President Bush: Is He a Liar?

mysteryman wrote:

parados said...

Quote:
He claimed to have done so. The majority were verified.

Under the terms of the cease fire after the first gulf war,ALL of his WMD and WMD programs were supposed to have been destroyed and verified.
Not "the majority",but ALL of them,100%.

By your own admission,he didnt do that.
Why not?

Because he was a liar and a cheat (pretty much the same as George Bush)

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
parados said...

Quote:
He claimed to have done so. The majority were verified.

Under the terms of the cease fire after the first gulf war,ALL of his WMD and WMD programs were supposed to have been destroyed and verified.
Not "the majority",but ALL of them,100%.

By your own admission,he didnt do that.
Why not?

Because he was a liar and a cheat (pretty much the same as George Bush)

dyslexia, your statement is a clear example of why many of us can't muster much respect for the liberal left in this country.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

parados said...

Quote:
He claimed to have done so. The majority were verified.

Under the terms of the cease fire after the first gulf war,ALL of his WMD and WMD programs were supposed to have been destroyed and verified.
Not "the majority",but ALL of them,100%.

By your own admission,he didnt do that.
Why not?

Some of them were destroyed in the war and couldn't be verified as the the quantity destroyed.
Some of them were dumped in the desert and couldn't be verified.

Where in the treaty signed in 1991 does it require that destruction must be verified 100%?

The only verification required is that there are not ongoing programs. There is nothing in there about all destruction must be witnessed.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
parados said...

Quote:
He claimed to have done so. The majority were verified.

Under the terms of the cease fire after the first gulf war,ALL of his WMD and WMD programs were supposed to have been destroyed and verified.
Not "the majority",but ALL of them,100%.

By your own admission,he didnt do that.
Why not?

Because he was a liar and a cheat (pretty much the same as George Bush)

dyslexia, your statement is a clear example of why many of us can't muster much respect for the liberal left in this country.

Okie, maybe you can earn our respect and point to where in the treaty it requires 100% verification of destruction of WMDs. I bet you can't find it...

0 Replies

It's so nice that you keep posting that Bernie but still haven't addressed when I pointed out the problems with it.

Do you live in a complete fantasy world? Are you ever going to address the issues I raised?

Your failure to address my points shows you have capitulated. End of story. No more to be said.

Go sit in the corner and drool while you keep repeating "But Podhoretz said.. but Podhoretz said.... but Podhoretz said. It would certainly have a better effect than constantly posting an article that has been answered.

0 Replies

You have answered it? I may have missed your answer. Please be so good as to give me a link to your answer. Please be informed in advance that I will scrutinize your alleged answer, rebut any mistakes you have made in giving a rebuttal, and POINT OUT THE SECTIONS IN MR. PODHORETZ' ESSAY YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED.

Please do not be so foolish to think you can make totally irrational and unproven comments about the genesis of the statements about WMD's in Iraq with such a puerile comment as saying an "article that has been answered"

To the best of my knowledge. you have done no such thing.

I await your alleged link to show how you have COMPLETELY REBUTTED ALL OF PODHORETZ' CLAIMS.

0 Replies

Now links are required again Bernie?

Make up your mind. You are spinning like a top. I don't have to answer anything unless there is a link. You do have to answer things without a link. Failure to rebut something line by line means you capitulate. I don't have to rebut anything if there isn't a link. You just like to make up your own rules as you go along, don't you Bernie.

My posts are in this thread. You can go find them or not. I don't give a rat's ass. Repeating something over and over is YOUR milieu, not mine. If you can't read it the first time, that's your problem. It's not like it disappeared. Why don't you go find another year old poll to post and claim it was recent. That should make you look intelligent.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
It's moot. Based on what was known at the moment of invasion, there might have been workable WMD, and we couldn't take the chance.

Brandon proves once again that he does not understand risk management.

Really? Can you support this assertion, or is it just a lot of hot air?

You proved it in your 5 point assessment of the situation.

You failed to address any of the possible downsides of an invasion. That is a pretty common error by people that don't understand risk management. They play up the issues that support their preconceived conclusion while ignoring or playing down anything that doesn't support it.

This statement is your downfall right here.

Quote:
4. One single use of one of some weapons of this class could annihilate hundreds or thousands of people.
It is nothing but an emotional appeal. You even highlighted it in red to make it more emotional.

No, it's a practical appeal. I'm stating what the stakes were. We actually don't want a superweapon to annihilate one of our cities, so any non-negligible possibility that an evil dictator might acquire the capability must be treated with the utmost seriousness.

parados wrote:

Yes, a single weapon can kill thousands but you have failed to address if he has them or not....

No, I have not failed to address it at all. My point is that based on the history there was some reasonable probability that he was in the process of acquiring them.

parados wrote:

...and how he could possibly deliver any such weapon to do damage.

I have addressed exactly this issue over and over again in posts on this board. He could have agents smuggle the components of the weapon into the target city, reassemble the components, and detonate the weapon from inside. Fascinating that you tell me that I have failed to address something that I have addressed numerous times in posts.

parados wrote:

Nor have you dealt with any possible countermeasures. The risk of any weapon being used effectively by Saddam is actually quite small and there are many countermeasures that could be undertaken that would cost less and be more effective in the long run.

What countermeasures would you propose against a Saddam Hussein armed with nuclear and/or biological weapons?

0 Replies

What the 9/11 Commision in fact said in Statement No. 15 (Overview of the Enemy) was:

"Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

That is not, as Bernard describes it "a cooperative if informal relationship". There is no actual cooperation. Notice the Commission says "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship".. In other words, Saddam did nothing for AlQaeda. Bernard is, again, spinning things.

0 Replies

Mr. Username's point may be questionable--

Note

The staff's sweeping conclusion is found in its Statement No. 15 ("Overview of the Enemy"), which states:

Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.

Note the fourth sentence above, Beginning with the words--"A senior Iraqi intelligence officer.....

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Mr. Username's point may be questionable--

Then again, it may not be questionable.

Your sanity on the other hand....

0 Replies

Drew Dad- Do you do Psychological Analyses from a distance? What a wonderful skill? Did you learn it on your own or did you go to school to be trained. You had better be careful. It is illegal to make medical diagnosis without being certified.

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know