0
   

Okie, MM, ... , a link to all the lies.

 
 
JTT
 
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2009 03:11 pm
"It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of " and the allegations " by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble " that means not tell the truth."
- George W. Bush



Quote:
How did the U.S. government lead its people to war?

Bush Administration Claims vs. The Facts

No weapons of mass destruction of any kind were found in Iraq

January 29, 2002
President George W. Bush delivers his State of the Union address [link to source]

“Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. … By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.

“We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.”


======================

September 7, 2002
President George W. Bush addresses the press with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David

“I would remind you that when the inspectors … went into Iraq … a report came out of the Atomic" the IAEA" that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need."


In reference to this claim by President Bush, Joseph Curl reported three weeks later in the Washington Times (on September 27, 2002)

“The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist.

"There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

“In October 1998, just before Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, the IAEA laid out a case opposite of Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 declaration.

“‘There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance,’ IAEA Director-General Mohammed Elbaradei wrote in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

“Mr. Gwozdecky said… ‘I don't know where they have determined that Iraq has retained this much weaponization capability because when we left in December ‘98 we had concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment,’ he said.

“Mr. Gwozdecky said there is no evidence about Saddam's nuclear capability right now " either through his organization, other agencies or any government.”

http://www.leadingtowar.com/claims_facts_noweapons.php
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,315 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
High Seas
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2009 03:27 pm
@JTT,
You're easily the worst bore on this site, JTT - everyone (starting with former President Bush) has acknowledged that the "intelligence" presented by then Secretary of State Powell to the U.N. in 2003 (and shared by the entire administration) was riddled with errors. As to your stylistic objections, read the reporting in the Washington Post, whose reporters can't even tell the difference between "disperse" and "disburse" >
Quote:
...The Iraqi regime has also developed ways to disburse lethal biological agents, widely and discriminately into the water supply, into the air. For example, Iraq had a program to modify aerial fuel tanks for Mirage jets..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html
> so, to sum up, if you can come up with any news later than 2003, try arguing with those...
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2009 04:07 pm
@High Seas,
You're easily the dumbest person on this site, High Seas; are you feeling left out because you weren't included with MM and Okie, because you certainly qualify.

Of course we can't forget to mention your own predilection to fabrication;

"As to your stylistic objections ... "

A veritable Ann Coulter, you are.

There was no "intelligence". Everything pointed these lying assholes away from their silly concocted notions but they persisted, despite the intelligence. All to whip up a fervor for war among idiots like you.

High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2009 04:23 pm
@JTT,
ROFL JTT - you have surpassed your previous records of incoherence with this new addition to your idiotic threads <G> While looking around this site I found a truly outstanding example of stylistic excellence even you - yes, you! - will be able to grasp; sadly the Washington Post example I gave in my previous post was far too subtle for your limited grasp of English. The following quote is properly attributable to its author - see link:
http://able2know.org/topic/138402-3#post-3818087
Quote:
...and I'd say you can **** yourself. I'm not shrill.... I just use offensive language since you assholes are going to be offended no matter what ... then have something to be ******* offended about and go to hell. Address me politely and I'll return the favor, otherwise die along with your loved ones and heirs as much as I give a ****.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2009 04:33 pm
@High Seas,
I don't know what you're on about, HS. Your obfuscation is just another manner of lie.

The complete absence of any explanation that has accompanied your rants on language make it clear that you know nothing about language, save for the few buzzwords you seem to have memorized.
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2009 04:19 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

I don't know what you're on about, HS....

Quite right, JTT, you don't, and have not the least hope of ever figuring it out. Please don't bother addressing me again. Thank you.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2009 05:11 pm
Is "MM" supposed to be me?

Why and how did I get dragged into this?
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2009 05:12 pm
@mysteryman,
just lucky i guess
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2009 05:26 pm
@mysteryman,
I'd not say you were dragged, until you decided to post.

Prior to that it was a pas de deux for two people obviously simply made for each other.

I'd get out while you can.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Okie, MM, ... , a link to all the lies.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 09:25:43