|
|
|
|
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 5:40:04 PM | The truth is military man- with all the money being spent in Iraq, all the rhetoric Bush spews about homeland security, and how safe we are since 9/11- as we've learned from recent press releases by Republican and commision chairman Thomas Kean- it simply is NOT the case.
Here's a source you can't condemn as having a 'liberal bias'..
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177705,00.html
[The President’s Daily Brief, also known as the P.D.B., one of the most sensitive intelligence documents in the American system. Its information is supposed to be carefully analyzed, or “scrubbed.” Distribution of the two- or three-page early-morning report, which is prepared by the C.I.A., is limited to the President and a few other senior officials. The P.D.B. is not made available, for example, to any members of the Senate or House Intelligence Committees.]
Three-hundred and sixty-five days a year of the president receiving information that the Democrats do not receive.
It was in one of the President's daily briefs that he received information about the supposed sale of yellow-cake to Saddam.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1
[[Then the story fell apart. On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes. “The I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic,” ElBaradei said.
One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told me, “These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking.”
The I.A.E.A. had first sought the documents last fall, shortly after the British government released its dossier. After months of pleading by the I.A.E.A., the United States turned them over to Jacques Baute, who is the director of the agency’s Iraq Nuclear Verification Office.
It took Baute’s team only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake. The agency had been given about a half-dozen letters and other communications between officials in Niger and Iraq, many of them written on letterheads of the Niger government. The problems were glaring. One letter, dated October 10, 2000, was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a Niger Minister of Foreign Affairs and Coöperation, who had been out of office since 1989. Another letter, allegedly from Tandja Mamadou, the President of Niger, had a signature that had obviously been faked and a text with inaccuracies so egregious, the senior I.A.E.A. official said, that “they could be spotted by someone using Google on the Internet.”]]]
lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving. ?
xo
-bella | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 5:40:25 PM | Cherry-picking information that is clearly forged and using it to make a case for war is not only irresponsible- it is not presenting the entire truth. If our soldier's lives are precious, documents would have been reviewed more carefully- But this is giving Bush the benefit of the doubt.
IMHO, Bush was clear that he was picking the bits of information that would sound good, but maybe not hold up well under further investigation. He used the yellow-cake bit in the State of the union address DAYS after the briefing, and soon after it was proven FALSE. As you can see, the I.A.E.A. determined that not only were the documents forged- they were a CLEAR and obvious forgery - Why would these be used to make a case for something as drastic as going to war>?
xo | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 5:54:37 PM | The President’s Daily Brief, also known as the P.D.B., one of the most sensitive intelligence documents in the American system. Its information is supposed to be carefully analyzed, or “scrubbed.” Distribution of the two- or three-page early-morning report, which is prepared by the C.I.A., is limited to the President and a few other senior officials. The P.D.B. is not made available, for example, to any members of the Senate or House Intelligence Committees
Bella,
See this is what I am talking about. Bush's intellegence team FBI, CIA HLS and others recieves intellagece from sources such as British, France..etc.
It is up to them not him to make sure this data is accurate. He has to rely on advisers as all presidents do.
Are saying Bush wrote the document on yellow cake.
Bella,
You may think Iraq is the only job he has it is not.
Bush kept in place Tenate (maybe spelled wrong) left over from Clinton Admin. This was a major mistake on his part. He should have started fresh and got new reports. Excep after 911 everything fast forwarded and the US actually went into a panic mode. Old un verified information from CIA was passed around same with other countries trying to get a picture of what happen and what went wrong.
You can blame Bush I blame all the countries who assisted in gathering information.
Stop Cherry Picking your intellegence that report started with British Intellegence. Blame British Intellegence not Bush | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 6:01:39 PM | Cherry-picking information that is clearly forged and using it to make a case for war is not only irresponsible- it is not presenting the entire truth. If our soldier's lives are precious, documents would have been reviewed more carefully- But this is giving Bush the benefit of the doubt.
Bella,
You don't seem to want to gather the whole picture only the part that makes Bush a liar.
Bush does not write the intellegence reports.
He must rely on CIA, FBI,and other countries. Tony Blair had same info and actually yellow cake report was from their intellegence.
Senerio:
Your neighbor has a bomb and will blow up your neighbor hood and kill everyone int it.
Three people say they actually seen the bomb, Three others say no they are lying.
You send the police to his house to make sure. He will not let them in. The police leave as say there is nothing we can do.
He calls all the people in your neighborhood and says if you and all others are going to die in 20 minutes I am going to set off my bomb.
What do you do?
There is one police department willing to go in by force and remove the bomb or make sure there is no bomb. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 6:03:35 PM |
Stop Cherry Picking your intellegence that report started with British Intellegence.
Based on this and Canadian intel, the then Prime Minister said there was "no proof". | |
|
| |
| |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 6:32:49 PM | Search for Banned Arms In Iraq Ended Last Month
Critical September Report to Be Final Word
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.
Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring.
President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons, and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States.
Bush has expressed disappointment that no weapons or weapons programs were found, but the White House has been reluctant to call off the hunt, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are well hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 6:33:05 PM | @xmilitaryman Convenient excuse, for those who claimed there was something there, but then found nothing. There's absolutely zero proof of anything like that happening.
Peace  | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 6:37:10 PM | Okay show me the proof he did not move or bury them and I will agree with you. It must be undiputiable that it was impossible for this to happen.
Because even a .005% chance is to great to risk American lives.
Show me that this was impossible for him to have done. Not those stupid ass UN reports.
To many lives are in jepordy if you are wrong | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 6:39:22 PM | Bush has expressed disappointment that no weapons or weapons programs were found, but the White House has been reluctant to call off the hunt, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are well hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small.
See here we can't rely on very small when so many lives could be take if there is any I say any chance the info is wrong | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 6:45:00 PM |
See here we can't rely on very small when so many lives could be take if there is any I say any chance the info is wrong
Still goes counter to the "bomb" analogy.
By this reasoning, any country in the world is at risk of a unilateral attack from, ....any other country.
Dangerous precedent (no pun intended) | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 6:52:12 PM |
Okay show me the proof he did not move or bury them and I will agree with you. It must be undiputiable that it was impossible for this to happen.
Move or bury what? See, now we're back to square one. Don't you have to prove there was actually something to move, first?
I agree, late...very dangerous precedent.
Peace | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 6:52:58 PM | So you would rather waited. Then if your wrong. Oh well I guess I was wrong lets go get him.
I do not know how you can fell sorry for Saddam. It truely amazes me how you liberals love this guy and take his side.
You spin this any way you want from what I have read point is well taken. Bash American for protecting itself and love Saddam. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 6:54:50 PM | Ask the Kurds about that.
Don't want to hear that stupid UN report that they were destroyed. Again.
I agree, late...very dangerous precedent.
Wow! To frekin liberals agreeing. What are the odds I would say 100%
[2 sequencial posts tops, use "edit" to amend posts as I did here] | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 6:59:23 PM | there is no justification for 2 men whom have never even met to stand across from one another in murderous hatred. WAR, HOOOW! good god ya'll, what is it good for? absolutely NOTHIN, say it again...
on this solemn day of the great John's untimely demise...IMAGINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 7:01:44 PM | | Go to Iraq and tell the terrorist that. I would hate to see a video one day of them sawing you head off with a dull knife. | |
|
| |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 7:04:59 PM | Ask the Kurds about that.
We have a large Kurdish community here, ask them what they think the biggest problem is.
They'll tell you:
They had a country, it was taken from them.
Care to guess who decided to draw the map of the region without them?
...It wasn't Arabs.
It was the same folks who used mustard gas on them, .....and the Arabs, first.
Men, women, and children.
The west has quite a legacy here. | |
|
| |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 7:17:02 PM | Thats great when you can't find any other info to agree with you. You reach far as you can back in time until you find something.
Kurds currently now, the year being 2005, are backing the USA and are glad we got rid of Saddam. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 7:35:23 PM |
I do not know how you can fell sorry for Saddam.
I don't give a rat's ass about Saddam.
1. I care about international law.
2. I believe civilian Iraqi lives are worth as much as civilian US lives, or civilians from any other nation...including Canada.
"I keep asking myself: 'Why are they bombing Iraqi people? What have we done to them?' I hoped that the pilot who hit our house would be burned as I am burned and my family were burned." - Ali Abbas...and there are thousands, like him. Imagine 10x the number of people dying on 9/11, imagine if it was .1% of your population (that'd be 300000 Americans).
What about being careful...for their sakes?
Peace | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 7:39:13 PM |
Kurds currently now, the year being 2005, are backing the USA and are glad we got rid of Saddam.
Of course, but the reason has to do with what late refered to. Many Kurds are just biding their time, hoping to have a referendum about seceding, soon.
Peace | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 7:44:26 PM | Thats great when you can't find any other info to agree with you. You reach far as you can back in time until you find something.
Nope, the Kurds need a Kurdistan, just as the Armenians need an Armenia.
You brought up the Kurds, I'm just telling you what they've told me.
Also, if you think that cultures don't have a long memory, you're fooling yourself.
Saddam gone = Good
Absolutely, I doubt anybody will come to his defense here, no matter how often the cognatively challenged paste them with the epithet, "Saddam Loving".
Unfortunately, the solution came with new problems, and did nothing to solve some old (granted)ones.
The way in which it was justified also leaves room for some international nastiness, in regards to accountability when declaring war. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 12/8/2005 7:48:32 PM | Open
So it is your belief that we bomb Iraqi homes on purpose. Many times this information is given to us by Iraqis that this house is harboring terrorist. As much as possible the US tries to confirm this. However, sometimes the information is incorrect and we bomb believing the infomation was correct. Later we find it not to be. We then do our best to compensate the people for their loss. I know this may not be satisfactory. However, it is hard to run a war when them enemy look like all the other citizens and use the Iraqi civilians as cover.
America does as much as possible. In fact we have made great advances in weapon accuracy compared to Vietnam War. Using laser and satelite guide aramament.
We do not strap C4 around our waist or pack and SUV full of explosives and drive downtown and set in off trying to kill civilians. | |
|
|
| Page 18 of 54
|
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 |
|
Home
login 