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

Technosoul · Apr 12, 2006, 07:01 pm

The White House is still defending thier stand that they did not lie about Iraq having WMDs before the war, which data they used to justify the attacks.

Although the CIA had confirmed that the data used was not true, before the President made his statements, the White House said today that Bush spoke before he confirmed that the data was correct or not. (sort of like Dan Rather did).

They refused to answer directly if Bush knew that the data had been proven false before making his famous TV speech, but selected to go ahead and use the older speculations that had not been confirmed, or not. Dodging direct questions the spokesperson for the White House maintained that Bush was innocent of fowl play when giving his reasons about why we should go to war in Iraq.

That is the lastest news .... but hey? what's new about that claim?

Note: The above is my own words as I would report it. For the "official" news story click the link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12286206/

Samildanach · Apr 13, 2006, 05:41 am

Your link just takes me to some story about a fossil record.

jose · Apr 13, 2006, 06:34 am

snip
The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them:
26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people
38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents
Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents
From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/na...ty/disarm.html

bishop · Apr 13, 2006, 10:26 am

heh.. nice link techno..

this story's the equivalent of a fossil though. personally, it doesn't make a difference to me whether bush intentionally lied, unwittingly lied, was intentionally duped by the neocons or whatever.. none of that absolves bush from creating this country's biggest blunder following vietnam (the effects of which we are still feeling).

so much for accountability though, right? the apologists can't do anything but point fingers in a million different directions rather than realize that it was bush who decided to send us to war. even IF these labs were real, that still wouldn't have made bush's decision a good decision - because we were not under any "grave" threat of any sort from iraq. when i have someone working for me who's incompetent, i get rid of that person regardless of whether they're nice/not.. interesting that the cult of apologists couldn't do the same with bush - instead they rewarded him for his incompetence!

of course the white house is going to cry foul over this story.. tough fucking shit - they brought all of this upon themselves.

Osborn F Enready · Apr 13, 2006, 10:45 am

The White House has proudly defended itself on any decision it has made, regardless of the level of protest or outcry by other governments, our own minority parties in government, the citizens of our nation, or any nation, right or wrong, no matter the consequences. :rolleyes:

SOP. (standard operating procedure)

samsara15 · Apr 13, 2006, 09:25 pm

The White House is incapable of admitting they made an error. Ever, on any issue.

Technosoul · Apr 13, 2006, 10:00 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Samildanach

Your link just takes me to some story about a fossil record.

Sorry -- you got there too late, the MSN news page changes stories everyday, I cannot control that.

Technosoul · Apr 13, 2006, 10:08 pm

Quote:

Quote by: bishop

heh.. nice link techno..

this story's the equivalent of a fossil though. personally, it doesn't make a difference to me whether bush intentionally lied, unwittingly lied, was intentionally duped by the neocons or whatever.. none of that absolves bush from creating this country's biggest blunder following vietnam (the effects of which we are still feeling).

so much for accountability though, right? the apologists can't do anything but point fingers in a million different directions rather than realize that it was bush who decided to send us to war. even IF these labs were real, that still wouldn't have made bush's decision a good decision - because we were not under any "grave" threat of any sort from iraq. when i have someone working for me who's incompetent, i get rid of that person regardless of whether they're nice/not.. interesting that the cult of apologists couldn't do the same with bush - instead they rewarded him for his incompetence!

of course the white house is going to cry foul over this story.. tough fucking shit - they brought all of this upon themselves.

they ran a story about that fossil shortly after the one about last Q & A from Washington. i posted the story about the fossil on the religion page - hope it did not get changed? I may need a better "source" that stays put.

Or else i just goofed up somehow?

but hey, some of them fossils became oil - so it is remotely related - a kind of "under the surface" reason for the war in Iraq?

**Matt W** · Apr 14, 2006, 04:41 am

*sighs* Try posting links that remain stable. We want 'Breaking News' to have a specific format (as defined when you post in here) - and this just isn't it - even from the start. Moving to Politics & Gov.

Technosoul · Apr 14, 2006, 12:24 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Matt W

*sighs* Try posting links that remain stable. We want 'Breaking News' to have a specific format (as defined when you post in here) - and this just isn't it - even from the start. Moving to Politics & Gov.

i\

I agree that the link is no longer reachable on the MSN server page, a problem I did not foresee or expect. But they did have it as a breaking news story on the day when I posted.

It is no longer breaking news so the move is okay.

**Matt W** · Apr 14, 2006, 01:43 pm

That's why when you post something in Breaking News the 'format note' asks you to quote an excerpt from the story when posting it.

Edit: Like so:

New Topic Format in the Breaking News Forum:

1) An exact article title (copy the title they used), 2) Link to article, 3) Quoted excerpt, 4) Your opinion (optional)

Please try & follow the format, or we'll just shift it in here.

PatrickHenry · Apr 14, 2006, 02:27 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Technosoul

they ran a story about that fossil shortly after the one about last Q & A from Washington. i posted the story about the fossil on the religion page - hope it did not get changed? I may need a better "source" that stays put.

Or else i just goofed up somehow?

You bumbler! It was copied to your clipboard on the previous fossil story and you failed to get the right story lined up when starting a new topic/thread.

I hereby chastise you! Don't let it happen again!

Technosoul · Apr 14, 2006, 06:55 pm

Quote:

Quote by: PatrickHenry

Quote:

Quote by: Technosoul

they ran a story about that fossil shortly after the one about last Q & A from Washington. i posted the story about the fossil on the religion page - hope it did not get changed? I may need a better "source" that stays put.

Or else i just goofed up somehow?

You bumbler! It was copied to your clipboard on the previous fossil story and you failed to get the right story lined up when starting a new topic/thread.

I hereby chastise you! Don't let it happen again!

You are no doubt absolutly right, I stand corrected

Got all thumbs on my computer ready.

Don't really wish to debate Matt about following the rules, being he could not go to the newstory how would he know that I did not give the qoute from the story and so forth?

However suggest that this whole debate be removed because we already have one about same topic here - (bio labs a farce).

Next time I will double check that I got the right link and so forth.

**Matt W** · Apr 15, 2006, 05:32 am

Quote:

Quote by: Technosoul

Don't really wish to debate Matt about following the rules, being he could not go to the newstory how would he know that I did not give the qoute from the story and so forth?

Quote:

Quote by: Technosoul

Note: The above is my own words as I would report it. For the "official" news story click the link.

:rolleyes:

Technosoul · Apr 16, 2006, 01:32 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Matt W

Quote:

Quote by: Technosoul

Don't really wish to debate Matt about following the rules, being he could not go to the newstory how would he know that I did not give the qoute from the story and so forth?

Quote:

Quote by: Technosoul

Note: The above is my own words as I would report it. For the "official" news story click the link.

:rolleyes:

Okay, I understand now why you think the newsstory was not the same as the one on MSN.

I did a new search to recover the actual link that I had intended to post - here it is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12285521/

Please review the "official" story and see it you then feel my version did not use same headline or some quotes from the MSN report, along with my optional opinions, as mandated by the rules.

just for the record - thanks.

Apr 12, 2006, 07:01 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	White House defends WMD stand on Iraq. The White House is still defending thier stand that they did not lie about Iraq having WMDs before the war, which data they used to justify the attacks. Although the CIA had confirmed that the data used was not true, before the President made his statements, the White House said today that Bush spoke before he confirmed that the data was correct or not. (sort of like Dan Rather did). They refused to answer directly if Bush knew that the data had been proven false before making his famous TV speech, but selected to go ahead and use the older speculations that had not been confirmed, or not. Dodging direct questions the spokesperson for the White House maintained that Bush was innocent of fowl play when giving his reasons about why we should go to war in Iraq. That is the lastest news .... but hey? what's new about that claim? Note: The above is my own words as I would report it. For the "official" news story click the link. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12286206/

Apr 13, 2006, 05:41 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Samildanach Pragmatist Location: UK London Posts: 1,979	Your link just takes me to some story about a fossil record. I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs and insanity for everyone, but its always worked for me. Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." (Ernest Hemingway)

Apr 13, 2006, 06:34 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
jose Volcanic Erupter Location: España Posts: 2,610	this page is still up snip The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them: 26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/na...ty/disarm.html

Apr 13, 2006, 10:26 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	heh.. nice link techno.. this story's the equivalent of a fossil though. personally, it doesn't make a difference to me whether bush intentionally lied, unwittingly lied, was intentionally duped by the neocons or whatever.. none of that absolves bush from creating this country's biggest blunder following vietnam (the effects of which we are still feeling). so much for accountability though, right? the apologists can't do anything but point fingers in a million different directions rather than realize that it was bush who decided to send us to war. even IF these labs were real, that still wouldn't have made bush's decision a good decision - because we were not under any "grave" threat of any sort from iraq. when i have someone working for me who's incompetent, i get rid of that person regardless of whether they're nice/not.. interesting that the cult of apologists couldn't do the same with bush - instead they rewarded him for his incompetence! of course the white house is going to cry foul over this story.. tough fucking shit - they brought all of this upon themselves. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Apr 13, 2006, 10:45 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	The White House has proudly defended itself on any decision it has made, regardless of the level of protest or outcry by other governments, our own minority parties in government, the citizens of our nation, or any nation, right or wrong, no matter the consequences. :rolleyes: SOP. (standard operating procedure) Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Apr 13, 2006, 09:25 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
samsara15 I'm the camel Location: Maryland Posts: 657	The White House is incapable of admitting they made an error. Ever, on any issue.

Apr 14, 2006, 04:41 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 6,782	sighs Try posting links that remain stable. We want 'Breaking News' to have a specific format (as defined when you post in here) - and this just isn't it - even from the start. Moving to Politics & Gov. I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes.

Apr 14, 2006, 01:43 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 6,782	That's why when you post something in Breaking News the 'format note' asks you to quote an excerpt from the story when posting it. Edit: Like so: New Topic Format in the Breaking News Forum: 1) An exact article title (copy the title they used), 2) Link to article, 3) Quoted excerpt, 4) Your opinion (optional) Please try & follow the format, or we'll just shift it in here. I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes. Last edited by Matt W; Apr 14, 2006 at 01:48 pm.