Michael Moore Strikes Again!

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Gab: Your in luck Harris, it turns out I was slightly mistaken. Bush said (regarding Saddam and Iraq) in his 2003 State of Union speech: "Some say we must not act until the threat is immenent. Since when have terrorists and tryants have anounced their intenions, polietly putting us on notice before they strike?" So Bush didn't exactly say that Iraq was an imminent threat, but gave the impression that it would be if the United States didn't quickly take action. Either way, Bush still mislead us into this war. The artillery shells you described are not WMDs and not good enough proof that Saddam posed a threat to America.

No luck involed there Gab, I listened to what President Bush said, not what others thought he said.

As for the shells the position was that there was Zero, not that there wasn't enough to make it worth our while. Now I believe you will find a shell that delievers posion gas is in fact considered a WoMD. I have no problem with people that think only a few are not worth our while to take action, My problem is with people that said there was Zero, when infact there was some. "Hale" I thought there would be lots and said so publicly on this board, based on what I had read. I was wrong about there being Lots. I also said that SoDamn Insane needed his rear-end kicked and I didn't care what the reasons where that were given as long as it was done.

[ 10-14-2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Davros]

Your right of course JD - zero was an incorrect answer.

It is of course also true that they found 0.001% of what they expected to find based on the so called "intelligence". Of course, that amount, when represented to 2 less significant fingures is of course 0.

Both statements are ostensibly true no matter how they may apparently conflict

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Davros: Your right of course JD - zero was an incorrect answer. It is of course also true that they found 0.001% of what they expected to find based on the so called "intelligence". Of course, that amount, when represented to 2 less significant fingures is of course 0. Both statements are ostensibly true no matter how they may apparently conflict

You are correct Davros, I thunked They'd find lots as in a number closer to what the Intel reports indicated(sp?), "Hale" I was wrong that's not the first time and I doubt it will be the last time either.

If somebody takes the position of there is/was not enough to justify going to war, that is a defensable position, a position/opinion that can't be argued with, unless a number of what is enough is given. Once a number is given it moves from a grey area to a Black & White position. This is the treshold, the line drawn in the sand. There are some that have said they don't care if there was any WoMD's found, no matter what the number. That is also a defensable position, My contention is that when the line is drawn then is crossed, admit it, if not what good is the line drawn?

Im still trying to figure out if John Kerry was lying when he said that Sadam had WoMD....I have been told by dozens of liberals that Bush lied when he said it.....but there seems to be some contention as to weather John Kerry was lying...he is a member of the Senate Intelligence committee and thus is privy to the exact same intel the president was.....Im so confused.


[ 10-14-2004, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Davros]

Well - I think MagiK it has a lot to do with how close you are to the information, and your capacity (if indeed any) to distort the issue.

Befoer I develop an answer le me say that I haven't seen proof that either side lied yet.

Back at the start of it all, Bush puts out the word that his intelligence sources say that there are WOMD in Iraq. His claims were widely and implicitly believed. Hell dude - let's remember that 50-70% of the whole world was hoodwinked by those claims. Why would Kerry not take them at face value as the accepted position. Was Kerry in a position to demand access to the proof and cross-question the available intelligence. No Sir - not him and his party - they were not on watch.

Who was recieving the info. Bush of course - it was his watch - or at the least the watch of his administration. There seems to be a developig picture that GW was intent on Iraq - even back to the point of insinuating (and leaving the false perception out there) that they were the real ones behind Sep 11.

We know from the benefit of hindsight that the US (and their allies) trusted this "oh so flawed" intel. When questions of "did sos or so lie about WOMD" it comes back to what influence did they have over the intel. If the available intel looked so good and they followed it and it turned out to be wrong - well that is the intels fault. If the intel was known to be dodgy, but it supported what the administration wanted to do - well then to some degree that constitutes lying to me. In such a case (ie the"dodgy" 2nd case), it matters not to me whether they lied or fabricated evidence or just failed to thoroughly cross check a story they suspected was a house of cards.

So in summary - there is the potential there for Bush to influence the situation, so there is the potential there for Bush to have lied. JK has to take on face value (as did much of the world) that the evidence was true - ergo JK didn't lie. Did Bush lie - I would like to know - hale [img]smile.gif[/img] , the whole world would like to know that. Given the power that he holds I hope the answer is no.

Hope that clears things up for you MagiK.

[John D Harris]

Davros, here in the U.S.A. Senate and House committees have lots of power, not the day to day power, but the power of oversight. In other words they can stop the whole ball of wax if they want, it all part of the checks and balances hoopla. The President can direct something to happen but Congress can say no or at least sure go ahead and try but we're not funding it and effectively KILL it. ie: the ending of U.S. military matterial suport of South Vietnam, Nixon said we will support you, Congress said sure you can support them all you want but we are not funding any support. Support was Killed.

Here in the US Congress is the real power, and ladies and gentlemen that is truly scary.

Davros, that was my point John Kerry was not taking the Presidents word, he made the comments on his own because as a member of the Sennate Intelligence committee he sees the same Intel that goes to the president, and HE Kerry made recommendations to the Senate based on what he saw...What he saw, what Bush saw, what Tony Blair saw...was what everyone believed up to that point...all the intel showed Saddam had WoMD's and programs to build Nuclear weapons. I know analysts who were SURE about it......only the information was wrong....

It really pains me to say that I was wrong about them too....we had intel that "proved" the WoMD's and the Deep bunkers under the mountains....and all our sources were wrong.......to that end...when it comes to WoMD and it looks that sure...you are definately better off NOT waiting till one is used to make sure....


Yes as Commander in Chief it was Bush's call to go to war...but it was nearly unanimously approved by the House AND Senate because of what the House select committee for Intelligence saw, and what John Kerry and others on the Sennate Intelligence committee saw...had all those reports not agreed with the President....Congress would not have voted to empower him to go to war.....and they did.....despite the spin that is now put on it in an effort to gain a leg up in a tight election race.

Anyway What JD said is also true.

[Timber Loftis]

I think we all need to remember that at the time, we wanted action, and whatever action Bush was going to suggest, Congress was going to follow it, as was the whole nation. When we decided to go to Iraq, we still had the "high" (or "low") of 9/11 on our minds and we were putting a lot of faith in the Prez.

Now Kerry supposedly sat on the Senate intelligence committee. Did he know all that Bush did? Who knows? Should he have shown up and been present more? You bet. And, where Iraq is concerned there is blame enough for all.

[Morgan_Corbesant]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Hold their feet to the fire? A couple lousy crappy ancient cold war style artillery pieces with small amounts of rotted chemicals inside? That's enough to justify 1000 deaths and $200 billion? I think you should hold all feet to the fire, not just the blue ones. It's laughable you can even make that argument. So, yes, you are technically right, 1 is greater than zero. Point conceded. Now, if you'll be so kind to concede that it is still a pointless amount to make a lot of hullabaloo over -- and 1 is not zero, but NEXT TO it. But, that's okay. Grasp your artillery shell, hang onto it, love it, treasure it. Let it console you as you tuck yourself in at night that all is good, the President is right, and the world is a happy place full of fluffy bunnies.

I do grasp, hang onto, love, and treasure my artillery round. That is the only one that exists in Iraq I'm sure of it. Saddam was a nice guy afterall. He never gased the Kurds, he is the type of guy that will do what America tells him to do because it is the right thing. If I were in charge of Iraq and gave myself time to hide my WMD's before the U.N. inspectors were allowed to search my country, I'm sure they wouldn't be found either. Especially if the Syrian government allowed me to hide them there.

Here's a link for you guys. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Nobody ever found Jimmy Hoffa's corpse, but they know he's dead.

[Morgan_Corbesant]

Here is another link: http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/cw/agent.htm

Just thought you'd like to see it.