Bush = Dumb Ass
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Friday, August 20, 2004 04:20
VIEWED: 16362
PAGE 5 of 12
Yo are overstating the UN's case. What they said was that they could not confirm the destruction of WMD from the 90's, but that three or four months of work would allow them to reach a conclusion.
The operative word is HAD (past tense) WMD. IF you had looked at all into WMD you'd see that they are all unstable (except mustard gas) in the form that Iraq produced them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yo are overstating the UN's case. What they said was that they could not confirm the destruction of WMD from the 90's, but that three or four months of work would allow them to reach a conclusion.
The operative word is HAD (past tense) WMD. IF you had looked at all into WMD you'd see that they are all unstable (except mustard gas) in the form that Iraq produced them.
"you had looked at all into WMD"
Keep a civil tone and don't assume you know anything about what I know other than what I write. The WMD points are as follows:
1) WMDs were found in 1991.
2) Saddam kicked out the inspectors and risked war...why? To "appear" to be tough, or actually get the time and spec to acquire those weapons that would in fact make him tough.
3) They're still finding Mustard Gas AND Sarin nerve agent in Iraq.
4) The case by the UN was that Iraq was NOT in compliance with its resolutions, period. That was the trigger for military action.
5) The Bush administration spent 14 months working with the UN and other allies to get the Iraq worked out. War WAS the last resort, waiting for something to happen wasn't an option.
6) The policy of the United States, as signed by Executive Order by Bill Clinton in 1998 was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
7) What if we didn't go and topple Saddam....where would Iraq be?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am sorry for everyone who has been "hurt" by Bush. I am sorry for everyone that will be hurt by Kerry. What hurts me more is that we have moved away from "politics" and turned our political ecosystem, if you will, into an enormous mud slinging spectacle. Personally, I'd love nothing more than to see Us as a nation move towards management, not the obtuse, phlegmatic control of insecure men in power.
Bush did this...I DON"T CARE
Kerry did, then didn't do this....I STILL DON'T CARE
LET'S JUST MOVE FOWARD
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The WMD points are as follows:
1) WMDs were found in 1991."
Yes, I know- we sent them the materials to make them. And we also destroyed a number of them at the time.
2) Saddam kicked out the inspectors and risked war...why? To "appear" to be tough, or actually get the time and spec to acquire those weapons that would in fact make him tough.
Saddam did not "kick out" the UN inspectors, they withdrew because of anticipated bombing by UK and USA. Why do people keep repeating this? It's just not the case.
3) They're still finding Mustard Gas AND Sarin nerve agent in Iraq.
They are NOT finding mustard gas and sarin. If you think that they are, please post the links to the info because all of the links I have found so far pretty much come up with a lot of false alarms that ended up being retracted.
http://cshink.com/no_chemicals_on_mortar_shells.htm
4) The case by the UN was that Iraq was NOT in compliance with its resolutions, period. That was the trigger for military action.
The UN also did not request our "help" in getting Iraq to comply and according to Blix was within a few months of completing their inpsection, despite lack of cooperation from Iraq.
5) The Bush administration spent 14 months working with the UN and other allies to get the Iraq worked out. War WAS the last resort, waiting for something to happen wasn't an option.
But what was so terribly urgent that it couldn't wait until Blix completed the inpsection? Was Bush afraid that he might actually lose his excuse for invading if he waited that long?
6) The policy of the United States, as signed by Executive Order by Bill Clinton in 1998 was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
By what means....?
7) What if we didn't go and topple Saddam
....where would Iraq be?
It would have been cleared by the UN and sanctions would have been lifted. It would have signed contracts with Russia, France and Germany for oil production and oil production equipment. More goods and services would probably have started flowing to the population since they would no longer be "black market" items.
In any case, it would not be harboring al Qaida terrorists... just as it was not before. And it would not have WMD, just as before.
"Keep a civil tone and don't assume you know anything about what I know other than what I write. "
I already know a lot about what you think you know from what you've written. You assert many things that would be more interesting if you would only back them up with links.
And if you HAD looked up anything about chemical and biological weapons and you KNEW they had a shelf life, then you conveniently ommitted that fact. So either you didn't know, or...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life — from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition (Iraq) from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.
and why is a market economy a bad thing?
Quote:
Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises;
again, whay is this bad? What do you have against free enterprise?
Quote:
(2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses;
who owns Honda in the USA? Toyota? Nissan? Sony? ad infinitum.
Quote:
(3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses;
like no portective tarrifs? Why is this bad?
Quote:
Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.
Foreign banks own 50%+ of banks in the USA. Is this a bad thing?
Quote:
Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.
Can we get this in the USA? I'd love it.
Quote:
Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq."
No free trade, then?
Come on. Do you expect that Iraq could have held national elections the day after Bagdad fell? You have to have some sort of basic political infrastructure before you can hold even local elections, let alone determine national policy. Check how long we ran Japan and Germany after WWII. Do you expect that Iraq could have put in place a stable and functioning government, let alone a democratic version, within a year?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Our Man in Niger
Exposed and discredited, Joe Wilson might consider going back.
Joe Wilson's cover has been blown. For the past year, he has claimed to be a truth-teller, a whistleblower, the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy — and most of the media have lapped it up and cheered him on.
After a whirl of TV and radio appearances during which he received high-fives and hearty hugs from producers and hosts (I was in some green rooms with him so this is eyewitness reporting), and a wet-kiss profile in Vanity Fair, he gave birth to a quickie book sporting his dapper self on the cover, and verbosely entitled The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir.
The book jacket talks of his "fearless insight" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and "disarming candor" (which does not extend to telling readers for whom he has been working since retiring early from the Foreign Service).
The biographical blurb describes him as a "political centrist" who received a prize for "Truth-Telling," though a careful reader might notice that the award came in part from a group associated with The Nation magazine — which only Michael Moore would consider a centrist publication.
But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV — he of the Hermes ties and Jaguar convertibles — has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies.
This is a full five paragraphs of personal attack. I'M supposed to respond to the point, but this author is not held to ANY standard.
Quote:
For starters, he has insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her. (She should have thought to use disappearing ink.)
Not having read the book I can't address the quotes. But the Senate panel did not find she 'got' him the assignment. "CPD (CIA Counter Proliferation Division) concluded that with no other options, sending the former ambassador to Niger was worth a try." (Quotes are directly from the Senate Report.)
Quote:
Wilson spent a total of eight days in Niger "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people," as he put it. On the basis of this "investigation" he confidently concluded that there was no way Saddam sought uranium from Africa. Oddly, Wilson didn't bother to write a report saying this. Instead he gave an oral briefing to a CIA official.
"On February 20 2002, CPD provided the former ambassador with talking points for use with his contacts in Niger. The talking points were general, asking officials if Niger had been approached, conducted discussion, or entered into any agreements concerning uranium transfers with 'any countries of concern.' The talking points also focused on whether any uranium might be missing from Niger or might have been transfer and asked how Niger accounts for all its uranium each year. The talking point did not refer to the specific reporting on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, did not mention names or dates from the reporting, and did not mention that there was any deal been reported in intelligence channels. ... On February 26, 2002 the former ambassador arrived in Niger. He told Committee staff that he first met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick to discuss his upcoming meetings. Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick asked him not to meet with current Nigerian officials because she believed it might complicate her continuing diplomatic efforts with them on the uranium issue. The former ambassador agreed to restrict his meetings to former officials and the private sector.
The former ambassador told Committee staff that he met
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer: What's wrong with free markets??
Well, if you're trying to create a democracy... which requires a stable society... which requires a middle class... which requires rebuilding the economy... then all you have to do is look at Russia and Argentina as examples of how NOT to do it. If you recall, Russia took the "shock therapy" (Jeff Sachs') approach of instantaneous privatization. It turned into an immediate basket case of mafiosi who made off with national assests as fast as possible while output plunged 70% and the lifespan decreased by five years or more. With Putin in charge, can anyone really say that Russia has successfully transitioned to a democracy?
Another example of how NOT to do it is Argentina, which had a couple of years of boom before the bust, where again the oligarchs made off with the national assests as fast as they could run, and the country suffered a (so far) decline that has simply made the population committed to avoiding the capitalist route.
And before anyone points to China, I must remind you that (1) they are NOT a fully capitalist economy (2) the transition is under government control (3) China remians in control of it's banks, assets, currency, economic policy and adjudication.
(BTW, Taiwan is also not a capitalist economy- 50% of industry is owned by government.)
Man... what I would LOVE to say right now....
I'm counting to ten. I better sign off now...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer,
Do you also claim that Iraq is FREE and DEMOCRATIC when the basics of national policy were shoved down their throats by Bremer and the CPA? Whether YOU or I think these are good things is beside the point - it supposed to be Iraq's decision.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue- YOU GO GIRL/ GUY!!!!
Yes, there is a lot of poop all over the board, isn't there??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"The WMD points are as follows:
1) WMDs were found in 1991."
Yes, I know- we sent them the materials to make them. And we also destroyed a number of them at the time.
2) Saddam kicked out the inspectors and risked war...why? To "appear" to be tough, or actually get the time and spec to acquire those weapons that would in fact make him tough.
Saddam did not "kick out" the UN inspectors, they withdrew because of anticipated bombing by UK and USA. Why do people keep repeating this? It's just not the case.
3) They're still finding Mustard Gas AND Sarin nerve agent in Iraq.
They are NOT finding mustard gas and sarin. If you think that they are, please post the links to the info because all of the links I have found so far pretty much come up with a lot of false alarms that ended up being retracted.
http://cshink.com/no_chemicals_on_mortar_shells.htm
4) The case by the UN was that Iraq was NOT in compliance with its resolutions, period. That was the trigger for military action.
The UN also did not request our "help" in getting Iraq to comply and according to Blix was within a few months of completing their inpsection, despite lack of cooperation from Iraq.
5) The Bush administration spent 14 months working with the UN and other allies to get the Iraq worked out. War WAS the last resort, waiting for something to happen wasn't an option.
But what was so terribly urgent that it couldn't wait until Blix completed the inpsection? Was Bush afraid that he might actually lose his excuse for invading if he waited that long?
6) The policy of the United States, as signed by Executive Order by Bill Clinton in 1998 was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
By what means....?
7) What if we didn't go and topple Saddam
....where would Iraq be?
It would have been cleared by the UN and sanctions would have been lifted. It would have signed contracts with Russia, France and Germany for oil production and oil production equipment. More goods and services would probably have started flowing to the population since they would no longer be "black market" items.
In any case, it would not be harboring al Qaida terrorists... just as it was not before. And it would not have WMD, just as before.
"Keep a civil tone and don't assume you know anything about what I know other than what I write. "
I already know a lot about what you think you know from what you've written. You assert many things that would be more interesting if you would only back them up with links.
And if you HAD looked up anything about chemical and biological weapons and you KNEW they had a shelf life, then you conveniently ommitted that fact. So either you didn't know, or...
"Yes, I know- we sent them the materials to make them. And we also destroyed a number of them at the time."
I figure, like the other links, you won't read it and just discredit it with a wave of the hand. So here it is:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/17/123424.shtml
Who Armed Iraq?
Charles R. Smith
Monday, March 17, 2003
Myth vs. Fact
Name one weapon in the Iraqi arsenal that was made in the United States.
I have offered that challenge to dozens of so-called anti-war activists who claim that the U.S. armed Iraq. According to these protesters for "peace," George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan supplied Iraq with tons of weapons.
None have been able to name the specific weapon – missile, bomb, fighter, tank or shell – that is U.S.-made or has U.S. equipment installed in it. None have been able to name any specific weapon system.
All of them have failed the challenge, providing no more than allegations that U.S. parts are in Iraqi missiles or U.S. electronics are being used by the Iraqi military. One protester even claimed that Iraq was armed with U.S.-made trucks.
Since when is a truck a weapon? Are the Iraqis going to drive backwards, fuel tank first, into the U.S. Army?
Time to separate the myth from the reality. The propaganda spun
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME