REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Is Bush neuro-impaired?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 16:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5326
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 5:39 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I had three people independently remark to me that Bush looked "drugged" in the third debate. One person commented on his wide-eyed, fixed expression and the fact that one-half of his face didn't move. The second person commented that one-half of his face didn't move. The third person commented on his fixed expression and lapses. Alas, I didn't watch the third debate (altho I listened to half of it on my way home) but I and others tossed around a few ideas- Bell's palsy, a stroke, too much botox (it WOULD keep him from scowling!) and others.

But just a few days ago, I saw a parallel biography of Bush and Kerry, and I was struck by Bush's vitality and wit in the old news clips. And today, someone passed along a letter to the editor from the Atlantic Monthly in which a physician tentatively diagnoses presenile dementia in Bush.

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe Dr. Price is correct.


www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/091804Mazza/091804mazza.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 6:39 PM

SIGMANUNKI


I just call it the long term effects of drinking/drug problems. If it has a clinical name, even better. It'd be interesting to know for sure.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:11 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Maybe there was a reason to choke on that pretzel, for example, impaired swallowing reflexes.
I agree he's not what he used to be. I was noticing the face-drag about 22mos ago, I'd see it on BBC coverage but not on US coverage, as the US usually photographed from the better side, or with strong light eliminating the shadow. The BBC was also better about capturing the verbal stumbles (for which Bush was already famous) and absences (which were new).
Whatever it is, Bush has given so few news conferences that there's not a lot to go on to track the deterioration. But if O'Neill's book is to be believed, Bush was non-responsive and non-verbal early-on during meetings. So it's been a while.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:15 PM

JEBBYPAL


GW is a walking ad in "just say no" to cocaine and alcohol abuse! That or perhaps evidence that being a "reborn" christian doesn't protect you from the damage you did to your body beforehand??

The Strawberry Monkey who defends tight pants everywhere!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:37 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Mentioned Before --- http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=7442






Oh come on, it is simply part of his sad medical condition:

http://www.brain-train.com/articles/computer.htm

After all, haven't we all noticed the signs:

attention/concentration
impulsivity
distractibility
cognitive endurance
thinking/performance speed
eye-hand coordination
learning/memory visual
tracking/scanning planning/organization
qualitycontrol/self-monitoring
problem-solving
sequencing
spatial analysis/synthesis
reasoning/abstraction
inattention/neglect

BTW I apologize to anyone who has such troubles in advance, but tell me, Am I really wrong ?



" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 21, 2004 5:06 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I'm just trying to figure out which condition it is. I'm pretty good at most, but this has me puzzled. My recollection of the last debate gives me a creepy feeling. It almost seems like he was trained to give pre-formed responses to a triggering word or phrase. Good! Here's the fish! No no, you'll get an electric shock! There wasn't a lot of thought going on.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 21, 2004 5:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


All I can say is... if drinking causes progressive neuro-degeneration, I better stop drinking NOW!!!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 21, 2004 5:41 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Perhaps drinking combined with the long term use of Cocaine...

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 21, 2004 5:43 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


If it's true that Bush's neurons are worse for wear, this would make the SECOND Republican mouthpiece that had lost a few marbles. The first, or course, was Ronald Reagan. I know he was the icon of the rich and the deluded working class, but the joke that was going around about him during his presidency was ... "Did you hear about the Ragean typewriter? No memory and no colon!" It was obvious even then to the un-enamored that there was something just a bit off about him.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 21, 2004 6:30 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Being President does wear on the body, and even more so during times of stress ( war ). That's a given. As per the debates, it's well known that Bush had been assisting the Hurricane victims,passing out emergency goods and meeting the good folks of Florida. While good intentioned, he clearly over did it. By the 3rd debate, he had learned his lesson, and I'm sure he was glad the whole silly mess was over.

As for diagnosing Presidents, I recall clinical psychologist saying that Bill Clinton had clear indications of sociopathic tendancies due to the high number of times he blinked. And not just during debates.


This kind of talk was due to come out right before the election. Seems some folks just get that despirate for ANY sort of an edge, and smearing the opponent by any means is 'ok' to some.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:13 PM

NEUTRINOLAD


I'm ok with wear and tear on a fella's body. FDR was not any less of a man for the loss of the use of his legs.
What I do not like is being lied to at every turn.
Make of that what you will.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2004 2:36 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
I'm ok with wear and tear on a fella's body. FDR was not any less of a man for the loss of the use of his legs.
What I do not like is being lied to at every turn.
Make of that what you will.



What I 'make' of that is perhaps a thinly veiled slap at Bush ( since that's been parrotted so often ), yet never does anyone actually present a 'lie' from him. Go figure.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2004 3:20 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
I'm ok with wear and tear on a fella's body. FDR was not any less of a man for the loss of the use of his legs.
What I do not like is being lied to at every turn.
Make of that what you will.



What I 'make' of that is perhaps a thinly veiled slap at Bush ( since that's been parrotted so often ), yet never does anyone actually present a 'lie' from him. Go figure.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "



I regret that I do not have the time right now to present the staggeringly long list (c'mon, AURaptor, what rock have you been hiding under?) but I have one that should be fresh in anyone's mind: in the last debate W shamelessly acted as if he had no recolection of his having deprioritized Osama B. on national television. But then, I feel that your statement that nobody presents any lies from W is absolutely just as disingenuous--or just plain ignorant.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2004 5:17 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Auraptor,
Oh please! Spare us the charades.
"This kind of talk was due to come out right before the election. Seems some folks just get that despirate(sic} for ANY sort of an edge, and smearing the opponent by any means is 'ok' to some."
Actually, I've been noticing this for some time (as I mentioned before). As to trying to somehow 'convince' people to not vote for Bush, there are other points to make for anyone with 'reality based' thinking.
For what it's worth, I have a rather large long-standing bet going with a co-worker that Bush will be re-elected. Not that it's what I hope for, it's just how I think things will go.
But I wonder, won't you feel stupid when the doom Bush seems bent on pursuing actually comes to pass?
You know, maybe I'll start a list of everyone who thinks Bush walks on water, and get new postings going for each fresh hell of Bush's making, just to see you run in circles trying to rationalize the whole thing.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2004 6:15 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Rue: HAHAHAHA!!!!

Auraptor-

You have two choices, neither of them particularly attractive. Either Bush lied, or he's as dumb as a dust bunny. Your choice!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2004 8:01 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


HKCAVALIER
"Could you...not do that while we're--ever?" Friday, October 22, 2004 - 07:20
Quote:

I regret that I do not have the time right now to present the staggeringly long list (c'mon, AURaptor, what rock have you been hiding under?) but I have one that should be fresh in anyone's mind: in the last debate W shamelessly acted as if he had no recolection of his having deprioritized Osama B.... on national television. But then, I feel that your statement that nobody presents any lies from W is absolutely just as disingenuous--or just plain ignorant.


Thanks for proving my point. You offer zero evidence, only your own perspective of Bush 'shamelessly' acting yadda yadda.... that's your OPINION,not FACT. Sorry, but me not agreeing with you does not make me disingenuous or ignorant. Petty ad hominems don't equal objective fact.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2004 9:04 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Auraptor

I noticed that you didn't responed to my post. I feel left out!

TO expand on my point, Bush's first rationale for invading Iraq was WMD, his next was terrorism (and the flypaper theory of terrorism!), his third was because "Saddam was a bad man and a threat to the USA" (despite no WMD or connection to 9-11), his fourth was to spread democracy. He was wrong three times and probably the fourth too.

So, if he wasn't lying, then he believed each and every rationale. It's possible that depsite his best efforts he was misled the first time. But then he continued to rely on the same people a second, third, and fourth time. How do you explain this pattern?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 22, 2004 9:45 PM

SOUPCATCHER


I don't know if he's neuro-impaired or not. Two bits of information: he hasn't taken his physical this year (he's postponing the physical until after the election - which is unprecedented) and his public speaking persona has changed drastically in ten years. I'm including the following video link as a pre-president measure. Ignore the text, it's clearly biased (which does not mean it's invalid, just that there is a clear agenda). Only focus in on how Bush comports himself during his 1994 debate with Ann Richards for the governorship of Texas. Then ask yourself if he has changed.
http://www.adbuzz.com/bushbuzz/BrainTenYrs*.mov

There are many theories floating around to explain why Bush's public speaking skill has changed so drastically in ten years. For example: he had a stroke, it's the long term effects of cocaine and alcohol abuse, it's an affected characteristic designed to appeal to voters, it's a product of reading a teleprompter/listening to pre-recordings of himself reading the speech/being fed the lines through an earpiece, he just doesn't care what he says anymore, he's tired, etc. Whatever the reason, I think it's hard to deny that his ability to speak in public has changed for the worse since he became president.

Is this important? Only if there is a serious problem with his health that is being covered up until the election is over. President Cheney is not a comforting thought for me.

My personal take on this is that Bush just doesn't care how he is perceived anymore. All he has to do is go through the motions and those who support him will continue to support him. I need more evidence before I agree with the neuro-impaired theory.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 23, 2004 3:39 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor

I noticed that you didn't responed to my post. I feel left out!

TO expand on my point, Bush's first rationale for invading Iraq was WMD, his next was terrorism (and the flypaper theory of terrorism!), his third was because "Saddam was a bad man and a threat to the USA" (despite no WMD or connection to 9-11), his fourth was to spread democracy. He was wrong three times and probably the fourth too.

So, if he wasn't lying, then he believed each and every rationale. It's possible that depsite his best efforts he was misled the first time. But then he continued to rely on the same people a second, third, and fourth time. How do you explain this pattern?



There is no 'lying' here. All reasons are accurate. The REASON we went into Iraq was that Saddam was ignoring UN Resolutions ( remember those ? ) and the agreement after the 1st Gulf War to abide by the cease fire terms which HE agreed with. Once it became crystal clear that Saddam wasn't going to 'play ball', another form of diplomacy was taken. Terrorist , torture, human rights violations , mass graves...all those things existed along with Saddam's refusal to abide by UN Resolutions. Pointing those abuses out is not ' lying ' about going to war, but simply bringing to light the OTHER attrocities and crimes that go along w/ the main one. It's not that hard to understand, really.

Oh,and neither Bush or anyone in his administration ever SAID that Saddam was directly involved w/ 9-11, so claiming THAT as another 'lie' is simply a non sequitur. It was speculated OUTSIDE the Administration by all manner of 'experts' and media, but not by Bush.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 23, 2004 4:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

There is no 'lying' here. All reasons are accurate


I can't find a shred of accuracy in ANY of them Here's why...

Quote:

The REASON we went into Iraq was that Saddam was ignoring UN Resolutions ( remember those ? ) and the agreement after the 1st Gulf War to abide by the cease fire terms which HE agreed with. Once it became crystal clear that Saddam wasn't going to 'play ball', another form of diplomacy was taken.


The REASON why we invaded Iraq was because the Bush administration was making hysterical statements like "We know where they are" and "ready to be deployed in 45 minutes", "thousands of liters of anthrax". And strangely (or sadly) about 70% of the people who are going to vote for Bush STILL BELIEVE that WMD were found in Iraq.

In any case, the UN didn't need or ask for our help. Hans Blix said he only needed a couple more months to prove what the inspection team already understood- that Iraq did not have an active WMD program. All of the major "evidence" cited by Bush (aluminum tubes, the forged document, the attempted yellowcake uranium purchase) were demonstrated false before they were even presented to the American people.

So, since reason #1 was found out to be a bust, Bush comes up with reason #2- terrorism. You're right- he never SAID that Saddam was directly linked to 9-11. He DID say that Iraq and Al Qaida had "high-level" contacts, and that terrorists could obtain those (non-existant) WMD, and he let us infer the rest. Now, when someone is THAT careful about their wording you can also infer there was an intent to deceive right from the start. But let's assume that Bush was being led astray by the same ppl who led him astray the first time, and that he wasn't deliberately misleading us. When various commissions debunked the Saddam-terrorist threat, Bush moves on to reason #3- Saddam was a "bad man".

Quote:

Terrorist , torture, human rights violations , mass graves...all those things existed along with Saddam's refusal to abide by UN Resolutions. Pointing those abuses out is not ' lying ' about going to war, but simply bringing to light the OTHER attrocities and crimes that go along w/ the main one


It's hard for these crime to "go along with the main one" because the "main one" never existed. Be that as it may, most of the human-right violations occurred decades before Gulf War II. If you're really concerned about human right, you don't invade a nation years after the fact. If our REAL concern was because of human rights abuses we would have had more of a case invading Sudan where genocide as occuring AT THE TIME.

Even assuming that the war was justified- which it definitely was NOT- what does it say for Bush as commander-in-Chief for doing such a half-assed job? According to Pat Robertson, Bush's outlook was that we wouldn't suffer any casulites at all.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2857961 HOW DOES THIS SQUARE WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE WERE INVADING A NATION WITH WMD READY TO BE DEPLOYED IN 45 MINUTES?

It just doesn't. You can't really believe that Iraq had a viable massive, ready-to-be-deployed WMD threat and believe that we would suffer "no casulties" at the same time. Or, if you manage to belive both, then your thinking is seriously impaired.

Ergo, this leads me back to my original statment- Bush either lied (because he deliberately spread falsehoods) or he's a dumb as a dust bunny (because he believed them). And sicne you keep defending Bush, what does this say about you?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 23, 2004 5:26 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


SignyM
Quote:

It's hard for these crime to "go along with the main one" because the "main one" never existed.
There you go again. You can't have a discussion about Iraq if you're going to ignore reality. There unquestionably WAS WMD in Iraq. And not 'decades' ago, but as recently as they days leading up to military action. The U.N. has even said so. Did we find what every intelligence organization from Israel, Russia, Britian etc... said we'd find? Nope. But even the U.N., once again, has said it is VERY likely that many materials had crossed the border before Gulf War 2.

Face the facts. The U.N. imposed sanctions for 12 years ( lets not talk about the Food for Oil scam here), sent in Inspectors and imposed No-Fly zones for a REASON! Every politician from Clinton, Kerry, AlGore, Madeline Albright , Tony Blair.... you've seen the list, EVERY ONE said that Iraq posed a serious threat and Saddam must be dealt with , with force, if need be. Bush only acted on the Intel that EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN had, and because of the attacks of 9-11, it would have been incompetence for him NOT to act! This is REALLY annoying how folks refuse to look at this objectively and try to spin politics into a matter of national defense.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 23, 2004 7:27 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

There unquestionably WAS WMD in Iraq. And not 'decades' ago, but as recently as they days leading up to military action. The U.N. has even said so.
I'd like to see documentation on that. And not some half-*ssed half-sentence strung together with another half-*assed half-sentence, but an extended quote, with a link.
Quote:

EVERY ONE said that Iraq posed a serious threat and Saddam must be dealt with, with force, if need be.
Well, there's the rub, isn't it. The inspectors were on the ground, inspecting to determine if Iraq was in compliance. Please explain IN DETAIL why force was necessary at the time, with links to back up any factual assertions you may make.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 23, 2004 8:05 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


AURaptor
...No reply? I'll keep bumping this until you do.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 23, 2004 8:05 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

rue wrote:
Saturday, October 23, 2004 07:27
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There unquestionably WAS WMD in Iraq. And not 'decades' ago, but as recently as they days leading up to military action. The U.N. has even said so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to see documentation on that. And not some half-*ssed half-sentence strung together with another half-*assed half-sentence, but an extended quote, with a link



***UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after
WorldTribune.com ^ | 6/11/04

The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.***

Any questions?

p.s. It's Saturday. I've got a life. I'll check back later, much later.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1151984/posts

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 23, 2004 9:42 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Well, AURaptor, as usual, you only got part of the story. What I like when people provide links is matching up what they said was in the link with what was really there.
So, a google search on: "demetrius perricos" un "security council" provided me with many, many news items. (Edited to add: Demetrius Perricos took over from Hans Blix.)
The first listing, oddly enough, addressed the second issue you failed to respond to at all, the issue of whether or not force was necessary, since UN inspectors were in Iraq verifying compliance.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/UN%20Security%20Council%20Re
solution%201441

It gives a good timeline of the events leading to the atack on Iraq. In part it says that because France had already stated they would veto ANY resolution which authorized immediate advance to war absent a second resolution, the US had to pull their request for an authorization. Instead, the US did this:
Quote:

At the Azores conference of March 16, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, and Spanish prime minister José María Aznar announced the imminent deadline of March 17 for complete Iraqi compliance, with statements such as "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world". This was seen as meaning war would almost certainly start very soon after that date. On the 17th, speeches by Bush and UK foreign secretary Jack Straw explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq.
In other words, the deadline was not a UN deadline agreed to by vote, but a US one echoed by England and Spain.
So, my question about the use of force still stands.
Quote:

Please explain IN DETAIL why force was necessary at the time, with links to back up any factual assertions you may make.

To go on to the claim of WMD that you made:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122311,00.html
http://www.novogate.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=2302&threadid=60906
http://www.fbbn.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?category=17&id=1072101891
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323
Even the most right-wing of these, dripping with sarcasm and innuendo, repeat the same facts (speculation and innuendo stripped):
Ballistic missile components and other items were sold as scrap under US authorization. Most items had UN tags on them. The major issue is that these items could fall into the wrong hands and be reassembled or reverse-engineered into WMD by other countries. As the quote below reveals, your assertion that 'WMDs were shipped out of Iraq' before, during and after the invasion are not supported by the UN report.
from the FOX story:
"Perricos told the Security Council said U.N. inspectors do not know how much material that they had monitored orginated in Iraq.
U.N. inspectors were pulled out of Iraq just before the war began in March 2003, and the United States has refused to allow them to return, instead deploying its own teams to search for weapons of mass destruction.
Perricos suggested that the interim Iraqi government ... may want to reconsider "the whole policy for the continued export of metal scrap" which apparently started in mid-2003 and is regulated by the U.S.-led coalition. ...
The (UN) inspectors said they didn't know whether the items, which had been monitored by the United Nations, were at the sites during the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The commission, known as UNMOVIC, said it was possible some material was taken by looters and sold as scrap."
This is part of the larger problem of the lack of security in post-invasion Iraq, a problem the UN has been trying to get a handle on despite US opposition. I'm sure you've heard that an entire nuclear reactor site, previously shuttered, tagged and monitored by the UN, has been dismantled and dispersed right under the USer's noses. I would say it was down to the walls, but apparently the walls are gone too. But the fact that these previously-known, mothballed, tagged, and monitored items have been found in scrapyards around the world is not evidence of Iraq WMD stockpiles or programs. It's just one more US bungle.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 23, 2004 11:51 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


RUE - through all that you posted, nothing in the least addressed the post I made. You went on about deadlines and possible items that could or could not be used for illegal purposes. You can type / paste paragraphs of meaningless, irrelevent words that don't come near to addressintg the issues.

Fact is, for over 12 yrs, Saddam danced and scammed it's way around the UN sanctions. The inspectors main job was to verify that Saddam was doing what he SAID he was going to do, and NOT to go on some gorram goose chase, checking behind every dumpster, under every place matt ....the burden of proof was for Iraq to come clean, and it never did. Saddam was the villian here, and Bush, Blair and those who assisted the coalition are the good guys. I wish folks would friggen get a clue and realize that simple fact.


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 23, 2004 3:31 PM

RICKKER


I was just visiting a web site of one of my favorite writers. I found this.
http://www.stormwolf.com/essays/president.html

A consise and point to point reason Bush is bad.

He was the worst choise four years and he's the worst choise now. He is a man of money for men of money. 100,000 new jobs? Even id he kept that promise three million jobs went overseas. And as soon as he was back on the campain trail one of the first sound bites I heard on the radio, 100,000 new jobs if reelected? can we really afford it?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 24, 2004 1:41 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by rickker:
I was just visiting a web site of one of my favorite writers. I found this.
http://www.stormwolf.com/essays/president.html

A consise and point to point reason Bush is bad.

He was the worst choise four years and he's the worst choise now. He is a man of money for men of money. 100,000 new jobs? Even id he kept that promise three million jobs went overseas. And as soon as he was back on the campain trail one of the first sound bites I heard on the radio, 100,000 new jobs if reelected? can we really afford it?



100,000 ? Hell, try like 2 million new jobs. Bush is the only won in the race. Period.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 24, 2004 6:50 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Auraptor- I admit, you have me stumped. Here you are, an obviously intelligent person who uses that intelligence defend the indefensible, ignore the obvious and distort the plain facts until they fit into some view of the world that doens' even benefit you. It's like watching someone smart enough to assemble a gun and then stupid enough to blow their foot off with it.

In plain English, what the UN report said was that parts that they KNEW ABOUT AND WERE ALLOWED were moved and sold as scrap. There was nothing in the report that said that the parts were evidence of an active WMD program, or consituted a WMD threat.

To explain the newpaper report specifically, when they refer to "ballistic missiles" they are referring to short and medium-range Samoud missiles that were allowed Saddam for defensive purposes. Everyone knew about them, there is nothing new or unusual here.

As far as the WMD "components", they are referring to dual-use equipment like bioreactor vessels, used for making beer, antibiotics etc. Again, the UN knew about this stuff and was monitoring it to make sure that it WASN'T being used for WMD. And it wasn't.

Their concern was that the scrap would be sold to OTHERS where it COULDN'T be monitored.

How do you respond to that?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 24, 2004 9:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


If you remember, the USA destroyed a lot of WMD in Gulf War I. A lot of it was developed with USA-supplied equipment and materials. Supposedly, the hurry to destroy the WMD was to remove link between the Iraq's WMD and the USA. (In addition, the soldiers who destroyed the WMD and downwind were not in protective grear.)

In any case, the material was destroyed without being inventoried, so it was impossible in many cases to PROVE to UNMOVIC later on that so many liters of anthrax or Sarin were destroyed. In addition, apparently Saddam also destroyed WMD w/o recording the fact. The inspectors were not only looking for an "active" program, they were also trying to nail down what happened to past inventories. That was actually the difficult part.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 24, 2004 6:37 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Saddam evaded , lied , distorted and defied the UN's resolutions and inspectors for 12 yrs. You want to give Saddam a pass, say all those parts were for completely benefolvent, benign uses, and want to parse the words of the U.N. report to make it appear as if Saddam was all above board and playing by the rules. He was not. Even the Food for Oil scam SHOWS that he wasn't being honest. After 9-11 , and all we know about Saddam, all we found out about him after the war, you STILL want to give him the benefit of a doubt. I don't want to give Saddam a pass for what he did, and I'll support those who'll stand up to such brutal tyranny.

To me, this issue is utterly moot. There isn't any question on whether Saddam was evil, used WMD on civilians, violated 17 UN Resolutions, broke treaty agreements from Gulf War 1 , and even bribed members of the U.N.( the VERY countries that some would have us trust and work with -PLEASE! spare me ) to make a complete mockery of the Food for Oil program.

It's 2004, Saddam is out of power, his brutal sons are dead, and while more work needs to be done, much has already been accomplished. I can't put this in any more plain English than I've already done, so I guess that concludes my comment on this issue.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 24, 2004 6:51 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Auraptor, Saddam wasn't being honest. But then, neither was Bush. It's not a question of whether Saddam was "honest" or not... If that were the standard then we would have reason to invade every single nation in the world! The question is: Did Saddam pose a credible threat? The answer is- NO.

Now, my colleagues and I have spent a some time discussing why Saddam might want to be so cagey about WMD when he didn't have them, and finally someone came up with the answer- it was to keep Iran off-balance. We make the mistake of thinking that just because we are the largest power in the world, we are the ONLY power in the world.

Interviews with Saddam reinforce and expand on this idea. Saddam assumed that our intelligence was better than it actually was, that we already KNEW he didn't have WMD. He assumed that we would recognise the pose for what it was- keeping Iran at bay. Oddly, he counted on the USA to protect him from WMD that Iran might be producing.

Reality bites, doesn't it?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 5:22 AM

GHOULMAN


Ah ... it's called STUPIDITY.

Though whether Bush is truely stupid is beside the point, it's the image he presents. Bush flaunts the ignorant cowboy image to his advantage. Bush appeals to people who live lives so myopic and steeped in fundementalist insanity he seems like one of them - you only need Jesus to guide you.

This has culturally been the mainstay since the Reagan years. Now, with "reality shows" and "JackAss the Movie" we have a form of success through stupidity. The ultimate lowest common demoninator. Movies are laden with explosions and FX to a degree that it's no longer spectacle but two hours of knuckle-headed violence. Hell, even James Bond used to stop to chat up a sexy babe between fights.

Stupidity is something people have become proud of. "We don't need book learnin'! We're lright and those professor types are full of crap!" - yikes.

And now we have stupidity running the USA. When Bush makes a mistake, such as... oh - say lying about Saddam Hussien being a threat to the USA and thus gets Congress to award Bush War powers, he turns around and tells the American people the war is really about "values" and that Saddam was "bad".

The real reason is that Iraq has all the Oil America desperately needs. DESPERATELY. So America makes up a STUPID lie and when that is found out they simply play upon the stupidity of the people.

I believe the political term is "the ole switcheroo".

Look at the beliefs Bush has to play with. He has convinced people that Saddam has had weapons for 12 years - but it's been proven, even by Bushes own weapons inspectors that Saddam had no significant WMDs since 1991.

1991 !!!

Now, if everyone knew this why is the White House insisting, as Dick Cheney has said over and over, that Saddam was a threat?

Stupidity.

Stupidity is the peoples problem, sure. But it shouldn't be the White Houses problem, that only makes America look stupid - and boy, America looks like the biggest ass in history right now.

To support the stupid position and propoganda of the White House people will pull out every irrelevant strawman fact to try, desperately, to justify thier stupidity. As if that isn't stupid in itself.

Take the arguement that Saddam was running around Iraq murdering people and creatin mass graves. Well, he did - in the 80s! Back when Saddam gassed Kurds with sarin gas he bought from the USA (thanks Donald Rummsfeld) and CIA help. If America wants to kill mass murders I'm all for it, but let's try to rememeber who put that mass murderer in power in the first place.

The switrcheroo again. Sure, it's true that Saddam murderes a whole town, but it's not true that he did it AFTER the Gulf War.

Saying so is a lie - or just stupid. Now, since the White House should know the difference... which are they?

Real stupidity is to be punished, not rewarded. If people go around being ignorant or stupid I say punish them. I do.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 5:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

VIENNA, Austria (CNN) -- Some 380 tons of explosives, powerful enough to detonate nuclear warheads, are missing from a former Iraqi military facility that was supposed to be under American control, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog says


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/index.html

Auraptor- Here is the latest news on the topic of WMD "components". I want you to REMEMBER this article so that the next time some right-wing paper says "The IAEA reports that WMD components were removed from Iraq" you will remember that:

1) High explosives do NOT constitute a WMD threat. They could be used to detonate a nuclear bomb, but were NOT being used for this purpose in Iraq.

2) UNMOVIC and IAEA had these items tagged and monitored and would have continued to monitor them had the USA not kicked them out.

3) It was done on the UNITED STATES' WATCH.

My SO has been saying for months (literally) that access to high explosives may be the turning point of the insurgency. After almost each car bombing, he would murmur- "Just imagine if that had been high explosives". He has a wonderful tactical and strategic imagination, which is why he likes FF so much. The stolen explosive were supposedly more powerful than C4, so this could be a big, big deal for US forces.

Reality bites, doesn't it?

And to expand a bit on what Ghoulman just posted- Reality bites stupid people harder.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 5:57 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

VIENNA, Austria (CNN) -- Some 380 tons of explosives, powerful enough to detonate nuclear warheads, are missing from a former Iraqi military facility that was supposed to be under American control, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog says



http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/index.html


If I may...

Worse, it's stupid. Tis article is another example of right wing propoganda that depends on stupidity. Let me demonstrate...

380 tons of TNT powerful enough ...

Look, aside from the fact that that much tonnage isn't even close to practical for missle use (too much, too heavy) ANYTHING can be used to begin a nuclear chain reaction. It simply has to blow up at the same time... at the same moment.

So the article uses a specious arguement, one even a moron like me can see through at first glance, as evidence to back up it's lie.

And this is how the media operates - it depends on the zombie public to simply accept the idea that there are, in fact, weapons of mass destruction.

The Nazis did this aaaaall the time. And it worked.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 6:14 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
So, a google search on: "demetrius perricos" un "security council" provided me with many, many news items...

http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323




Rue, you might want to remove the Vanguard link from your list of cites, since it disagrees with just about everything you said. Or were you just checking to see if we're still awake?

Quote:


UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© June 18, 2004, Rod D. Martin


In a report which might alternately be termed “stunning” or “terrifying”, United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed last week not merely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that he smuggled them out of his country, before, during and after the war.

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.

Notably absent from that list is Iraq's western neighbor Syria, ruled by its own Baath Party just like Saddam's and closed to even the thought of an UNMOVIC inspection. Israeli intelligence has been reporting the large-scale smuggling of Saddam's WMD program across the Syrian border since at least two months before the war. Syria has long been the world's foremost state-sponsor of terrorism.

Perricos highlighted the proliferation danger to the Security Council, as well he should: UNMOVIC has no idea where most of the WMD material is today, just that it exists and it's gone; and anything in Syria is likely to be in Jerusalem or New York tomorrow.

This is the biggest news story of 2004 so far. Yet you haven't heard about it, have you?

You probably haven't heard about Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin either -- a socialist and no friend of America. Addressing a group of 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal last month, Martin stated bluntly that terrorists have acquired WMDs from Saddam. “The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Huseein had, we don't know where they are…. [T]errorists have access to all of them,” the Canadian premier warned.

The tip of this terrorist sword was scarcely deflected on April 26th, when Jordanian intelligence broke up an al Qaeda conspiracy to detonate a large chemical device in the capital city of Amman. Directed by al Qaeda terrorist leader Abu al-Zarqawi -- the same man who personally beheaded American Nicholas Berg in Iraq last month -- the plotters sought to use a massive explosion to spread a “toxic cloud”, meant to wipe out the U.S. embassy, the Jordanian prime minister's office, the Jordanian intelligence headquarters, and at least 20,000 civilians (by contrast, only 3,000 died on 9/11). Over twenty tons of chemical weapons were seized from the conspirators, who were just days away from carrying out their plot.

One wonders where CNN and USA Today think twenty tons of nerve gas and sarin came from: Chemical Weapons-Mart? Yet their coverage, like most major media outlets, mentioned not a word about Saddam's smuggled WMDs, which -- according to liberal dogma -- “don't exist.”

Even though the UN says they do exist, now spread around the world.

It's not just the UN. Bill Clinton says they exist, even after the war: in a July 2003 interview with Larry King, the ex-president uncharacteristically defended George Bush, saying “it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there [was]…a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for” in Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world -- French, British, German, Russian, Czech, you name it -- agreed before the war; Jordanian intelligence can certainly confirm their opinion today.

So what's the deal? Why the relentless pretence that “Bush lied” when even the UN and Bill Clinton say he didn't? Why the absolute silence about “inconvenient” parts of various UN reports, such as the discovery of chemical and biological weapons plans, recipes and equipment; of bio-weapons agents in an Iraqi scientist's house; of a prison lab for testing bio weapons on humans; of complexes for manufacturing fuel for prohibited long-range missiles; of artillery rounds containing enough sarin to kill thousands of people, of similar shells containing mustard gas, two (but far from the only) of which were used in a terrorist attack against U.S. forces just weeks ago?

America cannot afford the answer to this “why”: that many on the left consider George W. Bush's defeat more urgent than al Qaeda's, his political death more essential than the possible physical death of millions of Americans.

The character of our foreign enemies has never been in doubt. The character of the enemy within -- from Dan Rather to Michael Moore -- has never been clearer. And the stakes are the highest they've ever been.






"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 7:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer- are YOU awake?? Grab some coffee, bring your normal skepticism to the table, and read this CAREFULLY:

Quote:

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.


Now, where did it say that WMD were removed? It said that "missile components", "nuclear reactor vessels" and "fermenters" "WITH UN INSPECTION TAGS STILL ON THEM" went missing.

Missiles, fermenters, and nuclear reactor vessels are NOT.. repeat NOT... WMD. Missiles are, well, missiles. Saddam was allowed missiles (Samoud or S2) for defensive purposes provided that they didn't exceed a certain range (I think it was 120 miles) and carried conventional warheads. Every nation in the world has missiles. You may at times see Saddam's missiles referred to as "ballistic" missiles, making them sound even scarier because we all think about "intercontinental ballistic missiles" or ICBMs, but "ballistic" simply means unguided: It get shot high up into the air and lands where the initial trajectory pointed it.

Nuclear reactor vessels are part of CIVILIAN nuclear power generation and medical research, and that is many, many many many steps removed from nuclear weapons. A number of universities in the USA have nuclear reactors to make isotopes and create gamma rays for medical purposes, for example.

Fermenters have a number of legitimate uses, including brewing beer and culturing mold-based antibiotics like penicillin. The part of the article that says: "fermenters for chemical and biological warheads" is a lie. The UN had already assessed that these items were NOT part of a WMD program.

It's just like the 380 tons of high explosives that disappreared from under USA noses. It COULD be used to detonate a nuclear device and will likely be portrayed as a "WMD" or "WMD component" in right-wing newspapers, but that was not what it was being used for in Iraq, and like the other missing items it had been tagged and was being monitored by the UN (intil the USA screwed them up).

BTW- our lab has already had to sign several export license agreements for "dual use" items like pressure sensors (it COULD be used in a nuclear reactor!) and chemical detectors (they COULD be used for making CWA!). My gosh- may as well tag our lab too!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 8:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Regarding the foiled attack in Jordan:

Quote:

One wonders where CNN and USA Today think twenty tons of nerve gas and sarin came from


First of all, it wasn't 20 tons of "nerve gas and sarin". That was never in any news stories. The chemicals were stated as "a mixture of 71 different chemicals" including several tons of sulfuric acid, "nerve agents" and "blister agents". If the terrorists actually had their hands on sarin and nerve gas, they wouldn't NEED 20 tons. Several 55-gallon drums would be sufficient.

The chemicals were almost certainly industrial. To get a rough order of magnitude on industrial chemical injuries, the chemical disaster at Bhopal killed more than 10,000 people and injured 600,000 from a leak of 40 tons of methyl isocynate which is a "blistering agent" (causes blistering of the lungs, pulmonary edema and death due to drowning).

Now, I'm not going to provide a recipe for how to create a toxic cloud from basic industial chemicals, but since I am a chemist working on both a CWA anti-terrorism project AND industrial releases, some of the chemicals that could be used to create a toxic cloud of "blistering agents" and "nerve agents" are as close as your kitchen sink and garage. Sarin and mustard gas are not necessary, especially in "ton" quantities.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 8:29 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- are YOU awake?? Grab some coffee, bring your normal skepticism to the table, and read this CAREFULLY:

Quote:

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.


Now, where did it say that WMD were removed?



Here?

Quote:


Notably absent from that list is Iraq's western neighbor Syria, ruled by its own Baath Party just like Saddam's and closed to even the thought of an UNMOVIC inspection. Israeli intelligence has been reporting the large-scale smuggling of Saddam's WMD program across the Syrian border since at least two months before the war. Syria has long been the world's foremost state-sponsor of terrorism.



Or here?

Quote:


The tip of this terrorist sword was scarcely deflected on April 26th, when Jordanian intelligence broke up an al Qaeda conspiracy to detonate a large chemical device in the capital city of Amman. Directed by al Qaeda terrorist leader Abu al-Zarqawi -- the same man who personally beheaded American Nicholas Berg in Iraq last month -- the plotters sought to use a massive explosion to spread a “toxic cloud”, meant to wipe out the U.S. embassy, the Jordanian prime minister's office, the Jordanian intelligence headquarters, and at least 20,000 civilians (by contrast, only 3,000 died on 9/11). Over twenty tons of chemical weapons were seized from the conspirators, who were just days away from carrying out their plot.

One wonders where CNN and USA Today think twenty tons of nerve gas and sarin came from: Chemical Weapons-Mart? Yet their coverage, like most major media outlets, mentioned not a word about Saddam's smuggled WMDs, which -- according to liberal dogma -- “don't exist.”



The amount of torture applied to logic that is required to interpret these right-wing rants as even vaguely supportive of Rue's conclusions makes Abu Ghraib look like a summer camp initiation.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 8:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


A WMD "program" is not the same as WMD.

And see my post on the "toxic cloud" story- WMD were almost certainly not involved.
The "smuggling of WMD" is an HIGHLY unsupported supposition.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 8:58 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
A WMD "program" is not the same as WMD.



Shhh. Listen carefully and you can actually hear the sound of hairs being split.

Quote:

And see my post on the "toxic cloud" story- WMD were almost certainly not involved.
The "smuggling of WMD" is an HIGHLY unsupported supposition.



But this has nothing to do with what I said in the first place; that the conclusions reached by the author of the Vanguard article don't agree with or support Rue's position, and so it shouldn't be cited by her as doing so. From what I recall of The Vanguard, they're about polar opposites from you and Rue on most stuff, and I reserve the same skeptcism for their positions that I do for yours. Rue's inclusion of their article in her list of cites above seemed either a slip on her part, or a sly joke. Maybe she'll let me know.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 9:08 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Did Saddam pose a credible threat? The answer is- NO.

. You might not think so, but those in the positions to defend the some 280 million Americans in this country and their counter parts in a host of other countries think otherwise. Easy to deny something as not a threat after you've gone in and taken care of it. Kinda funny how some of the same folks who DON'T think Iraq was a threat( even though the Russians have intel that says other wise ) are now mouthing off that we should do " something" about Iran. What ? A U.N. summit not good enough now ? We had 12 yrs , 17 Resolutions and hordes of inspectors for Iraq before any further action was taken......sheesh!

Again, some are willing to give a murderous dictator in Saddam Hussein the benefit of a doubt , even given all that he's done. Thankfully, our President isn't one of them. I happen to agree w/ him.



" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 9:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Shhh... I ALMOST hear the sound of Geezer's neurons working!

The "program" smuggling charge is- like everything else in this article- unsupported. A "program" is the a combination of components, know-how, and intention. (means, motive, opportunity).

Since UNMOVIC had control of all those components while they were in Iraq, Saddam didn't "have" WMD, he couldn't' make WMD, and he didn't have a "program" to make WMD because his conventional and dual-use items were tagged and monitored. Saddam's WMD threat to the US was zilch. Zero. Nada.

HOWEVER, once those items move out of UNMOVIC control, they might be used to activate a program elsewhere. That occurred before, during AND AFTER the US invasion, including during times when Saddam was in prison. The articles make it sound like Saddam is orchestrating a massive WMD transfer to Syria, when that is very far from the truth.

And please don't hide behind others' opinions when they're really yours.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 9:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Auraptor, you obviously let others do your thinking for you. The Russians have every reason to hope Bush gets re-elected:


1) He's bankrupting our country.
2) He's overextended our military.
3) Invading Iraq provide Putin with all the justification he needs to level Chenya.
4) He's driving oil prices through the ceiling, which benefits Russian oil exports.

BTW- even BUSH didn't think there was a WMD threat. It's impossible to think of Saddam as a murdeous dictator chockful of "tons" of anthrax and sarin, ready to be released in 45 minutes using missiles deployed just around Bahgdad...

...and expect "no casualties" during the invasion.

Quote:

Again, some are willing to give a murderous dictator in Saddam Hussein the benefit of a doubt


Doubt was being removed by UNMOVIC. That's why it's called "verification" and not "good faith". The only thing the USA invasion did was scatter parts and equipment all through the Mideast.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 9:49 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Doubt was being removed by UNMOVIC. That's why it's called "verification" and not "good faith". The only thing the USA invasion did was scatter parts and equipment all through the Mideast.


So, after 12 yrs ,the U.N. was JUST on the verge of ......finding the things that Saddam said he didn't have ?


Please.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 9:56 AM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

There is no 'lying' here. All reasons are accurate. The REASON we went into Iraq was that Saddam was ignoring UN Resolutions ( remember those ? ) and the agreement after the 1st Gulf War to abide by the cease fire terms which HE agreed with. Once it became crystal clear that Saddam wasn't going to 'play ball', another form of diplomacy was taken. Terrorist , torture, human rights violations , mass graves...all those things existed along with Saddam's refusal to abide by UN Resolutions. Pointing those abuses out is not ' lying ' about going to war, but simply bringing to light the OTHER attrocities and crimes that go along w/ the main one. It's not that hard to understand, really.

Oh,and neither Bush or anyone in his administration ever SAID that Saddam was directly involved w/ 9-11, so claiming THAT as another 'lie' is simply a non sequitur. It was speculated OUTSIDE the Administration by all manner of 'experts' and media, but not by Bush.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "



I was listening to Air America Radio a few days ago and on the (AL Franken show) some guy was on( sorry don't remember his name anywho ...there had been a sceientic poll taken ..the results that they came out with was 3 out of every Bush supporter.. had faulty ,wrong and incorrect information..

Bascially what the poll showed was that the majority of people who support Bush was ignorant of the facts...

but the hilarious thing about the poll is even when the people were given the correct information they still refused to believe it...

c'mon on ..the information is out there its not even like Bush and the gang have tried to hide it..their dirt is right out in plain view for anyone who wants to , to see it

Bushites are a hopeless bunch

but thats ok.( well its not really ok that so many people are delusional) but the rest of us is looking out for you guys anyway!!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 10:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


WHAT was there to find, Auraptor?? Tell me- where are the WMD? The 25,000 liter of anthrax? The tons of sarin? The intercontinental missiles that would have made it all scary? WHAT are you referring to, besides an fixation that seems to have a hold on your brain?

UNMOVIC didn't find them. David Kay didn't find them. Neither did Charle Duelfer. They didn't find evidence of a "program" either, and I'm sure that they looked hard. (Unless you think that perhaps they're in cahoots with Saddam? I mean, anything's possible, right??)

The UN was on the verge of validating that there was NOTHING, which is a very difficult task- as even Kay and Duelfer will tell you. But you keep hanging onto the idea that WMD existed as if once that idea is gone your brain will be sucked into the vacuum left behind.

Auraptor- to give you an idea of how fine the screen is that UNMOVIC used to look for potential dual use equipment, even chlorine- required for water disinfection- was tagged as a "dual use" item. What they found were parts that COULD be used to make for WMD BUT WEREN'T.

NOTHING, Auraptor and Geezer, there was NOTHING. Go contemplate your navels for a while and come back when you are capable of comprehending and accepting that simple fact, validated three times over.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 10:38 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Auraptor- to give you an idea of how fine the screen is that UNMOVIC used to look for potential dual use equipment, even chlorine- required for water disinfection- was tagged as a "dual use" item. What they found were parts that COULD be used to make for WMD BUT WEREN'T.


You're fogetting ONE tiny detail. The burden of proof wasn't on the UN, it was on SADDAM! That is where your entire argument utterly collapses. Saddam was to present to the UN Inspectors everything he CLAIMED he had, and/or show how, when, where, it was destroyed. He never did. You say there was nothing ? THAT IS THE PROBLEM! Saddam ADMITTED having a whole list of illegal weapons and equipment after the Gulf War, and by CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT , he was to adhere to the rules of the UN to present any and all items deemed illegal.HE NEVER LIVED UP TO HIS SIDE OF THE DEAL. THAT IS WHAT THIS WHOLE GORRAM THING IS OVER! What DON'T YOU GET ABOUT THAT ? CRIPES! And you are completely wrong to say there was 'nothing'. Flat out wrong. The UN Inspectors DID find and destroy 'some ' items, but not nearly enough to account for all that they KNEW Saddam had. So, blah blah blah contemplate your own damn navel, but I'm tired of this game. Once you're willing to admit that the UN had nothing else better to do than to pass 17 resolutions , have a 15- 0 Security Council vote on the use of force...THEN maybe the match light of comprehension will ignight in your mind. Otherwise, this 'discussion' is going no where.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 10:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

... he was to adhere to the rules of the UN to present any and all items deemed illegal...The UN Inspectors DID find and destroy 'some ' items, but not nearly enough to account for all that they KNEW Saddam had


USA troops destroyed tons and tons of munitions, including WMD, without inventorying the stuff. It's a little hard to turn over stuff that you don't have and don't know where it went. Hans Blix knew that. But after a decade, except for mustard gas it becomes an exercise in bookeeping because biological and chemical weapons deteriorate. And Blix knew that too, as apparently you don't. Yeah, Saddam was a "bad man" and he wanted WMD but there was NOTHING in Iraq that proved a credible threat to the USA, or even to their neighboring states. Certainly not "tons" of anything "ready to be deployed".

However, if you want to look at a nation that possesses WMD, has designs on its neighbors, is STILL occupying foreign soil, has committed humanright abuses, and has ignored dozens of UN resolutions, look at Israel. Maybe we should invade them too??

So, go contempate your navel again.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go check out a mil spec PC for a CWA anti-terrorism unit.

PS the munitions were at Khamisiya. I have been told it was the size of several football fields, but I wanted to see a picture first. However, despite all the contoversy about Khamisiya and it's potential relationship to Gulf War Syndrome, not a picture is to be had.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 25, 2004 11:11 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by PirateJenny
Bascially what the poll showed was that the majority of people who support Bush was ignorant of the facts...


This was a study done by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland and was actually carried out by Knowledge Networks. Here is the report (16 page pdf):
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

*editted to add in the quote just so people know what the hell I'm posting about


There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL