| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2004/7/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32510 Activity:nil |
7/27 Heh, http://drudgereport.com has a URL on Michael Moore on the O'Reilly show. Moore has been saying that Bush is a liar. O'Reilly says Bush never lied, but he may have been mistaken. Moore can't admit the difference. Now this is what I've been saying all along -- as a liberal. \_ hey, let's hear from the guy who said he spent 20 hours a week for a month researching bush's wmd claims because of a motd thread. what's your take on this? \_ OK, we can probably both agree that Bush said things that were shown to be false. The difference in opinion is conservatives think he was simply mistaken while liberals think he knew it was wrong. In the run-up to the war, conservatives said "Trust that the president has access to the best intelligence that shows that Saddam has WMDs" Now some are trying to say "He was tricked by the CIA". Which is it? Did he know there were no WMDs (and is a liar) or was he tricked, and is being led not leading. \_ He did have access to the best intel. Going back years, everyone in the previous administration, Senators on the intelligence committee, foreign leaders, etc, all stated their belief that Saddam had WMD or was soon to develop working WMD. The intel was wrong. Everyone's intel was wrong. Who is saying that Bush claims he was "tricked"? Whatever on that. If it had gone the other way and the exact same intel said the exact same thing in the exact same way and he did nothing and Saddam nuked something you'd be screaming that Bush is a moron and the worst leader ever. Let's just grant that you hate Bush, Bush can do nothing right for you, and that's that. By taking Bush out of context and making him be the only one to ever say or believe that Saddam had WMD is intellectually dishonest, verging on weak trolling. \_ You are lying and badly at that. Why do you continue to lie about this, even though you have been proven wrong repeatedly? You just make yourself and Bush supporters in generally look deluded and out of touch with reality. Some people believed there were WMD in Iraq and some did not. This has been proven to you repeatedly, yet you still claim otherwise. \_ Bush is responsible for what he says. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk, "The Buck Stops Here"--meaning that he claimed responsibility for his own decisions, rather than pointing fingers. Whereas Bush claims responsibility for things he has nothing to do with, like the economy, and refuses responsibility for decisions he personally made, like unilateral war with Iraq. -tom \_ I don't think that word "unilateral" means what you think it means. \_ A lot of things don't mean what tom thinks they mean. Be kind. He only has a high school diploma. \_ Okay, let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Bush did not lie. Moore says Bush is a liar; Moore is wrong. I have been saying this all along. -a liberal, and op \_ Glad to hear your opinion. My opinion is that Bush is a liar and a manipulator. I have been saying this all along. - liberal who knew that Clinton was lying, too, but didn't think a blowjob and perjury under duress constituted an impeachable crime \_ How can you call him a liar if every intelligence agency in the world (and the UN!) said that Iraq had WMD's? If intelligence said Iraq *didn't* have WMD's and Bush said they did, that would be lying. \_ First of all, every intelligence agency in the world did not say that. I have proven that this is false many times on the motd. The UN and everyone else said that the evidence was inconclusive. Bush claimed it was conclusive. That makes him a liar in my book, or at the very least he acted with reckless disregard for the truth. \_ You're full of crap. British, French, Russian, UN. If the Guatamalan intel agency didn't keep close tabs on Iraq then I'm sorry, you're right, it isn't *every* intel agency on the planet. \_ You have been proven wrong on this so many times it is embarrassing you. Hans Blix, in his own words: http://csua.org/u/8ci \_ "Imminent threat", "yellowcake", putting Iraq and Al-Qaida in the same sentance constantly. "I'm a uniter, not a divider", "Healthy Forest" as Bush-speak for clear-cutting. \_ Never said imminent threat. England and FRANCE still stand by the yellowkcake. Iraq has Al-Qaida ties. And tell SoCal how the "hands-off-the-trees" approach helped the fires down there. \_ Calling it "healthy forests" is blatantly deceptive, and SoCal was mostly chaparall. Selective cutting of the large trees is good forest managment, but it's less profitable. Clear-cutting is very bad for the health of the forest. \_ Because he is a stupid chimp, that's why! -- ilyas \_ what you wrote has proven to be not far from the truth, IMO \_ I don't think the previous poster disagrees with you. \_ But the liar/tricked is a false dichotomy. To be tricked, the CIA, MI6 etc. would have to be lying. |
| 4/3 |
|
| csua.org/u/8ci -> www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0918spin.htm Cybercast News Service September 18, 2003 Former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said in an interview Thursday that the British and US governments used exaggeration and "spin" in presenting evidence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. But the British government denied the claims, saying that the existence of banned weapons was a "matter of fact" and that allied troops on the ground only need more time to find them. Blix attacked a September dossier on Iraq issued by the British government, and particularly a claim inside the document stating that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) available for launch within 45 minutes. The dossier's contents have come under scrutiny during the Hutton Inquiry, a probe into the death of David Kelly, a weapons expert who advised the British Ministry of Defense. "The UK paper that came out in September last year with the famous words about the 45 minutes, when you read the text exactly I get the impression it wants to convey to the reader and lead the reader to conclusions that are a little further-reaching than the text needs to mean," Blix told BBC radio. "One can read it restrictively but one can also lead to far-reaching conclusions and I think many people did," he said. "Advertisers will advertise a refrigerator in terms they do not quite believe in but you expect governments to be more serious and have more credibility," Blix said. "I understand they have to simplify things when they explain them, but nevertheless expect them to be more reliable," he said. Blix compared the search for WMD in Iraq to a witch hunt. "They were convinced that Saddam was going in this direction, and I think this is understandable against the background of the man that they did so," he said. "In the Middle Ages people were convinced there were witches. They looked for them and they certainly found them," he said. I think we (the UN inspectors) were more judicious in saying we want to have real evidence." "One cannot help but feel that the exaggeration, the spin, the hyping is also something that damages the credibility of governments," he said. Blix went on to criticize the allies for pushing ahead with military action this spring. "They could have waited, they could have continued with inspections for a few months. We had been preparing ourselves for two and a half years, and we had only had two and a half months of inspections," he said. "They wouldn't have had the patience for that but now ... they say we must have some patience with the US and UK investigators," he said. "The patience they require for themselves right now is not anything that they wanted to give to us." On Wednesday, the former chief inspector told Australian radio that Iraq had probably destroyed almost all of its WMD more than a decade ago. "I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all almost of what they had in the summer of 1991," he said. In response, a spokesman for the British Foreign Office said: "Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction is a matter of fact." "Successive UN Security Council resolutions concluded not only that he had them but also had used them against his own people," the spokesman said. "Blix's own 173-page report set out in great detail Saddam's history of obstruction of the UN inspectors," he said. "The process of searching for weapons of mass destruction is continuing. It will be thorough and deliberate, despite the difficult security environment." In addition, the Foreign Office said that a parliamentary committee had determined that Saddam possessed WMD "The Intelligence and Security Committee has concluded that based on the intelligence ... there was convincing intelligence that Iraq had active chemical, biological and nuclear programmes and the capability to produce chemical and biological weapons," the spokesman said. "They also concluded that Iraq was continuing to develop ballistic missiles. All these activities were prohibited under UN Security Council resolutions." More Information on the Iraq Crisis FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |
| drudgereport.com The staff is planning to do several stories on this and not just one big article. For days now, the NYT has been chasing down the rumors of what the LA TIMES may be investigating about Carter but didn't have much success. Finally, this afternoon, the NYT made some headway, at least enough to rush out a story. |