That's very clever of you, providing a link to a radical leftist website known for its lack of fairness toward any conservative politician, policy or position. There is a huge amount of information at the Mother Goose site, and I am sure that some of it is accurate and properly documented, but much of it is also speculation and conjecture. I am sure that you are aware no one who reads or contributes to this thread could possibly respond to all the crap there, and no one would read such a lengthy rebuttal anyway. On the other hand, if I were to give examples of the clear bias exhibited by that site, you would either say I "cherry-picked" blatant errors, or claim my opinion was wrong and yours (theirs) was right, so it makes no sense to do that either.

It's a very clever ploy on your part, but I'm not falling for your claim that Mother Goose shows the intelligence was bad or forced, or that the war was somehow pre-ordained by the administration, since the website is clearly not authoritative. The so-called history recounted at that site is selective and slanted, as you have shown yourself to be.

You challenge my integrity. I haven't read every month of every year in the Mother Jones timeline that I offered as evidence but if you can find a single entry that's untrue please do so now.

How did I challenge your integrity? Please re-read my post: I said the site was biased and unfair; I said some information is OK, but much is "speculation and conjecture". I don't see how that challenges your integrity. In fact, I called your tactic "clever" for leaving the impression that such a site can be adequately discussed. Now you ask for "a single entry that's untrue", even though I didn't say any single entry was untrue--I said the site is "selective and slanted". In this regard, read the portion of my post that I underlined for you.

We seem to be heading back to dictionary definitions again.

Qui-Gon, did you look at my evidence at all or are you going to stay the course?

To be well informed, one must seek alternative means of information and news. To limit your exposure to the sites and news providers that reflect what you already believe is to be propagandized and manipulated.

I say that your president is a war criminal, no different than Hitler invading Poland with nothing to support his actions but lies.

You believe that your president was mislead by bad intelligence.

I've provided a source supporting my claim and if you need more, well there's plenty of sites that also confirm the facts.

As an aside, with benefit of hindsight, I don't think it's been mentioned in this thread that if Saddam had cooperated completely with weapons inspections, and nothing was found, then the country would have been placed irrevocably in peril from its militant neighbors and internal factions.

If I were in that position I certainly would have tried to keep the international community guessing. In fact I'd feel it my utmost responsibility to mess around with the inspectors, and do everything possible to keep the illusion of power. A bit hard when your entire tank and air forces have been quite publicly hosed.

Now naturally, a reasonable dictator grasping at straws might call up Mr Bush and discuss the situation... something like "Look Mr Bush, allowing these inspections is going to make me vulnerable to my neighnours ... how about we agree to some sort of protective arrangement" ....

But no, neither leader's pride or beliefs would see such a conversation ever take place.

So in my opinion, unless Mr Bush received some highly improbable phone calls that noone's mentioning, then he believed the intelligence, seeded by Saddam himself, just like the rest of us. That's not lying, that's being duped.

Jason, I agree with you that the President was not lying (since it seems he was working from bad information). But I can't agree that Saddam was justified in thwarting the efforts of weapons inspectors just to keep up a facade. He agreed to weapons inspections (and other restrictive conditions) in return for our forces halting their advance on Baghdad.

Since inspections were a condition of the cease-fire, he had no choice under the treaty but to comply, even if his intent was to confuse his enemies by leaving the question unanswered. Failure to comply with the conditions of a cease-fire risks resumption of military action. As for being in peril from his neighbors if he allowed the inspections, Iraq had the largest army in the region at the time, so he was by no means defenseless, with or without WMD.

As an aside, with benefit of hindsight, I don't think it's been mentioned in this thread that if Saddam had cooperated completely with weapons inspections, and nothing was found, then the country would have been placed irrevocably in peril from its militant neighbors and internal factions.

If I were in that position I certainly would have tried to keep the international community guessing. In fact I'd feel it my utmost responsibility to mess around with the inspectors, and do everything possible to keep the illusion of power. A bit hard when your entire tank and air forces have been quite publicly hosed.

Now naturally, a reasonable dictator grasping at straws might call up Mr Bush and discuss the situation... something like "Look Mr Bush, allowing these inspections is going to make me vulnerable to my neighnours ... how about we agree to some sort of protective arrangement" ....

But no, neither leader's pride or beliefs would see such a conversation ever take place.

So in my opinion, unless Mr Bush received some highly improbable phone calls that noone's mentioning, then he believed the intelligence, seeded by Saddam himself, just like the rest of us. That's not lying, that's being duped.

jason, this angle makes sense until we add the weapons inspectors into the mix.
Saddam could have boasted about having any weapons conceivable and in any numbers he chose.
The inspectors found nothing.
The American administration knew that Saddam had possessed nerve and bio weapons because they sold them to him.
The problem for the American argument is that the weapons had expired. These kinds of weapons have a short shelf life.
Whatever Saddam hadn't used against the Iranians and Kurds had long since lost it's ability to kill anyone.

The weapons inspectors found residues and old containers, but nothing viable or useable in any way.

Yes. Saddam would have been seen as naked and unable to defend himself after the final report came in but that was going to happen whether he stood in defiance to the American deadlines or not.

We seem to be heading back to dictionary definitions again.

Qui-Gon, did you look at my evidence at all or are you going to stay the course?

To be well informed, one must seek alternative means of information and news. To limit your exposure to the sites and news providers that reflect what you already believe is to be propagandized and manipulated.

I say that your president is a war criminal, no different than Hitler invading Poland with nothing to support his actions but lies.

You believe that your president was mislead by bad intelligence.

I've provided a source supporting my claim and if you need more, well there's plenty of sites that also confirm the facts.

Yes, I looked at your so-called "evidence". I have, in fact, visited the Mother Goose site many times, which is why I can dismiss it's slanted, selective, "anti-anything-Bush-Republican-or-conservative" conclusions.

I gave you a link to the President's reasons for resuming the war in Iraq and pointed out that the President did not link Saddam to 911 (your number one reason you think we went to war in your post #704641), yet you never responded to the what the official text of that speech said. Now you insist on me responding to your link? First, let's see if you admit that: the White House did not link Saddam to 911, or that the US did not do this to get free oil, or that Bush did not lie because was simply relying on faulty information. Until you are willing to admit you have no substantial evidence to back these views, it is pointless for me to respond to your Mother Goose fairy tale site.

Let me repeat myself: ". . . if I were to give examples of the clear bias exhibited by that site, you would either say I "cherry-picked" blatant errors, or claim my opinion was wrong and yours (theirs) was right, so it makes no sense to do that . . ." Aren't you just spoiling for a chance to do just this if I were to "debunk" any of the stuff on that biased site? Based on your reactions so far in this thread, I see no reason to believe that you will not do exactly what I predict.

Oh, I never meant to suggest anything about such actions being "justified", though I truly cannot pretend to completely understand the rationale of the man himself nor the Middle Eastern Context.

What I am trying to suggest is that a "reasonable" leader would have sought diplomatic measures 'behind the scenes' rather than allow the country to be at risk of invasion and subsequent occupation. Clearly that part did not happen for whatever reason. (Perhaps due to either Saddam's Pride and/or Beliefs, or maybe Closed Western Diplomatic Avenues )

As for the requirement of obeying the cease fire conditions (which also did not happen - ever) Noting the verified absence of WMDs and indeed tanks and aircraft, Iran, Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Kurdish Iraqis, and others would have stepped straight in to start the rumble...

What should be clearer now is that the international community should not have waited ten years through these violations to act. By 10 years of inaction it gave "approval" for Saddam to continue to use the situation to his advantage, that is to make his position in the region appear one of superiority by appearing to successfully flout the restrictions. (Public rallies firing automatic weapons in the air ring a bell?)

Further, given known historic precedent set by CIA involvement in neighboring regions, and with Saddam himself, combined with possible delusional factors, It is quite possible, maybe even likely, that the situation might be interpreted as one of covert support.

Personally, I have little doubt that the International presence is all that has prevented an all out genocidal bloodbath throughout the middle east. We should've stepped in sooner. If you want several examples of what happens when the international community abandons such situations just take a look at Africa.

Jason

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

The American administration knew that Saddam had possessed nerve and bio weapons because they sold them to him.

Correct, there are still unaccounted for WMDs, probably sold by Saddam on the black market to buy more tanks (and some known to have been used on iraqi soil)... All he had to do was turn them over or point where they went ... Clearly the west decided nerve gas was a bad idea and wanted to get it back

[Note: Boasting about weapons would diminish your position, Ginning around the UN would enhance it in certain areas, particularly if you 'believed' you had covert support (delusional or otherwise).]

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

I went back to read the link again and I fail to see how it supports your case.

Bush speaks of all the various WMD's Iraq has or is building and this flies in the face of all documentation from the US and UN weapons inspectors.

If you think he isn't linking the attacks of Sept 11 with Iraq in this speech, I suggest you reread it.

FWIW, and since my RAC is on a rapid downward decay cycle due to non-participation in this project now, here's my dos centavos:

The situation in that area of the world is not going to get any better without forgiveness. The only thing that the international force that is currently present is doing is to hold back the sectarian violence to the levels we see today. As Jason pointed out, in the absence of a controlling force, general lawlessness will ensue. I would expect things to be substantially worse in Iraq if the international community goes back to isolationism...

As was also pointed out, if Iraq was actually in an inferior military position with respect to Iran, Turkey, or other sects inside of Iraq, this would likely cause Iraq to be more open to violence than if there was a maintained illusion of some superiority.

Something that none of us "westerners" can do though is relate to the "pride" aspect. That whole "pride" aspect is what keeps people over there battling for the "pride" / "honor" of their families from centuries ago. It would be as if those of us here in the United States were constantly being at odds and/or openly fighting people in England. I don't know why people over there can't work together more than they do, and I have no idea what it is going to take to make it better, other than a change of heart...

---

I went back to read the link again and I fail to see how it supports your case.

Bush speaks of all the various WMD's Iraq has or is building and this flies in the face of all documentation from the US and UN weapons inspectors.

If you think he isn't linking the attacks of Sept 11 with Iraq in this speech, I suggest you reread it.

Supply a quote from that official site wherein the President says Saddam was involved in 911. I did read the text and I don't see such a statement.

Mentioning 911 and Saddam in the same speech, even when discussing the threat of terrorism, does not link Saddam to 911.

Something that none of us "westerners" can do though is relate to the "pride" aspect.

I beg to differ... We will destroy ourselves before we admit that we are wrong... That is pride...

That pride is what's destroying this country, and most are to proud to even see it... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

[quote]

It would be as if those of us here in the United States were constantly being at odds and/or openly fighting people in England. quote]



Well, ya, you have fought England...and Canada and Mexico and France and Germany and Japan and Morocco and Korea and Vietnam and Panama and...well you know, oh ya..you even fought yourselves.

All is not rosey in your own backyard so maybe there's a lesson in this somewhere for those who believe that America is the true defender of justice and truth and all things good.

I'm not dumping on the American public, you're the same as us, but I am pissed at the direction your government has gone without your approval or knowledge...or permission.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

Qui-Gon, here's some more of the rhetoric that he used to link Iraq with Sept 11.
It's all part of the pattern of lies told to you so you'd allow him his war.

Just speaking the words Iraq and Sept 11 together in the same sentence 935 times creates a link in many minds.

Do you still deny the manipulation of public opinion?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

Qui-Gon, here's some more of the rhetoric that he used to link Iraq with Sept 11.
It's all part of the pattern of lies told to you so you'd allow him his war.

Just speaking the words Iraq and Sept 11 together in the same sentence 935 times creates a link in many minds.

Do you still deny the manipulation of public opinion?

Wow! Your lack of analytical skills astounds me!

You just provided a link to a September 2003 BBC article that says the opposite of what you have been claiming: it says that the President expressly denied a link between Saddam and 911. The article has exactly zero statements by the President saying Saddam was involved with 911; no surprise, you also have provided zero such statements. Your "argument" goes: 1) stupid people heard the president mention Saddam and 911 in the same speech, 2) those stupid people claim that this means something different from what the President said, that is, that Saddam caused 911, therefore, 3) Bush lied. Are you one of those stupid people who thinks that the President said something that he did not say?

Earlier, you listed the number one reason for the war being that Iraq was involved in 911. I called you on that claim and asked you to show me such a statement. Your response is citing to an article that states Bush said just the opposite, then tries to backtrack by quoting statements that clearly do not say Saddam was involved in 911. So, your statement about Saddam's involvement in 911 being a cause of the war is wrong. The only question now is whether, unknown to you, your information was faulty or you knew it was wrong and so you were lying.

America is the true defender of justice and truth and all things good.

That was before the 'rebellion'... Now we've become a nation 'possessed'...

To be fair, I honestly don't believe that these people are even aware of the evils they do... ;)

Example:

I recently revisited Daniel Pipes website and couldn't believe what I was reading...

Now the warmongers are comparing Islam and Osama To Orwells 1984 and Hitler? More 'dyslexia'?

There is no doubt that this is a battle between good and evil... And it saddens me to say, we are the evil...

Maybe it is time for 'christians' to stop 'worshipping' Jesus and to start learning to recognize the devil and his tricks...

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

It would be as if those of us here in the United States were constantly being at odds and/or openly fighting people in England.

Well, ya, you have fought England...and Canada and Mexico and France and Germany and Japan and Morocco and Korea and Vietnam and Panama and...well you know, oh ya..you even fought yourselves.

I meant as of this exact instant, as in January 31st, 2008 (or February 1st, depending on your location on this rock), not speaking of WW2 or any war generations ago. I mean open hostility (translate: people being killed by bombs / gunfire) because of "seeking vengence" for actions against a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-relative... The inability to "forgive and move on" is apparently much higher in those societies...

As Jason said, without international control, this thing would likely be much worse, as that area seems to be more driven by hatred than anything else...

Something that none of us "westerners" can do though is relate to the "pride" aspect.

I beg to differ... We will destroy ourselves before we admit that we are wrong... That is pride...

That pride is what's destroying this country, and most are to proud to even see it... ;)

I used the wrong wording. I'm speaking more of "honor", as in "restoring the honor of my family by avenging my relatives through making sure that my enemies suffer greatly or are killed". The closest thing it would equate to here would be gang activities, typically drug-related gang activities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

Qui-Gon, here's some more of the rhetoric that he used to link Iraq with Sept 11.
It's all part of the pattern of lies told to you so you'd allow him his war.

Just speaking the words Iraq and Sept 11 together in the same sentence 935 times creates a link in many minds.

Do you still deny the manipulation of public opinion?

Wow! Your lack of analytical skills astounds me!

You just provided a link to a September 2003 BBC article that says the opposite of what you have been claiming: it says that the President expressly denied a link between Saddam and 911. The article has exactly zero statements by the President saying Saddam was involved with 911; no surprise, you also have provided zero such statements. Your "argument" goes: 1) stupid people heard the president mention Saddam and 911 in the same speech, 2) those stupid people claim that this means something different from what the President said, that is, that Saddam caused 911, therefore, 3) Bush lied. Are you one of those stupid people who thinks that the President said something that he did not say?

Earlier, you listed the number one reason for the war being that Iraq was involved in 911. I called you on that claim and asked you to show me such a statement. Your response is citing to an article that states Bush said just the opposite, then tries to backtrack by quoting statements that clearly do not say Saddam was involved in 911. So, your statement about Saddam's involvement in 911 being a cause of the war is wrong. The only question now is whether, unknown to you, your information was faulty or you knew it was wrong and so you were lying.

You act as if you have gained some advantage in position here.

I read the article and posted it to show the way Bush linked the attacks of Sept 11 to Iraq in his speeches.
How did the majority of Americans come to believe Saddam did the deed?
Did they all come to the wrong conclusion at the same time while their president was telling them there was no connection? No.
The deliberate combinations of phrases and words used by Bush had it's intended effect.
It gave him the go ahead to launch the invasion because he carefully combined two seperate issues into one in the minds of many.

The original issue to discuss in this thread was the lies about WMD's and links to Al-Qaeda.
935 seperate times a lie was told by the Bush administration leading up to the war and he is now carrying on the lies with his positioning on Iran.

Everything in the site I posted a link to is smoke and mirrors to whip the country into a frenzy of revenge seeking anger.

You act as if you have gained some advantage in position here.

I read the article and posted it to show the way Bush linked the attacks of Sept 11 to Iraq in his speeches.
How did the majority of Americans come to believe Saddam did the deed?
Did they all come to the wrong conclusion at the same time while their president was telling them there was no connection? No.
The deliberate combinations of phrases and words used by Bush had it's intended effect.
It gave him the go ahead to launch the invasion because he carefully combined two seperate issues into one in the minds of many.

The original issue to discuss in this thread was the lies about WMD's and links to Al-Qaeda.
935 seperate times a lie was told by the Bush administration leading up to the war and he is now carrying on the lies with his positioning on Iran.

Everything in the site I posted a link to is smoke and mirrors to whip the country into a frenzy of revenge seeking anger.

You act as if you have given proof of your position here when you have actually shown the opposite.

Four years ago, according to the BBC article you cited, the President said that Saddam was not responsible for 911. What could be more plain than that? You act as if you found something that proved your point, when it says the exact opposite.

You ask how the "majority" of Americans came to believe Saddam was involved in 911. Anyone who still believes that Saddam was linked to 911, even after the President and government spokesmen have expressly said otherwise, is ignorant. I have never heard any government official confirm that theory (about Saddam being linked to 911), even though the possibility did enter my mind soon after the attacks. An unfounded belief by some Americans is not evidence that the President lied.

You say the administration lied "935 times", but you have not given a single example. The point of this thread is to expose lies. You have not done so with your evidence which shows, not only did the President not lie, but he expressly told the truth on this very issue--that Saddam was not involved in 911. The only thing you may have exposed is people's ignorance.

It is your mistaken belief that the President mentioned Saddam and 911 together to give people the impression Saddam was involved in the 911 attacks. You are simply wrong. The plain meaning of the President's words are, that the terrorism, which resulted in 911, and Saddam's Iraq are separate threats to the security of our country. Your misunderstanding of the President's statement does not make his statement a lie, it simply calls into question your analytical ability.

Again, you have utterly failed to provide any statements by the President that say Saddam was involved in 911. You have failed to show he lied. To the contrary, you linked to an article whose headline says the President expressly denied that Saddam was involved. Not only did you not show that the President lied on this issue, but you confirmed he told the truth, as we presently understand it, when you linked to the 2003 BBC article that reported the President said the opposite of what you have claimed he said.

This thread is about showing lies. Come back when you can show me a real statement by the President that expressly links Saddam to 911. Don't bring more of your misguided conjecture about what some people mistakenly believe. Continuing to do so just exposes your own ignorance.

There is no proof because these people have mastered the arts of 'perception', 'deception' and 'suggestion'...

See my Hitler thread for more details... Then read my sig... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .