Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Lt_Ripley

Bush was not "forthright" on Iraq says

215 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

AROCES
There are news sources from Europe and I gave you a reference to them. Do we believe the European press has no validity?

The only newspaper in the U.S. that carried the story was the Baltimore Chronicle . . . not a bit strange? http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/media_om...ons_jan03.shtml

The event was so offensive to Europeans that Hans von Sponeck, former Assistant General Secretary of the UN said, "This is an outrageous attempt by the US to mislead.”

The intent was to conceal the names of the U.S. corporations supplying arms to the Iraqis. A Scottish newspaper later revealed some of the missing pages content.

In the meantime, however, the international rights of Iraq to present the true situation of its arsenal was denied by these thieves and as serious as the offense was, your idol Bush remained silent and condoned the entire crime that he probably orchestrated from the beginning.

So, with the Secretary General and the former Assistant General Secretary issuing protests, it is only an accusation, right? That ranks right up there with "We know where the WMDs are," and "Mission accomplished."

Tell Mr. Hans Von Sponeck then if he can't control his own boss, how do he expect anyone to listen to his other complain?

Like I said, the credibility of the UN been shattered by Kofi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
George Tenet is just as responsible as the President for misleading the public.

Vincent Bugliosi concludes his book with an excellent analysis of what happened on 9-11 and how the media and the public have responded.

His account of how often Bush was warned prior to 9-11 and how little (nothing) he did in response is very well done, but includes at least one glaring error (at least glaring to those of us privileged to get our own briefings on these things from Ray McGovern).

George Tenet did indeed, as Bugliosi recounts, tell the 9-11 Commission on April 14, 2004, that he did not speak with Bush for the whole month of August, 2001. But a CIA spokesperson called reporters that same evening to claim that Tenet had "misspoken" and that Tenet had briefed Bush on August 17th and 31st. In his book, At the Center of the Storm, (2007) Tenet refers to the August 17th meeting as a follow-up to the August 6th memo on Bin Laden. A White House press release suggests that Tenet was also in Crawford a week later, on August 24th. President Bush, addressing a group of visitors to Crawford on August 25, told them: "George Tenet and I, yesterday, we piled in the new nominees for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice Chairman and their wives and went right up the canyon."

George Tenet, in his book, seems to blame the war on everyone but Bush (who gave Tenet the Medal of Freedom) and former secretary of state Colin L. Powell. Powell, who if you recall had difficulties reading the fake intelligent reports to Congress.(yellow cake and aluminum tubes ring any bells?)

AGAIN, when Congress was about to vote for Military action against Saddam where are all this people who knows this and that????

They all came out AFTER we VERIFIED there was no WMD.

And it is pretty clear why, for they are not sure either if a WMD do exist or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Tell Mr. Hans Von Sponeck then if he can't control his own boss, how do he expect anyone to listen to his other complain?

Like I said, the credibility of the UN been shattered by Kofi.

We should really worry about the credibility of the U.N. while most of the world considers the U.S. to be a rogue nation. Of 11 nations polled, all consiered the United States to be more dangerous than al Quaeda. Bush's general ignorance and middle finger foreign policy has diminished the U.S. from the world's greatest nation to the world's greatest threat.

Maybe we should ask Condie Rice to do something to control her boss, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
We should really worry about the credibility of the U.N. while most of the world considers the U.S. to be a rogue nation. Of 11 nations polled, all consiered the United States to be more dangerous than al Quaeda. Bush's general ignorance and middle finger foreign policy has diminished the U.S. from the world's greatest nation to the world's greatest threat.

Maybe we should ask Condie Rice to do something to control her boss, right?

Polls, when you folks have nothing else to back up your claim you always go to the Polls.

The United States have done more than your 11 nations polled in the spread and preservation of Freedom.

Why don't your 11 nations ally themselves with al Qaeda then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Polls, when you folks have nothing else to back up your claim you always go to the Polls.

The United States have done more than your 11 nations polled in the spread and preservation of Freedom.

Why don't your 11 nations ally themselves with al Qaeda then?

And you folks take the Bush posture of forking the finger at the U.N. and the rest of the world and being personal accomplice to the hundreds of thousands of innocents who died for the administration's lies.

No, public opinion is not important. Neither is the public welfare. Neither is a domestic policy. Neither is personal freedom from the invasion of basic rights provided by the Constitution. Neither is world opinion. Neither is anything that hints of human dignity or trust.

Are you honestly suggesting that anyone fighting in Iraq is preserving American freedoms? Tell me that you are not that brainwashed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
No, public opinion is not important. Neither is the public welfare. Neither is a domestic policy. Neither is personal freedom from the invasion of basic rights provided by the Constitution. Neither is world opinion. Neither is anything that hints of human dignity or trust.

And now you just have to add: Important is personal gain and socializing the losses while privatizing the gains. Now you have the whole neocon philosophy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
And now you just have to add: Important is personal gain and socializing the losses while privatizing the gains. Now you have the whole neocon philosophy

Actually I am grateful to the 20% or so that still supports George Bush. I have learned much from them.

I had always loathed the Jews who informed on other Jews during WWII. I could not understand how anyone could so blatantly betray their own people.

By their example, the neocons have helped me to understand that the world will always produce this type of person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
And you folks take the Bush posture of forking the finger at the U.N. and the rest of the world and being personal accomplice to the hundreds of thousands of innocents who died for the administration's lies.

Who are these hundred of thousands who died, tell us.

No, public opinion is not important. Neither is the public welfare. Neither is a domestic policy. Neither is personal freedom from the invasion of basic rights provided by the Constitution. Neither is world opinion. Neither is anything that hints of human dignity or trust.

Public opinion is different from propaganda.

Are you honestly suggesting that anyone fighting in Iraq is preserving American freedoms? Tell me that you are not that brainwashed.

Freedom is not exclusively for Americans, it's in most human being.

And the Iraqis known that is what they are fighting for, and that is all that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Who are these hundred of thousands who died, tell us.

Public opinion is different from propaganda.

Freedom is not exclusively for Americans, it's in most human being.

And the Iraqis known that is what they are fighting for, and that is all that matters.

The lowest civilian body count of the three most accepted sources is 151,000 civilians in Iraq. There are no available figures from Afghanistan but it would be significant. As for U.S. sources, remember, "We don't do a body count."

Georgie didn't hesitate to use his Texas pal Perry to support the Swift Boaters in their hatchet job on Kerry. So much for propaganda.

And in this zealous rush to bring freedom to the Iraqis . . . . please tell me when the Iraqis petitioned the U.N. or any other organization or nation, saying "Please invade us and destroy our homes and businesses. Please bring death to 10% of our families because we want freedom?" Where was this vast cry for the Bush bullies to illegally invade a sovereign nation?

Freedom is not exclusively for Americans . . . . neither is aggression or vengeance or the sacrifice of human life for personal gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude
See how you try to cover up for them and make them look like a victim of Bush?

If the case is as you say, then it is those who approved the war that should be thrown out of office for sending the troops to war without doing their job first and just simply said to Bush, really? alright go attack! :P;)

But you keep saying Bush in the commander in chief like he's king or something and is ultimately responsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
But you keep saying Bush in the commander in chief like he's king or something and is ultimately responsible.

It is sometimes difficult for Bush robots to understand that the Congress votes on the information provided. They find it easy to point fingers as Tenet for the faulty information while dismissing Bush's executive obligation to confirm it. He had every intelligence agency at this command and still presented untruths to the Congress. Absolutely unbelievable and he will always be personally responsibile. Another word for that responsibility is "guilty."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
The lowest civilian body count of the three most accepted sources is 151,000 civilians in Iraq. There are no available figures from Afghanistan but it would be significant. As for U.S. sources, remember, "We don't do a body count."

Then let's hear it from the Iraqis that Bush murdered their fellow Iraqis, why you speaking for them???

Georgie didn't hesitate to use his Texas pal Perry to support the Swift Boaters in their hatchet job on Kerry. So much for propaganda.

Kerry lost by 3 million votes.

I suggest let it go. :tu:

And in this zealous rush to bring freedom to the Iraqis . . . . please tell me when the Iraqis petitioned the U.N. or any other organization or nation, saying "Please invade us and destroy our homes and businesses. Please bring death to 10% of our families because we want freedom?" Where was this vast cry for the Bush bullies to illegally invade a sovereign nation?

Freedom is not exclusively for Americans . . . . neither is aggression or vengeance or the sacrifice of human life for personal gain.

AGAIN, why are you speaking of the Iraqis?

Are you the authorized spokesperson?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
But you keep saying Bush in the commander in chief like he's king or something and is ultimately responsible.

He is the Commander in Chief either I say it or not.

A king? He was unaugurated as President and crowned, you must have mistaken him for someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Hill

Freedom is not exclusively for Americans, it's in most human being.

And the Iraqis known that is what they are fighting for, and that is all that matters.

Yeah I know....but you wouldn't think it; I think the most desperate patronising argument I've heard is the "Oh but the Iraqis were soOoo much more happier living under Saddam Hussein."

I mean like wtf? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
Polls, when you folks have nothing else to back up your claim you always go to the Polls.

The United States have done more than your 11 nations polled in the spread and preservation of Freedom.

Why don't your 11 nations ally themselves with al Qaeda then?

the fact that most Iraqi's call it an occupation is a pretty good sign. Most want the US out.

now go back to your koolaide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
It is sometimes difficult for Bush robots to understand that the Congress votes on the information provided. They find it easy to point fingers as Tenet for the faulty information while dismissing Bush's executive obligation to confirm it. He had every intelligence agency at this command and still presented untruths to the Congress. Absolutely unbelievable and he will always be personally responsibile. Another word for that responsibility is "guilty."

Then tell us about the warnings about Saddam's WMD by the Clinton Administration , some Senators and Representateive and even the UN prior to Bush deciding to run for President. Why were there UN weapons inspectors there for years? What was UN Resolution 17 all about?

Were they lies and deceptions as well? They guilty as well for not confirming?

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
Then tell us about the warnings about Saddam's WMD by the Clinton Administration , some Senators and Representateive and even the UN prior to Bush deciding to run for President. Why were there UN weapons inspectors there for years? What was UN Resolution 17 all about?

Were they lies and deceptions as well? They guilty as well for not confirming?

yes in 1998 Clinton thought they were rebuilding. then by 2000 we knew they weren't . funny how brown noses leave that out.

here - 2001 - Condi and Powell both state - Saddam is contained and is no threat .

2001 footage of Powell and Rice declaring that Iraq is not a threat.

During a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt, answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer. Guest host John King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies: "We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

What was UN Resolution 17 all about ?

it was if Iraq didn't follow through ( which Blix confirmed they did) then military use would be advisable AFTER/IF THE UN VOTED FOR IT . yet Bush never waited for that vote. ( which by the by makes the Iraq war illegal)

what part of that can't you understand ??? or don't you see clearly you've been lied too ???

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Yeah I know....but you wouldn't think it; I think the most desperate patronising argument I've heard is the "Oh but the Iraqis were soOoo much more happier living under Saddam Hussein."

I mean like wtf? :blink:

LOL, You made me laugh here.

They were so happy with Saddam that they hanged him. Hard to follow,huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
yes in 1998 Clinton thought they were rebuilding. then by 2000 we knew they weren't . funny how brown noses leave that out.

Then why didn't the Weapons Inspector go home, why did the UN proceeded with UN Resolution 17, why didn't the Clinton officially recognized Iraq as not a threat?

As you can see you telling us like Cinton simply went, oppss!

here - 2001 - Condi and Powell both state - Saddam is contained and is no threat .

Then the UN itself should have taken the first action by withdrawing the Sanction,embargoes, no fy zone, weapons inspectors, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Then tell us about the warnings about Saddam's WMD by the Clinton Administration , some Senators and Representateive and even the UN prior to Bush deciding to run for President. Why were there UN weapons inspectors there for years? What was UN Resolution 17 all about?

Were they lies and deceptions as well? They guilty as well for not confirming?

Bush himself destroyed your U.N. trump card. The U.N. inspectors were there doing their job and Iraq complied with their more than 11,000 page report on their weapon arsenal. The Bush goons destroyed that report and sabotaged the process.

The inspectors were there as part of the agreement following Desert Storm. Hans Blix challenged and controlled Hussein for his failure to cooperate and later accused Bush and his mafia of over dramatizing the situation in order to justify their pre-planned invasion.

The U.N. was doing its job and even top administration members were forced to admit that the WMD claim was false. No lies, no deceits . . . . all that came with Bush's plan for personal glory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
Then why didn't the Weapons Inspector go home, why did the UN proceeded with UN Resolution 17, why didn't the Clinton officially recognized Iraq as not a threat?

As you can see you telling us like Cinton simply went, oppss!

Then the UN itself should have taken the first action by withdrawing the Sanction,embargoes, no fy zone, weapons inspectors, etc, etc.

HELLO MCFLY --- the inspectors weren't finished ( they were about to file the final report ) when Bush decided to tell them to get out because he was making a preemptive strike.

the final report wasn't delivered yet by Blix.

Clinton didn't recognize Iraq as not a threat because it was at the time of presidential hand over to Bushco. Inspectors were in Iraq in 2000 -- reports organised and handed over in 2001 to Bush who by then was president.

IAEA Press Release

PR 2000/04 (26 January 2000)

IAEA Inspectors Conclude Nuclear Materials Inspection in Iraq

A physical inventory verification of nuclear material remaining at the Tuwaitha site in Iraq was carried out by a five-person IAEA team between 22 and 25 January pursuant to the Safeguards Agreement with Iraq in connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The Iraqi counterpart provided the necessary co-operation for the inspection team to perform its activities effectively and efficiently. The team conducted on-site measurements and other verification activities. No conclusions can be drawn on the results of the inspection until the analysis of all relevant data is completed in Vienna.

The inventory verification had the limited objective of verifying the presence of the nuclear material at the inspected location at Tuwaitha. As mentioned before it cannot serve as a substitute for the IAEA’s activities under the relevant Security Council resolutions, which are essential if the IAEA is to fulfill the mandate entrusted to it by the Security Council under those resolutions and to provide the necessary assurances sought by the Security Council. In this respect the Agency looks forward to resuming its inspection activities in Iraq under these resolutions, in particular in accordance with the Agency’s plan for ongoing monitoring and verification.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleas...0/prn0400.shtml

as for lifting any sanctions -- it's their discretion and rarely does a country that has had sanctions have all of them lifted at once -- although some of them were against Iraq.

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Yeah I know....but you wouldn't think it; I think the most desperate patronising argument I've heard is the "Oh but the Iraqis were soOoo much more happier living under Saddam Hussein."

I mean like wtf? :blink:

Well, I'll trust the Iraqis and they responded to the questions like this . . . .

Do you feel the situation in the country is better today or better before the U.S.-led invasion?

Better today

5%

Better before

90%

Not sure

5%

Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14282

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Hill

The inspectors were there as part of the agreement following Desert Storm. Hans Blix challenged and controlled Hussein for his failure to cooperate and later accused Bush and his mafia of over dramatizing the situation in order to justify their pre-planned invasion.

er Han Blix challenged and controlled Saddam Hussain!?! I thinks that's a slight overestimation.

Did he threaten him with his pen and clipboard?

Ok... he may have challenged Hussein but he certainly didn't control him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
er Han Blix challenged and controlled Saddam Hussain!?! I thinks that's a slight overestimation.

Did he threaten him with his pen and clipboard?

Ok... he may have challenged Hussein but he certainly didn't control him.

"Hans Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

"I have a tranquil conscience. I regret not to have had the months that were needed to confirm whether the biological and chemical weapons existed or not. But the Americans began to express their impatience by the first of March. It seems that as soon as the hot weather arrived in Iraq, the attacks were unleashed. However, when you asked them, the Americans wouldnt allow any more time for the inspections. When on January 27, I denounced Iraq in the Security Council of the UN for not cooperating in an immediate, complete and unconditional way to fulfill the terms of resolution 1441, the American Government, including the hawks, applauded me. However, it was a great paradox, because from then on, the Government of Iraq began to cooperate actively. And then the Americans began to criticize me."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...ostpatience.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong
er Han Blix challenged and controlled Saddam Hussain!?! I thinks that's a slight overestimation.

Did he threaten him with his pen and clipboard?

Ok... he may have challenged Hussein but he certainly didn't control him.

Well we all know the pen it is mightier than the sword and so yes Hussain was affraid of Blix, pretty cut and dry really.

Maybe these are the WMD's bush and Clinton were worried about......... This made me laugh out loud :lol: click the link.

Ewwwwww scary :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.