Fox News Biased against Unbelievers

[a midnight star]

I have read those before. There is nothing in them that state that Bush lied about the WMD's. Just because wilson had an opposing view and other had different views, does not mean that he lied. Even Clinton claimed that sadaam had them, while he was still pres. There are those of us that still believe that he had them right before war.

 

You stated that there were "recordings" of bush admitting that there weren't any and that he knew that before the war.

 

Lets not forget that the entire house saw the same docs that bush did and came up to the same conclusion.

[killa_chuck]

I have read those before. There is nothing in them that state that Bush lied about the WMD's. Just because wilson had an opposing view and other had different views, does not mean that he lied. Even Clinton claimed that sadaam had them, while he was still pres. There are those of us that still believe that he had them right before war.

 

You stated that there were "recordings" of bush admitting that there weren't any and that he knew that before the war.

 

Lets not forget that the entire house saw the same docs that bush did and came up to the same conclusion.

 

The DSM assert that the "intelligence was being fixed around the facts."

 

You're right, just because Wilson (though I don't know where he comes into play with the DSM) had an opposing view doesn't, in itself, mean that the administration was lying, but the evidence about Iraq trying to obtain the "yellow-cake" from Niger that the administration presented was very likely "not authentic."

 

From factcheck.org:

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the international body that monitors nuclear proliferation – tells the UN Security Council that, after a “thorough analysis” with “concurrence of outside experts,” that the Italian documents— “which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger—are in fact not authentic.”

 

I do not know if the Clinton administration claimed that Iraq had WMD or not, but before the Bush administration decided to pursue Iraq, they claimed that Iraq had no WMD and that Hussein was no threat.

 

The "house" saw the evidence that the Bush administration presented to them, and now alot of them are pissed off because they now believe they were lied to and mislead.

[a midnight star]

***The "house" saw the evidence that the Bush administration presented to them, and now alot of them are pissed off because they now believe they were lied to and mislead. ****

 

Or is it possible that the Dems are seeing which way the wind blows right now and they are worried about there jobs? Just a thought, because obviously there isn't any proof of this. But I do think that it is a possibility. Hilary is still claiming that she is not against the war, but how Bush is running the war. I agree with this. I do not like her, but on this one point I do happen to agree.

Even Clinton had intellegence that had him believing that Iraq had WMD's and that Sadaam was a threat to the US. This was while he was still in office. Bush SR. knew and was worried about the weapons back during desert storm. This was the reason for the original resolution. After Bush sr. kicked sadaam out of Kuwait (sp) he wanted to get rid of sadaam then. The UN was against it, so the relolution was born. Sadaam had from then all the way up until after 9/11 to cooperate. He refused. The war still might have been prevented if the Un security councel would have approved yet another resolution. France and Germany stated that they would not sign another one. They decided that whether or not sadaam has WMD's was irrelevant and they weren't going in no matter what.

 

True, before 9/11 Bush didn't think that sadaam was as big of a threat as he was percieved after 9/11.

 

Now, whether or not he had WMDs, nobody knows for sure. Some say nay, some say yay, and some just don't know what to think. We may never know. I do believe however that he didn't go out to lie to the american public. BUt will we ever know for sure? Probaby not.

[Vixentrox]

Clinton adninistration obviously belived it becuase my unit's computers were used to target missiles at suspected wmd facilities.

[Lanakila]

I don't think that the WMD was a good enough reason to invade Iraq. I usually stay out of political discussions because they get uglier than religious ones. But, I have to say I agreed with the war because we (American interests) installed Saddam into power. Saddam was responsible for the deaths of many of his people and many Kuwaitees as well as Iranians deaths. In the first gulf war we led Iraqis to believe we would oust Saddam and many of those Iraqis were murdered by Saddam. He needed to go and we were the ones to do it.

 

But and this is a big but, we didn't have an exit plan. After the initial fighting was done we didn't seem to have goals of what/when to do next. This is not the military's fault. That is the fault of the leadership. (administration)

[killa_chuck]

Or is it possible that the Dems are seeing which way the wind blows right now and they are worried about there jobs?

 

This is very possible, and I think that this might be the case with some of them. However, even if they are just doing it because of "the way the wind blows", they damn well should be asking the tough questions and figuring out exactly what the truth of the matter is.

 

Hilary is still claiming that she is not against the war, but how Bush is running the war. I agree with this. I do not like her, but on this one point I do happen to agree.

 

I am against the war personally.

 

Even Clinton had intellegence that had him believing that Iraq had WMD's and that Sadaam was a threat to the US. This was while he was still in office. Bush SR. knew and was worried about the weapons back during desert storm. This was the reason for the original resolution. After Bush sr. kicked sadaam out of Kuwait (sp) he wanted to get rid of sadaam then. The UN was against it, so the relolution was born.

 

This is the complicated part about being concrerned if Iraq had WMD. We all know that, at one time at least, Iraq had WMD. However, he got them from the good ol' US of A.

 

  True, before 9/11 Bush didn't think that sadaam was as big of a threat as he was percieved after 9/11.

 

This is another thing. Why was he perceived as a bigger threat after 9/11? Iraq had no involvement in 9/11.

 

I do believe however that he didn't go out to lie to the american public.

 

I strongly disagree. I consider misleading statements and half-truths to be lies...especially when it comes to killing other people in the name of our country.

 

But and this is a big but, we didn't have an exit plan. After the initial fighting was done we didn't seem to have goals of what/when to do next. This is not the military's fault. That is the fault of the leadership. (administration)

 

From what I've read, I don't think that the Bush administration has any interest in getting out of Iraq. That might account for the strange fact that we really don't "seem to have goals of what/when to do next".

 

I really do hope I'm dead wrong though.

[killa_chuck]

I just realized that we've hijacked this thread pretty badly.

 

[a midnight star]

****This is very possible, and I think that this might be the case with some of them. However, even if they are just doing it because of "the way the wind blows", they damn well should be asking the tough questions and figuring out exactly what the truth of the matter is.****

 

Agreed we should never stop trying to find out the truth. Not just on this but on everything we are told by anybody. As an xer I will never stop questioning. I have been lied to enough.

 

 

***I am against the war personally.***

 

Well we can't agree on everything

 

 

****This is the complicated part about being concrerned if Iraq had WMD. We all know that, at one time at least, Iraq had WMD. However, he got them from the good ol' US of A. ****

 

True. BUt it wasn't Bushes fault and it doesn't negate the fact that he had them. The war could have and would have been avoided if sadaam would have cooperated with the inspectors 100%.

 

****This is another thing. Why was he perceived as a bigger threat after 9/11? Iraq had no involvement in 9/11.****

 

I think that it was two fold.

1. after 9/11 there was the fear of us being attacked again. It took us out of our comfort zone and that was scarey. Kind of like the kid who had sex knowing that pregnacy was possible, but didn't realize how scarey it was until after she got pregnant. (on a much larger scale of course).

 

2. There were reports and intellegence that showed connections between ben lauden and Iraq. These reports were around even during the Clinton admin.

 

 

**** strongly disagree. I consider misleading statements and half-truths to be lies...especially when it comes to killing other people in the name of our country.**

 

Again we can't agree on everthing I have not seen nor do I personally believe that there were any, but that is a matter of opinion. Now if there was undenialble proof, I will of course change my stand. Until then, I will stand firm.

 

****From what I've read, I don't think that the Bush administration has any interest in getting out of Iraq.***

 

I think that he didn't quite understand what he was going to be facing. Terrorist from over the globe came into Iraq to defend terrorism. He underestimated the enemy. Now, we can't just withdraw. I and many others believe that will leave us as sitting ducks. Whether or not you agree with the war, it is done. If we withdraw and let the terrorist win, then they will consider us easy targets.

We just need to get it over with by any means neccessary.

 

****I really do hope I'm dead wrong though.***

 

Honestly I hope that I am wrong too and that Bush does have a way defeat the terrorist and get our boys out of there. I hope that I am wrong and that he is not playing a political war. Didn't they learn anything from Nam?

[a midnight star]

Now that i think about it, I guess we did.

[killa_chuck]

Agreed we should never stop trying to find out the truth. Not just on this but on everything we are told by anybody. As an xer I will never stop questioning. I have been lied to enough.

 

Damn right.

 

True. BUt it wasn't Bushes fault and it doesn't negate the fact that he had them. The war could have and would have been avoided if sadaam would have cooperated with the inspectors 100%.

 

Maybe not personally. Daddy Bush was VP when we gave them the weapons. Donald Rummsfeld is the one shaking Sadaam's hand in that famous picture from the same time period. We conveniently overlooked his gassing of the Kurds (I think those are the people he gassed?)

 

From some interviews I've seen with inspectors and things I've read I though Sadaam did cooperate wiht weapons inspectors? It's just that Bush turned it into a damned if you do...damned if you don't type situation.

 

Bush: Show me the WMD!

Sadaam: I don't have any!

Bush: If you don't show them to me then you're in trouble!

Sadaam: But I don't have any!

Bush: Alright buddy...it's go time!

 

Granted he could have been holding out on Bush. But as of yet we haven't found any WMD...nor did Iraq use any against us when we invaded...suggesting that Sadaam was telling the truth at the time.

 

1. after 9/11 there was the fear of us being attacked again. It took us out of our comfort zone and that was scarey. Kind of like the kid who had sex knowing that pregnacy was possible, but didn't realize how scarey it was until after she got pregnant. (on a much larger scale of course).

 

2. There were reports and intellegence that showed connections between ben lauden and Iraq. These reports were around even during the Clinton admin.

 

1. But Iraq didn't do anything for 9/11.

 

2. I think I've read the connection you are talking about. But if I recall correctly, it had nothing to do with 9/11...and I don't think it was Bin Laden or Al Qaeda (however you spell it).

There are connections between the US and Sadaam that are alot seedier. And these connections you speak of in no way implicate Iraq in 9/11. By that logic we could implicate alot more countries...including our own. Not to mention no official 9/11 investigation has sufficiently answered every question related to 9/11. The whole thing stinks to me.

 

Again we can't agree on everthing  I have not seen nor do I personally believe that there were any, but that is a matter of opinion. Now if there was undenialble proof, I will of course change my stand. Until then, I will stand firm.

 

Consider this: before the war the Bush administration strongly denied that there was a link between Sadaam and Al Qaeda. Then they decided that there was when they wanted the war. Even if they could prove this to be the case, there doesn't seem to me to be a very good case that bin Laden perpetrated the attacks either.

 

For fun I did a google search and turned this up: Lies

Some mo'

 

Follow up on some of these if you'd like.

 

I think that he didn't quite understand what he was going to be facing. Terrorist from over the globe came into Iraq to defend terrorism. He underestimated the enemy. Now, we can't just withdraw. I and many others believe that will leave us as sitting ducks. Whether or not you agree with the war, it is done. If we withdraw and let the terrorist win, then they will consider us easy targets.

We just need to get it over with by any means neccessary.

 

Bush had plenty of references at his disposal to know that the Iraq invasion (and even Afghanistan to a lesser extent) would actually create more terrorism rather than actually defeat it.

 

I don't see how that will leave us as "sitting ducks" exactly if we withdraw from Iraq.

 

If Bush was really serious about preventing fundamental Islamic terrorist attacks he would have looked into pulling out out troops in Saudi Arabia and possibly not as strongly taking Israel's side on that Israel/Palestine issue. These are some of the issues that create these terrorists against the USA. They want us the fuck out of their business. Getting more into their business will just make people mad that really weren't before and create more terrorists.

 

How do you propose we "get it over with"?

 

Honestly I hope that I am wrong too and that Bush does have a way defeat the terrorist and get our boys out of there. I hope that I am wrong and that he is not playing a political war. Didn't they learn anything from Nam?

 

It's definitely political. Whether that was the intention or not.

 

Didn't we learn anything from prohibition? Didn't we learn anything from the Spanish Inquisition? Didn't we learn anything from slavery? The list goes on...and the answer seems to be "sort of".

 

I like this. Usually when I get into political talks with people at the bar or wherever, my opponents usually take the Christian defense (or offense?): "NUH UH!" "THAT'S STUPID!" etc...

[RedPillAddict]

Whats with all these memos? Doesnt anybody have a shredder anymore?!

 

 

[a midnight star]

***How do you propose we "get it over with"?****

 

Are you sure you wnt to open that can of worms? I take a real hard stance on that and it would probably do nothing other than cause a rain of fire over my head.

 

***I like this.***

 

Yeah, me too. The trick is to stick to ideas and not take it personally when everybody doesn't agree with you. I succeed about 85% of the time.

[killa_chuck]

Are you sure you wnt to open that can of worms? I take a real hard stance on that and it would probably do nothing other than cause a rain of fire over my head.

 

I really want to know. I also would like you to answer my points.

[a midnight star]

I gotta start dinner!! I have a four year old who won't understand why dinner is late because mommy is on the computer.

 

I will finish up later after my duties are done. Probably around 8.

 

Promise!!

[killa_chuck]

I believe you! Have fun!

[Japedo]

  ****This is the complicated part about being concrerned if Iraq had WMD. We all know that, at one time at least, Iraq had WMD. However, he got them from the good ol' US of A. ****

 

True. BUt it wasn't Bushes fault and it doesn't negate the fact that he had them. The war could have and would have been avoided if sadaam would have cooperated with the inspectors 100%.

 

 

 

The United States Put Saddam in Power and gave him Weapons. Bush Sr. Was at one time head of the CIA and the Vice president and President of the United States, It lays on the lap of the entire US Government, who have yet to be held accountable for putting him in power to begin with. He killed his own son in laws to prove his *loyalty* to the United States at the time. Why all of these facts get left out of the "Debate" is beyond mind boggling.

 

Also, He turned over his "List of WMDs" and all that he had were legal. He was not making Nukes in Secret like the Administration said he was in mobile trailers. The United States Willfully lied to the United Nations and painted a half assed pictures of 'See there are some trailers it could be they are making Nukes in there that have the capabilities of reaching the United States.' Powell has since apologized for Misleading the United Nations. Saddam was allowed (Like every country is allowed) a Defense. The truth gets Skewed when people make blanket statements. His missiles could barely even reach Israel if he wanted to declare war. The First war with Iraq's mission was complete. The mission stated was not to Remove Saddam from power. The objective of the war was to force Saddam out of Kuwait. Saddam left Kuwait the 'war' ended. Public opinion was that Saddam should have been removed, that was not however what Congress declared as the objective of the war.

 

2. There were reports and intellegence that showed connections between ben lauden and Iraq. These reports were around even during the Clinton admin. 

 

 

Are you kidding me? Saddam was not a Radical Muslim and allowed women to have rights in Iraq. Iraq was for the most part more like the west in the fact that women didn't have to cover their faces, were allowed to work, attend school, Drive et al. Bin Ladin (whom also the United States TRAINED and armed) was/ is a Fanatical Muslim. The other Muslim nations despised Iraq because he refused to run his country according to the Koran. Saddam wasn't ever liked because he detested the Religious fanaticism. It was also a reason the US choose him to be in Iraq to begin with. Bush and his cohorts Used this statement here above when they were FIRST trying to Find support for the war. It was quickly stopped, and since then recanted.

 

 

Also allow me to add the Bush and his administration also threw anything and everything against the wall when it came to Saddam and the war with Iraq, they went with what ever stuck. lol This cracks me up. there are ZERO connections between fanatical Muslims and Saddam.

 

**** strongly disagree. I consider misleading statements and half-truths to be lies...especially when it comes to killing other people in the name of our country.**

 

Again we can't agree on everthing I have not seen nor do I personally believe that there were any, but that is a matter of opinion. Now if there was undenialble proof, I will of course change my stand. Until then, I will stand firm.

 

 

Half truths and not telling the entire story is a lie. It's willfully hiding facts that could drastically change the opinion of something. The war is Iraq is completely political. And this can be shown with the holding of hands with the Saudi Princes and governments. The majority of the 911 Highjackers were form Saudi Arabia, None were from Iraq. Propaganda for support was also a lie. as some of the reasons you state here are no longer voiced by the Administration any more. They lied, and deceived and used the Horrific events of 911 and peoples fears to promote an unjust war. In order to restore justice to the country, they must be held accountable for their blatant bullshit.

 

You keep labeling facts, statements, and people as "Liberals" who disagree with bush, how is it you can even look at the facts if you dismiss things based on labels?

 

( My personal Rant)

 

 

 

I hold bush to a higher standard then I did Clinton, whom I use to despise, do you know why that is? Because in 2000 I worked to get him elected and believed him to be true, and I thought Justice would be restored. I was part of the Bush team in my State, and on the presidential commissions. I supported him during the NH Primary, and was devastated and Royally pissed off when McCain took it.

 

I detested Clinton for all of his Lies, and distortions. After seeing what Bush has done, I honestly can say Clinton was a safer, saner and a More HONEST President. (And trust me, you have to be pretty low to beat him)

 

 

I see the same Bullshit from Bush supporters as I did from the Clinton supporters. He can do no wrong' making excuses, and saying "big Deal" so n so did it. This is unacceptable. I hold enablers and apologists accountable to the downfall of Liberty. America is no longer looked at is a beacon of Liberty. It's looked at as a Jack boot country that will force it's policies thru Force (war) or pressure (If your not with us you're against us and you'll become an enemy) The press and Government today call anyone that disagrees or Questions on the same leave as Traitors. This is also unacceptable. A Country that isn't encouraged to Question and demand answers and accountability from it's government, is not a Free country.

 

 

This is the same Bullshit fascism mentality that we as a country of Liberty took out. Nationalism has taken over this country, it's sicking to watch. Look how many of the people don't even respect or KNOW the flag laws. Flags that are worn still waving, Flags up in the Dark with no light, Flags on Cloths, bumper stickers, Et al Their is to many flags, to many God bless Americas. To much Arrogance to the level of Dangerous. Anyone that shows distain or questions is as I said the level of "Traitor". (which is absurd) This never happened in WW2, People that love and respect their laws and Country don't need to hang out symbols to show the government it's support. Nationalism is what gave Hitler the most power in Germany, The Mob wont look into or investigate, because no one want's to be viewed as "Anti-German" (Anti-American in our case) nationalism took hold and it's one of the signs of a Fascist country. You see this level of Nationalism in country's that fear their Government, not country's were the people are in charge. It's wonderful to have Pride in your country, but when it over takes sanity, and gives blind permission to do what the hell ever, it's wrong. It's My party (Country) right or wrong to hell with the facts.

 

(End of my rant )

[Guest Son of Belial]

[Guest aexapo]

***Respected radio hosts? Do you know what liberal radio network runs the Alan Colmes Show? None. The producers gave Colmes his "talk-radio" show on the (now, get this) the FOX RADIO NETWORK just to make the appearance of balance.****

 

Umm, no.  He is being paid now (outside of his show on fox) by XM radio

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Alan Colmes Show is produced by the Fox News Radio Service, not XM. XM may carry the show, and XM also carries the whole Air America Radio lineup, and a plethora of music channels. Does XM own the Al Franken Show and Madonna? I think not.

 

Perhaps you should investigate the phenomenon referred to as syndication.

 

This reminds of someone who wasted a great deal of my 15 minutes trying to convince me that Matlock was still a current show, "after all, it comes on Channel 32 every night at 11!"

 

http://www.foxnews.com/access/radio.html

[Guest aexapo]

Funny how I don't listen to anyother news channel and I heard that they didn't FIND any. But then again there is a difference between saying that they "didn't find any" and "there wasn't any". Seems to me the Bush admin stated that they haven't "found" any. Not that there wasn't any. HUGE difference and exactly why I do not watch ABC, CNN etc... they are the opinion pieces and they do misconstrue the facts in order to fit the "liberal" model.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Saddam, it appears, can successfully only hide those things that US conservatives find necessary to justify their plutocratic war. Too bad the Fox News fans didn't need him to hide himself or his sons!

[a midnight star]

***Maybe not personally. Daddy Bush was VP when we gave them the weapons. **

 

Sins of the father? If I was blamed for the sins of my father.......

 

***Donald Rummsfeld is the one shaking Sadaam's hand in that famous picture from the same time period.***

 

Again, not jr's fault. Or do you want me to admit that our government has made mistakes? Both repubs and dems? Ok yes, I agree with that.

 

***From some interviews I've seen with inspectors and things I've read I though Sadaam did cooperate wiht weapons inspectors?****

 

Not completely. Do you remeber before the war when Powell was making our case to the UN and showed intellegence reports and PHOTOS of sadaam moving "things"? This was one of those places where sadaam had blocked inspectors.

 

***Bush: Show me the WMD!

Sadaam: I don't have any!

Bush: If you don't show them to me then you're in trouble!

Sadaam: But I don't have any!

Bush: Alright buddy...it's go time!*****

 

So lets believe Sadaam's word?

 

 

****2. I think I've read the connection you are talking about. But if I recall correctly, it had nothing to do with 9/11...and I don't think it was Bin Laden or Al Qaeda (however you spell ****

 

OK I stand corrected. I am big enough to admit I was wrong. Here I'll even show the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

(see? show me undeniable proof and I will admit when I am wrong, Funny how nobody could find this but me )

 

Clinton on Iraq and WMD's. He himself was ready to invade Iraq: (and no, I did not use fox news)

 

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

 

Critics also contend that Bill Clinton misled the public on matters of foreign policy another time when he made the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He made the following statement to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on February 17, 1998:

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program

 

 

***If Bush was really serious about preventing fundamental Islamic terrorist attacks he would have looked into pulling out out troops in Saudi Arabia ***

 

Hey, I agree that we Saudi are playing both sides of the fence.

 

***These are some of the issues that create these terrorists against the USA. ***

 

SO we let terrorist dictate our forein(sp) policy? Let the fear of them control us? I would have a major problem with that.

 

****It's definitely political. Whether that was the intention or not.****

 

I do not believe that invading iraq was political. It's more like:

The Us didn't win our revolution because we played nice. The british tried to play a "gentleman's war" and we came out with our militia, we won because of this. Same thing but we are playing a "gentleman's war" while the terrorist are playing the militia. We lost Nam for the same reasons.

 

 

*****I like this. Usually when I get into political talks with people at the bar or wherever, my opponents usually take the Christian defense (or offense?): "NUH UH!" "THAT'S STUPID!" etc...****

 

Now you know how I feel being one of the few repubs here.

 

****The United States Put Saddam in Power and gave him Weapons. Bush Sr. Was at one time head of the CIA and the Vice president and President of the United States, It lays on the lap of the entire US Government, who have yet to be held accountable for putting him in power to begin with. He killed his own son in laws to prove his *loyalty* to the United States at the time. Why all of these facts get left out of the "Debate" is beyond mind boggling. ****

 

Why? There is no disagreement with that. So the point of adding that would do what? Again, are we going to let the sins of the father be blamed on the son when in fact it was regan?

 

 

***Also, He turned over his "List of WMDs" and all that he had were legal. He was not making Nukes in Secret like the Administration said he was in mobile trailers. The United States Willfully lied to the United Nations and painted a half assed pictures of 'See there are some trailers it could be they are making Nukes in there that have the capabilities of reaching the United States.' Powell has since apologized for Misleading the United Nations. *****

 

Again show sources.

Now to be fair, I have kept fox news out of this discussion and have only used abc, nbc, cbs (major news media) even though my belief is that they are one sided. Just as you will not consider a report from fox I will not consider news scources that are not considered "major media".

 

**** The objective of the war was to force Saddam out of Kuwait. Saddam left Kuwait the 'war' ended. Public opinion was that Saddam should have been removed, that was not however what Congress declared as the objective of the war. ****

 

Actually that was only part right. It was the UN and not congress that let sadaam go and that was only AFTER he agreed to the resolution.

 

 

****Half truths and not telling the entire story is a lie.***

 

Again prove it.

 

 

 

****You keep labeling facts, statements, and people as "Liberals" who disagree with bush, how is it you can even look at the facts if you dismiss things based on labels?*****

 

Facts? I have not seen any fact as of yet. I guess I am a liberal then because I do not agree with everything bush as done. If you would have read the thread then you would already know that.

 

That really is rich. While you have gone and regurgitated "liberal propaganda" and compare me to a Nazi and accuse me of not looking at facts, you yourself have ignored all facts that have hown you to be wrong while at the same time can't find a single fact to back up your claims. Following blindly is not an example of me but of yourself. Go back and look up the definition of facist. I could accuse you and the aclu etc.. of the same. Funny how I continue to hear the same propaganda in this thread, but have yet to see any facts and when I ask for them nobody is capable of finding them.

 

Is there anybody that can back up any of these claims? Three threads later and I am still waiting. I continue to hear the same ole bullshit, but nothing to back it up. Go figure!!! I think it is high time you opened your mind up and realize that the shit that has been fed to you are LIES. You have been lied to and are not capable of realizing that.

 

Or am I the only one who is big enough to admit when I am wrong?

[Vixentrox]

I'm really liking Midnight Star.

[Japedo]

Hey, I agree that we Saudi are playing both sides of the fence. [/Quote]

 

 

They are the major funding behind Terror. They are also almost last on the list for Human Rights. They treat their cattle better then women and girls. Why align ourselves with SA when they are nothing humane, and nothing about Freedom, Or Liberty. The only reason Bush JR is holding their hands in photo Ops is because of the vast amount of Money they have in this country.

 

 

***These are some of the issues that create these terrorists against the USA. ***

 

SO we let terrorist dictate our forein(sp) policy? Let the fear of them control us? I would have a major problem with that. [/Quote]

 

 

No We pull out of their territory and stop making demands on Sovereign Country's.

 

 

 

****It's definitely political. Whether that was the intention or not.****

 

I do not believe that invading iraq was political. It's more like:

The Us didn't win our revolution because we played nice. [/Quote]

What Revolution???????

 

 

****The United States Put Saddam in Power and gave him Weapons. Bush Sr. Was at one time head of the CIA and the Vice president and President of the United States, It lays on the lap of the entire US Government, who have yet to be held accountable for putting him in power to begin with. He killed his own son in laws to prove his *loyalty* to the United States at the time. Why all of these facts get left out of the "Debate" is beyond mind boggling. ****

 

Why? There is no disagreement with that. So the point of adding that would do what? Again, are we going to let the sins of the father be blamed on the son when in fact it was regan? [/Quote]

 

 

The point showing History of why the 'Terrorist' feel the need to defend themselves. Sins of the father? NO, Sins of the past US Governments failed foreign policy Yes. It's time to fix it, and do something right for a change. You think people just wake up and decide they "hate us for our freedom" and kill us?

 

 

***Also, He turned over his "List of WMDs" and all that he had were legal. He was not making Nukes in Secret like the Administration said he was in mobile trailers. The United States Willfully lied to the United Nations and painted a half assed pictures of 'See there are some trailers it could be they are making Nukes in there that have the capabilities of reaching the United States.' Powell has since apologized for Misleading the United Nations. *****

 

Again show sources.

[/Quote]

 

You can look here everything is sourced thru a variety of sources.

 

Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings (American Progress)

 

About Powell misleading: Thoes can be found here:

 

Snip:

 

Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell acknowledged--finally!--that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons. That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. (Remember the drawings he displayed.) Yet Powell said on MTP, "it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading." Powell did not spell it out, but the main source for this claim was an engineer linked to the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, who is now part of the Iraqi Governing Council.

 

Powell noted that he was "comfortable at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community." In other words, the CIA was scammed by Chalabi's outfit, and it never caught on. So who's been fired over this? After all, the nation supposedly went to war partly due to this intelligence. And partly because of this bad information over 700 Americans and countless Iraqis have lost their lives. Shouldn't someone be held accountable? Maybe CIA chief George Tenet, or his underlings who went for the bait? Or Chalabi's neocon friends and champions at the Pentagon: Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle? How do they feel about their pal, the great Iraqi leader, now?

[/Quote]

Powell Admits False WMD Claim (The Nation)

 

Transcript for May 16 (Meet the Press)

 

 

 

**** The objective of the war was to force Saddam out of Kuwait. Saddam left Kuwait the 'war' ended. Public opinion was that Saddam should have been removed, that was not however what Congress declared as the objective of the war. ****

 

Actually that was only part right. It was the UN and not congress that let sadaam go and that was only AFTER he agreed to the resolution.

[/Quote]

 

What was it you were saying about our "revolution?"

 

 

 

****Half truths and not telling the entire story is a lie.***

 

Again prove it. [/Quote]

 

 

Are you saying half Truths and not telling the entire stories is the Truth? Would this be acceptable from your spouse or Child? Please Allow me to Rephrase then, It is a Lie according to my own standards. It would also be construed as a lie if one were to give a half truth or not the whole truth under Oath. I thought this was a given perhaps you have a different definition of a lie?

 

 

 

 

 

That really is rich. While you have gone and regurgitated "liberal propaganda" and compare me to a Nazi and accuse me of not looking at facts, you yourself have ignored all facts that have hown you to be wrong while at the same time can't find a single fact to back up your claims. Following blindly is not an example of me but of yourself. Go back and look up the definition of facist. I could accuse you and the aclu etc.. of the same. Funny how I continue to hear the same propaganda in this thread, but have yet to see any facts and when I ask for them nobody is capable of finding them. [/Quote]

wanna jump outa my throat now? I never called you a Nazi. I posted here on Ex-C the 14 signs of a fascist State, perhaps you missed it? I gave my OWN rant (of which I stated was a personal Rant of what pisses me off)

 

14 Characteristics of Fascism, Scared yet?

 

 

Do you not agree people hang their flags out with out knowing the Flag laws? It's a lack of respect, they minds as well wipe their asses with it. It's also a sign that they don't give a shit about the law, but only care about appearing to Care for the sake of not looking "Anti-American".

 

Is there anybody that can back up any of these claims? Three threads later and I am still waiting. I continue to hear the same ole bullshit, but nothing to back it up. Go figure!!! I think it is high time you opened your mind up and realize that the shit that has been fed to you are LIES. You have been lied to and are not capable of realizing that. [/Quote]

 

 

POT MEET KETTLE!! YOU are the one falling over yourself Defending the Indefensible.

 

I think people here have givin you ample info to back up their claims. Because you refuse or choose not to acknowledge by calling them liberal or what have you isn't their problem. Fox News, Rush, aren't ever going to denounce their prodigal son. If you want a RNC mouth piece to tell you the truth, I guess you'll have to wait until they are no longer in power. Their lies are blatant and obvious to everyone except their supporters.

 

 

Or am I the only one who is big enough to admit when I am wrong? [/Quote]

 

 

I admit when I'm wrong. I told you I Campaigned heavily, voted and believed in Bush in 2000, I have since tried to correct my error, Or did that go past you?

Bush has done more to shred the Constitution then ANY OTHER sitting president before him. He's also a war mongerer. I will not defend that nor will I sit idly by while his defenders try to defend it.

[Guest aexapo]

I have read those before. There is nothing in them that state that Bush lied about the WMD's. Just because wilson had an opposing view and other had different views, does not mean that he lied.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love the way this whole affair has turned Joe Wilson, a Bush-voting Republican (at least he was when he voted in 2000, AND when he made the trip to Niger) into a lying liberal leftie. If you listened to Fox, you'd think he was a commie spy.

 

Joe Wilson didn't have an opposing opinion, he had opposing information. He had been an Ambassador in a neighboring country, knew the ethnicities and languages involved. When he heard that the Bush administration was using this "yellow cake" information as war justification, (info he knew to be very old (pre-Desert Storm) and a fraud) he felt it his duty to investigate and report it. He took this info to the CIA, who sent him to Niger to follow up on the information. Sounds like a loyal patriot to me, right? Trying to make sure his boss isn't making a mistake that will cost American lives?

 

He goes to Niger, discovers that his hunch is absolutely correct, and tries to report the information directly to the White House, who won't give him the time of day. Apparently, they only wanted information to support the war -- not to take away major justifications.

 

Wilson went to the press ONLY after the infamous State of the Union address -- when it was apparent the White House knew what his information was, and simply wanted to shut him up, and when he wouldn't, they tried to get his wife killed. Yeah -- I see how these men on 1600 Pennsylvania just inspire loyalty and patriotism.

 

Because of Iraq, I can never trust ANYTHING Bush says or does -- I have no choice but to jump on every bandwagon opposing him until something discredits the critic. I don't hate America first -- I don't trust Bush, and never can again.

 

I know it only took a WH blow-job to inspire the same mistrust of Clinton by the right, but I reserved the same lack of trust until after Bush killed 1,800 of our men and women and up to 100,000 Iraqis in a war with misleading justification.

[Guest Son of Belial]

***Bush: Show me the WMD!

Sadaam: I don't have any!

Bush: If you don't show them to me then you're in trouble!

Sadaam: But I don't have any!

Bush: Alright buddy...it's go time!*****

 

So lets believe Sadaam's word?

 

Well, then let's let every other nation come and inspect US for illegal weapons and so forth, since the rule is that nations have to let other nations inspect them upon request.

 

I have a feeling our government wouldn't be too happy about that concept.

 

SO we let terrorist dictate our forein(sp) policy? Let the fear of them control us? I would have a major problem with that.

 

I think we're dictating everyone else's foreign policy, not to mention their internal policies.

 

****It's definitely political. Whether that was the intention or not.****

 

I do not believe that invading iraq was political. It's more like:

The Us didn't win our revolution because we played nice. The british tried to play a "gentleman's war" and we came out with our militia, we won because of this. Same thing but we are playing a "gentleman's war" while the terrorist are playing the militia. We lost Nam for the same reasons.

 

Yes, we lost another pointless war for the same reasons. Why don't we just stop starting pointless wars?

 

Now you know how I feel being one of the few repubs here.

 

Considering the anti-Pagan comments that Bush has made, and all the pro-Christian comments, I have no reason to respect him.

[killa_chuck]

***From some interviews I've seen with inspectors and things I've read I though Sadaam did cooperate wiht weapons inspectors?****

 

Not completely. Do you remeber before the war when Powell was making our case to the UN and showed intellegence reports and PHOTOS of sadaam moving "things"? This was one of those places where sadaam had blocked inspectors.

 

***Bush: Show me the WMD!

Sadaam: I don't have any!

Bush: If you don't show them to me then you're in trouble!

Sadaam: But I don't have any!

Bush: Alright buddy...it's go time!*****

 

So lets believe Sadaam's word?

 

Uh...those were supposed to be "mobile WMD facilities" so that inspectors would never find then. That whole presentation was bullshit. This fact was later blamed on "intelligence failures"...

 

You say "So let's believe Sadaam's word?". That wasn't my point. My point was that the Bush administration made the situation so that, even if Saddaam was telling the truth, it wouldn't matter, he was already "proven" guilty by these "intelligence failures"...how convenient.

 

Critics also contend that Bill Clinton misled the public on matters of foreign policy another time when he made the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He made the following statement to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on February 17, 1998:

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program

 

I don't care if Clinton was "ready to invade Iraq". Where is this "clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program?" and why didn't Colin Powell give this presentation instead of the bullshit one? I do not think Sadaam was a saint by any means, but to stretch the truth and say that he was a threat to the US because of 9/11 is complete bullshit. I even doubt Clinton's assertion that Iraq was a "rogue state" and would provide WMD to terrorists. He wasn't an Islamic Fundamentalist...which terrorists then would he provide?

 

***Maybe not personally. Daddy Bush was VP when we gave them the weapons. **

 

Sins of the father? If I was blamed for the sins of my father.......

 

***Donald Rummsfeld is the one shaking Sadaam's hand in that famous picture from the same time period.***

 

Again, not jr's fault. Or do you want me to admit that our government has made mistakes? Both repubs and dems? Ok yes, I agree with that.

 

Sins of the father? Rumsfeld is now the secretary of defense...these same people that failed us with their foreign policies in the past are allowed to be promoted and not held accountable for their past actions. This pattern is shown all throughout the Bush administration.

 

Damn right the government has made mistakes, but where is the accountability?

 

***These are some of the issues that create these terrorists against the USA. ***

 

SO we let terrorist dictate our forein(sp) policy? Let the fear of them control us? I would have a major problem with that.

 

****It's definitely political. Whether that was the intention or not.****

 

I do not believe that invading iraq was political. It's more like:

The Us didn't win our revolution because we played nice. The british tried to play a "gentleman's war" and we came out with our militia, we won because of this. Same thing but we are playing a "gentleman's war" while the terrorist are playing the militia. We lost Nam for the same reasons.

 

We can't go around doing whatever we want without consequences. Like it or not, our foreign policy IS creating these terrorists.

 

Do you see the parallels you made between our revolution and how we were the militia? Think about us as the Brits, and the Iraqi people as the Colonies. To them, we are the terrorists.

 

Think about how you would feel and what you would contemplate doing if one day the armed forces of Iraq came into your town and effectively "took it over". Say the mayor of your town was an evil dictator and you didn't like him, but then once this army came and ousted him from power and decided to install their own government and they wouldn't fucking leave, you disliked them just as much or more.

 

Think, too, about our reasons for invading Iraq in the first place. There are so many "reasons" I don't even know which one is the official one (if indeed there is one...I don't think there is). It was Iraq's involvement with 9/11...we want to install democracy...Sadaam is an immenent threat...the iraqi people want us to oust Sadaam...Sadaam is trying to obtain WMD...Sadaam has WMD...etc...

 

Again show sources.

Now to be fair, I have kept fox news out of this discussion and have only used abc, nbc, cbs (major news media) even though my belief is that they are one sided. Just as you will not consider a report from fox I will not consider news scources that are not considered "major media".

 

I have not actually commented on this, but though I think Fox is definitely more for towing the president's talking points I think the other networks are just as guilty. So many important facts are hard to find (if they were reported on at all) and it's becoming more and more opinion and not news.

 

I would consider any source, you just have to be careful. Even "major media" can distort facts and fuck shit up. In fact, I think they are probably the most guilty because they are so trusted.

 

My 2 cents.