1
   

John Bolton lied to Congress?

 
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 03:01 am
Brandon9000 wrote:

Exactly like Iraq, which had had WMD, annexed its neighbor, promised to destroy its WMD, and then was deceptive about it. Saddam Hussein with a stockpile of serious WMD would have been a threat to the whole world.


But there were inspectors on the ground, inspecting away, and Bush ordered them out and invaded.

How can you say that Bush cannot be held responsible for there not being WMD's on Iraq when inspectors were there, being allowed the run of the country to look for them, and Bush ordered them out and invaded?

PS: And how come thepress hardly ever reported that any chemical weapons left over from Kuwait were useless, since the chemicals break down in a year or two? All the chemical weapons Saddam might have had left over from Kuwait had been expired for years.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 03:06 am
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~border/images/WebsitePageImages/ig-bor02.jpgx.jpg

He's leaving his dog behind!!! Shocked
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 03:20 am
Bhutan - probably the only country in the world that has among its social indices a measure for gross national happiness. Really. I like a country that does stuff like that Very Happy







TTF - thank you.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 06:02 am
Firstly, I doubt there are any outright examples of the Administration lying. If they are lying, I doubt even Bush would be stupid enough to leave the lies out there for people to see.

An Orwellian Minitrue campaign on Government websites could or is being conducted if the Administration is lying.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 06:40 am
kelticwizard wrote:
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~border/images/WebsitePageImages/ig-bor02.jpgx.jpg

He's leaving his dog behind!!! Shocked


He stepped on the dog to reach the top of the fence ....
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 08:41 am
Looks like the dog is standing guard.... It's a nice picture, isn't it?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 08:54 am
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.04.13.ChinaShop-X.gif
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.05.12.PhantomMenace-X.gif
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 09:10 am
http://cagle.com/news/BoltonUNAmbassador/images/markstein.gif
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 11:34 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

Exactly like Iraq, which had had WMD, annexed its neighbor, promised to destroy its WMD, and then was deceptive about it. Saddam Hussein with a stockpile of serious WMD would have been a threat to the whole world.


But there were inspectors on the ground, inspecting away, and Bush ordered them out and invaded.

How can you say that Bush cannot be held responsible for there not being WMD's on Iraq when inspectors were there, being allowed the run of the country to look for them, and Bush ordered them out and invaded?

God, this is painfully elementary. This had been going on for a dozen years. Hussein had thwarted and misled the inspectors. There was a certain probability that Hussein had destroyed his weapons despite the fact that he had no evidence of it, and a certain probability that he had not destroyed them. He was uncooperative. If he did have them still and had merely hid them better, and we allowed this process to go on year after year, then at some point he might have completed development, and down the road a million Americans might have died. Bush could not responsibly risk that possibility. He had given Hussein every chance. The UN would not enforce its declarations. He simply had to act against the real possibility of a future in which Hussein was armed with nukes and bioweapons.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 02:25 am
kelticwizard wrote:
But there were inspectors on the ground, inspecting away, and Bush ordered them out and invaded.

How can you say that Bush cannot be held responsible for there not being WMD's on Iraq when inspectors were there, being allowed the run of the country to look for them, and Bush ordered them out and invaded?


Brandon9000 wrote:
God, this is painfully elementary. This had been going on for a dozen years. Hussein had thwarted and misled the inspectors.

Then why put the inspectors in on the eve of war, if Bush had no faith in the inspection process? Are you admitting that Bush did the inspection thing just as a show to throw the UN a bone before invading?


Brandon9000 wrote:
There was a certain probability that Hussein had destroyed his weapons despite the fact that he had no evidence of it, and a certain probability that he had not destroyed them. He was uncooperative.

Hold the phone here. There were two rounds of inspections before Bush invaded.

On the first round, the inspectors were not satisfied that Hussein was cooperating, since the Iraqis had their own men present when scientists were interviewed, etc, which is certain to have an intimidating effect on the people being interviewed. Hans Blix said so in his report to the UN. Blix requested the UN grant him another round of inspections where Iraq was required to give his inspection team complete freedom and cooperation. Over Bush Administration objections, the UN granted this.

In the second round of inspections, the inspectors reported cooperation from the Iraqis, and good progress was reported in accounting for the WMD's. Things were proceeding the way they should have. Then Bush ordered the inspectors out and invaded.


Brandon9000 wrote:
If he did have them still and had merely hid them better, and we allowed this process to go on year after year, then at some point he might have completed development, and down the road a million Americans might have died.

How the heck is Saddam Hussein going to deploy any existing weapons, let alone develop new ones, when the country is being crisscrossed by inspectors? Not to mention satellite photos and aerial reconnaissance working in tandem with the inspecotrs. That's ridiculous.

Brandon9000 wrote:
Bush could not responsibly risk that possibility. He had given Hussein every chance.

No, he did NOT. The second round of inspections were going smoothly, full cooperation was being given to the inspection team. Now that the inspections were going along the way they should have, Bush put an end to the whole process.

Brandon9000 wrote:
The UN would not enforce its declarations. He [Bush] simply had to act against the real possibility of a future in which Hussein was armed with nukes and bioweapons.

That's simply not true. It was pretty much understood that if the second round of inspections were interfered with or if the second round of inspections had found the evidence of WMD's, the troops would be sent in. That is why the UN sanctioned the buildup of troops in Kuwait in the first place.

Let's face it. Bush invaded because the inpectors weren't finding what Bush wanted them to find. Bush, with the full cooperation of the bamboozled press, had the whole country worked up to a fever pitch, certain that we were just weeks away from poison clouds enveloping whole states, and Bush wasn't about to let fact finding missions break his momentum. So out go the inspectors, and in go the troops.

Remember Hans Blix's report to the UN in response to Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech? He took Powell and the Administration's fabrications and distortions apart peiece by piece.

You might recall the photos Powell showed where the trucks were leaving an Iraqi factory, and another photo where the inspection team was just arriving over the horizon. Powell said that this showed the WMD's were being transported out of the factory just minutes before the inspection team arrived. Blix pointed out that the photos were taken weeks apart, not minutes, as the time stamp clearly showed! Moreover, the factory was on the list the Iraqis provided, it was inspected, there were no WMD's there even before Powell's photos were taken.

It was complete chicanery on the part of Powell and the Administration, and Blix called them on it.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 03:08 am
Or how about the "mobile labs" bit? In a scenario more appropriate for a Batman movie than foreign affairs, the Bush Administration was actually telling the world that vans were driving around Baghdad neighborhoods carrying scientists who were making WMD's in the back. When you consider how large and well equipped your average research labrotory is, and how large a van is, no matter how well equipped, the whole thing becomes preposterous. Good grief, what would happen if the scientist was pourng two vials of poison or explosive chemicals together and the van hit a pothole? Yet, that was the story the Bush Administration was putting forth to the nation and the world. And some people actually bought it.

Were you one of those people, Brandon?

And while we are at it, remember all the snide remarks, the jokes, the insults directed at Hans Blix himself? How the Administration and it's supporters just ran Blix down, portraying him as the very essence of fumbling, bumbling bureucratic incompetence? Well, what happened? It's years later, and subsequent events have proven that everything Blix said-everything-was the truth. All the invective hurled Blix's way was just a cover for an Administration determined to go to war, and to run over anyone who had the nerve to bring up FACTS that might stand in it's way.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 04:14 am
It was always a wonder to me why the Bush administration didn't attack Blix's wife.
====

I feel, from reading the most recent posts here, that someone on the right is about to weasel on about how the Bush administration might not have found WMDs, but that they had never lied about them, therefore, they are not the crackass low-life liars we on the left perceive them to be but merely the purveyors of what my father would have called bullsh-t.

There's a book out called Bullsh-t (I listened to it over two summer days while watching boats on the water) and, although it tries mightily to define Bullsh-t for what it is, it pales when the examples from the true life statements from the White House are reviewed especially in regard to WMD. The folks on the right are correct, bullsh-t is not lying, it is merely talking out of your ass about something with the air of knowing,,, while knowing that you are just talking out of your ass.

One indication that we are seeing the acme of the art of Bullsh-tting, perhaps honed in the early days at Yale, is the familiar look on Bush's face when he is asked if he ever made a mistake. People who bullsh-t know that look, it's the look of a person who knows he must stick with his bullsh-t story or be revealed as the scum sucking spewer he is.

So, have a little fun. Roll back those tapes, watch them wave their hands at the Meet the Press reporters, scowl at questions, mince no words when proclaiming "we know where they are." Can you smell it now?

Oh, and by the way, as of this morning, as a result of George W. Bush sticking to his story, 1800 American men and women are dead.

Joe(yeah, but he thought he was telling the truth, the fool)Nation
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 06:47 am
kelticwizard wrote:
Or how about the "mobile labs" bit? In a scenario more appropriate for a Batman movie than foreign affairs, the Bush Administration was actually telling the world that vans were driving around Baghdad neighborhoods carrying scientists who were making WMD's in the back. When you consider how large and well equipped your average research labrotory is, and how large a van is, no matter how well equipped, the whole thing becomes preposterous. Good grief, what would happen if the scientist was pourng two vials of poison or explosive chemicals together and the van hit a pothole? Yet, that was the story the Bush Administration was putting forth to the nation and the world. And some people actually bought it.

Were you one of those people, Brandon?

And while we are at it, remember all the snide remarks, the jokes, the insults directed at Hans Blix himself? How the Administration and it's supporters just ran Blix down, portraying him as the very essence of fumbling, bumbling bureucratic incompetence? Well, what happened? It's years later, and subsequent events have proven that everything Blix said-everything-was the truth. All the invective hurled Blix's way was just a cover for an Administration determined to go to war, and to run over anyone who had the nerve to bring up FACTS that might stand in it's way.


The mobile labs were tractor trailers and mobile in the form that they could move from one location to another. Not "vans were driving around Baghdad neighborhoods carrying scientists who were making WMD's in the back."

When you say things like that it makes it appear as though you are not fully paying attention.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 06:56 am
You mean those, McG:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030205-powell-un-17300pf-21.jpg
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 06:58 am
When we didn't find them - and only found empty ice cream truck looking things they took pictures of - THAT made it seem like America wasn't paying attention.

TTF
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 07:01 am
That's pretty much what Powell himself said about it later....
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 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 05:56:26