so they blatantly lie and you dont care - Page 18 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-09-2004, 09:42 AM   #256
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:28 PM
Colin Powell, The Secretary of State for George Bush stated:

"It is not incumbent upon the United States to prove that Saddam has WMD, it is incumbent upon Saddam to prove that he does not have WMD".

This is consistent with the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement that SADDAM agreed to as well has multiple UN resolutions.

This was stated in September 2002 prior to vote by the US congress in October 2002 to give the president full support to use "all means necessary" to insure the disarmament of Iraq.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-09-2004, 10:47 AM   #257
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,661
Local Time: 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Colin Powell, The Secretary of State for George Bush stated:

"It is not incumbent upon the United States to prove that Saddam has WMD, it is incumbent upon Saddam to prove that he does not have WMD".

This is consistent with the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement that SADDAM agreed to as well has multiple UN resolutions.

This was stated in September 2002 prior to vote by the US congress in October 2002 to give the president full support to use "all means necessary" to insure the disarmament of Iraq.
Whatever, I along with many others here have shown you countless quotes where Bush has said we know without doubt they have these weapons, which makes the point you are trying to make mute. I'm no longer going to debate this topic with you.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-09-2004, 08:49 PM   #258
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:28 PM
Well, if you want to hang on forever about what Bush said or did not say in speach X or Y, thats fine.

But the UN report from 1998 has the UN inspectors and Saddam confirming Saddam's possession of a variety of WMD material.

It is SADDAM's responsibility in the time period from then to now, to Verifiably disarm of all that material regardless of what one thinks Bush said in speach X or Y after congress had already voted him the power to go to war.

Saddam's responsibility to Verifiably disarm was passed by the UN back in March 1991, while Bush's father was still president. This requirement never changed from then until now. The Authorization for member states of the UN to take military action against Iraq if it violates the resolutions has been in place since 1990.

These are the relevant factors to consider when judging the military actions of 2003.

Saddam had the WMD in 1998. If you want to believe he no longer or never had it in 2002/2003, then its incumbent upon you to verifiably show that is indeed the case. Thats what Saddam agreed to do when he signed the Ceacefire agreement in March 1991.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-09-2004, 11:59 PM   #259
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,276
Local Time: 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Well, if you want to hang on forever about what Bush said or did not say in speach X or Y, thats fine.
Shouldn't he be held accountable for what he is saying as the President of the country? Regardless of what Saddam did or did not have to do, if Bush speaks an untruth, why should anyone forget about it?
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 01-10-2004, 04:58 AM   #260
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:28 PM
Because every President in recent history that has had nearly everything they have said in public recorded, has at one time or another, said something that was either not entirely accurate or perhaps even, unknowingly, false.

But, there is no evidence at all, that Bush ever lied about anything.

Presidents should be held accountable for their actions, and the American people approved and continue to approve his handling of Iraq and aprove overall how he has been doing in his job as president.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-10-2004, 05:10 AM   #261
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 09:28 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/po...partner=GOOGLE


Who cares when someone used rubish to pull the world into a war,..it is the result that counts.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 01-10-2004, 05:17 AM   #262
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 01:28 PM
Last year around the time Iraq War Deux started, I was temping at an office with a bunch of senior citizens. We were stuffing envelopes for this company.

There was this talkative lady, who was probably the youngest of the other senior citizens, and had children my age, she went on and on about how important Iraq War was... and she says, I quote: "Because of 9-11, we've got to go to war with Iraq. We've got to put a stop to those Arab terrorists."

If most people are like this older lady, who appeared naive enough to buy into 9-11 and Iraqi connections, then there's something to be said about Bush misleading the American public.
__________________
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 01-10-2004, 05:19 PM   #263
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:28 PM
The US governments official justification for the use of military force against Saddam is Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm per UN Security Council Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441.

Further UN Security Council Resolutions have recognized and approved the current occupation. This only gives more support to the use of force which achieved the current situation in Iraq.

Saddam was required to VERIFIABLY DISARM! Plain and simple.

The Bush Administration listed information possibly showing links between Saddam and Al Quada. Despite religious differences it is still a likely possibility. While the Bush Administration presented the public with the information they had about Al Quada and Saddam links, they never linked Saddam to 9/11.

While the accuracy of the information may be in doubt, in response to public cry's to know more of what was going on after 9/11 with intelligence, the information was released.

The left is searching for a hole in the administrations war record to use against them in the 2004 election. The fact is though, the administration never lied and simply presented the information that it had.

Saddam and his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD was the administrations chief case for the war.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-11-2004, 03:07 AM   #264
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,661
Local Time: 02:28 PM
O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11
In new book, ex-Treasury secretary criticizes administration
Saturday, January 10, 2004 Posted: 7:21 PM EST (0021 GMT)



Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet.


(CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ush/index.html
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-11-2004, 04:22 AM   #265
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:28 PM
I know and think its great that the administration was already planning to deal with Saddam long before 9/11.

Inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq for the previous 2 years. The Clinton administration had bombed for 5 days, but had done nothing since Desert Fox at the end of 1998. The Clinton administration essentially kicked the ball down the road to the Bush administration, and the Bush administration finally took care of the problem, which should have been done years before.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-11-2004, 09:20 AM   #266
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:28 PM
This was nothing new. The only thing that the article is not saying is that Bush VETOED any of this talk if I am not mistaken. In all of the reading I have done, even immediately after 9/11 Bush was NOT a HAWK over the invasion of Iraq.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 11:51 PM   #267
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


But, there is no evidence at all, that Bush ever lied about anything.
Sting, do you realize how meaningless (read "nonsensical") the above-quoted statement is? (I'm talking about the logic of your assertion, not about whether or not Bush lied).

Think about this for a minute, Sting, and please note that my question also applies to your repeated request that those of us who claim Bush lied in making his case for war should "prove" it.

Prove it? Sting, prove he didn't.

Perhaps, for clarification, I should ask you the following: How would you define the word "evidence" in the context of your statement that I've quoted bove?
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 11:10 AM   #268
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:28 PM
pub crawler,

It is incumbent upon on those who make an accusation in this case to prove it.

My proof that he didn't is that there is no evidence that shows that he did or has ever lied about anything. Innocent until proven guilty.

In order to have "evidence" that Bush lied about anything, you would have to produce a written or oral statement by him that shows that he KNOWINGLY said a clearly false statement.

The Bush administration has not made any such statements in public or private that anyone knows of. If that were not the case, the Democrats and some Republicans as well would have siezed upon it and started the impeachment process.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 11:27 AM   #269
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

My proof that he didn't is that there is no evidence that shows that he did or has ever lied about anything. Innocent until proven guilty.
Yeah, just as I thought, you don't have an anwser.

Take care, buddy.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 11:37 AM   #270
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:28 PM
Pub Crawler,


So if someone were to accuse you of a violant assualt on their daughter or for that matter anything, what would your response be?

Would you say, what evidence do you have to support such a claim? Would you say innocent until proven guilty?

I mean, these are not answers right?

The entire US legal and justice system has "no answer" when people make unsubstantiated claims about them and what they do, right?

Yep, take care buddy.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com