Did Bush lie about WMD?

[jimnyc]

I have to say that this board is one of the better ones I've seen in terms of respecting freedom of speech, unless you somehow insult the religious beliefs of the moderators, the religion being nationalism.

Is not every poster on this board afforded every opportunity to speak their views? In fact, you and I have disagreed almost every step of the way so far, have you been limited in any way? Have you been denied any "rights"? Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the only thing I stated to you about name calling and being civil?

Shoot, I'd go as far as to say the majority of the 'political half' of the board has the opposite view than the moderators. So you say "unless you somehow insult the religious beliefs of the moderators, the religion being nationalism" - Have your views been limited because you have a different belief? Can you show me anyone who has been limited for having different beliefs?

However there is a place for moderation to keep discussions on-topic.

The only thing that is moderated is "off topic posts", which the rules clearly state will be moved to an appropriate forum, or completely disruptive posts which serve no purpose but to piss people off - and even then the posts have stayed with a warning.

in all honesty, jim, you're not perfect either. i noticed some threads where you just slammed me, and didn't even mention a topic.

I never claimed I was, and I have been far from it in the past. Have you not noticed a difference as of late? There's been plenty of that flying in every direction, but with the board growing it was starting to get in the way of decent discussions. You can't moderate this in some topics and not others which is why I'm looking at it from a different angle.

seems kind of hypocritical to punish others for an action you partake in? i am seeing a re-curring american policy theme emerging

Nobody has been punished, I only gave warnings. Sure, I was involved in some "tit for tat" with some people, but you'll be hard pressed to find ANY posts where I warned someone about their posts and did that very same thing to them in return - in other words, whatever the activity was, ceased for me in that particular thread as well. I am not handing out any rules that I don't expect to honor myself.

you do pay the bills around here, but part of everyone the having the 'freedom' to voice their opinion has its own pitfalls within itself.

That's correct, some see it as a license to abuse the board. Even in the USA freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to be abusive in any way to people. It's like going to a baseball game and standing on the field during a game to speak your views to the audience. You have freedom of speech, but not the right to be disruptive to the game.

i am guessing since the moderators are 'bush supporters', this makes it a pro-bush board, no?

The majority of moderators are Pro-Bush, yes. But, the board is FAR from a Pro-Bush board currently! Those who disagree with our current administration and foreign policy outnumber the Pro-Bush posters easily 2-1.

i even posted a mildy amusing- but thought provoking faux bush resume`, that simply counters things like gop_jeff posts centering on only the positive things that have happened.

That's your right to do so. I disagree with the intent of that resume but it appears to me for the most part a factual representation. I'll have you notice that those types of posts are not deleted/edited in any way.

like i said, you own the site, so you have the right to judge 'freedom' and ban as you deem fit. i only argue that in fairness, the criteria remain consistent.

Fair enough. And you are free to PM with any inconsistencies you feel are leveled and I will do my best to make it right. I still say the way this board has progressed and the way it is ran makes it better than most other popular boards available, and I'm yet to hear anyone argue that point. I hear complaints occasionally about "limitations" which effects about .05% of the posts here, but I don't see anyone praising the 99.5% of the freedoms allowed here that are not welcome on most other boards that are similar in nature.

 

[jimnyc]

So Clinton lied about a blow job.

Simply lying on camera or to your family is one thing, lying under oath in a court of law is quite another.

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.

http://www.gooddocuments.com/icreport/groundsintro_m.htm

 

[janeeng]

in all honesty, jim, you're not perfect either. i noticed some threads where you just slammed me, and didn't even mention a topic.

Spilly, I don't think that any of us here are PERFECT, it would be nice to think that, but we aren't. I have seen a lot of slamming by you and Jim, and many others on this board - though, there is a difference in the slamming - when someone new comes on here and has nothing to debate but sit here and put down people and make absolutely no sense, then you appreciate having someone on here like that? I don't, I find it rather annoying. One example was vyxen - never had anything nice to say AT ALL!!! she came here deliberately to start with Jim, and I think it got rather BORING after a while and had Jim not banned her, I think I would have.

seems kind of hypocritical to punish others for an action you partake in? i am seeing a re-curring american policy theme emerging... bam! i'm on topic- so please don't ban me


I find that rather sarcastic! You have been a member for quite a while now, and all of us have gotten after you, as well as you to us, yet I think it was done the proper way, without BASHING and continually foul mouths. Again, someone that is going to come in here to only start trouble, doesn't need to be here.

you do pay the bills around here, but part of everyone the having the 'freedom' to voice their opinion has its own pitfalls within itself.

Yes, Jim does pay the bills around here, and there is a difference in Freedom of Speech! freedom to debate our VIEWS on things, and we all have different opinions on everything - but not to come here and have the freedom to ONLY insult is not what I call the freedom we want here!!!

i am guessing since the moderators are 'bush supporters', this makes it a pro-bush board, no? i even posted a mildy amusing- but thought provoking faux bush resume`, that simply counters things like gop_jeff posts centering on only the positive things that have happened.

What does being a Republican or Democrat have to do with anything on BANNING??? and I might let you know that not all the Mods here are Bush supporters, but if all were, this shouldn't matter in the fact of banning. Simple as that! the freedom to come on here and question or debate issues is one thing, to come on here to insult other members and nothing but that, and being warned to stop but continue with it, deserves a step out of here. I think it's pretty simple, we can all have a good time here, stating our opinions whether we agree with things or not, or, we can leave!!!

I find this board fun and an actual learning tool. I am just wondering though, if Jim were a Democrat and siding with your issues, but banned someone because of insults, say to you, would you feel the same way??? or is this just because Jim is with Bush and having different views than you?

Jim, I think that you had every right in banning some of the members here, and I have to say out of over 300 members, though some maybe don't post, I think 3 might have been banned - I don't think that's much at all.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Is not every poster on this board afforded every opportunity to speak their views? In fact, you and I have disagreed almost every step of the way so far, have you been limited in any way? Have you been denied any "rights"? Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the only thing I stated to you about name calling and being civil?

Shoot, I'd go as far as to say the majority of the 'political half' of the board has the opposite view than the moderators. So you say "unless you somehow insult the religious beliefs of the moderators, the religion being nationalism" - Have your views been limited because you have a different belief? Can you show me anyone who has been limited for having different beliefs?



The only thing that is moderated is "off topic posts", which the rules clearly state will be moved to an appropriate forum, or completely disruptive posts which serve no purpose but to piss people off - and even then the posts have stayed with a warning.

And I'm certainly not complaining about this.

As for nationalism, just say some of the same things about the US military and US soldiers that get said about oh, say, les grenouilles lâches, and I think the religious beliefs of the moderators and the gods they serve will become fairly clear in relation to someone who, for instance, thinks that our army is really no better or worse on the whole, but just a tool to be used as politicians see fit and can get away with.

 

[janeeng]

Ho hum, how it's so much fun with scarcasm!!!!!! it just gets so boring to read it!

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by Lefty Wilbury
satilites only pass over iraq twice a day. the photos you refering to were of known sites. and i'm not talking about any new buildings or anything they could have loaded everything onto a truck dug a hole and covered it up. simple as that

The satelite is in geo synchronis orbit. It sits over Iraq 24/7. The containers for these weapons are not 55-gallon drums. A few drops of this stuff will kill you at a distance if the wind is right. Normaly chemical weapons are stored in their component state until they are loaded into the munition (which requires mobile equipment that we haven't found) and the bio has to be kept at a low temperature to keep the bugs in weaponized form. The bio wouldn't survive burial in the desert for more than a few days, though the chemical might be sitting out there in the sand. If that's true we will find it when the drums start to leak and we start seeing dead bedoiuns littering a plot in the western desert...

Ibid
congress doesn't know what they know. the agencies should go first then say to the intel committee this is what wrong ONLY THEN should the intell committes look at what ever changes in procedure,funding etc etc the agencies recomend.

The committee has been investigating this for six months, they've interviewed most of the CIA analysts involved with the data, as well as Doug Feithe. They have recieved a documents from both as well.

Ibid
if you want congress to go first then your going to see every clintonista draged in front of the committee and say how did you use the intel when you said saddam have x number of gallons of vx in 98?

Did Clinton lie or was he misinformed or maybe 5 years ago there was a real possibility that Hussein had a stockpile of these weapons. I'd like to know that as well but Clinton never invaded Iraq. He's also not still in charge of the country. We need to find out why the Bush administration did. At the time of the invasion he was using a self-defense argument that hinged on intelligence about WMDs'. If Clintons manipulation of the intelligence community in '98 caused this failure in 2003, that's fine, but I find all this waffeling about why we invaded a foriegn country really...disquieting.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by dijetlo
Did Clinton lie or was he misinformed or maybe 5 years ago there was a real possibility that Hussein had a stockpile of these weapons. I'd like to know that as well but Clinton never invaded Iraq.

Depends on how you define "invade".

Read the other thread in this section called "lies" that no one has responded to yet. That is Bill Clintons speech to the American public. Amazing similarities, no?

Also:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraqtimeline981116.html
http://www.themilitant.com/1996/6033/6033_2.html

I think it was SLClemens or yourself that stated "Iraq hasn't been a threat to neighboring countries in at least 10 years"

If that were true, did Bill Clinton lie? Why the need to attack if they weren't a threat to anyone? Was he just going after the oil?

 

[dijetlo]

Jeneeng
Spilly, I don't think that any of us here are PERFECT,

SLClemmons
As for nationalism, just say some of the same things about the US military and US soldiers that get said about oh, say, les grenouilles lâches,

Hook me up dude. What the hell is " les grenouilles lâches"???
On the larger argument, I think if you're civil, you can argue any point of view you wish. Name callers on the left do get slapped harder and faster then name callers on the right but I'm sure my own position on the left makes this tendancy seem more obvious to me than to others. On the whole I'm just grateful for the hospitality and enjoy the discussion between the two groups.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Depends on how you define "invade". Read the other thread in this section called "lies" that no one has responded to yet. That is Bill Clintons speech to the American public. Amazing similarities, no?I think it was SLClemens or yourself that stated "Iraq hasn't been a threat to neighboring countries in at least 10 years".If that were true, did Bill Clinton lie? Why the need to attack if they weren't a threat to anyone? Was he just going after the oil?

True, we militarily dominated the north and south of Iraq under Clinton as well as enforcing the sanctions sufficiently to block significant re-arming of Husseins conventional forces. We did not invade and occupy any portion of Iraq during his adiministration. He also has been out of power going on four years so perhaps we should initially focus our efforts on how we got into this mess (Iraq) instead of pursuing an old vendetta against an ex-president. It isn't relevant to our current predicament.
I read the thread and must agree wholeheartedly with the SLClemmons.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by dijetlo
True, we militarily dominated the north and south of Iraq under Clinton as well as enforcing the sanctions sufficiently to block significant re-arming of Husseins conventional forces. We did not invade and occupy any portion of Iraq during his adiministration. He also has been out of power going on four years so perhaps we should initially focus our efforts on how we got into this mess (Iraq) instead of pursuing an old vendetta against an ex-president. It isn't relevant to our current predicament.
I read the thread and must agree wholeheartedly with the SLClemmons.

I think it's relevant!

Everyone is so quick to accuse GW of lying. It would almost seem as what he did was copy Clintons speech. The similarities are striking.

In my opinion, Saddam was a threat to neighboring countries and his own people then as much as he was this time. I think Clinton was right in ordering strikes then, and I think GW has come in to finish what was started.

 

[janeeng]

Hook me up dude. What the hell is " les grenouilles lâches"???

Translation = The Frogs loosen! atleast that's what I came up with!

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by janeeng
Translation = The Frogs loosen! atleast that's what I came up with!

Oh MY God. Frogs loose....hold on, let me check....yup, one of the plagues of Egypt. Not a good sign people...I hope Mr. Twain has a link, this could be the deal breaker on Iraq!!!! Public opinion will certainly plummet and I think Mr. Bush better not count on the Christian right in the '04 primaries.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by missqittie
...He, almost singlehandedly, has become the biggest cause of global insecurity....

With your disclaimer of"almost singlehandedly",who else is the cause of global insecurity in your opinion?

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by dijetlo
The satelite is in geo synchronis orbit. It sits over Iraq 24/7. The containers for these weapons are not 55-gallon drums. A few drops of this stuff will kill you at a distance if the wind is right. Normaly chemical weapons are stored in their component state until they are loaded into the munition (which requires mobile equipment that we haven't found) and the bio has to be kept at a low temperature to keep the bugs in weaponized form. The bio wouldn't survive burial in the desert for more than a few days, though the chemical might be sitting out there in the sand. If that's true we will find it when the drums start to leak and we start seeing dead bedoiuns littering a plot in the western desert...

we don't keep any satilites in stationary orbits anymore. we've found the chemical compounds for chemical weapons. remember chem weapons are binary you take a and mix with b and you've got a weapon. we've found a we just need b.

Originally posted by dijetlo
The committee has been investigating this for six months, they've interviewed most of the CIA analysts involved with the data, as well as Doug Feithe. They have recieved a documents from both as well.

but the cia and isg haven't finished their work. remeber we have 7 miles worth of documents to go through,translat and we also have to interview people as well. still a lot of work hs to be done,

Originally posted by dijetlo
Did Clinton lie or was he misinformed or maybe 5 years ago there was a real possibility that Hussein had a stockpile of these weapons. I'd like to know that as well but Clinton never invaded Iraq. He's also not still in charge of the country. We need to find out why the Bush administration did. At the time of the invasion he was using a self-defense argument that hinged on intelligence about WMDs'. If Clintons manipulation of the intelligence community in '98 caused this failure in 2003, that's fine, but I find all this waffeling about why we invaded a foriegn country really...disquieting.

he bombed the hell out of them. the world has changed since 98. we are no longer going to sit on our asses and wait for things to happen. again we don't know yet. time will tell on whats up with iraq.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Lefty Wilbury
we don't keep any satilites in stationary orbits anymore. we've found the chemical compounds for chemical weapons. remember chem weapons are binary you take a and mix with b and you've got a weapon. we've found a we just need b.



but the cia and isg haven't finished their work. remeber we have 7 miles worth of documents to go through,translat and we also have to interview people as well. still a lot of work hs to be done,



he bombed the hell out of them. the world has changed since 98. we are no longer going to sit on our asses and wait for things to happen. again we don't know yet. time will tell on whats up with iraq.

And this was seriously worth up to 500 coalition troops and thousands of innocent Iraqis dying, and thousands of injuries, that may only be the tip of the iceberg? Some chemical components and a big mound of incomplete paperwork? What sad statesmanship.

BTW, lâches does not only mean loose. It's also a word the French use to desribe us when we fear a hypothetical threat so much we bomb the hell out of innocents from afar to try to remove it.

 

[dijetlo]

Posteb by Lefty Wilbury
but the cia and isg haven't finished their work. remeber we have 7 miles worth of documents to go through,translat and we also have to interview people as well. still a lot of work hs to be done,

The stated target of the committees investigation is the intelligence that was used by the decision makers to go to war. The stuff that was allready translated/analysed and put in the their hands. Much still needs to be done, but the investigation will be issuing a mid-report that they are currently drafting, so to imply that they are just getting started or even that the majority of their fact checking is not complete is incorrect. The hot debate right now on the committee is the Whitehouse connection to all this. Rockafeller wants to pursue it, Roberts is claiming it isn't in the domain of the investigation. The muds already starting to fly over this one, i.e. the Dem Memo.

Ibid
remember chem weapons are binary you take a and mix with b and you've got a weapon. we've found a we just need b.

Unfortunately for your argument, "b" is the chemical weapon, "a" are chemicals with multitudes of uses besides WMD and are found in almost every country on earth. Every place has "a" so it provides no proof of the existence of "b".

Iid
again we don't know yet. time will tell on whats up with iraq.

I think your right.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by SLClemens
And this was seriously worth up to 500 coalition troops and thousands of innocent Iraqis dying, and thousands of injuries, that may only be the tip of the iceberg? Some chemical components and a big mound of incomplete paperwork? What sad statesmanship.

BTW, lâches does not only mean loose. It's also a word the French use to desribe us when we fear a hypothetical threat so much we bomb the hell out of innocents from afar to try to remove it.

there hasen't been 500 troops killed even when you throw in none combat injuries it isn't close to that. go ask the iraqis if their better of now then before. more of them died in an average week under saddam then died mostly by saddams own troops misfiring things.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by dijetlo
The stated target of the committees investigation is the intelligence that was used by the decision makers to go to war. The stuff that was allready translated/analysed and put in the their hands. Much still needs to be done, but the investigation will be issuing a mid-report that they are currently drafting, so to imply that they are just getting started or even that the majority of their fact checking is not complete is incorrect. The hot debate right now on the committee is the Whitehouse connection to all this. Rockafeller wants to pursue it, Roberts is claiming it isn't in the domain of the investigation. The muds already starting to fly over this one, i.e. the Dem Memo.

if their still weeks away from putting out a mid report that means their not even half done. its like doing any paper. you get started you get some things done you do a rough draft then maybe you find some more sources that fill in your gaps or add to your paper. nothing different. and i was refering to the cia and the isg as just getting started not the intel commitiees. so the intel could be spot on but we don't know yet because their still working on it.

Originally posted by dijetlo
Unfortunately for your argument, "b" is the chemical weapon, "a" are chemicals with multitudes of uses besides WMD and are found in almost every country on earth. Every place has "a" so it provides no proof of the existence of "b".

what do you think chemical weapons are? they are two ordinary chemicals mixed together to get a stronger third. anyone right now with a little biit of knowledge can go under the sink in their kitchen and make similiar weapons to what saddam had. they'll be cruder but their similiar. what i meant to say earlier is we found "a" in one place and "b" in another. they haven't been found in the same place or mixed together which then would be the "smoking gun" i was just waking up before so excuse the mistake.

:cof:

 

[spillmind]

IT'S THEY'RE NOT 'THEIR'!

that crap is driving me nuts!

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Lefty Wilbury
there hasen't been 500 troops killed even when you throw in none combat injuries it isn't close to that.

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx