Something that seems to have been missed.

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Bush did send America and her allies into war. But if you want to get techincal, the person that caused the war was Not Bush, it was Saddam Hussain, since he had no WMD all he to do was fully coperate with the UN and Bush wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, Saddam refused and well... thats how it works.

I don't suppose you'll be much interested in a link that talks a little about the UN Inspectors and saddam's cooperation (or lack thereof) with them.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...s/0713torpe.htm

But I'm sure even you will agree that Bush had a predisposition to go to war, no matter what the inspectors did or didn't find.

But this is besides the point of your thread. My original intent was to show that you are trying to blame CBS for using false info, yet maintaining that Bush was innocent for doing exactly the same thing. IMO, the higher standards of evidence are required for a program that is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, than for a simple election year story that's merely hyped up to sell newspapers.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Hold on Zee... Let me ask you something, you don't care that the whole world was bascially fooled about the WMD issue? You just care that since Bush said, based on as solid of intel we had, there were WMD, and since we haven't found any, he lied?? Your logic eludes me. Lying requires the liar to know he is speaking falsely. Requires that malicious intent to decieve. Being told "Slam Dunk Case Mr. President" and running with that, among other intel, is not lying, its called faulty intel that Bush had no control over... what do you want him to do? Tell the CIA, UK, UN, France and everyone else thier best wasn't good enough??? The CBS story isnt that they ran a story based on lies. Thats not a big deal, it happens, its a breif embarressment they admit it and move on. Whats the big deal is that they refuse to admit the story i based on faked memos, even the NYT's has articles and opinions on CBS's mistake on this one. That they are fighting this tooth and nail is incredible. The real two questions are: Who or what group is the source they are hiding? What will be the fallout?

Wrong - Bush did not use the best intelligence possible (which would have been what the UN inpectors were gathering) but he took fairly useless information and created a big deception with it. The majority of his information came from people who left Iraq twenty years ago, people who did not like Saddam and would clearly lie to encourge Bush's objectives.

[RickSp]

Bush went with the BEST AVAILABLE INTEL THE WORLD HAD. It was wrong. So why do you want to hang him for the worlds mistake?

Gee, got this great bridge for sale.

Bush and his "Office of Special Projects" did everything possible to cheerypick intel to cook up the story they wanted. (It also appears that that office was a hot bed of Israeli spies with their own agenda.)

Bottom line, Bush lied and our soldiers died and keep dying.

If you are really concerned about forgeries, which I doubt you are, look at the bad forgery that detailed the Niger yellow cake. Bush repeated the claims about the yellow cake even after it was repeated discredited by the CIA several times. Then when caught in the lie, blamed the CIA.

And I do think that Barnes is now telling the truth. It agrees with all the other evidence.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Yawn... DU has the same arguements, is that ya'lls source? Or wass it Moore. None of this is even remotely original or even intelligent, its all the same progreessive hate spewed by sheep.

And effectivily high jacked the orignal thread because it was a not a BASH BUSH thread and is now trying to BE a BASH BUSH thread. Why not rename the forum "Volconvo:Heated Bush Bashers Base"

[bishop]

the senate conducted a lengthy report on pre-war intelligence. it showed how driven the top administrators were to find information that favored their war mongering views. the conclusions weren't made by members of DU, but rather, by a bipartisan commission.

did bush persuade a parse few of our allies to join us in war, or did they persuade us? who pushed for this war?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Why did we go to war? We went to war because Saddam's failure to prove he had rid his country of WMD, his failure to abide by the UN Resolutions, his past use of WMD on his own people and Iranian troops and 9/11. All of those things added up to the need for the world to stand up and put words into deeds. Its all fine and dandy to talk the big talk but when it came time to force Saddam to do what the world demanded, the spinelss balked, or were paid off (UN FOOD FOR OIL SCANDEL ANYONE?)

[bishop]

thus far, it looks like saddam might have been telling the truth. i haven't seen anything substantive that truly supports bush's assumptions based on bullshit intelligence.

one would think that there weren't any inspectors in iraq..

did our invasion help destroy the threat of wmd? one would think that you'd actually have to FIND some wmd, and all these supposedly active programs for this bullshit war to have had some legitimacy.

i'm still waiting, and i stopped holding my breath a long while ago. and in case you forgot, and cuz i love reminding you closet nazis, i voted for bush and initially supported his war because i was stupid enough to trust that moron. this isn't the typical DU criticism you seem to think it is. how about some fucking accountability???

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, You see nothing to debate? What else is wrong with the memo's?   Signature is in the wrong place, CBS won't divulge the source OR allow outside experts to see the originals.   The story is about CBS being CAUGHT by the web blogs in an obvious lie.   If the memo's are real, why won't they release the orignals to the world?  Why won't they allow non-partisan experts to examine the memos at length to prove the claims are BS?

Those are valid questions and should be addressed. But so far there seems to be nothing substantial about these charges, other than your precious "blog" you are using as a source, or the Washington Times which ALSO quotes another expert which brings the first expert's opinions into question. Your other link seems to be a part of a memo which seems to be so out of context as to make no sense at all.
Back to blogs. The NY Times isn't credible, ANYTHING with .ORG is not credible, but some nitwit with a right wing blog IS? OK, so it's a collection. A collection of WHAT? Other right wing nitwits who post their OWN blogs? Really, Mr. V, I know we disagree much of the time, but you are usually good for some at least SOME credentialed sources. I like to think you simply made an error in judgement using a lousy blog as a source. But just in case it wasn't, let me remind you of something you know very well, that a blog is NOT JOURNALISM! It is opinion, or cut and paste jobs crafted to satisfy the blog owner's opinions. There is NO journalistic review or any demands for facts to back up this information.

Maybe I'll start a blog. My first entry into my attempt to convince myself and my drinking buddies that I am some kind of reporter will be "Kerry is a Space Alien". Based on the fact that Kerry went to Vietnam and was taken over by the pod people. Well, he DID go to vietnam, didn't he? So it follows that the rest of it must be true too.
You make another big mistake even trying to introduce a blog as a source. How long will it take for a Kerry fan to start a blog and have other people start using IT as a source? Don't we have enough bullshit out there already without people trying to muddy the waters even further?

And you see nothing to debate?  I thought this was a "heated debate" forum... my bad, its a cheerleading board for the Hate Bush crowd.

Sometimes it is, but we also have the president of the Hate Kerry club here as well.

No wonder the big controversy of the past 7 days has been ignored here...

It has been ignored, by everyone else too. I get as much news as the next guy and I honestly haven't seen a big deal made about it.
I shouldn't have to remind you I do NOT like John Kerry, but I don't like BUSH either, and until I see something other than rumors about this whole thing I don't see anything worth debating.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Why did we go to war? We went to war because Saddam's failure to prove he had rid his country of WMD, his failure to abide by the UN Resolutions, his past use of WMD on his own people and Iranian troops and 9/11.

Geez, Vicchio, you sure are wound up today.
Not to belabor your point, but how could Saddam PROVE something WASN'T THERE?
He used WMD's on his people and Iranian soldiers. Gee, it sounds like he was at WAR with them, don't it? I think the rest of the world could (and DID) sleep well during all that.
And 9/11??? I though our own government had cleared that up.

[RickSp]

Not to belabor your point, but how could Saddam PROVE something WASN'T THERE? He used WMD's on his people and Iranian soldiers. Gee, it sounds like he was at WAR with them, don't it? I think the rest of the world could (and DID) sleep well during all that.

There is an ugly irony in that Saddam was our ally when he used WMD on the Iranians and the Kurds. (Donny Rumsfeld was Reagan's special envoy that gave Saddam the helipcopters he used to drop the gas bombs, of course.) And Saddam was our enemy after he had destroyed the WMD. And Scribbler, you are exactly right - you can't prove a negative. In this case the closest we could have come would have been by continued UN inspection, which King Geroge refused to wait for.

If going to war with a country because they violated a few UN resolutions was our standard we would have been bombing Israel for years, instead of subsidizing it with countless billions. Come to think of it they also have nukes, the worst sort of WMD.

So, Mr. Vicchio, Saddam is in jail, his country is a wreck, 1,015 fine Americans have been killed, some 5,000 have been maimed or crippled, 15,000 or so Iraqi civilians have been slaughtered, $200 billion of taxpayers dollars have been wasted and we are mired in a hopeless quagmire. And you seem to most worried about whether an IBM selectric had proportional spacing thirty years ago (many did.)

[Mr.Vicchio]

Scribbler, not to cast commmon sense on your thinking, but all he had to do was open the country and say "SEE NOTHING HERE GO AWAY!"

He NEVER DD THAT. He played stupid games taht only furthered the belief he was hiding WMD programs and weapons. We found the programs, we found the mothballed projects, we faild to find large stockpiles ready to go.

[Scribbler1]

FWIW, On MSNBC's Countdown program, That Lt. Colonel's secretary was quoted as saying she believed the documents were false, as she didn't recall typing them, but the information IN THEM is correct and taken from other documents she saw (she said she was the one who typed up ALL of the Col's paperwork).

How's THAT for a twist?

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Scribbler, not to cast commmon sense on your thinking, but all he had to do was open the country and say "SEE NOTHING HERE GO AWAY!" He NEVER DD THAT. He played stupid games taht only furthered the belief he was hiding WMD programs and weapons. We found the programs, we found the mothballed projects, we faild to find large stockpiles ready to go.

This is pure garbage. The UN inspectors were in Iraq and working up until the time they were advised to leave by the U.S. because the war was imminent. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ors-iraq_x.htm). Can you cite a single instance where the inspectors were denied access to any location they wanted to search since their return? Bush's rush to war was inspired solely by the fear that the inspectors would continue to find no evidence of any meaningful program or production of WMD's, thus thwarting his plans to invade.

[OberonDOtherseid]

I am with Bishop wherein I am totally sick of the rhetorical bull from both sides on service histories of said candidates. The one thing I will point out is that the Dem's and the left who supports them are consistantly shooting themselves in the foot.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Zee your right, p[ure garbage, thats why for 12 years with a few years hforced hiatus, the UN Inspectors comaplined of non-coperation...

How many Iraqi scientist were allowed to be interviewed without a handler there to remind them that their family was to suffer if he revealed any state secrets? Hmmm? Whatever, you refuse to see the wrong by saddam due to your Hate for Bush.

Well keep it sharp, you have 4 more years of him.

[Pooeypants]

Mr Vicc, your case is lost, it's been more than a year since the conquest of Iraq and the WMD has not been found which only goes to prove the previous regime told the truth when they said they've destroyed it all. If your government's intel was so accurate about where it's hidden then surely after all this time we should've found something. I can't believe that a tinpot country that, has been under survelliance for past decade can hide large cache of weaponry from the most technologically advanced nation in the world.

[bishop]

who could've fathomed that saddam told the truth while bush lied?!?

but thus far, that certainly seems to be the case.

and 1,000+ lives and $200+ billion later, how many times has the rationale for war changed because of the reality that saddam WAS telling the truth about his wmd's?

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Zee your right, p[ure garbage, thats why for 12 years with a few years hforced hiatus, the UN Inspectors comaplined of non-coperation... How many Iraqi scientist were allowed to be interviewed without a handler there to remind them that their family was to suffer if he revealed any state secrets? Hmmm? Whatever, you refuse to see the wrong by saddam due to your Hate for Bush. Well keep it sharp, you have 4 more years of him.

C'mon, Mr. V, you're smart enough to know that's crap. How much objective information would we get out of an Iraqi scientist if he were whisked away alone to some Abu Ghraib style interrogation room and "questioned" by "impartial" foreign intelligence agents? Better yet was the idea to fly them off to a foreign country where they could be "interviewed" more effectively. This way, we would be sure of getting the answers we wanted. If it was you that was to be similarly "interviewed", wouldn't you want a representative of your own government present to verify the conditions of your interrogation? Even Bush had to have his handler present at the 9/11 commission hearing with him.

I know you never check out links that oppose your viewpoint, but you ought to look and see what the inspectors real problems were:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...s/0713torpe.htm

And please, stop telling me what my beliefs are. I don't have a "Hate for Bush." I do, however, hate what he and his minions have done to this country.

[Ken Carman]

Originally posted by bishop, i'm pretty much worn out from the bullshit from both sides on the general issue of vietnam. the only thing that has been clear since day one was that kerry volunteered to fight and bush volunteered to campaign. aside from that, i could give a damn at this point. how about talking about something relavent to the issues that most people are concerned about?

Odd, I just finished writing something about that! Guess I'll provide the link and you can all comment here... or there...

http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/inspection/My Webpage Inspection

[Ken Carman]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Why did we go to war?  We went to war because Saddam's failure to prove he had rid his country of WMD...

Not to just pick apart one point, but how does anyone prove they have nothing? :rolleyes:

Seems to me if you claim someone has something it is your obligation to prove it to be true. If you wish to say he didn't provide enough access to find out the truth of the accusation, then that's another argument. One can't say he didn't provide enough time for us to find out before we had to attack. We decided the time factor here.

My point being simple. That one argument is fraudulent. No one can prove they don't have something. It's an impossibility. And it's guilty by accusation. Any such concept of "Rule of Law" would destroy all civilization faster than Saddam or Bin Laden ever could.