Bush LIED and here is the proof!

[woodsmoke]

Ummmm not!

From the people who make millions getting a few minutes of fame from their dunderheaded idolizers, like Michael Moore.

To the lib elites who would never actually breath OUR air, or especially the air over FlyOver Country.

To the many Democratic Politicians.

To the lefty media, PBS, NPR, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc.

To the untold thousands of kool-aid drinking libs/dems who believe whatever the above tell them to believe...

They were ALL WRONG.

UK experts to help Iraq destroy chemical residues

By BUSHRA JUHI

BAGHDAD (AP) — Britain will help the Iraqi government dispose of what's left of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons, still stored in two bunkers in north of Baghdad, the British embassy in Baghdad announced Monday.

The British Defense Ministry will start training Iraqi technical and medical workers this year, an embassy statement said. The teams will work to safely destroy remnants of munitions and chemical warfare agents left over from Saddam's regime. He was overthrown in 2003 following an American-led invasion.

Saddam stored the chemical weapons near population centers so that he could access them quickly, despite the danger to his civilian population.

Most of Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed by military forces in 1991 during the first Gulf War or by U.N. inspectors after the fighting. The inspections halted just before the invasion.
.................

yada yada yada can be read in the linky

2012-07-30

Dollars to donuts that not one word of this is mentioned on:
PBS
NPR
NBC
CBS
ABC
CNN
NewYawkTimes
etc. etc. etc. ad boredom.

The FindLaw Article, after the AP article:

http://news.findlaw.com/apnews/1d957...81716d221ea75d

I wouldn't want to provide a link to the article on Fox News or the forum would probably overheat.

woodsmoke

[whatthefunk]

Ehh....yeah, everybody knew he had chemical weapons before the first Iraq war. He was gassing the Kurds. The article you posted seems to be referring to remnants, probably the degraded chemical munitions found in 2006.

ABC:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...8#.UBddZn1khMA

CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501713_1...ag=mncol;lst;1

Im sure it will come up on the rest later. It really isnt that big of a news story....

[woodsmoke]

Hey, thanks for the linkys!

However, I was referring to broadcasting it on nightly news as an exhoneration of Bush....ooops, that won't happen!

Ummm it was a big enough news story a few years ago that forums melted down from the screaming back and forth between the two camps and the news media ran with it like the nags that they are, and people like Moore made millions off it...

but now it's not that big a news story.

i wonder why....possibly from embarrassment....no, probably not embarrassment.....just sweeping it under the rug.

Kind of like educationists want to forget this picture:



But AGAIN, thanks for the linkys!

woodsmoke

[whatthefunk]

In all honestly, this story is of zero relevance. The real issue was that Bush couldnt prove the existence of WMDs before the invasion which meant that he had no real reason to invade. he basically went to war on a hunch. Its like if the police think that you are making meth in your basement. They cant prove it, they cant get a warrent, they have zero evidence, they just think that you might be running a meth lab. So they break down your door, shoot up the place, and then find a meth lab. This okay with you?

[woodsmoke]

Exactly the same argument was made about Hitler when Chamberlein waved the Peace in Our Time paper that Hitler had signed and Hitler then soon invaded the Sudetenland.

The British thought he had them.

He had already gassed the Kurds.

His own generals thought that he had them.

Ted Kennedy thought he had them and Clinton said the same and then had to.....umm make a do-over.

Churchill "thought" that Hitler would start a world war.

A "hunch".

Churchill was right and Chamberline was wrong.

All of the lefties were wrong and Bush was right.

If Bush had NOT invaded, "on a hunch" ... we might now be numbering in the tens of thousands the dead that Hussein's crazy half brother might have killed if Hussein proved to be to "stable" for him.

Chemical weapons do not need to be transported on a missile.

woodsmoke

[Arran]

For me, the very interesting part is the Brits must have tons of such stuff. Why else would they be able to offer their expertise?

[whatthefunk]

Exactly the same argument was made about Hitler when Chamberlein waved the Peace in Our Time paper that Hitler had signed and Hitler then soon invaded the Sudetenland.

The British thought he had them.

He had already gassed the Kurds.

His own generals thought that he had them.

Ted Kennedy thought he had them and Clinton said the same and then had to.....umm make a do-over.

Churchill "thought" that Hitler would start a world war.

A "hunch".

Churchill was right and Chamberline was wrong.

All of the lefties were wrong and Bush was right.

If Bush had NOT invaded, "on a hunch" ... we might now be numbering in the tens of thousands the dead that Hussein's crazy half brother might have killed if Hussein proved to be to "stable" for him.

Chemical weapons do not need to be transported on a missile.

woodsmoke

Three things.
1. The chemical weapons referred to in your original post your more than likely made before the first Iraq War. There was no evidence what so ever that Hussein was producing weapons in the days/months/years leading up to the second Iraq war. So was Bush right to assume that Iraq, which had no known ties to terror groups, was amassing an arsenal of WMDs to attack the "free" world and therefor needed to be invaded. I think not.

2. If we start doing things based on hunches, you can kiss freedom goodbye. Think of all the crimes that could be prevented if police didnt need warrants. If they could just go in anywhere based on hunches, it would be a lot easier, but is that what you really want?

3. You do realize that pretty much everything youve said in this thread came from that other news network, which has a much worse reputation when it comes to producing actual news based on facts than any of the media outlets you labeled as "leftie."

[HalationEffect]

For me, the very interesting part is the Brits must have tons of such stuff. Why else would they be able to offer their expertise?

That's a non sequitur. By that logic, every hazchem disposal team (even civilian ones) must have illegal stockpiles of hazardous chemicals, which isn't the case.

[Goeroeboeroe]

With all respect, woodsmoke, but you really don't know what you're talking about. There's absolutely nothing new in what you say. This is very old news.
Everybody that has been following this story, knows the dictator had lots of chemical weapons (and other things). But they were too old to use. Of course you still have to destroy them safely. That's what's happening now.
There really is nothing, nothing new in what you wrote. I'm not going to search for links, because I've better things to do, but I remember even the UN inspectors already said there were chemical weapons. But useless, because too old to use. With a little googling you can find lots of information about this.
I don't have any illusion to change a comma in your opinion, but I react because some (younger) people may not know this has been known for years.

Edit: well, very short search. One link. It's to a page on wikipedia about the Iray Survey Group, an investigation group organized by Pentagon and CIA. At the bottom of the page under 'March 2005 Report Addenda' second note: "any remaning chemical munitions in iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat".
So, an investigation group organized by Pentagon and CIA (!) already knew this in 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group

[Qqmike]

Here we are again.

Goeroeboeroe: "With a little googling you can find lots of information about this ...
I don't have any illusion to change a comma in your opinion, ..."

I'd like to extend that to say ...

... I don't know very many people willing to defend Bush on anything, or who would say the country or the world is better off because of him. This includes my staunch conservative friends (who are rather embarrassed about most of his eight years). It would seem that even Bush would rather--somewhat nervously--disavow his mark on history and disappear (based on the hardly-articulate, few interviews he's granted). I'll never forget the embarrassing interview with his dad, George H W, when he came to his son's defense saying (paraphrase) that everyone thinks my son is not smart, not intelligent. Bush (geez, shucks, darn--my words but close to his) went on to say his son attended the best universities, graduated such and such, and on like that. To see a senior, retired prez lower himself to that level of defense in support of his presiding prez son was, well, uncomfortable. (Aside: "Rumor" had it that H W tried to dissuade Bush from attacking Iraq saying that there would be no clear way-out or end of such an attack and subsequent, inevitable occupation.)

Goeroeboeroe: "I'm not going to search for links, because I've better things to do ..."

Exactly my feeling about this stuff. What strike me is how we can all see things so differently, in many cases even in the presence of fact, or congressional record, or actual laws passed, or published interviews on topics. In the case of Bush's record, conservative-bashing is not the issue, no desire to even go there because there's a much sadder, more embarrassing, unnerving aspect to it all during those eight years.

The problem in America--the Real (tm) problem--is ignorance. Voters are not informed of basic facts, whether that be scientific facts or statistical or economic. They vote on dumb-gut-reactive knee-jerks to emotional topics (usual hot social issues). The first thing you can do--and this will be a hellava education for ya--is to get on the email lists of some congressman JUST to find out what they are doing and what kinds of laws certain of them are attempting to pass. (Like stopping funding for Public Broadcasting, as one of many recent examples). You will be shocked. That exercise alone should motivate anyone to try to become more informed of facts and participate by lobbying his/her reps. Have any of you actually talked to a Real Live Lobbyist about what goes on? (I have--a friend down the street.)

I don't think I'll be making further posts on this sort of thing anymore.

[woodsmoke]

Well, I really WANT to say that this thread has had many more posts than I expected. And that is a good thing!

I rather assumed that there would be "aloof silence" or mostly anti-Bush rants.

There are a lot of people on both sides, in the U.S., who have opinions formed by listening to "other people", instead of getting their own information.

And, that is just the nature of the beast, we all live busy lives and this kind of stuff comes and goes.

However, because of the anti-Bush/anti-conservative bias in the mainstream media and the shouting of the anti-conservative blogs and the media produced by people like Moore, the "average person" was only exposed to "one side".

And again, I go back to Churchill. There was only "one side" in that situation also.

If the media in the U.S. really WAS "fair and balanced" at the time, then quite possibly Bush would not have been able to marshall sufficient information, and Bill Moyers would have been able to .....or....

horrors....vice-versa......Bush would have marshalled sufficient information and Moyers would have been left in the dust.

But, no, the media in the U.S. is all one side and, quite simply, doesn't even want to consider, in one small scintilla, what some "other way of thinking" has to say.

Just as it is in many other countries.

And one can see the results of a one sided media in those other countries.

As an example, in our fair city, there were, back up until the eighties, two newspapers, one "conservative" and one "liberal". They had great, and often ferocious, debates. Editorial cartoons, etc, However, a nationwide paper, Gannet, came in and purchased both. And, in the space of less than a year, the reportage, opinion, etc. became only lefty.

Now, that situation rocked along fairly well, except for the constant complaints to the paper about why is there only one side presented.

There was evidence of a decline of readership starting in the nineties.

The "conservatives" were just tired of being "preached at" by the opinion pieces, all of it from national writers....

whereas the ORIGINAL two papers had LOCAL op-ed pieces and the "people" could then come up with an informed opinion.

When the economy started to collapse the dozens and dozens of pages of automobile adverts was moved into the newspapers in the outlying towns....along with a lot of other advertising, because the only real READERS of the thing were the lefties in the city......

"Government Motors" shutting down dealerships for no apparent reason, cut off advertising in literally the space of a day.

The outlying papers are burgeoning btw.

While the Gannet paper has laid people off.

The true state of things were able to be seen.

It got so bad that a regionally known op-ed writer that had both "sides of the street" as readers, because the person stayed assiduously away from political stuff, was fired and replaced, again, by a NATIONAl writer...

The paper is, from what I have been able to learn from the former owner, about the only paper in the chain that is still making any sort of money; one reason for "making money" was the layoffs, the cutback of hours, etc. And, in addition, the whole system is apparently, being kept afloat by investments in non-newspaper related businesses(nation wide)

That, is why the Prez has floated the idea of TAXPAYERS funding a national slush fund which would be rebated to newspapers so that a "honest" "news of record" can be maintained in hard copy. Of course, only newspapers deemed "worthy" would be so endowed.

So, it really would have been great for there to have been a full airing of the matter of the WMDs.

The OTHER shoe waiting to be dropped is the possibility of WMDS in the truck convoy that went into Syria just before the second gulf war. That was always shouted down as being a right wing paranoia. But, if somehow the "western powers" get ahold of the stuff and remove it from the battle ground and it turns out that any of it DID come from Iraq....

then hmmmm.....

So, again. this has been a great thread! Thanks guys!

woodsmoke

[Goeroeboeroe]

I don't live in the US, so I look at it from the outside. One thing that really keeps surprising me is the unbelievable polarization between liberals and conservatives (or whatever you want to call them). I saw that on a lot of forums. From both sides (liberals and conservatives) a lot of people don't seem to listen to each other, but only want to say like it is and that's the only way it can be, should be and has ever been. Amen.
Maybe in the US weapons going to Syria was shouted down as being a right wing paranoia. I don't remember ever have read or heard that kind of complot-thinking over here (Netherlands). Just the last weeks there was a lot of publicity about chemical weapons of that other dictator in Syria, and the possibility they had come from Iraq. But I really never saw that story related to 'left' or 'right'. Chemical weapons are chemical weapons, dictators are dictators, 'right' or 'left'.

But you opened this thread suggesting that butcher in Iraq had chemical weapons, ready to use. And that's wrong. Of course he had chemical weapons. He used them to murder thousands of people. (It was a Dutch businessman who sold the butcher illegal a lot of the chemicals he used for that war-crime. He only got a few year in prison.) But he had no chemical weapons anymore ready to use. I guess they should have been found by now, after all those years.

One thing I absolutely agree with you is about the inflation of papers etc. You say they're mainly 'left', I say they're mainly 'right'. That says as much about your (and mine) political stand as about the papers etc., o). (Where the $⁾(*) are those smilies hidden)
All big papers in the Netherlands are owned by just two companies. Especially on the internet that's visible: all big papers have mostly exactly the same news, without a word difference. If doesn't matter if you're 'left' or 'right': this is a very bad thing. I'm pretty left, I'm afraid, but I try to get information from 'the other side' too. And that's getting harder and harder, because it's getting more and more the same.
But I don't think that has much to do with 'left' or 'right'. At least not over here. Newspapers are less and less managed by real 'newspeople' and more and more by commercial people. So they write more and more what sells. And the marriage of some popstar selss better than a thorough article about MWD.
Tv about the same. There are no real 'left' or 'right' organizations anymore. They all look at the money commercials make. Stupid games attrack more people than documentaries. So you have lots more games as documentaries. Etc. etc.

Ahem, would somebody be so friendly to tell me how I can make a smiley?

[claydoh]

Try going to the advanced editor for smiles.


Back on topic a little, here (and maybe elsewhere in the world) the so called news media is imo is not there to provide any public service either they are all beholden to the advertisers/corporations, or to a political entity or thought. Probably both. Bloggers for the most part are ill informed and useless.

We are too large a population served by only 2 parties, and all this polarization seems to me orchestrated smokescreen.

This annoys me to no end as many of us fit no party, even the tiny powerless ones. And if one pops up, it is eventually coopted by larger more powerful interests (the original Tea Party groups are the prime example here). It annoys many people but we are too lazy, apathetic, or have given up on the battle before it got started.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

[bsniadajewski]

My real take on the Iraq situation is that we should have at least waited to invade Iraq until WE GOT BIN LADEN FIRST (all caps on purpose). It was OBL's group that took out WTC, not Saddam. Besides, going in and taking care of business in (Eastern) Afghanistan(/Pakistan?) would have given us better PR than seemingly be sidetracked into another conflict of our own making.

I feel it should have taken only a couple years at the most to apprehend the 9-11 mastermind, not ten years and another president.

[woodsmoke]

Goreberoe:

I'm pretty left, I'm afraid, but I try to get information from 'the other side' too.

Your sentence betrays the thinking of the people of the LEFT aside from YOU.....

YOU.......

YOU...........should not be "afraid" to get information from "the other side"?

The lefties, in the U.S., are the ones who BRAY to the HEAVENS about having access to ALL information, but....

Right here in THIS THREAD......

there were several posts that averred that information from "the other side" was....worthless.....

so...BRAVO TO YOU ....Gorobereo.....bravo to you.......who view BOTH sides and THEN make an informed decision......

instead of listening to only one side because "it is the correct side".....as both "sides" in the U.S. are so PROUD to spew.

and....

type a " : "

and then a " ) "

to get a smiley

for a frowny substitute a " ( "

SANS the quotes.

woodsmoke