Is Bush neuro-impaired?

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, December 16, 2004 02:09
VIEWED: 8191
PAGE 5 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Monday, October 25, 2004 6:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
A WMD "program" is not the same as WMD.

Shhh. Listen carefully and you can actually hear the sound of hairs being split.

Quote:
And see my post on the "toxic cloud" story- WMD were almost certainly not involved.
The "smuggling of WMD" is an HIGHLY unsupported supposition.

But this has nothing to do with what I said in the first place; that the conclusions reached by the author of the Vanguard article don't agree with or support Rue's position, and so it shouldn't be cited by her as doing so. From what I recall of The Vanguard, they're about polar opposites from you and Rue on most stuff, and I reserve the same skeptcism for their positions that I do for yours. Rue's inclusion of their article in her list of cites above seemed either a slip on her part, or a sly joke. Maybe she'll let me know.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AURAPTOR

Monday, October 25, 2004 7:08 PM

Quote:
Did Saddam pose a credible threat? The answer is- NO.

. You might not think so, but those in the positions to defend the some 280 million Americans in this country and their counter parts in a host of other countries think otherwise. Easy to deny something as not a threat after you've gone in and taken care of it. Kinda funny how some of the same folks who DON'T think Iraq was a threat( even though the Russians have intel that says other wise ) are now mouthing off that we should do " something" about Iran. What ? A U.N. summit not good enough now ? We had 12 yrs , 17 Resolutions and hordes of inspectors for Iraq before any further action was taken......sheesh!

Again, some are willing to give a murderous dictator in Saddam Hussein the benefit of a doubt , even given all that he's done. Thankfully, our President isn't one of them. I happen to agree w/ him.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Monday, October 25, 2004 7:25 PM

Shhh... I ALMOST hear the sound of Geezer's neurons working!

The "program" smuggling charge is- like everything else in this article- unsupported. A "program" is the a combination of components, know-how, and intention. (means, motive, opportunity).

Since UNMOVIC had control of all those components while they were in Iraq, Saddam didn't "have" WMD, he couldn't' make WMD, and he didn't have a "program" to make WMD because his conventional and dual-use items were tagged and monitored. Saddam's WMD threat to the US was zilch. Zero. Nada.

HOWEVER, once those items move out of UNMOVIC control, they might be used to activate a program elsewhere. That occurred before, during AND AFTER the US invasion, including during times when Saddam was in prison. The articles make it sound like Saddam is orchestrating a massive WMD transfer to Syria, when that is very far from the truth.

And please don't hide behind others' opinions when they're really yours.

SIGNYM

Monday, October 25, 2004 7:33 PM

Auraptor, you obviously let others do your thinking for you. The Russians have every reason to hope Bush gets re-elected:

1) He's bankrupting our country.
2) He's overextended our military.
3) Invading Iraq provide Putin with all the justification he needs to level Chenya.
4) He's driving oil prices through the ceiling, which benefits Russian oil exports.

BTW- even BUSH didn't think there was a WMD threat. It's impossible to think of Saddam as a murdeous dictator chockful of "tons" of anthrax and sarin, ready to be released in 45 minutes using missiles deployed just around Bahgdad...

...and expect "no casualties" during the invasion.

Quote:
Again, some are willing to give a murderous dictator in Saddam Hussein the benefit of a doubt

Doubt was being removed by UNMOVIC. That's why it's called "verification" and not "good faith". The only thing the USA invasion did was scatter parts and equipment all through the Mideast.

AURAPTOR

Monday, October 25, 2004 7:49 PM

Quote:
Doubt was being removed by UNMOVIC. That's why it's called "verification" and not "good faith". The only thing the USA invasion did was scatter parts and equipment all through the Mideast.

So, after 12 yrs ,the U.N. was JUST on the verge of ......finding the things that Saddam said he didn't have ?

Please.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

PIRATEJENNY

Monday, October 25, 2004 7:56 PM

Quote:
There is no 'lying' here. All reasons are accurate. The REASON we went into Iraq was that Saddam was ignoring UN Resolutions ( remember those ? ) and the agreement after the 1st Gulf War to abide by the cease fire terms which HE agreed with. Once it became crystal clear that Saddam wasn't going to 'play ball', another form of diplomacy was taken. Terrorist , torture, human rights violations , mass graves...all those things existed along with Saddam's refusal to abide by UN Resolutions. Pointing those abuses out is not ' lying ' about going to war, but simply bringing to light the OTHER attrocities and crimes that go along w/ the main one. It's not that hard to understand, really.

Oh,and neither Bush or anyone in his administration ever SAID that Saddam was directly involved w/ 9-11, so claiming THAT as another 'lie' is simply a non sequitur. It was speculated OUTSIDE the Administration by all manner of 'experts' and media, but not by Bush.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

I was listening to Air America Radio a few days ago and on the (AL Franken show) some guy was on( sorry don't remember his name anywho ...there had been a sceientic poll taken ..the results that they came out with was 3 out of every Bush supporter.. had faulty ,wrong and incorrect information..

Bascially what the poll showed was that the majority of people who support Bush was ignorant of the facts...

but the hilarious thing about the poll is even when the people were given the correct information they still refused to believe it...

c'mon on ..the information is out there its not even like Bush and the gang have tried to hide it..their dirt is right out in plain view for anyone who wants to , to see it

Bushites are a hopeless bunch

but thats ok.( well its not really ok that so many people are delusional) but the rest of us is looking out for you guys anyway!!

SIGNYM

Monday, October 25, 2004 8:02 PM

WHAT was there to find, Auraptor?? Tell me- where are the WMD? The 25,000 liter of anthrax? The tons of sarin? The intercontinental missiles that would have made it all scary? WHAT are you referring to, besides an fixation that seems to have a hold on your brain?

UNMOVIC didn't find them. David Kay didn't find them. Neither did Charle Duelfer. They didn't find evidence of a "program" either, and I'm sure that they looked hard. (Unless you think that perhaps they're in cahoots with Saddam? I mean, anything's possible, right??)

The UN was on the verge of validating that there was NOTHING, which is a very difficult task- as even Kay and Duelfer will tell you. But you keep hanging onto the idea that WMD existed as if once that idea is gone your brain will be sucked into the vacuum left behind.

Auraptor- to give you an idea of how fine the screen is that UNMOVIC used to look for potential dual use equipment, even chlorine- required for water disinfection- was tagged as a "dual use" item. What they found were parts that COULD be used to make for WMD BUT WEREN'T.

NOTHING, Auraptor and Geezer, there was NOTHING. Go contemplate your navels for a while and come back when you are capable of comprehending and accepting that simple fact, validated three times over.

AURAPTOR

Monday, October 25, 2004 8:38 PM

Quote:
Auraptor- to give you an idea of how fine the screen is that UNMOVIC used to look for potential dual use equipment, even chlorine- required for water disinfection- was tagged as a "dual use" item. What they found were parts that COULD be used to make for WMD BUT WEREN'T.

You're fogetting ONE tiny detail. The burden of proof wasn't on the UN, it was on SADDAM! That is where your entire argument utterly collapses. Saddam was to present to the UN Inspectors everything he CLAIMED he had, and/or show how, when, where, it was destroyed. He never did. You say there was nothing ? THAT IS THE PROBLEM! Saddam ADMITTED having a whole list of illegal weapons and equipment after the Gulf War, and by CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT , he was to adhere to the rules of the UN to present any and all items deemed illegal.HE NEVER LIVED UP TO HIS SIDE OF THE DEAL. THAT IS WHAT THIS WHOLE GORRAM THING IS OVER! What DON'T YOU GET ABOUT THAT ? CRIPES! And you are completely wrong to say there was 'nothing'. Flat out wrong. The UN Inspectors DID find and destroy 'some ' items, but not nearly enough to account for all that they KNEW Saddam had. So, blah blah blah contemplate your own damn navel, but I'm tired of this game. Once you're willing to admit that the UN had nothing else better to do than to pass 17 resolutions , have a 15- 0 Security Council vote on the use of force...THEN maybe the match light of comprehension will ignight in your mind. Otherwise, this 'discussion' is going no where.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Monday, October 25, 2004 8:59 PM

Quote:
... he was to adhere to the rules of the UN to present any and all items deemed illegal...The UN Inspectors DID find and destroy 'some ' items, but not nearly enough to account for all that they KNEW Saddam had

USA troops destroyed tons and tons of munitions, including WMD, without inventorying the stuff. It's a little hard to turn over stuff that you don't have and don't know where it went. Hans Blix knew that. But after a decade, except for mustard gas it becomes an exercise in bookeeping because biological and chemical weapons deteriorate. And Blix knew that too, as apparently you don't. Yeah, Saddam was a "bad man" and he wanted WMD but there was NOTHING in Iraq that proved a credible threat to the USA, or even to their neighboring states. Certainly not "tons" of anything "ready to be deployed".

However, if you want to look at a nation that possesses WMD, has designs on its neighbors, is STILL occupying foreign soil, has committed humanright abuses, and has ignored dozens of UN resolutions, look at Israel. Maybe we should invade them too??

So, go contempate your navel again.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go check out a mil spec PC for a CWA anti-terrorism unit.

PS the munitions were at Khamisiya. I have been told it was the size of several football fields, but I wanted to see a picture first. However, despite all the contoversy about Khamisiya and it's potential relationship to Gulf War Syndrome, not a picture is to be had.

SOUPCATCHER

Monday, October 25, 2004 9:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateJenny
Bascially what the poll showed was that the majority of people who support Bush was ignorant of the facts...

This was a study done by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland and was actually carried out by Knowledge Networks. Here is the report (16 page pdf):
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

*editted to add in the quote just so people know what the hell I'm posting about

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE