Is Obama the next US president?

[Mr. Brian]

Ahh, the old "everyone in the whole world got their info from George Bush" theory. It's the only way to hold onto the notion he was "lying" when it is a fact that the entire world believed what he believed.

No. The entire world did not believe it. The CIA and State Department among others in the international community had their doubts about the authenticity of the evidence prior to Powell's speech. Powell himself was skeptical. The White House/Cheney urged him to do the speech anyway because they had a war to sell.

[Kounelaki]

It's the only way to hold onto the notion he was "lying" when it is a fact that the entire world believed what he believed.

How do you know what the entire world believed?

[JackT]

The two are not inter-related

In 1998, Iraq had WMD.
Where's the evidence they had them in 2003?
Any "evidence" in 2003 was manufactured.

You must be kidding. Did the evidence from '98 expire? Did it go away? Where was the evidence they were gone? Where did they go? If they were no longer there, why didn't they allow the inspections to verify as much, so that sanctions could be lifted?

Let me see if I follow you: Clinton says Iraq has WMDs in '98 and calls for regime change, and that is not a lie. But after 9/11, we're supposed to say, "Yeah he had them a few years ago, but who's to say he didn't get rid of them, even though he won't verify that he did. It's probably okay now."

[withahip]

Hans Blix.

[Frank The Bunny]

JackT -

Since you seem to be so inclined as to believe the Bush Administration, how about the words from within the Administration itself?:

Colin Powell, February 2001: "[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq."

Condoleeza Rice, July 2001: "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Then there's this lovely tidbit:

George W. Bush, May 2005: "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

[JackT]

JackT -

Since you seem to be so inclined as to believe the Bush Administration, how about the words from within the Administration itself?:

Colin Powell, February 2001: "[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq."

Condoleeza Rice, July 2001: "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Then there's this lovely tidbit:

George W. Bush, May 2005: "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

Okay now you're just being obtuse. That "lovely tidbit" was a JOKE Bush made in a discussion about Personal Savings Accounts for Social Security reform, you know, about how you have to stay on message and keep repeating yourself. Are we having a serious debate here, or do you just want to "score points" with misrepresented, cherry-picked quotes out of context? For someone willing to call someone else a liar, you seem pretty willing to do it yourself.

As for your Rice "quote", I would ask you to provide me a source for that quote that does not come ultimately from a claim by left-wing journalist John Pilger. I myself cannot find any other account of her saying that.

As for Powell's statement, it is accurate. I would point out, though, that the Bush administration was just weeks old at that point. If you want to hang your hat on that statment as the end-all, be-all, then so be it, but I don't think it is very fair-minded.

Do you believe Senator John D. Rockefeller? One of your "Bush lied" guys? He just issued a report, this past June, on pre-Iraq war intelligence. His report states that all the WMD stuff was "substantiated by intelligence information." All of it--nukes, bio, chem, deliver vehicles, missles.

The fact that you have to use statements that are either a)cherry-picked b) made-up or c) taken completely out of context suggests to me that you are not being fair in your assesment, especially in light of the fact that when it comes right down to it, even Bush's harshest critics now concede that the intelligence was, in fact, what everyone said it was.

[JackT]

How do you know what the entire world believed?

Let me clarify, by "entire world", I meant intelligence agencies of major powers, and the UN. I did not mean to imply I know what your neighbor or 3rd grade teacher believed.

[Frank The Bunny]

I'm aware that Bush's statement was meant to be humorous. So I won't fight that one.

As for Rice - Well, I found the video, but you're not gonna like it. It's in a YouTube video narrated by left-wing journalist John Pilger. (by the way, it's not a crime to be left-wing...yet). It's from CNN's "Late Edition"
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v0wbpKCdkkQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v0wbpKCdkkQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[JackT]

I'm aware that Bush's statement was meant to be humorous. So I won't fight that one.

As for Rice - Well, I found the video, but you're not gonna like it. It's in a YouTube video narrated by left-wing journalist John Pilger. (by the way, it's not a crime to be left-wing...yet). It's from CNN's "Late Edition"

I will take your word for it, I can't get youtubes here at work. If it has video of Rice making the statement, then that is sufficient. And, no, it's not a crime to be left wing. You can spare me the "yet" though.

[Frank The Bunny]

I will take your word for it, I can't get youtubes here at work. If it has video of Rice making the statement, then that is sufficient. And, no, it's not a crime to be left wing. You can spare me the "yet" though.

Ok, I'll spare you the "yet".

As for John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV -

What he said in June actually supports my point: "The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein"

It was actually October 2002 when he came out for invading Iraq: "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... The global community – in the form of the United Nations – has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late... Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United States, and I have concluded we must use force to deal with him if all other means fail."

Still, FUCK John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV.

Two words: Exxon Mobil (formerly Standard Oil, which was founded by some guy who's name was... huh... John D. Rockefeller.... weird.)

Wasn't it just reported last week that Exxon Mobil earned a record 11.7 BILLION DOLLARS IN PROFIT IN A SINGLE QUARTER??? (of course, they missed their own expectations)

This is the part where one of us Left-Wingers might start chanting "No War For Oil!"

[JackT]

Ok, I'll spare you the "yet".

As for Rockerfeller -

What he said in June actually supports my point: "The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein"

But the text of his own report does NOT back up that statement.

There is Washington Post story about this report that, for some reason, drew very little coverage:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 87_pf.html

Here is a snippet in case you don't want to follow the link:

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment.

This is an accurate description of the content of the report. The actual report is available to the public to be examined directly, if you are so inclined.

I would also point out that this report was NOT bipartisan; Republicans were not allowed to participate. However, the earlier bipartisan investigation also concluded the administration did not manipulate intelligence.

Also, I do not believe Rockefeller was motivated by some nefarious oil-baron plan. It is hard to see how he would have hoped to gain financially from Iraq, and I don't think he has.

[Frank The Bunny]

Also, I do not believe Rockefeller was motivated by some nefarious oil-baron plan. It is hard to see how he would have hoped to gain financially from Iraq, and I don't think he has.

Actually, I don't think that was his motivation.
Still, Fuck him.

All his family's liberal posturing is all so they can wash their hands of where their dirty fortunes came from.

Sure, more lives on earth have been lost in the name of God, but the Almighty Oil's got to be running a close second over the past 100 years.

[JackT]

All his family's liberal posturing is all so they can wash their hands of where their dirty fortunes came from.

They stole it from the bunnymen?

[Frank The Bunny]

They stole it from the bunnymen?

Exactly. Bastards!

[JackT]

So....................


what else is going on?