|
Grex > Agora46 > #138: Weapons of Mass Destruction -- The Theatrical Release | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 49 responses total. |
slestak
|
|
response 24 of 49:
| 
Aug 3 22:55 UTC 2003 |
Perhaps medicine in the form of "faith based" decision making. Damn the facts
and the opinions of other informed parties. As long as the US has an enemy
in one form or another this type of politics will continue to grow.
Unfortunately, the US has a brilliant track record for creating enemies both
domestically as well as abroad. Usually just in the nick of time. Remember
public opinion and the beginnings of scandal regarding GW's performance in
office until 9/11..?
|
tod
|
|
response 25 of 49:
|
Aug 4 17:24 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
novomit
|
|
response 26 of 49:
|
Aug 4 17:25 UTC 2003 |
This surprises you
|
tod
|
|
response 27 of 49:
|
Aug 4 17:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 28 of 49:
|
Aug 6 01:57 UTC 2003 |
re resp:23, 24: There's not much respect or understanding on either
side of the aisle for the other folks.
|
goose
|
|
response 29 of 49:
|
Sep 18 13:25 UTC 2003 |
Here we are. Another month has gone by and still no evidence of WMD.
Lies lies lies.
|
klg
|
|
response 30 of 49:
|
Sep 18 16:24 UTC 2003 |
Yes, we know. Perhaps Bush thought President Clinton could be trusted
to always tell the truth. He should have been more skeptical of
repeating exactly what President Clinton said in 1998 about Saddam
having WMDs, for, as we all know, President Clinton was a liar.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 31 of 49:
|
Sep 18 17:35 UTC 2003 |
bush is to stupid to lie, cheney and the others tell him
what to say.
|
tod
|
|
response 32 of 49:
|
Sep 18 17:59 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
dah
|
|
response 33 of 49:
|
Sep 18 18:10 UTC 2003 |
I finished my juice box.
|
gull
|
|
response 34 of 49:
|
Sep 18 19:55 UTC 2003 |
Or maybe it was all just bad accounting:
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iraq8_20030908.htm
---
...Five months after the U.S. invasion, ex-inspectors now say the
unaccountables may have been no more than paperwork glitches left behind
when Iraq destroyed banned chemical and biological weapons years ago.
Some may represent miscounts, they say, and some may stem from Iraqi
underlings' efforts to satisfy Iraqi leaders by exaggerating reports on
arms output in the 1980s.
"Under that sort of regime, you don't admit you got it wrong," said Ron
Manley, a former chief UN adviser on chemical weapons.
His encounters with Iraqi scientists in the 1990s convinced him that, at
times, when told to produce "X amount" of a weapons agent, "they wrote
down what their superiors wanted to hear instead of the reality," said
Manley.
...Chief UN Inspector Hans Blix, as he left his post this summer, became
more open in discussing discrepancies.
After the mid-1990s, "hardly ever did" inspectors "find hidden weapons,"
Blix reminded one audience. "What they found was bad accounting."
---
|
rcurl
|
|
response 35 of 49:
|
Sep 18 20:25 UTC 2003 |
If this is the case, which it probably is, it illustrates one of the
possible scenarios that formed a basis against starting a war unilaterally
on boneheaded *assumptions*, with no proofs. It isn't as though both the
inspectors - and the Saddaam regime - weren't saying no WMD were being or
would not be found.
|
other
|
|
response 36 of 49:
|
Sep 18 20:49 UTC 2003 |
The problem with this line of argument is that the war on Iraq was a
given, and the WMD were what was provided as the reason, after the
decision was made to do it. Bush only accepts information from his staff
which supports the decisions which have already been made, so that's the
information his intelligence staff gave him. Whether it was right or
wrong did not matter, only that the American People though it credible
enough to proceed until they could be distracted enough to forget about
it.
|
klg
|
|
response 37 of 49:
|
Sep 19 01:14 UTC 2003 |
(As opposed to President Bubba, who could not be bothered with calls
from the Pentagon about bin Laden since he was too busy watching the
ball game?)
|
scott
|
|
response 38 of 49:
|
Sep 19 02:39 UTC 2003 |
Nothing like a "clear-eyed conservative" for revisionist history.
|
klg
|
|
response 39 of 49:
|
Sep 19 16:39 UTC 2003 |
Oh, come on please, Mr. scott. These stories are well documented.
|
gull
|
|
response 40 of 49:
|
Sep 19 17:20 UTC 2003 |
I'm not sure that anyone considered Bin Laden a serious threat to the
U.S. until after 9/11. Bush certainly showed no interest in tracking
him down until that point.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 41 of 49:
|
Sep 19 18:52 UTC 2003 |
Of course not. He was an ally until 1989 at least.
|
tod
|
|
response 42 of 49:
|
Sep 19 19:08 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 43 of 49:
|
Sep 19 19:57 UTC 2003 |
re: "#40 (gull): I'm not sure that anyone considered Bin Laden a
serious threat to the U.S. until after 9/11."
Au contraire, my good Mr. gull. According to the following, President
Bubba had Osama in his crosshairs.
From TIME magazine
10 Questions For Madeleine Albright
The former secretary of state speaks out on current world affairs
By J.F.O. MCALLISTER AND MADELEINE ALBRIGHT
Monday, Sep. 22, 2003
When Madeleine Albright became Secretary of State, the Czech-born exile
was the first woman to serve in that post. On the eve of the
publication of her memoir ...she spoke with TIME's J.F.O. McAllister.
Did you neglect the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and leave it for
the Bush Administration to clean up?
President Clinton focused on terrorism from the start. The CIA set up a
special bin Laden division, and the President authorized the use of
lethal force against him. We struck his camp in 1998 after the embassy
bombings, and we came close. President Bush has been in Afghanistan
with 8,000 troops, and they still haven't found him. .
|
scott
|
|
response 44 of 49:
|
Sep 19 20:00 UTC 2003 |
Time to start keeping better track of yourselves, klg. Total
self-contradiction in less than 10 responses!
|
klg
|
|
response 45 of 49:
|
Sep 20 01:18 UTC 2003 |
Au contraire, Monsieur scott. Although Osama was being hunted, Pres.
Bubba refused to pull the trigger when he had the chance.
|
goose
|
|
response 46 of 49:
|
Sep 21 13:45 UTC 2003 |
So what part of "the President authorized the use of lethal force" says that
former President Clinton "refused to pull the trigger"?
Is there a 12 step program for self contradiction?
|
bru
|
|
response 47 of 49:
|
Sep 21 20:49 UTC 2003 |
yet, at one point they knew exactly where he was, and he refused to issue the
order.
|
goose
|
|
response 48 of 49:
|
Sep 22 02:32 UTC 2003 |
So did he authorize lethal force or not?
|