now Iraq will help us look for more because they are on the "proscribed" list--otherwise known as your not allowed to have these. Nice that Iraq will help once caught. But why did they need chemical warheads if they didn't have labs and production facilities capable of filling them with chemical? Inquiring minds want to know. The war heads were new items not known before inspections started.

Just a few bits from one report. Report in full here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/news/140203/fulltext.shtml


And then there was this in his previous report:


Chemical weapons

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared. There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.


The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding.

Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.

Biological weapons

I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered. In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq's Foreign Minister stated that "all imported quantities of growth media were declared". This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.



And this as well..



The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents byplacing them in private homes. Any further sign of the concealment of documents would be serious.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/transcripts/blix_012703.html

Just a few more highlights from Blixs report.

Anyone with half a brain can see a pattern of rebuilding and reconstituting WMD capabilities after inspectors "find" something worth destroying. And then there's no confirmation of destroying chemical and biological items even after 11 years of being told to document..document...document.

And these reports were in play at decision making time. Amnesia from Blix or not in 2006.

[4pool]

Oh and here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Have fun chewing on that.

 

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate




March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH
--------------------------------------------------------------

You're as good as Alan_F.

Do you ever wonder why there are paragraphs in letters? That there are two seperate points being addressed and numbered accordingly.

1: Clearly states that the USA will likely be lead to enforce United Nations resolutions.

There you go, you have it now.



2: That this is consistent with the USA and other countries continuing..etc..

As the USA and other countries were in Afganistan going after those who were responsible for 9/11. Nowhere does it say Iraq  was "who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."  Much the same as Iran or North Korea were part of the axis of evil. Should something happen there militarily, that too would be consistent with..etc...

Consistent does not mean in the English language being responsible or partly responsible in any manner  for....unless of course you use a different dictionary than the rest of us.


However, i'm sure there are other nefarious between the lines meaning you can come up with.

But 1 + 2 equals 3  not 12...

[Alan_X]

Oh and here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Have fun chewing on that.

 

That's a good one.. I hadn't seen that!

[4pool]

btw..i'm going off line for awhile now..lots to do..

[SMD]

I'm actually astounded by the stupidity of your last comment.


Are you really unable to see how both points 1 and 2 (NOT the letters!) both relate to Iraq?

In fact, point 2 is directly related to the opening paragraph!

Fucking hell.

[Alan_X]

Good try mate. Trouble is that none of what you posted says that Blix found new laboratories. You do a great job as ever of cobbling together bits of the report to suit your own interpretation. A lot of circumstantial evidence that could be taken one way or the other. What I'm looking for is something as clear as this:

"To counteract threats of WMD it is important to assess them accurately and understand what motivates states or non-state actors to acquire them. Without the right diagnosis, it is unlikely that the righ therapy will be found. The erroneous assessment that Iraq possessed WMD was the principal justification given for sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers tio invade IRAQ IN 2003 - Only to find no WMD."

You know something like that.

[Alan_X]

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:   (that's a colon)

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;   (that's a semi-colon)and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH
--------------------------------------------------------------

You're as good as Alan_F.

Do you ever wonder why there are paragraphs in letters? That there are two seperate points being addressed and numbered accordingly.

The two paragraphs are both linked to the first paragraph - remember lesson one about the way colons and semi colons work? and are not independent statements.

1: Clearly states that the USA will likely be lead to enforce United Nations resolutions.

There you go, you have it now.

Does it? What it actually says is that military force against Iraq is authorised (first paragraph) because diplomacy and other peaceful means won't protect the United States opr lead to enforcement of UN Resolutions.

2: That this is consistent with the USA and other countries continuing..etc..

As the USA and other countries were in Afganistan going after those who were responsible for 9/11. Nowhere does it say Iraq  was "who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."  Much the same as Iran or North Korea were part of the axis of evil. Should something happen there militarily, that too would be consistent with..etc...

And secondly, that military force against Iraq is authorised (first paragraph again)  because it (Military Action) is consistent with the US taking action against international terrorists, including those who planned or organised, or aided the terrorist attacks on September 11.

Consistent does not mean in the English language being responsible or partly responsible in any manner  for....unless of course you use a different dictionary than the rest of us.

However, i'm sure there are other nefarious between the lines meaning you can come up with.

But 1 + 2 equals 3  not 12...

You just can't read complex documents as I've said previously and you are just making yourself look ridiculous.

[Alan_X]

I'm actually astounded by the stupidity of your last comment.


Are you really unable to see how both points 1 and 2 (NOT the letters!) both relate to Iraq?

In fact, point 2 is directly related to the opening paragraph!

Fucking hell.

He can't see it. I read through the old "things are getting better in Iraq" thread and he's consistent in his inability to deal with complex documents.

[SMD]

What's complex about a document with one main thesis and two arguments separated into two paragraphs?

They're not even complete arguments, just a point with a brief statement as 'evidence'.

[Alan_X]

What's complex about a document with one main thesis and two arguments separated into two paragraphs?

They're not even complete arguments, just a point with a brief statement as 'evidence'.

I know... BTW have you seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=727CvG-IKtM

It's not FOX but unbelievable just the same... includes the quote....   "after 9-11 we destroyed Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq.... 

I just can't imagine why people are confused...

[SMD]

Fucking hell, that's an advert? How is that supposed to heal anything at all?

That's disgusting.

[Alan_X]

It's being run by a "non-political" group in the run up to the November elections in the US.

http://www.progressforamerica.org/docs/videos/

There are a couple of other videos on the site - they all conflate Iraq and 9-11...

[Alan_X]

This is a doozy as well -

http://www.midwestheroes.com/docs/brochure/mailer_02.pdf

[SMD]

I think I'll avoid those links, the first one was enough for me.

Is the irony completely lost on the people watching, though? "They hate us, so we have to hate them!"

[Alan_X]

Probably wise. I think this is a long way from irony. It's sick and why I get involved in these stupid arguments. When 4Pool portrays this as some difference of opinion he misses the point. The FOX shit and these adverts are deliberate propaganda designed to give backing for Bush and the Republicans.

Nothing is more important to people like that than maintaining power, and they do it in the name of "freedom and democracy".  Your family and freinds will continue to live in fear because there is no way that Bush will accept "defeat" unless of course it can be blamed on the Democrats or spun in a way that will get them elected again.

4pool and the like must actually believe this shit and that explains the crap they come out with.

[Fiend]

I don't think we'll have to wait too long. Bush and his cronies will be voted out for their complete incompetence. The 'real' America will wrestle backcontrol. Thank fuck!

[4pool]

Alan..

I don't have the time to go look up every one of Hans Blixs reports to the UN.

If you don't believe me..I don't care. Go back to the last 30-40-50 page thread about Iraq where I posted it in there. With the direct link for Blixs entire report.  But you can see from the one report I posted above Iraq had built a lab with destroyed equipment. Notice the word --new. However, I think there was a reference to something else as well.


I notice you rag on about the new lab  that I mentioned previously and dismiss through no comment the other stuff Blix reported. Again--at decision making time.

It is clear exactly what Blix was saying and reporting from the inspection process.

It is undeniable that Saddam wanted and would continue with his WMD programmes. That he would reconstitute labs. That he was manufacturing or purchasing "proscribed" items, those from the banned list.

How anyone can turn a blind eye to that is beyond me.

The rest is all fluff and diversionary away from the black and white issues of the day--at that time.

It boiled down to more inspections as what the French wanted after 11 years of non-compliance by Iraq or enforcing the UN resolutions which is what the USA wanted and got through with 1441 and one last chance.

At NO time  back then did anyone on the security council claim Saddam didn't have WMD's. So the debate over going to War over WMD's is moot. That was the consensus at the time. That was the decision making process at the time.

Second guessing after the fact is pointless.

But maybe you missed this article..or did Putin lie?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said.

Yes, Saddam wasn't a threat to the USA..

PS: I am travelling to England Monday and will be without internet services for a little over 2 weeks. So don't expect any replies. I've got a bunch to do and no matter what you post or others post....Saddam was removed from power. He even was given 48 hours to remove himself.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I don't have the time to go look up....
[snip]
If you don't believe me..I don't care.
[snip]
...don't expect any replies. I've got a bunch to do and no matter what you post or others post....

Debate. Brought to you in the true spirit of Fox news.   

[Alan_X]

4pool, we are never going to agree on this. Hans Blix report is clear both in 2003 and 2006 but you insist on reading it the way you want it. The fact that a lot of people were persuaded by the US UK reports, including Colin Powell's embarrassing performance at the UN, with it's little vials of white powder and "mobile labs" (weather balloon trucks) is down to mendacity and obfuscation.

Why raise that Russian thing? An of the cuff remark by Putin that is unsubstantiated, refrerring to possible terrorism that never happened after 2001... and that despite the conclusion of both the UK and US governments that Saddam had no links to Al-Qaeda.

Have a good trip and sing yourself hoarse at the Villa game. We need all the help we can get after today! I'll pick this up when you get back. I still have hope that you can be brought back to enlightenment.