Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

i_am_a_n00bie · Feb 4, 2004, 08:00 pm

Given the recent reports in the UK and the US into whether or not the politicians lied to the general public, what is your feeling about the war, the intelligence that lead up to it, and the Governments handling of information. Also, what I was really interested in, whether or not you will change how you vote because of it.

Post what country you come from, as well.

Impenitent · Feb 4, 2004, 11:24 pm

given the intelligence, the governments acted correctly...

damn straight it changes my vote... straight republican ticket now for sure

usa

Eulux · Feb 5, 2004, 02:44 am

Hmmmm...I would not hold a high regard for anyone who voted straight one party since you simply agree with that party more than the others...

Well, there is no way in hell I would ever vote for bushkin, so I guess it didn't change my vote.

TX, USA

Suburbanite · Feb 5, 2004, 04:56 am

I didn't agree with the war because some cowboy did, I agreed with it because it was a better alternatives and I kind of like war. =D

Geoff332 · Feb 5, 2004, 07:40 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
given the intelligence, the governments acted correctly...
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>You're absolutely right. The US invaded Iraq because George Bush is stupid. More intelligent leaders would have been capabvle of considering other alternatives.

tusaki · Feb 5, 2004, 09:02 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
given the intelligence, the governments acted correctly...
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>You're absolutely right. The US invaded Iraq because George Bush is stupid. More intelligent leaders would have been capabvle of considering other alternatives.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

nice :). But the impenitent has a point. Although I don't know how much influence the government has on the reports given by the intelligence agencies... We know from britain their agencies were pushed to come up with more 'sexy' details.

Paavo · Feb 5, 2004, 09:05 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,)
...and I kind of like war. =D<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

O__o

Impenitent · Feb 5, 2004, 10:03 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
given the intelligence, the governments acted correctly...
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>You're absolutely right. The US invaded Iraq because George Bush is stupid. More intelligent leaders would have been capabvle of considering other alternatives.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

lol :)

bush is not stupid... then again, harvard gives MBAs to stupid people all the time... bush should have flunked out of divinity school to show his intelligence...

eburchelli · Feb 5, 2004, 05:36 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
nice :). But the impenitent has a point. Although I don't know how much influence the government has on the reports given by the intelligence agencies... We know from britain their agencies were pushed to come up with more 'sexy' details.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Why don't you find some new news? Those sexy details have been debunked just this past week with an official inquiry into the BBC and the suicide of the person who brought the idea to light. There is no longer any justification for using this idea to put blame on Tony Blair.

tusaki · Feb 5, 2004, 08:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (eburchelli,)

Why don't you find some new news? Those sexy details have been debunked just this past week with an official inquiry into the BBC and the suicide of the person who brought the idea to light. There is no longer any justification for using this idea to put blame on Tony Blair.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Please get your facts straight. Hutton criticized the way the BBC dealt with the story and debunked the 'Government made false claims' criticism. but their intelligence agencies WERE pressured and their words were twisted by downing street.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lord Hutton Report Conclusions)

(v) Mr Alastair Campbell made it clear to Mr Scarlett on behalf of the
Prime Minister that 10 Downing Street wanted the dossier to be worded to make
as strong a case as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s WMD, and 10 Downing Street made written suggestions to Mr Scarlett as to changes in the wording of the draft dossier which would strengthen it. But Mr Campbell recognized, and told Mr Scarlett that 10 Downing Street recognized, that nothing should be stated in the dossier with which the intelligence community were not entirely happy.
(vi) Mr Scarlett accepted some of the drafting suggestions made to him by 10 Downing Street but he only accepted those suggestions which were consistent with the intelligence known to the JIC and he rejected those suggestions which were not consistent with such intelligence and the dossier issued by the Government was approved by the JIC.
(viii)The term “sexed-up” is a slang expression, the meaning of which lacks clarity in the context of the discussion of the dossier. It is capable of two different meanings. It could mean that the dossier was embellished with items of
intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable to make the case against Saddam Hussein stronger, or it could mean that whilst the intelligence contained in the dossier was believed to be reliable, the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the case against Saddam Hussein as strong as the intelligence contained in it permitted. If the term is used in this latter sense, then because of the drafting suggestions made by 10 Downing Street for the purpose of making a strong case against Saddam Hussein, it could be said that the Government “sexed-up” the dossier.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Take the 45 minute claim, for example. Blair made it sound like Saddam could use the weapons against *us* in 45 minutes. While the original intelligence was: "Saddam can deploy chemical and biological munitions against his Shiite population within 45 minutes.". it became "Saddam can use WMD in 45 minutes".. which is true (based on the intelligence), but it implies something totally different.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sir Richard)

"The original report referred to chemical and biological munitions and that was taken to mean battlefield weapons," Sir Richard, known in MI6 as "C", said. "I think what subsequently happened to the reporting (was) it was taken that 45 minutes applied to weapons of a larger range than just battlefield."

Asked by counsel assisting Lord Hutton, James Dingemans, QC, whether he agreed misinterpretation placed on the '45 minute' intelligence, with the benefit of the claim had been given "undue prominence", he replied: "Given the hindsight, that's valid criticism."
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is what I mean with sexing up or pressuring the intelligence agencies. And I believe this happens all the time.

Downing Street: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page271.asp
September Dossier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier
Guardian Articles: http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedi...,883261,00.html
September Report: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/iraqdossier.pdf
Hutton Report: http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/documents...1021218,00.html
Offical Hutton Site: http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/
Hutton Report (pdf): http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/conte...uttonreport.pdf

LogicaLunatic · Feb 5, 2004, 09:25 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
given the intelligence, the governments acted correctly...

damn straight it changes my vote... straight republican ticket now for sure

usa<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Are you up on current events? Bush was talking about invading Iraq in early 2001. He was just itching for a good reason to do it. You'd like to think that the CIA and other intelligence agencies are responsible for the Bush administration's lies and that Bush was decieved along with all of us but thats horse shit.
(Source: Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary)

Before you blame the intelligence or call this an "intelligence failure" please consider this...
These are the same intelligence agencies that new the names of almost all of the 9/11 hiijackers even before the dust settled. Thats a lot of detail in only a few days given all of the emotion and confusion that these people must have been feeling.

So, if these agencies were able to gather a high amount of quality information in only a few days while under extreme emotional stress then it is not likely that given the 10 + years they've had to investigate Iraq's WMD that they would "fail" to determine whether Iraq HAD WMD or come to a wrong conclusion.

If they in fact DID fail when it comes to Iraq given their 10 + years, then it isn't likely that they would be able to gather the information they did about 9/11. Then the only explanation could be that they were fed the intelligence about 9/11 from within the administration iteself.

Either way you look at it, the Bush administration is dirty and should be voted out if not impeached.

Iraq, a tiny nation devastated by a decade of economic sanctions, posed absolutely no threat to the US. The ONLY thing that Iraq had that could possibly concern the US is control over a large quantity of oil. This was made VERY clear. What was the first thing the troops were sent to guard? The hospitals? Water purification plants? Schools? Civiallians? No, the oil. Another fact that is very telling is that the major "reconstruction" no-bid contracts were given to companies that proveded a lot of money to the Bush administration, its members and had strong ties with the Bush family.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was captured. That is a good thing. But was he captured by the US? Hell no. He was captured by the Kurds who negotiated his release to US custody. And the news of his capture couldn't have happened at a better time. Specifically, when the Bush administration was under fire about the above mentioned no-bid contracts.

If there is a hell, a loving God would send Bush and his cronies there to burn.

LogicaLunatic

castille · Feb 6, 2004, 08:08 am

Conspiracy theories!

Did you know....the 3rd oil well burned by Iraqi troops was called "Mafia"? This links the Italian president with the Iraqi fascist government which is actually a member of Bush's cabinet.

Impenitent · Feb 6, 2004, 10:17 am

"Are you up on current events? Bush was talking about invading Iraq in early 2001. He was just itching for a good reason to do it. You'd like to think that the CIA and other intelligence agencies are responsible for the Bush administration's lies and that Bush was decieved along with all of us but thats horse shit."

then why didn't we invade on 9-12?!?

bush controls everything anyway, he could have simply said iraq did it and started a war...

"So, if these agencies were able to gather a high amount of quality information in only a few days while under extreme emotional stress then it is not likely that given the 10 + years they've had to investigate Iraq's WMD that they would "fail" to determine whether Iraq HAD WMD or come to a wrong conclusion.

If they in fact DID fail when it comes to Iraq given their 10 + years, then it isn't likely that they would be able to gather the information they did about 9/11. Then the only explanation could be that they were fed the intelligence about 9/11 from within the administration iteself."

which intelligence? the UN intelligence who said the WMDs existed? the british intelligence? the french, german and russian intelligence who said the WMDs were real and allowed clinton to bomb iraq without question?!? and if you want to go down the bad intelligence road, guess what comes next? the intelligence is so bad, we have to invade and conquer, north korea, iran, syria, lebanon, jordan, saudi arabia you name it simply to prove they aren't harboring WMDs and terrorists! be careful what you wish for, you will get it in spades... the american WAR MACHINE is churning and you are nothing but food for the gun...

"Either way you look at it, the Bush administration is dirty and should be voted out if not impeached."

nice propaganda, but it is logically flawed and it will not win your election

and source your DNC website next time please...

eburchelli · Feb 6, 2004, 01:10 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,)

Are you up on current events? Bush was talking about invading Iraq in early 2001. He was just itching for a good reason to do it. You'd like to think that the CIA and other intelligence agencies are responsible for the Bush administration's lies and that Bush was decieved along with all of us but thats horse shit.
(Source: Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary)

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
First of all, Paul O'Neill was fired and he's what one could call a disgruntled employee. Postal workers in those situations, often go on a shooting rampage. Paul O'Neill chose to use pen and paper.

As for talks in 2001 about invading Iraq - I have news for you, in case you refused to read about it..... all administrations talk about various scenarios involving possible trouble spots around the world. They have what are typically called "bull sessions", when each participant is given a chance to speculate on what might happen under any type of circumstances. In some cases, they write reports with their suggestions and conclusions.

Bush and his administration talking about invading Iraq was only a small part of what went on in these sessions and from the reports that are routinely gone over. Many other scenarios involving many other countries were discussed and debated.

Do you think they have never discussed invading North Korea? How about Iran? These people just don't sit and wait until things happen, they anticipate and speculate on the what ifs. That does not mean it's a done deal and they will attack.... it just gives them a heads up on the best way to go forward, if the time for it ever happens.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 6, 2004, 04:48 pm

So our politicians lied to us, whats new?

Paavo · Feb 6, 2004, 05:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
So our politicians lied to us, whats new?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That people start to think it's ok.

Feb 4, 2004, 11:24 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	given the intelligence, the governments acted correctly... damn straight it changes my vote... straight republican ticket now for sure usa "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 5, 2004, 02:44 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Eulux Molten Ash Location: houston Posts: 27	Hmmmm...I would not hold a high regard for anyone who voted straight one party since you simply agree with that party more than the others... Well, there is no way in hell I would ever vote for bushkin, so I guess it didn't change my vote. TX, USA "Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man." -Heidegger www.rorta.com -knowledge is power...

Feb 5, 2004, 07:40 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) given the intelligence, the governments acted correctly... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>You're absolutely right. The US invaded Iraq because George Bush is stupid. More intelligent leaders would have been capabvle of considering other alternatives.

Feb 5, 2004, 09:02 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) given the intelligence, the governments acted correctly... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>You're absolutely right. The US invaded Iraq because George Bush is stupid. More intelligent leaders would have been capabvle of considering other alternatives.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> nice :). But the impenitent has a point. Although I don't know how much influence the government has on the reports given by the intelligence agencies... We know from britain their agencies were pushed to come up with more 'sexy' details. Hope & Dream

Feb 5, 2004, 09:05 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,) ...and I kind of like war. =D<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> O__o

Feb 4, 2004, 08:00 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
i_am_a_n00bie Sedimentary Rock Posts: 23	Given the recent reports in the UK and the US into whether or not the politicians lied to the general public, what is your feeling about the war, the intelligence that lead up to it, and the Governments handling of information. Also, what I was really interested in, whether or not you will change how you vote because of it. Post what country you come from, as well.

Feb 5, 2004, 04:56 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	I didn't agree with the war because some cowboy did, I agreed with it because it was a better alternatives and I kind of like war. =D

Feb 5, 2004, 10:03 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) given the intelligence, the governments acted correctly... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>You're absolutely right. The US invaded Iraq because George Bush is stupid. More intelligent leaders would have been capabvle of considering other alternatives.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> lol :) bush is not stupid... then again, harvard gives MBAs to stupid people all the time... bush should have flunked out of divinity school to show his intelligence... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 5, 2004, 05:36 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
eburchelli Molten Ash Posts: 106	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,) nice :). But the impenitent has a point. Although I don't know how much influence the government has on the reports given by the intelligence agencies... We know from britain their agencies were pushed to come up with more 'sexy' details.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why don't you find some new news? Those sexy details have been debunked just this past week with an official inquiry into the BBC and the suicide of the person who brought the idea to light. There is no longer any justification for using this idea to put blame on Tony Blair.

Feb 5, 2004, 08:35 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (eburchelli,) Why don't you find some new news? Those sexy details have been debunked just this past week with an official inquiry into the BBC and the suicide of the person who brought the idea to light. There is no longer any justification for using this idea to put blame on Tony Blair.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Please get your facts straight. Hutton criticized the way the BBC dealt with the story and debunked the 'Government made false claims' criticism. but their intelligence agencies WERE pressured and their words were twisted by downing street. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lord Hutton Report Conclusions) (v) Mr Alastair Campbell made it clear to Mr Scarlett on behalf of the Prime Minister that 10 Downing Street wanted the dossier to be worded to make as strong a case as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s WMD, and 10 Downing Street made written suggestions to Mr Scarlett as to changes in the wording of the draft dossier which would strengthen it. But Mr Campbell recognized, and told Mr Scarlett that 10 Downing Street recognized, that nothing should be stated in the dossier with which the intelligence community were not entirely happy. (vi) Mr Scarlett accepted some of the drafting suggestions made to him by 10 Downing Street but he only accepted those suggestions which were consistent with the intelligence known to the JIC and he rejected those suggestions which were not consistent with such intelligence and the dossier issued by the Government was approved by the JIC. (viii)The term “sexed-up” is a slang expression, the meaning of which lacks clarity in the context of the discussion of the dossier. It is capable of two different meanings. It could mean that the dossier was embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable to make the case against Saddam Hussein stronger, or it could mean that whilst the intelligence contained in the dossier was believed to be reliable, the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the case against Saddam Hussein as strong as the intelligence contained in it permitted. If the term is used in this latter sense, then because of the drafting suggestions made by 10 Downing Street for the purpose of making a strong case against Saddam Hussein, it could be said that the Government “sexed-up” the dossier. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Take the 45 minute claim, for example. Blair made it sound like Saddam could use the weapons against us in 45 minutes. While the original intelligence was: "Saddam can deploy chemical and biological munitions against his Shiite population within 45 minutes.". it became "Saddam can use WMD in 45 minutes".. which is true (based on the intelligence), but it implies something totally different. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sir Richard) "The original report referred to chemical and biological munitions and that was taken to mean battlefield weapons," Sir Richard, known in MI6 as "C", said. "I think what subsequently happened to the reporting (was) it was taken that 45 minutes applied to weapons of a larger range than just battlefield." Asked by counsel assisting Lord Hutton, James Dingemans, QC, whether he agreed misinterpretation placed on the '45 minute' intelligence, with the benefit of the claim had been given "undue prominence", he replied: "Given the hindsight, that's valid criticism." <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is what I mean with sexing up or pressuring the intelligence agencies. And I believe this happens all the time. Downing Street: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page271.asp September Dossier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier Guardian Articles: http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedi...,883261,00.html September Report: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/iraqdossier.pdf Hutton Report: http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/documents...1021218,00.html Offical Hutton Site: http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/ Hutton Report (pdf): http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/conte...uttonreport.pdf Hope & Dream

Feb 5, 2004, 09:25 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) given the intelligence, the governments acted correctly... damn straight it changes my vote... straight republican ticket now for sure usa<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Are you up on current events? Bush was talking about invading Iraq in early 2001. He was just itching for a good reason to do it. You'd like to think that the CIA and other intelligence agencies are responsible for the Bush administration's lies and that Bush was decieved along with all of us but thats horse shit. (Source: Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary) Before you blame the intelligence or call this an "intelligence failure" please consider this... These are the same intelligence agencies that new the names of almost all of the 9/11 hiijackers even before the dust settled. Thats a lot of detail in only a few days given all of the emotion and confusion that these people must have been feeling. So, if these agencies were able to gather a high amount of quality information in only a few days while under extreme emotional stress then it is not likely that given the 10 + years they've had to investigate Iraq's WMD that they would "fail" to determine whether Iraq HAD WMD or come to a wrong conclusion. If they in fact DID fail when it comes to Iraq given their 10 + years, then it isn't likely that they would be able to gather the information they did about 9/11. Then the only explanation could be that they were fed the intelligence about 9/11 from within the administration iteself. Either way you look at it, the Bush administration is dirty and should be voted out if not impeached. Iraq, a tiny nation devastated by a decade of economic sanctions, posed absolutely no threat to the US. The ONLY thing that Iraq had that could possibly concern the US is control over a large quantity of oil. This was made VERY clear. What was the first thing the troops were sent to guard? The hospitals? Water purification plants? Schools? Civiallians? No, the oil. Another fact that is very telling is that the major "reconstruction" no-bid contracts were given to companies that proveded a lot of money to the Bush administration, its members and had strong ties with the Bush family. Yes, Saddam Hussein was captured. That is a good thing. But was he captured by the US? Hell no. He was captured by the Kurds who negotiated his release to US custody. And the news of his capture couldn't have happened at a better time. Specifically, when the Bush administration was under fire about the above mentioned no-bid contracts. If there is a hell, a loving God would send Bush and his cronies there to burn. LogicaLunatic "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Feb 6, 2004, 08:08 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Conspiracy theories! Did you know....the 3rd oil well burned by Iraqi troops was called "Mafia"? This links the Italian president with the Iraqi fascist government which is actually a member of Bush's cabinet. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 6, 2004, 10:17 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	"Are you up on current events? Bush was talking about invading Iraq in early 2001. He was just itching for a good reason to do it. You'd like to think that the CIA and other intelligence agencies are responsible for the Bush administration's lies and that Bush was decieved along with all of us but thats horse shit." then why didn't we invade on 9-12?!? bush controls everything anyway, he could have simply said iraq did it and started a war... "So, if these agencies were able to gather a high amount of quality information in only a few days while under extreme emotional stress then it is not likely that given the 10 + years they've had to investigate Iraq's WMD that they would "fail" to determine whether Iraq HAD WMD or come to a wrong conclusion. If they in fact DID fail when it comes to Iraq given their 10 + years, then it isn't likely that they would be able to gather the information they did about 9/11. Then the only explanation could be that they were fed the intelligence about 9/11 from within the administration iteself." which intelligence? the UN intelligence who said the WMDs existed? the british intelligence? the french, german and russian intelligence who said the WMDs were real and allowed clinton to bomb iraq without question?!? and if you want to go down the bad intelligence road, guess what comes next? the intelligence is so bad, we have to invade and conquer, north korea, iran, syria, lebanon, jordan, saudi arabia you name it simply to prove they aren't harboring WMDs and terrorists! be careful what you wish for, you will get it in spades... the american WAR MACHINE is churning and you are nothing but food for the gun... "Either way you look at it, the Bush administration is dirty and should be voted out if not impeached." nice propaganda, but it is logically flawed and it will not win your election and source your DNC website next time please... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 6, 2004, 01:10 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
eburchelli Molten Ash Posts: 106	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,) Are you up on current events? Bush was talking about invading Iraq in early 2001. He was just itching for a good reason to do it. You'd like to think that the CIA and other intelligence agencies are responsible for the Bush administration's lies and that Bush was decieved along with all of us but thats horse shit. (Source: Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary) <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> First of all, Paul O'Neill was fired and he's what one could call a disgruntled employee. Postal workers in those situations, often go on a shooting rampage. Paul O'Neill chose to use pen and paper. As for talks in 2001 about invading Iraq - I have news for you, in case you refused to read about it..... all administrations talk about various scenarios involving possible trouble spots around the world. They have what are typically called "bull sessions", when each participant is given a chance to speculate on what might happen under any type of circumstances. In some cases, they write reports with their suggestions and conclusions. Bush and his administration talking about invading Iraq was only a small part of what went on in these sessions and from the reports that are routinely gone over. Many other scenarios involving many other countries were discussed and debated. Do you think they have never discussed invading North Korea? How about Iran? These people just don't sit and wait until things happen, they anticipate and speculate on the what ifs. That does not mean it's a done deal and they will attack.... it just gives them a heads up on the best way to go forward, if the time for it ever happens.

Feb 6, 2004, 04:48 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,602	So our politicians lied to us, whats new? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 6, 2004, 05:34 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) So our politicians lied to us, whats new?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That people start to think it's ok.