Vice Presidential Debate

[STING2]

You really don't get it do you? First off, TONS of democrats have been jumping all over Bush for the lies for a long time now. And as far as impeachment goes, you pretty much need an admission of guilt from the president for it. Nixon, the admission was in the form of the tapes, and we all know he would have been booted if he hadn't resigned. Clinton? He wasn't even considered for impeachment until he admitted what he did on national television. As long as Bush doesn't admit that he lied about these things, it's highly doubtful there will be anything even close to an impeachment.

I get it just fine, thank you.

The reason that there is no impeachment because there is no evidence for impeachment. In the case of Nixon and Clinton there was. The fact remains, there is not a shred of evidence that indisputibly proves that any member of the Bush administration has lied about anything. If there was, the election would be over already.

 

[DaveC]

I get it just fine, thank you.

The reason that there is no impeachment because there is no evidence for impeachment. In the case of Nixon and Clinton there was. The fact remains, there is not a shred of evidence that indisputibly proves that any member of the Bush administration has lied about anything. If there was, the election would be over already.

I don't know if you saw this one yet Sting...

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html

Do you still stand by that argument?

 

[STING2]

o

Welcome to FACT CITY! I will use quotes that even YOU cannot refute, no matter how desperately you try. You can call Chris Matthews a liberal and SAY anything. But what you SAY does not change the FACTS! Let's go to the RECORD, my friend:


From the Washington Post:
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting at the White House.

Bush said he had called Saddam Hussein a threat "because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. Now, he was a threat because he had terrorist connections, not only al Qaeda connections but other connections to terrorist organizations."

As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."

Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."

"We didn't do anything to provoke the attack of 9/11. We were attacked by the terrorists, and we've responded forcefully and aggressively."

From cnn.com:
In June, Cheney said "we don't know" whether Iraq was involved in 9/11.

In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."


HOWEVER, during the debate with Edwards, Cheney said, "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror."

Now do you want to continue this little merry-go-round or do you want to GET REAL?

Let's put 2+2 together. Bush and Cheney consistently link Iraq to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was proven to be directly responsible for 9/11. So you are either suggesting that Al-Qaeda was not responsible for 9/11 or you are just denying that Bush and Cheney have been linking Iraq and 9/11 as a basis for an unjustifiable war, which is clearly a position that a reasonable person would not agree with based on the quotes above.

I'll continue this dance all night long, except I will be using quotes and facts and you will be using your opinion and rhetoric.

Have a good one.

AJ

Well, you have an interesting spin on the facts and qoutes that you posted. NO WHERE in any of them does a member of the administration state that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. It is a fact that members of Saddam's regime and Al Quada have had contact in the past 10 years.

Oh and one of your facts is in fact wrong. In September 2003, Cheney said that Iraq under Saddam had been "A PART of the geographic base of the terrorist who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11". Iraq like many other countries through out the middle east was apart of the geographic base for terrorist in terms of recruitment and funding regardless of whether it was with the government of that particular country or individuals within the country. In that same interview with Cheney he is asked to clarify specifically if he meant Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and he clearly explains that is not what he was saying!

Thanks for leaving that out of the "facts"!

The war by the way was justified independently of anything to do with non-state terrorism. It was important though after 9/11 that the public not be in the dark about any potential threat. The Bush administration has never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. They have correctly stated in various ways that Saddam has had contact with and funded terrorist over the past 25 years.

You can continue use your selective "qoutes" and "facts" but I suggest you look for the "full context" in which the qoutes are said. You can also continue to have your opinion and rhetoric about the "qoutes" and the "facts".

Have a good one.

 

[STING2]

[Rant]
You know what? I've had it with this shit. Stop using liberal as if it's an insult. It's not. Using it as one only shows how utterly close-minded you are. The same goes for liberals using conservative as an insult (though you don't really see it nearly as much). Liberals are not your enemies. Conservatives are not your enemies. If you have disagreements with someone's political opinions, deal with them specifically and don't label an entire group as bad. It's childish. Kinda like turning "French" into an insult. You should be above this petty crap.
[/Rant]

Interference has a faq/rules page that I think should be reviewed before one refers to anyone in this forum as being "utterly close minded" or "Childish".

I refered to Chris Matthews as a liberal because he in fact is one. Thats not an insult, but a fact of where he is politically. I disagree that refering to Chris Matthews as a "liberal" is a bad thing or an insult. Why do you consider one being refered to as a liberal an insult? There are many people who are liberals who are very proud of that fact. There is nothing bad about being a liberal, a conservative, etc.

 

[DaveC]

Sting, have you read what I posted?

 

[STING2]

I just had the chance to watch the debate last night, and to me it seemed like a draw. I was actually surprised (and a bit relieved) to see Edwards come out as strong as he did against Cheney and the Bush administration. Cheney clearly had some stronger responses, but he also backed away on several challenges from Edwards (Haliburton, voting against the same defense programs Kerry voted against, voting against plastic weapons ban, Martin Luther King Day, release of Nelson Mandela, meals on wheels, etc).

The defense programs that Kerry voted against were just starting up in 1984 when he voted against them. Were talking about M1 Tanks, Apache Attack Helicopters, Bradley Fighting Vehicles etc. In 1984, the military either had few of these weapons or not even begun to purchase them. That is when Kerry campaigned against these weapon systems. If he had been successful, the military would not have these weapon systems today.

By 1990, the Cold War had come to an end and the Soviet Union was one year away from total collapse. In this climate of greatly reduced threat, the Bush Sr. administration decided to cut back the size of the military by 1/3. The 18 division army would go down to 12. Cheney was then directed to cut weapon systems that had already outfitted most of the divisions of the army, but not the divisions that were about to be cut. IT would have made no since for Cheney to buy Weapon systems for divisions that were not going to exist anymore. The divisions that were going to remain in existence already had the weapon systems that Kerry had tried to prevent them from having in 1984!

So Cheney simply cut weapon systems for which there would have been no unit to place them with. Under Cheney, the military got ALL of these weaponsystems that it needed for the size force structure it was going to have.

But with Kerry, his cuts back in 1984 would have prevented the military from having any or only a small amount of these weaponsystems.

That is like the difference between night and day, and its just plain pathetic that the Kerry campaign does not understand or recognize what actually happened on this issue.

 

[STING2]

Sting, please READ my earlier post in this thread. On 9/13/04:
On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who "provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."

CHENEY LIED!

And remember that whole "I never met Edwards before tonight."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/02029/3041

CHENEY LIED!

Geez, the evident is crystal clear right in front of you. How can you not see it? I respect your opinions Sting, but I don't have any respect for you if you keep denying these blatant lies when the facts are right in front of you.

It is a fact that terrorist have at times operated out of Iraq or been provided funding from Iraq.

Nope, no lie there based on that qoute.

I believe he said, I don't recall meeting you before tonight, but even if it was "I never met Edwards before tonight" that is not a lie, even if it is factually incorrect.

The definition of a lie is- Knowingly saying something which is false.

Do you remember every name and face of every person you have met over the past four years even if it was for a few seconds?

What I don't have respect for is the way the word "lie" has been abused in here so often.

Oh and MR. Edwards, the United States has spent 120 BILLION dollars in Iraq, NOT 200 Billion dollars! Now if I were to follow your style, I suppose I should accuse MR. EDWARDS of LYING! But there is no evidence of that. There is only evidence that MR. EDWARDS has said something that is factually incorrect.

 

[STING2]

I don't know if you saw this one yet Sting...

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html

Do you still stand by that argument?

The report states what everyone already knows, that No WMD stocks have been found in Iraq.

That does not change the fact that Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM per the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement and was in violation of 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.

As of today, Saddam's regime has still failed to account for over 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 500 pounds of Sarin Gas, over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells to name a few things.

Some theorize that Saddam destroyed this stuff in secret years ago, but there is no evidence of that. It is not a fact, but a theory.

The criteria for war was Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm, and 18 months after the war, it still meets that test with flying colors!

 

[DaveC]

The report states what everyone already knows, that No WMD stocks have been found in Iraq.

That does not change the fact that Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM per the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement and was in violation of 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.

As of today, Saddam's regime has still failed to account for over 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 500 pounds of Sarin Gas, over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells to name a few things.

Some theorize that Saddam destroyed this stuff in secret years ago, but there is no evidence of that. It is not a fact, but a theory.

The criteria for war was Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm, and 18 months after the war, it still meets that test with flying colors!

WRONG. Plus, you just defeated your own argument.

You obviously didn't read the link, because it is a report from the CIA stating that Saddam had NO WMD at the time of the invasion and was not at the time in pursuit of attaining them. If you had read that, you would realize. Lie by the administration.

Also, you said that "everyone already knows, that No WMD stocks have been found in Iraq". You're right, no WMD has been found at all. That's because there is none. The government REPEATEDLY emphasized that Saddam had WMD prior to invading Iraq.

Lies, lies, everywhere a lie, blocking out the scenery, breaking my mind. He's got this, he's got that, can't you hear the lies?

 

[deep]

As of today, Saddam's regime has still failed to account for over 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 500 pounds of Sarin Gas, over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells to name a few things.

sounds to me like the list was padded so it would not be possible to comply

like when the DA over charges to guaranty a conviction or get a plea.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Chris Matthews is a liberal. His show is pretty enteraining even though his schtick is the same as O Reilly's show....

STING2- your information on the Kerry's vote against specific weapons systems and Cheney's opposition to those same weapons is pretty interesting and actually a good defense. I wonder if Bush will mention it if he actually goes after Kerry's record. Where is the info/ source to your claims though?

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I think saying the whole WMD charge was a lie is extreme... so what if you (DaveC) were told the world was flat and believed it with your whole heart. You go on and tell people that the world is flat and some believe you and some don't. Maybe you then fly around the world, find out that you were wrong. Does that make you a liar? Like STING2 said- same with Edwards. He says 200 billion. Every news org says that isn't true. Does that make Edwards a liar? Naw... I don't think so. I just think he's misinformed.

All of the above info about the weapons of mass destruction released today also makes Kerry and Edwards just as guilty IMO. They voted for the war and , hell, Kerry wrote a book/ policy paper pertaining to Saddam and Iraq that was in line with the Bush adminstartion. So crowing about the lack of WMDs IMO doesn't help Kerry IMO. Now if Dean or Kucinich (who actually voted against the "authorization") were Bush's opponent, then I think ABBers would have a chance.

 

[deep]

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, in June of 2000 when you were still CEO of Halliburton, you said that U.S. businesses should be allowed to do business with Iran because, quote, "Unilateral sanctions almost never work."

After four years as vice president now, and with Iran having been declared by your administration as part of the "Axis of Evil," do you still believe that we should lift sanctions on Iran?

CHENEY: No, I do not. And, Gwen, at the time, I was talking specifically about this question of unilateral sanctions.

What happens when we impose unilateral sanctions is, unless there's a collective effort, then other people move in and take advantage of the situation and you don't have any impact, except to penalize American companies.

American companies.= HALIBURTON


In the year 2000 Iran was supporting terror. Hezbollah. etc.


Who can deny that CHENEY IS A SLIMEBALL PROFITEER?

 

[Hawk269]

Well, you have an interesting spin on the facts and qoutes that you posted. NO WHERE in any of them does a member of the administration state that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. It is a fact that members of Saddam's regime and Al Quada have had contact in the past 10 years.

Well, the fact that you are not willing to admit that Bush and Cheney have been playing the association game between Iraq and 9/11 to justify the war seems incredible to me. This administration was wrong about WMD's (that excuse never panned out), so they focused more strongly on plan B, which was to confuse the public - the average American - into thinking that there was this elaborate "connection" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

People meet or have contact. So what? Here is an analogy: Let's say George W. Bush met with his good buddy Kenneth Lay at some point. So should I then draw the conclusion that he was involved in the fraud of Enron?? Such a line of reasoning would be fallacious because one is ASSUMING that simply meeting with someone implies being a party to the crimes they commit. Guilt by association is pure garbage and you know it. Hard evidence is all we can debate on and there is no credible evidence of a CAUSAL link between Saddam and 9/11. Period.

Causality is all that matters here - the salient question here is did Saddam have a CAUSAL link to the terrorism of 9/11? Currently, the answer is there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE of such a link. Therefore, implying guilt by association is misleading the American public to justify a war.

Thanks for leaving that out of the "facts"!

Thanks for missing my point.

The war by the way was justified independently of anything to do with non-state terrorism. It was important though after 9/11 that the public not be in the dark about any potential threat. The Bush administration has never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. They have correctly stated in various ways that Saddam has had contact with and funded terrorist over the past 25 years.

You are blurring the line between terrorists, Saddam, and 9/11 just like Bush and Cheney do. Refer to my point above in which I prove that contact means NOTHING inherently. Someone could shake your hand and then rob a candy store five minutes later. Are you guilty by association?

I like how you used the words "in various ways". We do agree on that point - Bush and Cheney have discussed many issues "in various ways". It's too bad the truth was not one of them.

Regards,
AJ

 

[STING2]

WRONG. Plus, you just defeated your own argument.

You obviously didn't read the link, because it is a report from the CIA stating that Saddam had NO WMD at the time of the invasion and was not at the time in pursuit of attaining them. If you had read that, you would realize. Lie by the administration.

Also, you said that "everyone already knows, that No WMD stocks have been found in Iraq". You're right, no WMD has been found at all. That's because there is none. The government REPEATEDLY emphasized that Saddam had WMD prior to invading Iraq.

Lies, lies, everywhere a lie, blocking out the scenery, breaking my mind. He's got this, he's got that, can't you hear the lies?

The United Nations Weapons inspectors stated in November 1998 and November of 2002 that Saddam had failed to account for over 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, and 500 pounds of sarin gas as well as over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells!

As of today, October 6, 2004, Saddam has failed to account for these items.

The fact that the items have not been found and that teams in Iraq have yet to find evidence of WMD, does not change the fact that Saddam had these WMD and failed to account and therefor fullfill the conditions of VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT!

The report and the statement that Saddam did not have WMD at the time of the invasion and was not actively pursing WMD at the time is only based on the fact they were not 18 months later, able to find evidence of WMD or an active weapon program at the time.

The inability to not find WMD does not prove that Saddam did not have any WMD at the time. The ability to conceal such items is far greater than the ability to detect them. If Saddam buried several of these stocks several hundred feet below ground in the middle of the desert, it is unlikely that anyone in searching for a thousand years would find them. It also does not change the fact that Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD per the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement!

It is a fact that Saddam had large numbers of stocks of WMD at one point and it is also a fact that Saddam failed to account for all of those stocks!

Both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration repeated emphasized the fact that Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD which was the criteria and basis for war!

There is no evidence that anyone has ever lied about anything.

The UN resolutions call for the use of military force to insure that Saddam was disarmed if he failed to comply. This is in fact what the coalition did.

 

[STING2]

sounds to me like the list was padded so it would not be possible to comply

like when the DA over charges to guaranty a conviction or get a plea.

The list is from the UN weapon inspectors report in November of 1998 after they had been kicked out and just prior to the large scale bombing of Iraq by Bill Clinton in the "Desert Fox" operation.

 

[STING2]

Chris Matthews is a liberal. His show is pretty enteraining even though his schtick is the same as O Reilly's show....

STING2- your information on the Kerry's vote against specific weapons systems and Cheney's opposition to those same weapons is pretty interesting and actually a good defense. I wonder if Bush will mention it if he actually goes after Kerry's record. Where is the info/ source to your claims though?

It is not a single source, but multiple sources.

Boston Globe has Kerry's campaign against the major weapon systems in 1984.

I can track down the inventory the US military had of various weapon systems through annual publications like the "Military Balance" which is put out by the International Institute of Strategic Studies" the London based Think Tank.

I know when various weapon systems went into production from a wide variety of sources as well.

Its then really a matter of 2 plus 2.

In 1984, the Military had none or x number of weapons systems for this or that particular system. By 1990 when Cheney was Secretary of Defense and the cold war cuts were started because of the Collapse of the Soviet Union, the "Military Balance" and other publications have the number of weapon systems the military had by then.

I've got several books which discuss the new force structure which went from 18 divisions to 12 divisions. The Army still had orders for weapon systems and had not finished outfitting all 18 divisions. Now though, the army would only have 12 divisions, so the weapon systems that were on order but not built yet were no longer needed and Cheney cut them.

For the Democrats arguement to hold any water, they would have to show that there was an existing unit or an airwing that was supposed to receive a new tank or fighter plane and did not! The fact is they can't do that. The fact is they can't do that, the military had more than enough weapon systems on hand to outfit ALL of the divisions and airwings that were planned for in the new force structure.

The Military Balance breaks down equipment holdings for the total force as well as equipment holdings for divisions and airwings.

Bottom line, if Kerry had succeeded in 1984 with his proposed cuts, the military would not have several important weapon systems today. Other weapon systems that were already in production would have been cancelled well short of what was required to outfit 12 divisions let alone the origionally 18 divisions they were planned for in the early 1980s.

Kerry's efforts failed, and in 1990 with the Cold War over, the Bush administration reduced the force structure by 1/3 which meant several weapon systems that were on order were no longer needed because the divisions they were planned for no longer existed or were soon going to be dismantled.

 

[STING2]

Well, the fact that you are not willing to admit that Bush and Cheney have been playing the association game between Iraq and 9/11 to justify the war seems incredible to me. This administration was wrong about WMD's (that excuse never panned out), so they focused more strongly on plan B, which was to confuse the public - the average American - into thinking that there was this elaborate "connection" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

People meet or have contact. So what? Here is an analogy: Let's say George W. Bush met with his good buddy Kenneth Lay at some point. So should I then draw the conclusion that he was involved in the fraud of Enron?? Such a line of reasoning would be fallacious because one is ASSUMING that simply meeting with someone implies being a party to the crimes they commit. Guilt by association is pure garbage and you know it. Hard evidence is all we can debate on and there is no credible evidence of a CAUSAL link between Saddam and 9/11. Period.

Causality is all that matters here - the salient question here is did Saddam have a CAUSAL link to the terrorism of 9/11? Currently, the answer is there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE of such a link. Therefore, implying guilt by association is misleading the American public to justify a war.



Thanks for missing my point.



You are blurring the line between terrorists, Saddam, and 9/11 just like Bush and Cheney do. Refer to my point above in which I prove that contact means NOTHING inherently. Someone could shake your hand and then rob a candy store five minutes later. Are you guilty by association?

I like how you used the words "in various ways". We do agree on that point - Bush and Cheney have discussed many issues "in various ways". It's too bad the truth was not one of them.

Regards,
AJ

The administrations chief criteria for war was based on multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire that called on Saddam to VERIFIABLY DISARM OF ALL WMD!

Can you list for me any UN resolutions that SADDAM complied with as well as any conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement?

It is your OPINION, based upon what the administration has said that "they focused more strongly on plan B, which was to confuse the public - the average American - into thinking that there was this elaborate "connection" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda."

The administration has NEVER said there was a any link between Saddam and 9/11. What they have stated which is true is that there have been contacts between Al Quada and Saddam's regime over the past 10 years. I do find that significant, although not proof that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, but then again the administration never claimed that.

I would hope that if you had contact with Al Quada that the FBI or CIA would have you in some confined area for questioning and potentially imprisonment. Ken Lay is not a terrorist or a member of Al Quada, so the analogy is irrelevant and weak.

It certainly would not be very open and honest to of hid the fact that Al Quada had contacts with Saddam over the past 10 years, especially after 9/11. To have done so would have been irresponsible and would certainly not have been open and honest.

 

[DaveC]

The United Nations Weapons inspectors stated in November 1998 and November of 2002 that Saddam had failed to account for over 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, and 500 pounds of sarin gas as well as over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells!

As of today, October 6, 2004, Saddam has failed to account for these items.

The fact that the items have not been found and that teams in Iraq have yet to find evidence of WMD, does not change the fact that Saddam had these WMD and failed to account and therefor fullfill the conditions of VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT!

The report and the statement that Saddam did not have WMD at the time of the invasion and was not actively pursing WMD at the time is only based on the fact they were not 18 months later, able to find evidence of WMD or an active weapon program at the time.

The inability to not find WMD does not prove that Saddam did not have any WMD at the time. The ability to conceal such items is far greater than the ability to detect them. If Saddam buried several of these stocks several hundred feet below ground in the middle of the desert, it is unlikely that anyone in searching for a thousand years would find them. It also does not change the fact that Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD per the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement!

It is a fact that Saddam had large numbers of stocks of WMD at one point and it is also a fact that Saddam failed to account for all of those stocks!

Both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration repeated emphasized the fact that Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD which was the criteria and basis for war!

There is no evidence that anyone has ever lied about anything.

The UN resolutions call for the use of military force to insure that Saddam was disarmed if he failed to comply. This is in fact what the coalition did.

This is the CIA talking...not some "liberal" organization. The CIA.

You go on about Verifiable Disarmament.

Let's have a little hypothetical, shall we?

Saddam destroys every one of those weapons. Every single ounce of nerve agent. Gets rid of it all, including all traces and remnants to make sure that he's complied. How in the bluest of all blue fucking hells (to borrow a phrase from Headache) is he supposed to keep stocks of that around to prove he's disarmed? If he keeps the stocks, he's got the stuff to make WMD. If he gets rid of it all, he can't prove without a doubt that he's disarmed, because they will always be able to say "well it's hidden in the desert" and invade anyways.

I'm not condoning Saddam Hussein or saying he should still be in power (the man's not fit to run a treadmill).

What I am saying is that the Bush administration lied flat out to the American people (although they may have believed it somewhat, or had circumstantial evidence of the POSSIBILITY that Saddam had WMD) in order to garner support for an illegal, immoral, and injust war.

 

[STING2]

This is the CIA talking...not some "liberal" organization. The CIA.

You go on about Verifiable Disarmament.

Let's have a little hypothetical, shall we?

Saddam destroys every one of those weapons. Every single ounce of nerve agent. Gets rid of it all, including all traces and remnants to make sure that he's complied. How in the bluest of all blue fucking hells (to borrow a phrase from Headache) is he supposed to keep stocks of that around to prove he's disarmed? If he keeps the stocks, he's got the stuff to make WMD. If he gets rid of it all, he can't prove without a doubt that he's disarmed, because they will always be able to say "well it's hidden in the desert" and invade anyways.

I'm not condoning Saddam Hussein or saying he should still be in power (the man's not fit to run a treadmill).

What I am saying is that the Bush administration lied flat out to the American people (although they may have believed it somewhat, or had circumstantial evidence of the POSSIBILITY that Saddam had WMD) in order to garner support for an illegal, immoral, and injust war.

I read the report and know its the CIA. I also know the grand conclusions made in the report are based on not finding evidence which is nothing new. It does not change the fact that SADDAM failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD under which case multiple UN resolutions authorized the use of military force to insure that his regime was disarmed.

#1 It is against the terms of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire to engage in any act of disarmament that cannot be VERIFIED! The weapons were supposed to be either handed to the inspectors, or destroyed in the presence of inspectors!

#2 If Saddam destroyed stocks of WMD without inspectors around, the remains of the dismantled WMD could be used to verify what was destroyed and in what quantities. This is not some fantasy movie where things vanish in to thin air. 20,000 Bio/Chem shells is a lot of metal!

#3 The process of VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT is a well planned one that has been successful in Kazakstan, Ukraine, Belarus, South Africa and some other countries when the country going through disarmament has cooperated with the process.

#4 Hiding ones weapons, destroying some here or there in the absence of inspectors for what ever the reason, are all violations of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire.

#5 As said before, the process of VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT is not a difficult one as several countries have already cooperated and disarmed of their stockpiles in under a year. 12 years after Saddam was required to engage in such a process, he had failed to complete it!


Saddam had all the means to peacefully, verifiably disarm of all WMD but he chose not to!


The Bush administrations case for war was that Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD per the UN resolutions and the Gulf War Ceacefire. The FACT that Saddam had failed to meet all of his obligations per the Ceacefire and UN resolutions is a fact that not even France would dispute!

If you think otherwise, please tell me where the United Nations certified that Iraq had successfully met its obligations under all 17 UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement?

Saddam failed to Verifiably Disarm of all WMD despite having the opportunity to do so. That is why the use of military force became a necessity.

No one lied! A process that was started in March of 1991 finally came to an end, as member states of the United Nations finally enforced the long standing UN resolutions against Saddam because Saddam had failed to peacefully comply with them.

 

[DaveC]

So you are saying, Sting, that absolutely NOBODY in the Bush Administration has EVER lied to the public in the past four years?

 

[nbcrusader]

So you are saying, Sting, that absolutely NOBODY in the Bush Administration has EVER lied to the public in the past four years?

Cute.

Now we can say "You lied! Prove me wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt!" for everything.


There was a point in time when we were more careful with our words. Instead, we toss around accusations and innuendo with reckless abandon.

 

[DaveC]

No. You're taking me the wrong way.

He has explicitly said that in the Bush White House there is no evidence linking anyone to any lie. I'm just trying to show him how ridiculously naive that statement is.

 

[nbcrusader]

See, that word evidence comes into play here. You can accuse the administration of lying till the cows come home. Absent evidence, all you have is hot air.

 

[deep]

See, that word evidence comes into play here. You can accuse the administration of lying till the cows come home. Absent evidence, all you have is hot air.

IFILL:" Mr. Vice President, in June of 2000 when you were still CEO of Halliburton, you said that U.S. businesses should be allowed to do business with Iran because, quote, "Unilateral sanctions almost never work."

After four years as vice president now, and with Iran having been declared by your administration as part of the "Axis of Evil," do you still believe that we should lift sanctions on Iran?

CHENEY: "No, I do not. And, Gwen, at the time, I was talking specifically about this question of unilateral sanctions.

What happens when we impose unilateral sanctions is, unless there's a collective effort, then other people move in and take advantage of the situation and you don't have any impact, except to penalize American companies."


American companies.= HALIBURTON


This is EVIDENCE that Cheney is a bloodsucking PROFITEER.

I would rather have a lier about oral sex between two consenting adults.

 

[diamond]

Haliburton to the general public= non issue.
CFR drew more interest but had a priority rating of 2-3 on a scale of 1-10.
Haliburton is less stimulating to the general public, than CFR.

Haliburton is not evil
Walmart is not evil.

Its time to find a better pet argument.

db9

 

[nbcrusader]

Ah, the Haliburton word. All you need are a few more buzz words like "big business," "tax cuts for the wealthy," "executive bonuses," and "corporate greed" and I think you have DNC Bingo!

 

[DrTeeth]

You can accuse the administration of lying till the cows come home. Absent evidence, all you have is hot air.

When even pictures of Cheney sitting next to Edwards isn't enough to convince people that Cheney didn't tell the truth about meeting Edwards for the first time, you know there are better ways to spend your time.

 

[nbcrusader]

And if you get hung up on taking a sarcastic remark as a life-or-death true/false statement, you know there are better ways to spend your time.

 

[Dreadsox]

Anyone care to discuss the gifts we have received, hehe....and take a break from the same old unproductive arguments......please I am interested in your opinions in the other thread.