RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Bush and Blair lied(24 posts)

Bush and Blair liedMJ
May 29, 2003 1:42 AM
they said SH had WMD's and because of that we have to go to war against Iraq - if they lied about leading their countries into war against overwhelming international and domestic criticism what else are they untruthful about?

the truth isn't rocket science

what does this lie mean? what are the reasons behind it? why did they want the war? what kind of accountability should they (or a democratic gov't that lies) be held to? will this effect GW's reelection hopes and give the dems some bite to their bark?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51355-2003May28.html?nav=hptop_tb
Off base & in left(ist) field.jesse1
May 29, 2003 2:43 AM
They lied? You state that as a fact. I read the article expecting something to back up your assertion, but it just ain't so.
The closest statments in the article that would even come close to saying that the administration miss-represented the public was one obscure statement by an un-named "inrellignce official" and one by Sen Rockefeller who asked a retorical question.
Even without some of the evidence that Powell presented to the UN, don't forget no one will deny that S.H. did use WMD against his own as well as Iran. Why should we think he turned Mr. Nice Guy and decided to destroy his remaining stockpiles?
Hey - the truth isn't "rocket science".
Latest info.jesse1
May 29, 2003 2:55 AM
Saw this on AOL this morning:
Associated Press by John J. Lumpkin
WASHINGTON (May 29) - The discovery of two Iraqi truck trailers equipped with fermenters is the strongest evidence yet that Saddam Hussein had a biological weapons program, a U.S. intelligence report said Wednesday. But officials still have found no such weapons.

The report by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency comes as the Bush administration faces pressure to prove its justification for the war - that Saddam had to be disarmed of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs that were an imminent danger.

``Examination of the trailers reveals ... an ingeniously simple, self-contained bioprocessing system,'' the report says. ``Both trailers we have found probably are designed to produce BW agent in unconcentrated liquid slurry.''

My note: the article did go on to state that there was NO evidence that the trailers had actually been used to manufacture Bio-agents.
CNN reported last week...Dwayne Barry
May 29, 2003 3:18 AM
that the CIA was starting an investigation to see if they were wrong (or why they were wrong?) in reporting to the Bush administration that Hussein had WMD. So, I don't think it's right to say Bush or Blair lied. Probably a more accurate statement would be that there is a POSSIBILITY that their intelligence gave them bad info.
Right. Also...jesse1
May 29, 2003 4:14 AM
...let's say they (Pres. Bush & P.M. Blair) DID get info contrary to their claims. If they WOULD actually lie in the face of intelligence saying otherwise - then in addition to the lie(s), there's a cover-up. The cover-up would involve more than those two men. There'd be MANY intelligence agents/sources/clerks at NSA & CIA, State Dept. officials, etc., that could refute the assertions. Some of them might not even be Republicans. Would the leaders of these two countries really take that risk?
no coincidentsfiltersweep
May 29, 2003 5:21 AM
Um... if the president goes around DEMONIZING an individual, using words such as "Axis of Evil" AND goes to war based on "inaccurate intelligence' - do the math?! You've got to be kidding me. Bush has an insane agenda based on his warped concept of globalism. What he fails to realize (as the dollar slumps even further), is that he doesn't want to pee on the shoes of European countries- that the EU is arguably the next major super-power. The US isn't even a Schengin country. The UN may be dated and based on "last century's politics," but disregarding it is not the answer either.

Sorry, I don't believe in coincidents, and there are plenty of patsies to go around- there will be no shortage of blame (bad intelligence?!). Regardless, it is apparent there aren't WMD on a massive scale. SH posed less of a threat than he was made out to be. He was an easy target. I'm not saying he was a good guy at all, or defending him in any way.

If Bush doesn't get off this so-called "war on terror" soon, the entire country will be down the toilet. He should re-read "Rumsfield's Ruminations" or whatever they were called, and stick with the original plan. Voters have far too short an attention span.
I agree...Dwayne Barry
May 29, 2003 7:24 AM
with the essence of what you're saying. No doubt, the Bush admininstration's policy toward Iraq biased the intelligence analysis of the data.
I've said it once and I'll say it againSpoiler
May 29, 2003 7:51 AM
to borrow the the UN and France's phrase...
"Be patient. Give these inspections a chance."
put it this wayMJ
May 29, 2003 4:37 AM
they said they had proof of WMD's that could be launched in 45 minutes - 6 weeks post-liberation there are no WMD's - it's simple - there were none and we were lied to - and nobody seems to think this is worth following up...

evidence by Powell? it was rehtoric based on a 12 year old PhD paper supplied by the British government without the author's consent

using WMD's during the 1980's wasn't the reason for the war was it? no it was not - the reason was "he has them now and will use them against us" - it was BS

we should assume he didn't have any because we haven't found any...
"Incontrovertable" truth is how I think Tony put it.Sintesi
May 31, 2003 5:13 AM
So the bar is set very high for Bush and Blair in the "show me" department. Both administrations scaremongered WMDs as justification for this war. WMDs were the determining reason, not one of many, not significantly but as the determining factor. I bought into it to an extent and now I want to see them. If we don't have anything to show in a year that is significant I'm going to conclude they lied. That they played WMDs up for ulterior motives. This is extremely serious folks. I don't want the US reverting back to Teddy Roosevelt standards for foreign policy with a bunch of "splendid little wars." That disgusts me. There must be clear justification for committing our country towards war.
powell went before the UNrufus
May 29, 2003 7:18 AM
with satellite photos and other intelligence he said showed trucks hauling WMD's out the back door while UN inspectors were going in the front. all the evidence he presented made it appear as if the U.S. had tangible evidence of WMD's and precise knowledge of exactly where many of them were located. locations that they would not reveal to the UN weapons inspectors for fear of "compromising intelligence sources".

if they knew so much then, why is it so difficult to find even a trace of these weapons' existence? even if they were destroyed there has to be some lingering trace that they were once there. and yet they've found nothing.

and now they say that may be because they were moved. how hundreds of millions of tons of chemical and biological agents could be smuggled out of iraq without the U.S. seeing any sign at all baffles me, but anyway. if that is indeed the case, the whole puropose for the war has been negated. the whole premise was that saddam had these weapons, and would either use them himself or furnish them to other nations that would. so now, if they aren't in iraq, they are floating around out there somewhere, for some other terrorist group or rogue nation to use. and so by forcing this war, the exact result we didn't want has come to pass.
Hundreds of millions of tons?TJeanloz
May 29, 2003 7:46 AM
I can say with reasonable certainty, that nobody believed Iraq had "Hundreds of millions of tons of chemical and biological agents". A million tons is a lot. Even David Copperfield couldn't hide hundreds of millions of tons. Numbers I have heard have been more like ~5,000 liters or so, which might, in total, weigh 10 tons. That's a big magnitude of difference, and maybe not so baffling to you.

Unfortunately, some of these agents are lethal when measured in terms of drops.
Hundreds of millions of tons?MJ
May 29, 2003 8:17 AM
do you feel the hawks manipulated the public in respect of WMD's?
I think it's too early to tell...TJeanloz
May 29, 2003 8:23 AM
I do think the hawks may have overstated the immediate threat of WMDs. But I'm not sure that they "manipulated" the public in this regard. I'm not entirely sure that the public wouldn't have supported the war even in the absence of the WMD argument. I certainly supported the war and didn't care at all about the existence of WMD in Iraq. I think you're selling the American public short if you believe that everybody trusted the government line, and the government line was the reason that we supported the war.

That said, I think it is far, far, far too early to tell what the outcome of the war was and will be. We haven't found WMD, but we might. The things that we have found are justification enough for war, in my opinion.
things are just as bad in the congo.rufus
May 29, 2003 8:32 AM
or chechnya. or probably ten or more other places around the world. do we go to war with them?
I think it's too early to tell...MJ
May 29, 2003 9:03 AM
I think it's a matter of my country wrong or right - which I have some time for even if taken to a maxim can result in the justification of some awful things

do you really think the discussion would have even been contmeplated without the WMD angle? the obvious riposte, already made by rufus, is that there's lots of bad people - anyways that wasn't how it was sold it just happened to dovetail nicely

you know how it was sold - SH is a threat he has WMD's and by the way he's a very nasty man - take away the first twop and what are you left with? a war nobody would have signed up for - if that isn't manpulation what is?

bodycount in Congo is 3.5m-4m over the past three years - there's lots of nasty men there - they're so nasty they cannibalise people...

why did you support the war?
I fully suport intervention in Zimbabwe, Congo, et. al.TJeanloz
May 29, 2003 9:30 AM
I supported the war because I believed that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power. I feel much the same way about Robert Mugabe.

You're right, there are nasty people all over the world, and I fully support intervention on behalf of the defenseless.
ambitious - maybe GW should use that as his reelection slogan - nmMJ
May 29, 2003 9:33 AM
ok, i mis-spoke. i meant to use pounds.rufus
May 29, 2003 8:29 AM
but the point remains. how do you move hundreds of tons of material from an area, an area that has spy satellites highly focused on it for some time, without that movement being detected somehow?

as powell said, "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.

Iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. "


conservative estimates. where is it?
That's really not that much...TJeanloz
May 30, 2003 5:54 AM
If you think about it logically, enough agent to fill 1 battlefield rocket would be no more than 1 cubic foot of material. I have no experience in loading battlefield rockets, but they don't look that big on T.V.; so I think 1 cubic foot of agent per rocket is generous. So if you had enough for 16,000 rockets, that would be 16,000 cubic feet of agent, which sound like a lot. But if you loaded that onto standard pallets, we'll say 5 feet high/pallet, you're talking about ~200 pallets of material. A typical shipping container holds ~2400 cubic feet, so that's fewer than 7 truckloads. 7 truckloads in a space the size of California? I think that would be pretty tough to track down.
That's really not that much...MJ
May 30, 2003 6:29 AM
it would be hard to track down - except we were led to believe that they knew were these WMD's were - clearly they were less than truthful...
Defending defenseless people...Jon Billheimer
May 30, 2003 10:47 AM
...is absolutely the last reason the U.S. invaded Iraq. But that's part of the necessary American mythology to support a Machiavellian foreign policy. After all, if one is not virtuous it's pretty hard to defend attacking and killing virtually defenseless people.
You're right, we're all evil and money grubbing (nm)TJeanloz
Jun 2, 2003 5:07 AM
We never want to do the right thing. All of us only act in our best interests, all the time...
Who cares?!!!!!Live Steam
Jun 1, 2003 6:55 AM
Saddam is gone and I really don't care. US and British military have a stronger presence in the Middle East (the center of the hive) which gives them better opportunity to ferret out terrorist groups - witch has been happening with greater success since the conclusion of the war. The bastards are on the run. That is all I care about. I don't give a rat's ass about what the Middle Eastern community thinks. The leaders in the Middle East should have gotten control of this situation before it came to a 9/11 event. Now it's time for us (the coalition of the willing) to act preemptively and stop any future plans of attack by these SOBs. End of story from my perspective. Sorry, but that is what self preservation and homeland security is all about. The leaders in the Middle East are only looking to protect themselves from the extremist tenets that are pervading their rule. They have actually exacerbated the situation by failing to act a long time ago and by placating the likes of Bin Ladden.