so they blatantly lie and you dont care - Page 3 - 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 06-01-2003, 06:14 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 07:55 AM
Here's another article dealing with some of the same issues...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...hat_weapons__3

Bush, Blair Face Heat on Iraq Weapons
Sat May 31, 1:42 PM ET Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By DAFNA LINZER, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Senior politicians on both sides of the Atlantic want answers to what is becoming the most asked question since major combat ended in Iraq (news - web sites): Where are the unconventional weapons the coalition said it went to war to destroy?

President Bush (news - web sites) said this weekend that weapons had already been found. As evidence, though, he pointed to two suspected biological laboratories which both the Pentagon (news - web sites) and U.S. weapons hunters have said do not constitute arms.
Bush's comments came as the CIA (news - web sites) was reviewing its intelligence, British agents were reportedly doubting their own assessments and Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s enemies were being accused of manufacturing evidence.

For a war fought without the backing of the international community, evidence of the weapons Iraq claimed it no longer had would bolster U.S. credibility around the world.

Now that 11 weeks have passed without such proof, international pressure is mounting on Bush and his coalition partners. The Pentagon is sending a new group of weapons hunters to Iraq to expand the search beginning on Monday.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites), who visited Iraq this week, said he's certain unconventional weapons will be discovered eventually. But even as he and the president express confidence, members of Bush's Cabinet are offering up alternative theories that have drawn deep concerns both at home and abroad.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld speculated this week that the weapons were destroyed on the eve of fighting. His deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, said in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine that weapons of mass destruction became a war banner because it was the only reason everyone in the administration could agree upon when citing why they were going after Saddam.

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon transcript of an interview with Vanity Fair.

The comments caused a stir in Europe, where lawmakers from such coalition countries as Britain and Denmark demanded their governments open inquiries into the matter. At home, members of Congress are also questioning the war motives.

And in countries that opposed the war, the comments are being used as fodder to justify those positions.

Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung interpreted Rumsfeld's comments as a sign the United States was losing the credibility battle. "The charge of deception is inescapable," the paper said.

And the leading French daily Le Monde called the weapons of mass destruction claim "the greatest lie told by statesmen in recent years."
U.S.-led teams, made up of Special Forces, unconventional weapons experts, military intelligence and scientists began visiting suspected sites in the opening days of the war. Since the fighting broke out May 20 most U.S. and British intelligence leads have been exhausted. Teams are now chasing tips from local Iraqis, none of which have not panned out so far.

As of Monday, the weapons hunters will begin working for a new Pentagon-led group of some 1,400 people, including American weapons experts who once served as U.N. weapons inspectors. The group is moving into Baghdad to oversee the weapons search and other investigations of Saddam's regime.

The Iraq Survey Group will be led by Keith Dayton, a two-star general. Troops involved in the search hope the ISG will be able to provide the effort with better intelligence and analysis.

Dayton, a top official in the Defense Intelligence Agency, said he remains convinced his team will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He said Friday that he continues to believe prewar intelligence claims that Iraq had recently had unconventional weapons.

Those assessments were doubted by many members of the U.N. Security Council, which last fall agreed to send international inspectors back to Iraq to verify the country no longer had the weapons it was prevented from producing after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites).

The quality of that intelligence is now being reviewed by the CIA, whose director, George Tenet, released a rare statement Friday defending his agency.

"Our role is to call it like we see it to tell policymakers what we know, what we don't know, what we think and what we base it on," Tenet said. "The integrity of our process was maintained throughout and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong."

British intelligence is reportedly taking stock of its own assessments as well.

On Thursday, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported that agents were unhappy with a dossier Blair's office released on Iraqi weapons last year particularly its claim that Saddam was able to launch such weapons on 45 minutes' notice.

The network quoted an unidentified intelligence source who said intelligence agencies added that charge at the behest of the prime minister's office, but now believe it was wrong.

There have also been reports that the Bush administration relied heavily on information provided by Saddam's enemies, including Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi exile and banker who has enjoyed years of Pentagon support.

Chalabi returned to Iraq from London after Saddam's overthrow and has been trying to build a support base. But few Iraqis seem interested in backing his leadership bid.
__________________

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 06-02-2003, 12:16 AM   #32
Refugee
 
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: your skull
Posts: 2,311
Local Time: 01:55 AM
lol, the bush admin is a total joke. its hilarious reading these articles because spin doctors will weave you a story so unfocused and lame that they dont even know what theyre talking about by the time theyre finished.

george bush, only you and your bandits could figure out a way to fuck up the economy, fall millions and millions of dollars into debt, and have most of the world hate you. well done.

anyone whos been at interference as long as i have knows that i was a big republican supporter back in the day. how embarassing.

heres to hoping the next ELECTED president represents the good people of america with domestic platforms as opposed to visions of world conquest and crusades.
__________________

__________________
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa is offline  
Old 06-02-2003, 12:26 AM   #33
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 12:55 AM
Quote:


Paul Wolfowitz, said in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine that weapons of mass destruction became a war banner because it was the only reason everyone in the administration could agree upon when citing why they were going after Saddam.
hahahahahahahaha

*slaps knee
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 06-02-2003, 12:29 AM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:55 AM
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa,

Don't forget the majority of the american people approve of George Bush's foreign policy.

What I find hilarious are some of the critics of the administration who seem to lack the objectivity to admit when Bush has done something correct or been successful.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-02-2003, 12:42 AM   #35
Refugee
 
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: your skull
Posts: 2,311
Local Time: 01:55 AM
thats because ive seen almost nothing that deserves applauding. im not partisan, i dont like the democrats either. its just that i think republicans are the fox news of capital hill.

*edited to remove insenstive remark*

as for the majority of americans supporting bush's foreign policy, you could also have said most iraqi's supported the domestic policies of saddam.
__________________
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa is offline  
Old 06-02-2003, 02:30 AM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:55 AM
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa,



"*edited to remove insenstive remark*"

Is that really necessary?



"as for the majority of americans supporting bush's foreign policy, you could also have said most iraqi's supported the domestic policies of saddam."

No, you can't! Iraq was a dictatorship, a police state. Saddam enjoyed the support of Baath Party officials and the Republican Guard. Were talking roughly 150,000 to 200,000 people that kept a nation of 24 million people hostage for 24 years. Saddam did not maintain power through popular support. Saddam maintained power through some of the most brutal terror tactics in history. Saddams regime was the only regime that had 12 different security organizations that often spent time spying on each other.

In terms of the government and democracy, the difference between the USA and Saddam's Iraq is the same as night and day. You might be able to make the claim that Saddam had popular support initially among Sunni Muslims who make up less than 1/3 of Iraq's total population. But by the mid 1980s, outside of the Republican Guard and appointed Baath party officials, Saddam really only had support from his hometown of Tikrit. A Dictator does not need popular support to rule a country. A Dictator only needs a military and police force strong enough to subdue the civilian population to control the country.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-02-2003, 09:13 AM   #37
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 03:55 AM
The last poll I saw (CNN) had EIGHTY-THREE PERCENT of Americans DISAPPROVING of Bush's handling of international affairs.

I don't think that's a majority.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 06-02-2003, 09:28 AM   #38
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 08:55 AM
Erm, pax.

Sorry to correct you, but that is a majority, especially the way you stated it. According to that poll, a (large) majority disagrees.

C ya!

Marty

P.S. Could you please look at my posts in the ICDE thread? AFAIK, the problem still isn't solved...
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 06-02-2003, 10:27 AM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 07:55 AM
Marty - I think maybe Pax was referring to STING's assertion that a majority of people support Bush's foreign policy. If 83% of people disapprove of Bush's foreign policy, then clearly it's not true that a majority support it.

At least that's how I read it...feel free to bash me over the head if I'm wrong.

*Fizz
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 06-02-2003, 11:03 AM   #40
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 08:55 AM
WHACK!




I think you're right Fizz, but I just wanted to bang your head anyway. Sorry about that...



Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 06-02-2003, 12:14 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
The last poll I saw (CNN) had EIGHTY-THREE PERCENT of Americans DISAPPROVING of Bush's handling of international affairs.

I don't think that's a majority.

Damn. That sure isn't a majority, and I'm not surprised.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-02-2003, 01:50 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:55 AM
paxetaurora,

Thats 83% approve of Bush's handling of foreign Affairs. Where do you think Bush's 62% overall approval rating comes from, the economy and domestic affairs?

I'd be interested if you could point to a source or a web link that would confirm this poll that you allege said 83% disapprove of Bush's handling of foreign policy.

If such a poll were true, Bush would never have been able to go into Iraq. It would have been political suicide.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-02-2003, 02:21 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:55 AM
paxetaurora,

I'm having trouble finding your poll. But I did find this one that was taken right before the start of the war.


Poll: Two-thirds of Americans support Bush ultimatum
But country is worried
Tuesday, March 18, 2003 Posted: 3:46 PM EST (2046 GMT


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With the nation on the brink of war, two-thirds of all Americans say they approve of President Bush's stark ultimatum to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and say they believe he did all he could to resolve the crisis diplomatically, according to a new CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll.

Still, the prospect of war left seven in 10 respondents feeling worried.

The poll, taken Monday night after the president's address to the nation, found that 66 percent of those polled said they approved of Bush's decision to go to war if Saddam does not leave Iraq by Wednesday night. And 68 percent said they thought the United States did all it could to resolve the crisis through diplomacy -- despite the failure to win another U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing force against Iraq.

The poll, however, also pointed to some doubt among the American public about the merits of going to war. Of the 66 percent who said they approve of Bush's decision, 21 percent said they were not sure it was the right thing to do, but they supported the president regardless.

More than one-third of the respondents said they believed the total number of people killed in any conflict, including Iraqis and Americans, would be high. Another 37 percent said the number of deaths would be moderate.

The poll was based on telephone interviews of 776 adults, aged 18 or older. The sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points, but polls conducted entirely in one day, as this one was, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days, poll experts said.

Saddam's 'final mistake'
Bush, meanwhile, remained out of sight Tuesday, making phone calls to world leaders and meeting with members of his Cabinet. He was, said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, "preparing for a possible war."



Bush's spokesman called Iraq's dismissal of the White House ultimatum as Saddam's "final mistake."

"Iraq has made a series of mistakes, including arming themselves with weapons of mass destruction, that have brought this crisis upon itself. This is the latest mistake Iraq could make; it will be Saddam Hussein's final mistake. The president still hopes he will take the ultimatum seriously and leave the country," Fleischer said.

On Capitol Hill, the routine political wrangling was increasingly colored by the prospect of war.

Democrats, while voicing support for U.S. armed forced, faulted the Bush administration for not providing an estimate of the war's cost in the White House budget proposal. And they stepped up criticism that now was not the time to consider tax cuts.

They were joined by a handful of Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

"I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of tax cuts, irrespective of their size, or to which segment of the population they are targeted," McCain. "Nor can I support any spending increases that are not related to improving our nation's defense from the obvious and serious threats facing us today."

On another front, the White House responded strongly to Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's comments Monday that Bush had failed "miserably" at diplomacy and thus has forced the United States to go to war with Iraq.

After reading a quote from the South Dakota Democrat last fall in which he urged that war not be "politicized," Fleischer said, "It's hard to assess what Senator Daschle means when his remarks are so inconsistent."

CNN White House Correspondent Suzanne Malveaux and Producer Christy Brennan contributed to this report.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-02-2003, 02:27 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:55 AM
Here are some more poll numbers, yes they are a bit old now, but certainly supportive of my claims of strong support for Bush and foreign policy. Clearly I think pax made a mistake with the poll number she sited.

Poll: Bush advisers get favorable marks
Survey shows less support for Cheney, economic aides
Sunday, December 22, 2002 Posted: 12:18 PM EST (1718 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush has picked the right advisers, especially on the security and foreign affairs fronts, according to a CNN/Time magazine poll released Sunday.

The president's national security aides are the men and women chiefly earning their keep, 71 percent of the 1,006 Americans surveyed told the pollsters, while only 51 percent of his economic advisers are doing a "fairly" to "very good" job.

In world affairs, 54 percent of respondents said Bush himself is doing a good job, but only 44 percent said he's handling the economy well.

When it came to specifics, Secretary of State Colin Powell garnered a 77 percent favorable rating and only an 11 percent unfavorable rating, while Vice President Dick Cheney attracted a 48 percent favorable rating, versus 32 percent unfavorable.

Almost half of those polled said they were unsure of how they would rate the work of Homeland Security director Tom Ridge.

Half of those polled said Bush was a leader who could be trusted -- slightly less than the number who said his vice president could not be trusted.

Almost two-thirds -- 64 percent -- said they would not like to see Cheney run for president, while 70 percent said they liked the idea of a Powell candidacy.

None of the other choices -- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Ridge -- got a nod from more than a third of the poll-takers.

The poll, which was conducted by telephone December 17 and 18, has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-02-2003, 02:34 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:55 AM
Here is some more current poll numbers about what the American people think of Bush in general from the left of center New York Times.


Bush's support strong despite tax cut doubts
By Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder
New York Times
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Posted: 7:17 AM EDT (1117 GMT)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Americans have persistent reservations about the tax cuts that are the centerpiece of President Bush's postwar agenda, but those concerns have not hurt Mr. Bush, who continues to ride a huge wave of support, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The number of Americans who said they had confidence in Mr. Bush's ability to manage the economy dropped seven points, to 47 percent, in the month the president has been pushing his tax cut plan in speeches in Washington and across the nation. The poll also found that many Americans say that instead of cutting taxes, the nation should use the money to cut the deficit or finance a national health care system.

There is no evidence, however, that those doubts have damaged Mr. Bush's overall standing. The poll found that 67 percent approved of his job performance, while 70 percent said he had strong qualities of leadership, the trait that the White House has long contended would trump any concerns Americans might have about Mr. Bush's policies.

Beyond that, Americans now hold a notably more favorable view of the Republican Party than of the Democratic Party, and 53 percent said Republicans had a clear vision of where to lead the country, compared with just 40 percent who said that of Democrats. That finding is reminiscent of what the Times/CBS News poll found last fall, just before Republicans took control of Congress.

By any measure, the Times/CBS News poll, which is the second since the fall of Baghdad and was taken at a time when activity on the presidential campaign trail has been increasing, offered a glimpse of the daunting task the Democrats face at least today, 18 months before Election Day, in trying to win back the White House and Congress.

For all the emphasis that Democrats have placed on questioning Mr. Bush's economic record, Americans were evenly divided over which party was more likely to ensure a strong economy. And in a finding that suggests that Democratic attacks against Mr. Bush have yet to take hold, 67 percent of Americans said they thought that Mr. Bush cared a lot or some "about the needs and problems of people like yourself," though 54 percent said that Mr. Bush's policies favored the rich.

Still, there were a few encouraging signs in the poll for the nine Democratic presidential candidates.

Americans overwhelmingly said the nation's health care system needed fundamental change or a complete overhaul, and they said the Democratic Party was better equipped to do that.

That finding seems not to have been lost on the Democratic presidential candidates. Yesterday, Howard Dean became the latest to offer a plan for expanding health care coverage, using a speech to counter an ambitious proposal to provide universal health care put forward by Representative Richard A. Gephardt three weeks ago. A third candidate, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, will offer his health care plan in Iowa tomorrow.

Respondents also said that the Democrats would do a better job of creating jobs and improving education. In addition, the number of Americans who named the economy as the chief problem facing the country continued to climb, to 29 percent in this poll, up from 23 percent last month, suggesting the potential potency of the issue that both the White House and Democrats believe could prove pivotal in next year's presidential election.

The poll was conducted by telephone from Friday through Monday. It involved 910 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Whatever enthusiasm Americans have for their president has, so far at least, not extended to what Mr. Bush has identified as his chief domestic goal now that the war is nearly over: slashing taxes. Almost uniformly, the Democratic presidential candidates have called for rejecting either all or most of Mr. Bush's tax cut, describing it as economically damaging and tilted unfairly to the rich, and the findings suggested that this argument could eventually have some resonance.

A plurality of those polled, 41 percent, said they believed that Mr. Bush's tax cut could help the economy. But 48 percent rejected one of Mr. Bush's central arguments for tax cuts, saying the cuts were not very or not at all likely to create jobs. In addition, 58 percent said they did not expect to find any more money in their paychecks as a result of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. And 63 percent of respondents said the tax cuts in 2001 had not helped the economy.

On matters of economic policy, Americans appear to have a different set of priorities from their president's. For example, 81 percent of respondents said that the country should make sure Americans had access to health care, rather than cut taxes. And 58 percent said the priority should be reducing the deficit.

"We need to lower the deficit," said Ed Petrone, 73, an independent voter from Boca Raton, Fla., in a follow-up interview. "Reducing taxes is only a short-term bump in the economy. Lowering the deficit will help us down the road. Reduce the deficit and we can put more money in the economy."

Carroll Smith, 76, an independent voter from Gallipolis, Ohio, said, "If they would balance the budget, the country would be in better shape."

Beyond the economy, with nine months to go before the caucuses in Iowa, most people do not know who is running to unseat Mr. Bush. Nearly two-thirds of voters, regardless of which party they were from, were unable to name a single one of the nine Democrats seeking the party's nomination.

Still, the poll suggested that some of the early contours of the coming election were becoming clear.

Continuing a historical trend that has played to the advantage of the Republican Party, the Times/CBS News poll found that Americans overwhelmingly saw Republicans as better able to make the right decisions on terrorism and to keep the military strong.

Although some Democratic presidential candidates, notably Senators John Edwards of North Carolina and Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, have sought to challenge Mr. Bush's foreign policy credentials by saying that Mr. Bush had not done enough to protect Americans from another terrorist attack, those warnings did not seem to have been embraced by voters.

An overwhelming majority of respondents said Mr. Bush had made progress in developing a plan to protect the United States from terrorist attacks. The number of Americans who named terrorism as the most important problem facing the nation has declined steadily since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The poll, however, was completed before the latest terrorist attacks, in Saudi Arabia.

Fifty-eight percent of respondents said Republicans would do a better job of protecting the United States against terrorist attacks; just 18 percent said the same thing of Democrats. And 66 percent said Republicans were more likely to make sure the nation's military forces were strong, compared with 19 percent who expressed such confidence in Democrats.

In one sign of the challenge Democrats face if they criticize Mr. Bush's foreign policy credentials, 6 in 10 respondents rejected complaints by Democrats who charged that it was inappropriate for Mr. Bush to have announced the end of fighting in Iraq by landing a plane on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific.

Notwithstanding Mr. Bush's strong standing in the aftermath of the war in Iraq, the poll found continued evidence that the nation remains politically polarized after the disputed election of 2000. A majority of Democrats and half of all independents said they did not consider that Mr. Bush had legitimately won the White House.

"Bush is a court-appointed president," said Jo Carney, 59, an independent voter from East Hampton, N.Y. "He was not elected. Everything was completely mishandled in Florida, and the way the court intervened was really pulling strings."

The poll suggested that Republicans have continued to do a better job in laying out an agenda that is clear to Americans. Democrats have long thought that that would change as attention moved away from Capitol Hill, where Democrats are in the minority and thus do not have a platform, and to the presidential campaign, thus improving the party's standing with the public.

The speech by Dr. Dean in New York, setting off a debate with Mr. Gephardt on who has the more realistic and efficient plan for providing health care coverage, would seem to be an example of that. For now, though, the poll found that 53 percent of respondents had a favorable view of the Republican Party, compared with 46 percent with a favorable view of Democrats.

"The Republicans have a clear view of what they want and are effective in promoting it," said Wendy Satterford, 50, a Democrat from San Diego. "The Democrats don't have a clear vision. They seem afraid of the electorate and the apparent rising tide of conservatism. They don't seem to be able to speak out even for the middle-of-the-road things."
__________________

__________________
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 02:55 AM.


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