Putin: Hussein Was Preparing Attacks Inside the United Stat

au1929 wrote:

Bush made another mistake. When he got Putin to make this pronouncement he forgot to tell his bootlickers to acknowledge it as the truth.

Either Russia did inform the US of intelligence indicating that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks against it, or else Russia did not. Are you asserting that it did not and that Putin's statement is a lie? If you are capable of answering plainly, please do so.

0 Replies

This is interesting but is lacking substance - Everything in Iraq has been gone over with a fine tooth comb, they couldn't find any conveyance of modern warfare that would work in their country, much less half a world, many borders and a lot of water away....

Begins to sound like the Blues Brothers "wish sandwich" Cool

0 Replies

Putin would lie to his own mother about the piece of bread in his pocket.
Putin would lie to his priest if he thought it would also fool God.
Putin would lie to the face in the mirror and believe what he heard was true.

Nuff...

Joe

0 Replies

Brandon9000

Boy are you sharp. Yes, that is my opinion. I wouldn't believe what Bush or Putin said if they swore on a stack of bibles.
This by far the most corrupt and dishonest administration of my lifetime. It makes Nixon look like a choir boy.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon9000

Boy are you sharp. Yes, that is my opinion. I wouldn't believe what Bush or Putin said if they swore on a stack of bibles.
This by far the most corrupt and dishonest administration of my lifetime. It makes Nixon look like a choir boy.

Alright, then. If you believe that Putin is flat out lying, there is little I can say about it, except that I think it would be a foolish lie, since there would be so many people in both governments who could testify that it was a lie, and sooner or later would. I doubt that Putin would want to be caught in a very clear cut easily demonstrable lie.

As far as your allegations of dishonesty in the Bush administration go, that's the kind of thing that is easy to say, but is a valueless cheap shot without evidence. This allegation has been made many times on this board over the past few months, and whenever I have asked for a concrete example, the person who made the statement either changes the subject, gives an example that is ludicrous, or else gives an example that would be almost impossible to confirm or refute. It seems to me that if this administration is soooooo dishonest, it would be trivially easy to give a simple and irrefutable example. And for God's sake don't give a feeble minded example of the sort I usually get like "he said there were WMD and there weren't," which forces me to go through the trivial, but tiresome logic of explaining that there is a difference between an honest mistake and a deliberate lie.

0 Replies

Start with Iraq and the alleged reasons given for the Invasion thereof. That entire fiasco is built on a lie.

Honest mistake Twisted Evil

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Start with Iraq and the alleged reasons given for the Invasion thereof. That entire fiasco is built on a lie.

Honest mistake

This response is equivalent to an admission by you that you cannot state a single concrete example of a lie. If you disagree, then give one.

0 Replies

Brandon

http://www.alternet.org/story/17220

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

revel said

Quote:
. And despite the total ineptness and no nothings of the administration it is turning out to be a good thing that we went to Iraq.

Good thing? What good thing is that?

The good thing is that obviously there was more to the whole Iraq situation than we knew. None of the administrations statements have proven to be true. However, after reading that article that I read yesterday where this UN inspector said that an Iraqi official told him that they were getting offers everyday for weapons and things from all over the place. (yahoo, posted on another thread) and that contact meet with the Iraqi official and Bin Laden and now Putin saying that Saddam made threats as recently as after 9/11, Iraq was obviously a danger to us.

Not that I think the administration had a clue, I don't think they ever really investigated, they just got a bunch of yes sirs and people to say what they wanted to hear to go to Iraq like they had been planning since before they were all in the whitehouse.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon

http://www.alternet.org/story/17220

Here are some excerpts from the article you provided a link to:

Quote:

...As with many of the scary-sounding accusations Bush and his counselors threw out about Iraq, this one conveniently side-stepped any facts or analysis that would undermine a world view in which Hussein was the New Hitler. The administration never explained what it meant that Iraq had sponsored terrorism. Against who? When? For what motive? How much? How effectively?...

...Faced with "could" and "might" assertions like this, the press rarely if ever took a hard look at whether they even made sense, much less were based on hard evidence....

...What the White House did know or should have known about Hussein.....

...But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the September 11 attacks....

...The neocon clique had also made strenuous, but ultimately unconvincing, attempts to link the 1993 World Trade Center attack to Hussein. According to Con Coughlin, author of Saddam: The Secret Life: "In an attempt to show that Ramzi Youssef, the Egyptian-born terrorist convicted of carrying out the attack, was in fact an Iraqi agent, Paul Wolfowitz, the U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary, last year sent James Woolsey, the former CIA director, with a copy of Youssef's fingerprints to Swansea University to prove that Youssef was the same person as an Iraqi student who had studied at the university. Unfortunately for Mr. Wolfowitz, the two sets of fingerprints did not match."....

All I see here is the author's opinion that the administration made a weak, ambiguous case, failed to show what they intended to show, and perhaps that they made their case based on scant evidence. Even, supposing this were true, none of this constitutes a lie. People use the available evidence as best they can to support their beliefs all the time. I can't believe that I need to define it, but a lie is saying something that you know full well to be false. Turning out to be wrong, if they were wrong, is not a lie. Please show at least one case in which Bush or his team made a specific statement they understood at the time to be false. Since this is the most dishonest administration within your lifetime, surely you can come up with one specific lie.

0 Replies

First off: Bravo revel. Your willingness to reconsider your positions is refreshing. Very Happy

revel wrote:

Sofia was brave enough to admit that she was starting to rethink her position on Iraq. I have to admit that since the other day when we learned that Saddam and Bin Laden had contact when before we had no clue whatsoever at all of any contact between them

CLUE

CLUE 2

CLUE 3

CLUE 4

CLUE 5

Clearly we had clues. I point this out as evidence that you may be somewhat off the mark in your harsh assessment of the Bush administration. Food for thought.

Quote:

I began to rethink my position that I have had since the beginning of this thing. Not because of anything the administration have said. In fact I don't even think that they knew about that contact or they would have been spouting it to kingdom come from the beginning, but because of that information the other day and now what Putin is saying.

See clues above

Quote:

I still believe that the administration wanted to go to war with Iraq and just scrambled to find some kind of justification no matter how flimsy to justify it and they didn't know any of this stuff that is coming out when they went to war with Iraq. Plus they bungled the entire thing diplomatically and the reconstruction and the prison thing.

Why do you think the administration wanted to go to war with Iraq if not because they actually believed it to be (at least in part) a threat?

Quote:

BUT; Iraq is starting to seem more complicated now than before and I think there is a whole lot more that we don't know and the administration didn't know. And despite the total ineptness and no nothings of the administration it is turning out to be a good thing that we went to Iraq.

Do you truly think it was merely dumb luck by Bush & Co; that the leaders of the single most powerful nation in the world didn't have a clue and are now as surprised as you?

Quote:

(as much as I really hate to admit it. but I can't just keep buldozing and denying the reality that is shaping up or else I would be no different than the administration and its cheerleaders.)

Again, good for you, but I think you're still being a bit tough on Bush & Co.
(not to mention their cheerleaders) Keep questioning your assumptions.

0 Replies

Brandon9000
What is the use. No matter the evidence you will believe what they tell you. Black is white and white is black. Let's just leave it at that.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz

Some of those clues it seems that they didn't find out until after the invasion. In any case, all the administration said before the war was that there was a connection between Saddam and terorist and then they brought up that one atta (whatever) guy as though that proved a big movement going on between Saddam and Bin Ladden and other such terrorist. Mostly they kept bringing up past crimes of which we already went to war for and WMD of which there were doubts raised even before the war and the fact that Saddam gave money to Palestinian bombers who had nothing to do with the us in the US. They didn't ever say in a press release or article that Saddam gave a salary and a house to that guy who was a part of the first trade center bombing, just that he was in Iraq as though that proved anything when there are terrorist all over the world.

Had they had such a list as the clues you provided and made a clear cut case other than the weak case that they were making then I would have realized the danger and would have been for it like I was for the other war because i could see that they were connected and both presented a danger.

You may think I am being too tough on the administration but it does seem as though they went to war only because it was their plan all along and just scrambled to find some real reasons. It turns out to be a good thing so I am glad that we went. However, it does not change my mind about Bush and his type of people who are in control of our country right now and my vote.

That is just the way I see it. But I am willing to keep listening. Maybe the cheerleader comment was over the top.

0 Replies

too tough on the administration - they are criminals and should be in jail, too tough is beheading them and burying them in pigs blood; but, the death penalty should not be rule out.....

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

too tough on the administration - they are criminals and should be in jail, too tough is beheading them and burying them in pigs blood; but, the death penalty should not be rule out.....

The "Loyal Opposition" in Washington would like nothing better than to see George Bush and members of his administration indicted. If they are so clearly criminals who belong in jail, why aren't Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschel, Teddy Kennedy, Charlie Rangle, Charlie Schumann and the rest of the howling mob crying out for justice?

0 Replies

Finn
Finn, because they hope justice will be served in November 2004.

BBB

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon9000
What is the use. No matter the evidence you will believe what they tell you. Black is white and white is black. Let's just leave it at that.

I won't leave it at that. If you show me actual evidence of a lie, capable of being checked, I will investigate it, and admit that it's real evidence, if it is. But you quite clearly cannot provide reasonable evidence of one single lie by "the most dishonest administration" of your lifetime. All you have shown is some guy's opinion that the administration's case for Iraq was weak and their conclusions incorrect, which has nothing to do with lying. It is clear that your accusations against Bush and his administration are merely statements that feel good but have no basis in fact.

You cannot evade my request that you back your position up by asserting that no matter what you show me, I will never accept it. Show me some actual evidence of a lie and I will accept it.

0 Replies

Brandon
Brandon, you are playing a straw dog game. I think we know the conservative attitudes about George Bush lies. If I or anyone posted a lie example that had been refuted by experts with direct knowledge of the evidence of the lie, you and other conservatives would just say, "its not a lie because George Bush believes it to be true." If George Bush believes it to be true, then it's true.

So what's the point of trying to debate?

BBB Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Re: Brandon

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon, you are playing a straw dog game. I think we know the conservative attitudes about George Bush lies. If I or anyone posted a lie example that had been refuted by experts with direct knowledge of the evidence of the lie, you and other conservatives would just say, "its not a lie because George Bush believes it to be true." If George Bush believes it to be true, then it's true.

So what's the point of trying to debate?

BBB

Don't tell me what I would or wouldn't say. This is apparently your method of continuing to make all sorts of false accusations with impunity.

I am asking for an example. If you provide one that is erroneous, I will say so. If you provide one that is valid, and can be to some extent investigated, I will admit that too. I may only say, "As far as I can see, this does appear to be a lie. I would like to know more," but I will certainly at least admit that much.

But it is clear that you would rather not be asked to substantiate your accusations. I ask again, give me evidence of a lie. And being sincere, but mistaken, is not a lie. If I am having lunch with friends and say, "Bill will be along in 15 minutes," but turn out to be wrong, it is not a lie if I believed it when I said it, but rather a mistake. Show me evidence of a lie, or let it be recognized that your accusations are false and irresponsible.

0 Replies

Re: Brandon
Brandon wrote: "But it is clear that you would rather not be asked to substantiate your accusations. I ask again, give me evidence of a lie. And being sincere, but mistaken, is not a lie. If I am having lunch with friends and say, "Bill will be along in 15 minutes," but turn out to be wrong, it is not a lie if I believed it when I said it, but rather a mistake. Show me evidence of a lie, or let it be recognized that your accusations are false and irresponsible."

Brandon, I can't believe you just made my point.

BBB Laughing

0 Replies

Putin: Hussein Was Preparing Attacks Inside the United Stat

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know