Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » OT: Political IQ Test
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #73170] |
Sun, 21 March 2004 17:30   |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
First of all, no one person invented the internet, so he would be lying if he says, "I invented the internet," because he wouldn't have been the only person working on it.
As said on a previous page of this thread, there is a difference between funding and actually inventing the thing. He may have funded it, but he didn't invent it.
|
AIE! He championed a program and took credit for it! It's what politicians do! Even if his choice of words may have been slightly innaccurate, does it really condone calling him a "pathological liar"? He was obviously trying to get Americans to think that he sat in his office late at night and wrote the code that allowed for packet swapping.
| hydra1945 |
Your boy Clinton went to war with Iraq for nuclear weapons, too.
|
Actually, from what I can remember, Clinton bombed a nuclear power plant Iraq had set up.
And there wasn't incorrect evidence that the CIA was currently telling him was a forgery, either.
| hydra1945 |
I like how you talk about what Al Gore "wouldn't" have done when the statement was what he "would" have done.
|
The discussion was what would have happened if Gore was President now.
[quoote="hydra1945"]I like how you put "news" in quotes when referring to Fox News, but you refer to John Kerry's website as a credible source.[/quote]
NO! Kerry's website is credible because they get their information from credible sources like the U.S. CENSUS BUREAU!!!! LIKE I ALREADY SAID!!!
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #73173] |
Sun, 21 March 2004 17:38 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Here's a letter from the Senate Committee on Armed Services to President Bill Clinton on October 9, 1998. It reminds the president of the February resolution authorizing military force if Saddam failed to comply with UN Security Council resolutions "concerning the disclosure and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
The letter concludes: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Along those who signed are the following Senate Democrats: Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry.
I guess this letter has to be a forgery - either that or the senators who signed the letter must be lying because Clinton wanted to bomb Iraq to distract from impeachment. If you liberals are to be consistent on this, that's what you have to say. This letter doesn't leave a grain of doubt (neither do Clinton's speeches from the era, which we've posted here), as to whether or not Saddam had and sought these weapons. Many of these same people are out there mindlessly parroting the mantra that President Bush lied about WMDs, made up intelligence data and dragged the nation into war under false pretenses.
Yet they are on record urging the use of force based on what? The very intelligence data they now say is total B.S. manufactured by the White House! Not one of them called it a fake at the time. In fact, they were ready to go to war because the information on Saddam's weapons scared the quorum out of them. You would not be told this before the EIB Network came along, and started doing the job the mainstream press used to do in the old days. The left thinks they can still get away with burying the past and changing what they believe from one day to the next, because they have all the news sources in their back pocket. But they can't - not anymore, not with us here.
(slightly edited text from an article written by Rush Limbaugh)
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #73284] |
Mon, 22 March 2004 14:39 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
Actually, from what I can remember, Clinton bombed a nuclear power plant Iraq had set up.
And there wasn't incorrect evidence that the CIA was currently telling him was a forgery, either.
|
No, but your information source is incorrect...ISRAEL bombed the power plant, not the US. Clinton hit a few SAM sites and ignored anything more serious. It's interesting to note that Clinton's administration recieved the same type of intelligence that Bush did regarding Iraq- to quote Slick Willy himself:
| Quote: |
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.-(Feb. 4, 1998)
|
And his Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright:
| Quote: |
Hussein has...chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.-(Nov. 10, 1999)
|
Sound familiar? This wasn't cooked up by Bush in an attempt to grab publicity, it was valid intelligence that was available to the previous administration (and the one before that, as well). Oh wait, but there's more...much more. In case you missed it, that letter Crimson posted was signed by Presidential hopeful and bleeding heart "I was duped by Bush" anti-war campaigner John Kerry. Fool him once, shame on him. Fool him twice, shame on Bush? I don't think so.
This was very, very close to the end of Clinton's eight year double term. How likely do you think it is that Saddam, having numerous banned weapons reported by intelligence(which, by all logic, MUST be valid, since it wasn't collected under Bush :rolleyes: ), would have disarmed the moment Bush entered office? Or even when he published his "report" of what had been disarmed?
I don't need to remind you that paper is no substitute for visual evidence; if it would not be accepted at a trial in court, it should not be accepted by the world- if Saddam truly disarmed, why in the name of all things unholy would he have hidden the evidence of his compliance? Please, PLEASE don't tell me you're that naive. It doesn't take a four digit IQ to figure out that he was hiding something...key word here is HIDING! As in, NOT MEANT TO BE FOUND! Given the vast area he had to hide whatever he had in, and the possible size of the hidden weapons, it could take decades to turn anything up...yet people like you are willing to say there's no possibility of anything being found after only ONE year. How long did it take to find Saddam himself, hiding in that little hole? And he was right under our damn noses, too! If you have 100% absolute, rock-solid, factual evidence, with no room for doubt, that says there is nowhere left to hide something in Iraq, please present it now. Otherwise, it is logical to assume that something still might be found. After all, it wouldn't be a search if we knew where to look, would it?
Just a follow-up on WMD's made from legal substances, sometimes probable cause can be more than enough to justify the seizure of those materials. Say a man who lives in the suberbs purchases a van, six barrels' worth of fertilizer, 100' of fuse, and a zippo lighter. He puts all of the above in the back of said van. Now, this may be perfectly legal to own, but what in the name of bloody hell do you THINK he's gonna do with it, when he has no farmland and no practical use for fuse? That may be exaggerated, but the same applies in Iraq- if you find multiple 50-gallon drums of chemicals(which they HAVE found...imagine what they HAVEN'T), mostly pesticides that are deadly nerve agents, for use on crops, in an area with almost no viable farmland, few types of insects that eat those crops, and a dictator who thinks he should rule the entire region, do you REALLY think those chemicals will be used to kill insects?
I truly wish people would use their logic for once...
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #73292] |
Mon, 22 March 2004 14:51 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Yes, my dad gave me this analogy which works well...
Imagine that I have a sparsely populated land mass the size of California at my disposal. I have buried a treasure chest somewhere on this land. Not only will I not give you a map, but I will also send suicide bombers after you, booby traps, and have most of my troops trained to mislead you.
Tell me how long it will take you to find that treasure chest.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #73826] |
Thu, 25 March 2004 18:59 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Have any of you seen Richard Clarke on the enws these past couple of days?
Well, it's a lot of fun.
And Dick Cheney had the nerve to come out today and say that Richard Clarke was never really "in the loop." Well, actually Clarke was the loop. He's been the chief guy on counter-terrorism for 20 years and four presidencies. So he's not some disgruntled former employee. Which is what Republicans want you to think.
Also, FOX "News" screwed up BIG time. On the front page of their website yesterday, they had an exclusive transcript of a background interview with Richard Clarke from 2002.
Now, background briefings are where reporters go to talk to people completely off the record. People are willing to say different things when they are off the record, but reporters are in no way allowed to quote anyone or anything like that.
And FOX goes and records the conversation and posts a transcript on their website. Don't be surprised if FOX reporters aren't allowed anywhere important in the future.
| hydra1945 |
(which they HAVE found...imagine what they HAVEN'T)
|
On finding things...you mean like when they find mysterious white powder in an Iraq factory, FOX hypes it up as the WMDs, and then it turns out that it is in fact a box of Tide?
Crimson: That analogy would work if intelligence didn't exist.
| Crimson |
Clinton wanted to bomb Iraq to distract from impeachment.
|
No he didn't. Republicans were assaulting him every day with things and it's no wonder that Clinton did important actions the same day as something else with one of their random scandals. [Like Whitewater, which was just cooked-up trash.] I already said this. Please don't refuse to learn.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #73910] |
Fri, 26 March 2004 11:27 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Fox news did NOT violate the rules. The reporter ASKED the White House if he could reveal the tape and the White House said that he could (I mean, why wouldn't they?) Clarke as a former employee had no say in the release of his own words spoken in a professional context.
I love you libs. I really do. Instead of focusing on the fact that Clarke is a BIG FAT LIAR, you'd rather talk about how you THINK Fox news wasn't allowed to reveal that it was Clarke on that tape.
And the meaning of Cheney saying Clarke wasn't "in the loop" is because he moved to Cyber defense very shortly after Bush took over.
| Interview with Dick Cheney on March 22 |
Q All right, let's get straight to what the news is all about now, before we branch out to things. Why did the administration keep Richard Clarke on the counterterrorism team when you all assumed office in January of 2001?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I wasn't directly involved in that decision. He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cyber security side of things, that is he was given a new assignment at some point here. I don't recall the exact time frame.
Q Cyber security, meaning Internet security?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, worried about attacks on the computer systems and the sophisticated information technology systems we have these days that an adversary would use or try to the system against us.
Q Well, now that explains a lot, that answer right there explains -- (Laughter.)
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, he wasn't -- he wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff. And I saw part of his interview last night, and he wasn't --
Q He was demoted.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It was as though he clearly missed a lot of what was going on. For example, just three weeks after the -- after we got here, there was communication, for example, with the President of Pakistan, laying out our concerns about Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and the importance of going after the Taliban and getting them to end their support for the al Qaeda. This was, say, within three weeks of our arrival here.
So I guess, the other thing I would say about Dick Clarke is that he was here throughout those eight years, going back to 1993, and the first attack on the World Trade Center; and '98, when the embassies were hit in East Africa; in 2000, when the USS Cole was hit. And the question that ought to be asked is, what were they doing in those days when he was in charge of counterterrorism efforts?
Q Well, the media finally has what it wants -- I'm talking about the partisan media has what it wants. It's got an independent contractor, a man whose worked for both administrations, now launching full barrels at the President. And one of the claims that Clarke is making is that -- and you just countered it -- he said the President didn't treat al Qaeda as a serious threat before September 11th. He keeps harping on the fact that even before your administration assumed office, you guys wanted to go in and level Iraq.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, that's -- again, that's just not the case. The fact is, what the President did not want to do is to have an ineffective response with respect to al Qaeda. And we felt that up until that point that much of what had been done vis-a-vis al Qaeda had been totally ineffective: some cruise missiles fired at some training camps in Afghanistan that basically didn't hit anything. And it made the U.S. look weak and ineffective. And he wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with that. And that process was in motion throughout the spring.
|
And yes, that analogy DOES work. Intelligence exists mostly in informants who take a bribe to tell secrets. Informants don't always tell the truth. Overall, you're still looking at a huge open desert the size of California, and it hasn't all been searched yet.
I think you're the one who's refusing to learn. Why don't you take a page out of Zell Miller's book? He's a Democrat and he sees firsthand how desperate the Left is getting in order to try and gain back their seat in the Oval Office. He sees firsthand that the Democratic party in general is no longer embracing the values they used to.
You arguments are weak and easily countered. If you honestly think that Clinton did anything against terrorism, then you are even more misguided than I thought. Even the Democrats are letting Clinton take some hits and admitting he didn't do the best job in the hopes that Bush will take some hits too. They have stopped attacking his weaknesses and are now going after his strengths. They'll fail there, too.
There's no shame in being wrong from time to time. Why can't you admit that?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #74027] |
Fri, 26 March 2004 21:21 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Clarke - the big fat liar.
I wonder why he was the chief guy on counterterrorism for four presidencies...probably because presidents like people who lie.
So Clarke was speaking in a professional context...even though he never expected his words to be released. Again, it wouldn't be a far cry to see FOX reporters lose a lot of their positions in big places.
Yeah, Clarke is obviously just carrying on, even though the presidential administration wouldn't give any thought to his al Qaeda plan before 9/11. His plane finally got forwarded to an executive committee of people including Cheney to ratify the plan and send it the President on SEPTEMBER 4TH! The Clintons left office telling Bush that the one thing he MUST do is roll up Osama.
Did you watch Clarke on TV?
Argh, I saw Zell Miller on Hannity and Colmes and he makes me so angry. For one, he said stupid stuff like Kerry voting to raise taxes 350 times, which is entirely false.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097656/
It's one of those Republican things were they get something and just keep saying it and saying it and saying it and saying it and saying it until people start to believe it.
And it's hard for an average person to judge what the government is doing for intelligence, because it's rather secret stuff. However, it is more than informants. You can have people skulking around Qaeda homes using laser mics to pick up conversations through windows.
[Laser mics really work - they detect tiny vibrations in glass to determine what sound waves are bounding around the room on the other side, and in turn produce working audio from inside the room. Cool stuff, I wish I had one.]
| Crimson |
You arguments are weak and easily countered.
|
Which is why you leave things hanging, like those 20+ Bush lies I posted in one of these threads that you never came back on?
| Crimson |
Even the Democrats are letting Clinton take some hits and admitting he didn't do the best job in the hopes that Bush will take some hits too.
|
So Richard Clarke is secretly a Democratic Liberal Communist plant who hates everything conservative and is in the liberal's pocket? Well, actually no.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #74051] |
Fri, 26 March 2004 23:52 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
20 Bush lies...hmm, let's see if we can dig that up! Looking...looking...DING!
| Quote: |
Lookie! 29 lies about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction!
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002
|
Prove it false.
| Quote: |
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002
|
Unknown, possibly false.
| Quote: |
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002
|
Can you prove it false?
| Quote: |
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003
|
Prove otherwise please...
| Quote: |
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
|
Unknown, since the public does not have access to all the intelligence yet.
| Quote: |
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003
|
Saddam's intent is something of a mystery, but Powell should not have made that assumption.
| Quote: |
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003
|
Once again, please produce some hard evidence why this is a lie.
| Quote: |
If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.
Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003
|
Hrm...not sure here; from one of my "sources," I hear that there were a few more reasons beyond toppling Saddam and WMD's...none involved oil, but there were more. In part, the war served as a message to other countries in the region- "clean up your damn act and stop harboring terrorists, or you're next," could be one way of putting it. A very non-diplomatic way of getting a point across, but if you looked at nations known to support terrorism, they've already begun to get their asses in gear, so to speak. It could be said that we are giving them an ultimatum, and allowing them to "re-arrange their pieces" by themselves. While this is not classified data in any way, the person I got it from would not like it very much if I gave you his name, so you should take that with a grain of salt if you don't believe me.
| Quote: |
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003
|
Let's put it this way: would you rather have left Iraq alone and waited for Saddam to make the first move?
| Quote: |
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
|
Prove it false. You don't know what the intelligence was; odds are nobody will ever have the whole story. It cannot be proven either way until the whole of Iraq has been searched.
| Quote: |
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003
|
You know about the 50-gallon drums containing chemicals that could be used as nerve agents...since you seem to question Saddam's intent to use those as weapons, let me point out that Saddam once tried to build a giant cannon out of perfectly legal pipe segments. If completed, it could have hit Tel Aviv and beyond. If you can make a weapon out of legal materials at lower risk, and still maintain the effectiveness of the weapon, why would you advertize use of illegal materials instead?
I say that quote is not a lie, but a statement of common goddamn sense.
| Quote: |
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003
|
Here we go again...let's see some concrete evidence why this is false. You have yet to produce any.
| Quote: |
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003
|
That looks like an opinion to me, not a statement of truth or falsehood. Plus, it cannot be proven until Iraq has been fully searched.
| Quote: |
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003
|
Reword that: There are a number of sites that could have been moved or hidden. You can't prove it false.
| Quote: |
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003
|
Rummy may have gotten a little ahead of himself, and waited for confirmation before stating something like that on TV. For all we know, that statement could have been the reason why we didn't find anything in those areas (Saddam watched the news, in case you weren't aware of that).
| Quote: |
Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003
|
Does not give a date or a specific location; cannot be proven false yet.
| Quote: |
But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003
|
"High confidence" does not constitute a statement intended to be taken as the truth. Cannot be a lie if it is given as an opinion.
| Quote: |
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003
|
Cannot be proven; we haven't searched the whole county yet. However, the statement is mostly true; that is the kind of information that was being gained from interrogations. That was one of the primary reasons to interrogate anyone in the first place.
| Quote: |
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003
|
How is this a lie? Would you say that no one knows where the WMD's are or what happened to them? Someone knows. Truth.
| Quote: |
We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003
|
Again, impossible to prove either way until all of Iraq has been searched.
| Quote: |
I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003
|
Stated as an opinion; that reflects personal beliefs, not an attempt to impress a belief upon someone else, and thus not a lie.
| Quote: |
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003
|
POSSIBLE lie. I think there were some people in the administation who thought that WMD's would be easy to locate, but it's really impossible to prove, since you can't read the thoughts of every last person in the executive branch.
| Quote: |
I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003
|
Again, an opinion. See the "I'm not surprised" (probably meant to be "I wouldn't be surprised," from the context), which marks it as the President's opinion, not truth or lie.
| Quote: |
U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003
|
Again, possibly false, but really impossible to prove without knowing what said US officials were thinking.
| Quote: |
I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003
|
You must be desperate to use that. It has been proven without any shadow of a doubt that Saddam has used chemical weapons before. The rest is a statement of personal uncertainty.
| Quote: |
Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003
|
That's another personal view, not a statement of what the American people are meant to believe.
| Quote: |
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003
|
This is simply pathetic. Can you find ANYTHING that can be proven to be a lie, that is NOT a personal goddamn opinion? Opinions are not lies, they are personal views which may or may not be AFFECTED by truth or lies! Get your statements straight!
| Quote: |
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003
|
Maybe he didn't know the answer. Can you prove he did?
| Quote: |
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003
|
Very likely the truth. The Government has to choose a reason to give the American people, one which will make them support the war and not oppose it. There were other reasons, but that's the one they chose to wave on the propaganda flyers. The same thing has happened in every war in the past...Vietnam and Korea had "fighting Communist aggression" as their theme, which was part of the reason for both wars, but not all of it. Since it has not yet been proven that there were no WMD's in Iraq, it cannot yet be called a false justification.
| Quote: |
It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003
|
Interesting that you would list this as a lie, since it is a statement that agrees with your viewpoint. Oh well. Once again, I point out that not every place in Iraq has been searched.
| Quote: |
Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."
Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
May 30, 2003
|
Stop offering up people's opinions as examples of lies. Opinions are not lies; only the data behind those opinions can be proven false. Which it has not been yet!
You still have yet to provide any conclusive, concrete evidence that there were/are no WMD's in Iraq. I eagerly await such evidence, because it would finally bring some justification to your continued use of that argument.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #74138] |
Sat, 27 March 2004 07:42 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
So, prove all of these false? If they had been right, FOX "News" would have been screaming their heads off all this time. These people just say that they know everything is their wwithout showing anyone anything. It's impossible to prove that something is not there. But it's pretty obvious when after as long as we have been in Iraq nothing has surfaced.
On that last one - a Major General would probably know a fair bit about information pertaining to Weapons of Mass Destruction, so him saying that all of this evidence is out there would kind of suggest that it actually is.
You can take that one or leave it.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 23 06:51:02 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 1.64726 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
): "You don't put a condom on unless you're gonna fuck!" 
