0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 08:40 pm
Yeah, Saddam killed thousands of his own every year, then the US by aggression killed over 15,000 more - innocent women and children. We had god's blessing.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 08:44 pm
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15032_One_Year_After_Madrid&only=yes
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 08:57 pm
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 08:58 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Do any of you believe that al Qaeda did not reconstitute its base in northern Iraq in 2001?


<hand in the air>

haven't seen any proof, ican....

Maybe you can provide...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 09:04 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Did you also know that Bush at the 2001 SOTU address told us he would reduce the national debt? He probably didn't know that was a lie either, so it's okay to mouth it to the country. He's now claiming the national debt will be reduced in half by 2009. Isn't that two years after his current term in office?


Fraud and incompetence are two different things. Knowing the truth and saying otherwise is fraud. Not knowing the truth is incompetence.

Do any of you have evidence that when President Bush stated Saddam's regime possessed ready-to-use WMD that he knew that Saddam's regime did not possess WMD?

I think your answers are no!

Do any of you have evidence that President Bush is incompetent?

President Bush is not now claiming the national debt will be reduced in half by 2009. He is now claiming the national annual budget deficit will be reduced in half by 2009. He knows or ought to know that the adoption of his tax reduction bill has resulted in a growing economy, that has in turn resulted in increased annual tax revenue, such that current annual tax revenue now exceeds what it was prior to his tax reduction.

Note: The national debt and a national annual budget deficit are not the same things. A national annual budget deficit increases the national debt. The national debt is the sum of past national annual budget deficits minus the sum of past national annual budget surpluses.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 09:06 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Yeah, Saddam killed thousands of his own every year, then the US by aggression killed over 15,000 more - innocent women and children. We had god's blessing.
You'll have to repeat that 15,000 post a lot more times than that to catch up to Saddam's treachery, CI... but I'm sure you'll manage. Confused
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 09:11 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Do any of you have evidence that when President Bush stated Saddam's regime possessed ready-to-use WMD that he knew that Saddam's regime did not possess WMD?


Well... remember what Powell said in Cairo on 24 February 2001

Quote:
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 09:16 pm
You mean to imply that there's a difference between what other tyrants do to kill their citizens vs what the US does to kill innocents? I miss the logic of that one, so please enlighten me. And PLEASE don't say we attacked Iraq for the Iraqi people.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 09:34 pm
http://www.iraqitruthproject.com/
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 09:38 pm
Please see next post.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 09:43 pm
old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Do any of you believe that al Qaeda did not reconstitute its base in northern Iraq in 2001?

<hand in the air>
haven't seen any proof, ican....
Maybe you can provide...

I haven't seen any proof either. I have seen some evidence.

For example:
General Tommy Franks in "American Soldier," 7/1/2004, alleged the following:
1. In 2003, the US attacked and defeated the AaI al Qaeda in northern Iraq; page 483.

EVIDENCE RELATED TO OTHER QUESTIONS
2. Over 1,000 weapons and munitions dumps, some containing very high explosive materials, were found scattered throughout Iraq by the US in 2003 and 2004; page 522.
3. Thousands of buried, murdered Iraqi citizens were discovered throughout Iraq by the US in 2003 and 2004; page 543.

www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf Charles Duelfer's Report, 9/30/2004, alleged that Saddam Hussein intends to redevelop and reassemble WMD when UN sanctions on Iraq are lifted and/or become sufficiently ignored.

www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Report, i.e., The 9-11 Commission Report, 8/21/2004, alleged the following:
1. Osama bin Laden in 1998 declared war on both civilian and military Americans with the objective of killing all of them wherever they be found;
2. President George Bush on 9/11/2001 declared to the National Security Council the United States would not just punish the perpetrators of terrorist attacks on Americans but also those who harbored them;
3. President Bush declared to the nation on TV the night of 9/11/2001 that we would make no distinction between the terrorists who committed terrorism against Americans and those who harbor them.
4. President Bush declared to Congress and to the nation on TV the night of 9/20/2001 that our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them… Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but does not end there … Our war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.
5. The al Qaeda are a confederation of multiple terrorist groups led by Osama bin Laden.
6. Osama bin Laden aided a group of Islamic extremists encamped in northern Iraq.
7. The Al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq, suffered major defeats by Kurdish Forces in the late 1990s.
8. In 2001, the Al Qaeda remnant in northern Iraq, with Osama bin Laden’s help, re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam (AaI).
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 10:06 pm
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 10:08 pm
It's well known that Saddam had WMD pre-91, RR...
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 10:11 pm
ican711nm wrote:
6. Osama bin Laden aided a group of Islamic extremists encamped in northern Iraq.
7. The Al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq, suffered major defeats by Kurdish Forces in the late 1990s.
8. In 2001, the Al Qaeda remnant in northern Iraq, with Osama bin Laden's help, re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam (AaI).


Haven't seen proof for that, neither.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 10:12 pm
Have you read anything about Kerkar at all, ican?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 10:56 pm
Quote:
Just Another Bush Lie?
Saddam's Capture

By MIKE WHITNEY

The account of American troops capturing Saddam and pulling him from his subterranean hovel has turned out to be just another Bush lie.

Sergeant Nadim Abou Rabeh, who participated in the operation that netted Saddam, was quoted in the Saudi newspaper "Al-Medina" saying that the Iraqi leader was actually captured the day before and that "the public version of his capture was fabricated." The entire event was apparently choreographed by a Pentagon public relations team.

"I was among the 20 man unitwho searched for Saddam for 3 days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Rabeh admitted. (UPI )

"Not in a hole"? You mean Saddam actually stood up and faced American Marines?

"WE CAPTURED HIM AFTER FIECE RESISTANCE DURING WHICH A MARINE OF SUDANESE ORGIN WAS KILLED," he said.

Uh, oh. This could be trouble. After all, the American version presented Saddam as trembling coward cringing in his spider-hole afraid to face the American warriors. Now, Rabeh is saying that he stood and fought "like a man". This is not the image that the Washington spin-meisters wanted to convey. They wanted to humiliate the deposed tyrant by showing him recoiling from the American ubermenschen. That way they could show the virtuousness of the invasion and bolster the importance of the White House chicken-hawks who follow the campaign from their bunkers on the Potomac.

Unfortunately, the entire story turned out to be bogus. Saddam may be a genocidal maniac, but anyone who knows the details of his personal history, knows he's no coward. He scaled the ranks of the Ba'ath party through audacity, coercion and treachery. No one gets to the top spot on the Ba'ath food chain through squeamishness. The portrayal of Saddam as disoriented and fearful is pure performance-art; just like the suggestion that he was living underground is probably just a sham. (That part always seemed fishy) Most likely, he was drugged and dumped in the "spider-hole" to meet the requirements of (Bush's) Hollywood production team. In fact, members of the Kurdish Peshmerga, who were operating in the vicinity at the time, disputed the administration's sketchy narrative from the get-go. Their story was much more consistent with Sergeant Rabeh's.

So, we can add another fairytale to the Bush chronicle of deception. The Saddam capture will feature prominently along with the other wartime fictions like Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, the phantom WMDs, and the toppling of Saddam's statue in Fidros Square. Every one of these was skillfully fashioned by a Bush PR team trying to maximize public approval by creating a storybook narrative. It's 100% baloney.

The whole incident smacks of Rumsfeld's "Strategic Information" program; a new department entirely devoted to stage-managing events like Saddam's arrest. Apparently, the War Dept wants to downplay the daily carnage by orchestrating phony "docu-dramas" for the folks at home. Well, they'd better turn it up a notch. Bush's clumsy vaudeville may be designed to draw more support for the war, but box-office flops like this can really take a chunk out of one's credibility.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: [email protected]


0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 12:45 am
Gelisgesti wrote:
Quote:
Just Another Bush Lie?
Saddam's Capture

By MIKE WHITNEY

The account of American troops capturing Saddam and pulling him from his subterranean hovel has turned out to be just another Bush lie.

Sergeant Nadim Abou Rabeh, who participated in the operation that netted Saddam, was quoted in the Saudi newspaper "Al-Medina" saying that the Iraqi leader was actually captured the day before and that "the public version of his capture was fabricated." The entire event was apparently choreographed by a Pentagon public relations team.

"I was among the 20 man unitwho searched for Saddam for 3 days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Rabeh admitted. (UPI )

"Not in a hole"? You mean Saddam actually stood up and faced American Marines?

"WE CAPTURED HIM AFTER FIECE RESISTANCE DURING WHICH A MARINE OF SUDANESE ORGIN WAS KILLED," he said.

Uh, oh. This could be trouble. After all, the American version presented Saddam as trembling coward cringing in his spider-hole afraid to face the American warriors. Now, Rabeh is saying that he stood and fought "like a man". This is not the image that the Washington spin-meisters wanted to convey. They wanted to humiliate the deposed tyrant by showing him recoiling from the American ubermenschen. That way they could show the virtuousness of the invasion and bolster the importance of the White House chicken-hawks who follow the campaign from their bunkers on the Potomac.

Unfortunately, the entire story turned out to be bogus. Saddam may be a genocidal maniac, but anyone who knows the details of his personal history, knows he's no coward. He scaled the ranks of the Ba'ath party through audacity, coercion and treachery. No one gets to the top spot on the Ba'ath food chain through squeamishness. The portrayal of Saddam as disoriented and fearful is pure performance-art; just like the suggestion that he was living underground is probably just a sham. (That part always seemed fishy) Most likely, he was drugged and dumped in the "spider-hole" to meet the requirements of (Bush's) Hollywood production team. In fact, members of the Kurdish Peshmerga, who were operating in the vicinity at the time, disputed the administration's sketchy narrative from the get-go. Their story was much more consistent with Sergeant Rabeh's.

So, we can add another fairytale to the Bush chronicle of deception. The Saddam capture will feature prominently along with the other wartime fictions like Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, the phantom WMDs, and the toppling of Saddam's statue in Fidros Square. Every one of these was skillfully fashioned by a Bush PR team trying to maximize public approval by creating a storybook narrative. It's 100% baloney.

The whole incident smacks of Rumsfeld's "Strategic Information" program; a new department entirely devoted to stage-managing events like Saddam's arrest. Apparently, the War Dept wants to downplay the daily carnage by orchestrating phony "docu-dramas" for the folks at home. Well, they'd better turn it up a notch. Bush's clumsy vaudeville may be designed to draw more support for the war, but box-office flops like this can really take a chunk out of one's credibility.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: [email protected]




Paranoia runs deep in Liberaland...
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 02:56 am
I think it is too soon to dismiss the story and also too soon to say it is true unless confirmed by more information from other sources.

It is interesting though.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 05:02 am
What puzzles me is how some people can swallow propaganda hook line and sinker time after time. Even when it is clear they've been lied to, they come back for more, eager to believe.

They must be either psychotic, unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy, or lazy in not bothering to think.

Or it could be that they know exactly what they are doing. They might be involved in the production or dissemination of propaganda. Or as ordinary citizen, they feel somehow they have a duty to demonstrate belief, not believing or even scepticism being equated with disloyalty.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 05:39 am
Is there anything this man will not lie about?

Mcg....paranoid? care to explain?
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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 10/07/2024 at 02:20:14