"Bush Was Right"

**leejo** · 02-22-2006, 09:10 PM

http://www.investors.com/editorial/I...issue=20060221

Quote:

WMD: The quote above is that of a former UNSCOM member after translating and reviewing 12 hours of taped conversations between Saddam Hussein and his aides.

Instead of adding to Lucky Shot's thread about these tapes, my focus is on the next sentence in this article: So what's on the covers of Time and Newsweek?

A few weeks ago Vice President Cheney shot a man in his hunting party. The next day, the Corpus Christy Caller-Times scooped the story when the ranch owner contacted one of their reporters. We all know the howls and now the simultaneous Time and Newsweek cover stories.

I have two problems with this story.

1) Many on the left consider the veep as the real brains in the oval office. So why isn't the press covering him? A bevy of reporters follow President Bush's every step, yet no-one pays any attention at all to the Vice President's whereabouts and actions? Between the NY Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Reuters, the AP, and UPI no-one could scrounge up a 23 year-old with a cell phone to hang out near the ranch and, you know, report?

Why are the press relying on the White House to inform them? Why should I care what they have to say about anything when I can instead simply read the primary source - the White House press release or statements - and make up my own mind without their filtering the information I receive?

2) Iran is getting close to a nuke. SH's tapes are now out there. Where is the press on these stories? How on earth does Dick Cheney's bird shot pack a bigger punch where Newsweek and Time are concerned?

I know full well that these SH tapes will make little difference in changing anyone's mind about his WMDs. Those of us who listen to reason and review evidence know that he had them and planned to use them. Those of you who are so blinded by idiology and hatred of all things Bushy will ignore anything less obvious than a scud warhead up your own wazoo.

Or maybe I got that backwards. Depends on which side of the argument you are, I suppose.

In any case, I doubt seriously these tapes will have much effect on anything, now that folks are so entrenched in their thinking. But I do wonder what on earth the press is thinking by continuing to expose their own asses with this Cheney story. They got caught with their pants down.

aeroripper · 02-22-2006, 09:27 PM

Quote:

I know full well that these SH tapes will make little difference in changing anyone's mind about his WMDs. Those of us who listen to reason and review evidence know that he had them and planned to use them. Those of you who are so blinded by idiology and hatred of all things Bushy will ignore anything less obvious than a scud warhead up your own wazoo.

*sigh

EDIT: I'll post my thoughts on it in 30 min

**leejo** · 02-22-2006, 09:30 PM

hehe. well I *was*kidding, signified by my little winky in the next paragraph. However, does anyone remember the scuds that Iraq launched on the first nights of the current war? Those were supposed to have been destroyed, too. Their existence was in violation of several UN resolutions, and by firing them Iraq revealed its duplicity in dealing with the international community.

What about those scuds, you in the "where are the wmds" crowd?

**Wyzcrak** · 02-22-2006, 09:37 PM

Yeah... me, too, aero. :/

**leejo** · 02-22-2006, 09:39 PM

I was KIDDING!

Karkianman101 · 02-22-2006, 09:46 PM

The Cheney coverage really is/was starting to piss me off. For once I found myself agreeing with Carl Tucker: who cares about a hunting accident just because of who was involved?!

As for the article, its interesting. I've been thinking for a number of months now that there was something wrong with Iraq to begin with, though I still have major doubts as to whether or not that was the right time for war with Iraq, and whether that war effort could have been better used elsewhere.

AMosely · 02-22-2006, 10:45 PM

Major news outlets have been careful with their handling of this story because it still lacks credibility. Nothing in this article is new information except for the references to the tapes by a single former UNSCOM translator - Bill Tierney, a recent guest on "Coast to Coast AM" who doesn't seem to me to be operating on all cylinders:

Tierney's methods of ascertaining this location were rather unconventional. "I would ask God and just get a sense if something was valid or not, and then know if I needed to pursue it," he said. His assessments through prayer were then confirmed to him by a friend's clairvoyant dream, where he was able to find the location on a map. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2003/02/14.html

I don't really care that much about the WMD story anymore. Bush's administration didn't lie about it - the truth was unknown, so they went ahead on their assumptions, wrong or right. What's done is done. If definitive proof (not this) is ever really found, you can bet we'll all know about it very, very quickly.

aeroripper · 02-22-2006, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

http://www.investors.com/editorial/I...issue=20060221

Instead of adding to Lucky Shot's thread about these tapes, my focus is on the next sentence in this article: So what's on the covers of Time and Newsweek?

A few weeks ago Vice President Cheney shot a man in his hunting party. The next day, the Corpus Christy Caller-Times scooped the story when the ranch owner contacted one of their reporters. We all know the howls and now the simultaneous Time and Newsweek cover stories.

I have two problems with this story.

1) Many on the left consider the veep as the real brains in the oval office. So why isn't the press covering him? A bevy of reporters follow President Bush's every step, yet no-one pays any attention at all to the Vice President's whereabouts and actions? Between the NY Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Reuters, the AP, and UPI no-one could scrounge up a 23 year-old with a cell phone to hang out near the ranch and, you know, report?

Why are the press relying on the White House to inform them? Why should I care what they have to say about anything when I can instead simply read the primary source - the White House press release or statements - and make up my own mind without their filtering the information I receive?

2) Iran is getting close to a nuke. SH's tapes are now out there. Where is the press on these stories? How on earth does Dick Cheney's bird shot pack a bigger punch where Newsweek and Time are concerned?

I know full well that these SH tapes will make little difference in changing anyone's mind about his WMDs. Those of us who listen to reason and review evidence know that he had them and planned to use them. Those of you who are so blinded by idiology and hatred of all things Bushy will ignore anything less obvious than a scud warhead up your own wazoo.

Or maybe I got that backwards. Depends on which side of the argument you are, I suppose.

In any case, I doubt seriously these tapes will have much effect on anything, now that folks are so entrenched in their thinking. But I do wonder what on earth the press is thinking by continuing to expose their own asses with this Cheney story. They got caught with their pants down.

1) Good point. I really don't have anything to disagree with

2) I was also disgusted with the over-the-top cheney coverage. The whole thing just seemed blown WAY out of proportion and really wasn't a big deal. It is funny how cheney gets so little coverage, hehe, and remember how long people didn't hear from him after 9\11 when he was hiding in a bunker or something somewhere?

As for the tapes, when I was reading the article on CNN about them and how he mentions terrorists will try to use WMDs against the US, but Iraq will have nothing to do with it. And that he has "interest" in restarting the program after sanctions are lifted. I just knew somebody was going to start saying "aha! see! He DID have WMDs after all! Your all fools for not believing bush! Everything's okay now! Phew!"

For me its not so much that he had a WMD program, and has used chem weps before on the kurds (some of which US corporations sold to his regime, I feel like I have to keep bringing that up. Those were nasty things as well!), but the attitude of the bush administration in the weeks before the invasion. We were made to believe that sadamm had WMDs armed and ready and was going to attack the US with them, and with this faulty intelligence we decided to invade Iraq. Okay, so it was "bad" intelligence, I won't get into how they really should have been much more cautious before invading another country in the volatile middle east, but that's just my own personal belief and not theirs.

The things that make me angry about bush is that even soon after 9\11, aides thought it odd that he had such a desire to "find out what they could get on Iraq". Almost like he was craving to invade Iraq. But why? Why would bush have a meeting with all the top energy suppliers in the country before the invasion, doesn't that seem kind of an odd? Well, maybe not, I'm not going to go into the whole oil debate. But it sure did make me mad as hell when he jokes about the whole not being able to find the WMDs issue at a white house press conference, while soldiers that were sent over there are being killed. Very bad taste mr. bush.

The UN sanctions were working, there were no WMDs, although there *may* have been a chance of restarting the program after sanctions were lifted, but that is beyond the point now. I've always said invading Iraq was a big mistake, or at the very least, the planning was very rushed, and very poor. They are not only incompetent, but bad leaders. If they really want to evangelize the benefits of democracy in the middle eastern world as they say, they havn't been going about it in the right way.

**leejo** · 02-22-2006, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeroripper

Why would bush have a meeting with all the top energy suppliers in the country before the invasion, doesn't that seem kind of an odd? Well, maybe not, I'm not going to go into the whole oil debate.

It doesn't strike me as odd, it strikes me as prudent. There are so many unknowns in war, one of which unknowns in this particular war was the impact it would have on oil supplies, a national security concern. How will we handle a severe disruption? What civilian resources are available to cap burning wells if they do that again? Do you need any federal assistance? These all seem like possible and reasonable questions in such a conversation. Muhahahaha won't we be rich seems like an unlikely and unreasonable topic.

Quote:

The UN sanctions were working, there were no WMDs, although there *may* have been a chance of restarting the program after sanctions were lifted, but that is beyond the point now.

There is substantial disagreement with your first point, significant doubt about your second, and near-certainty about your third.

Quote:

I've always said invading Iraq was a big mistake, or at the very least, the planning was very rushed, and very poor. They are not only incompetent, but bad leaders. If they really want to evangelize the benefits of democracy in the middle eastern world as they say, they havn't been going about it in the right way.

Has someone written the book on the "right" way? I'd love to read it. I doubt the planning was rushed or poor, it was excellent and accomplished a successful invasion of a nation a few thousand miles away with dramatically fewer casualties than anyone imagined. Personally, if you'd told me that it would take the current number of KIAs to accomplish that mission, I'd have been relieved. Interesting how the same number of casualties all at once enfuriate and energize our public but drag those casualties out over two years and we're in a quagmire.

“War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory.” - Georges Clemenceau

This war depends upon one thing: the American will. That is the center of gravity for our enemies.

aeroripper · 02-23-2006, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

It doesn't strike me as odd, it strikes me as prudent. There are so many unknowns in war, one of which unknowns in this particular war was the impact it would have on oil supplies, a national security concern. How will we handle a severe disruption? What civilian resources are available to cap burning wells if they do that again? Do you need any federal assistance? These all seem like possible and reasonable questions in such a conversation. Muhahahaha won't we be rich seems like an unlikely and unreasonable topic.

These are good points. But that still doesn't alleviate my suspicion we are trying to gain access to oil supplies that won't peak until the 2030s, and the invasion was merely the foot in the door to achieve this.

Quote:

There is substantial disagreement with your first point, significant doubt about your second, and near-certainty about your third.

I don't see what I'm saying the same way you are, can you reference which points your referring to?

Quote:

Has someone written the book on the "right" way? I'd love to read it. I doubt the planning was rushed or poor, it was excellent and accomplished a successful invasion of a nation a few thousand miles away with dramatically fewer casualties than anyone imagined. Personally, if you'd told me that it would take the current number of KIAs to accomplish that mission, I'd have been relieved. Interesting how the same number of casualties all at once enfuriate and energize our public but drag those casualties out over two years and we're in a quagmire.

“War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory.” - Georges Clemenceau

This war depends upon one thing: the American will. That is the center of gravity for our enemies.

The war depends on more than the american will. American will on its own isn't going to win a war. What exactly are you meaning by american will? Citizen moral support, military\monetary support to the war? Come to think of it wasn't I arguing about this with someone else in an earlier thread about the Vietnam war?

Of course the invasion went well when you have the best armed army in the world fighting far inferior forces. There was little doubt the initial military invasion would fail (those are the wars america is use to fighting now). I am referring to the planning for the aftermath after sadamn and his party is removed from power. What about having enough troops to maintain order with the looting? What about protecting vital infrastructure as a very high priority? What about al-queda slipping past the border and taking root in the country? There were many, many issues that could have been solved or reduced by extensive planning. This is a classic insurgency yet people like rumsfield had their minds stuck in a peacetime mindset.

Lucky Shot · 02-23-2006, 02:03 AM

Yea, the credibility question. The big time media can't cover it as they have trumped No WMD's for years and to say otherwise would once again trample their credibility. http://www.intelligencesummit.org/ne...y/TM022106.php

I will be interested in hearing how the reason for us to not go to war in a war that we are already in, will change. In terms of Syria, they have agreed to hold onto Iran's nuclear weapons for them (nice guys that they are).

Syria agreed to store Iranian WMD's, I can't see it being a stretch that Iraq would be offered the same deal.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=20671
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...659722224.html

Lucky Shot

**WhiskeySix** · 02-23-2006, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

I don't really care that much about the WMD story anymore. Bush's administration didn't lie about it - the truth was unknown, so they went ahead on their assumptions, wrong or right. What's done is done. If definitive proof (not this) is ever really found, you can bet we'll all know about it very, very quickly.

well said (+rep)

Boot · 02-23-2006, 03:39 AM

I'll bite.

Quote:

The UN sanctions were working, there were no WMDs, although there *may* have been a chance of restarting the program after sanctions were lifted, but that is beyond the point now.

This depends on what you mean by "working". We have more evidence of France getting kickbacks and contracts out of the UN programs than we have evidence of the sanctions halting any activity Saddam was after. Saddam very clearly remained in violation of UN Resolution 1441 until the day of his fall.

There is evidence that Saddam was being lied to by his own people, and the faulty intelligence was based on these intercepted lies as well. But we do know he had weapons that we have not found.

And despite popular desire, George W. Bush did not make this WMD stuff up. The following report is from a Clinton-era analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Middle East Review of International Affairs, Dec 1997

In August 1995, Hussein Kamil, Saddam's son-in-law who had overseen Iraq's unconventional weapons program, defected to Jordan. Until then, it had been thought that most of Iraq's proscribed agents had been destroyed during the 1991 Gulf war and that UNSCOM was slowly but steadily removing what remained.

Since Kamil's defection, Iraq has acknowledged producing 2,265 gallons of anthrax. Anthrax, unlike some other biological agents, has an extremely long shelf-life. ...

Also last spring, UNSCOM discovered that Iraq was involved in the production of a previously undeclared biological agent, which UNSCOM then described only as "a fast-acting toxin, suitable for use on the battlefield." Much later, the U.S. Secretary of Defense explained that Iraq had produced ricin. ...

Iraq has acknowledged producing 3.9 tons of [the chemical nerve agent] VX ...

Read the whole report here.

Saddam claimed to have destroyed some of these stockpiles, but could never produce documentation to prove it. Production facilities have been found within Iraq, as this PBS interview with David Kay, Bush's chief weapons inspector explains. Precursor chemicals needed to produce these agents were known to have been imported. None of the weaponized material has been reported as found.

What has been reported, however, is large convoys of material went to Syria just before the invasion. David Kay got a lot of press for resigning and saying the WMD stockpiles didn't exist in Iraq, but he also went on to say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Kay

There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war -- satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don't know what was moved.

You can find his comments here.

And for Lucky Shot, this piece on Syria is a pretty good read though it is more commentary than reporting.

To topic, none of this was front page material anywhere, any time. Guess they...uh...forgot.

aesop rock · 02-23-2006, 04:28 AM

I don't want to offend, but there are some real stretches in this thread.
Comparing nukes to scuds?
Chemical 'battlefield ready' weapons to WMDs?
ZOMG Cars, trucks, and TRAINS crossing the BORDER?!?!?! OH NOES!

I don't know the specifics of this biochemical weapon, but I don't think it would qualify as a WMD.

And for those of you who are tired of hearing about the WMDs, so am I. So are most of us. I've been tired of hearing about it before the invasion took place. So, why is it OK for the US and other UN countries to have nukes, and not Iran and North Korea? Or Pakistan and India? I would imagine that not ALL the soviet nukes were destroyed. So EVEN IF there had been nukes in Iraq, which there was no evidence of, why is invading the right thing to do? Big question, I guess. I feel the answer revolves around fear.

Faultline · 02-23-2006, 09:23 AM

I was under the impression that biochemical weapons ARE considered WMD's, alongside nukes.

02-22-2006, 09:30 PM	#3 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: "Bush Was Right" hehe. well I waskidding, signified by my little winky in the next paragraph. However, does anyone remember the scuds that Iraq launched on the first nights of the current war? Those were supposed to have been destroyed, too. Their existence was in violation of several UN resolutions, and by firing them Iraq revealed its duplicity in dealing with the international community. What about those scuds, you in the "where are the wmds" crowd?

02-22-2006, 09:37 PM	#4 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,148	Re: "Bush Was Right" Yeah... me, too, aero. :/ __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

02-22-2006, 09:39 PM	#5 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: "Bush Was Right" I was KIDDING!

02-22-2006, 09:46 PM	#6 (permalink)
Karkianman101 Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: East Lansing Age: 20 Posts: 1,546	Re: "Bush Was Right" The Cheney coverage really is/was starting to piss me off. For once I found myself agreeing with Carl Tucker: who cares about a hunting accident just because of who was involved?! As for the article, its interesting. I've been thinking for a number of months now that there was something wrong with Iraq to begin with, though I still have major doubts as to whether or not that was the right time for war with Iraq, and whether that war effort could have been better used elsewhere.

02-22-2006, 10:45 PM	#7 (permalink)
AMosely Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maine Age: 34 Posts: 2,793	Re: "Bush Was Right" Major news outlets have been careful with their handling of this story because it still lacks credibility. Nothing in this article is new information except for the references to the tapes by a single former UNSCOM translator - Bill Tierney, a recent guest on "Coast to Coast AM" who doesn't seem to me to be operating on all cylinders: Tierney's methods of ascertaining this location were rather unconventional. "I would ask God and just get a sense if something was valid or not, and then know if I needed to pursue it," he said. His assessments through prayer were then confirmed to him by a friend's clairvoyant dream, where he was able to find the location on a map. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2003/02/14.html I don't really care that much about the WMD story anymore. Bush's administration didn't lie about it - the truth was unknown, so they went ahead on their assumptions, wrong or right. What's done is done. If definitive proof (not this) is ever really found, you can bet we'll all know about it very, very quickly.

02-23-2006, 02:03 AM	#11 (permalink)
Lucky Shot Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,639	Re: "Bush Was Right" Yea, the credibility question. The big time media can't cover it as they have trumped No WMD's for years and to say otherwise would once again trample their credibility. http://www.intelligencesummit.org/ne...y/TM022106.php I will be interested in hearing how the reason for us to not go to war in a war that we are already in, will change. In terms of Syria, they have agreed to hold onto Iran's nuclear weapons for them (nice guys that they are). Syria agreed to store Iranian WMD's, I can't see it being a stretch that Iraq would be offered the same deal. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=20671 http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...659722224.html Lucky Shot

02-23-2006, 04:28 AM	#14 (permalink)
aesop rock Join Date: May 2005 Location: Olympia, WA Age: 27 Posts: 321	Re: "Bush Was Right" I don't want to offend, but there are some real stretches in this thread. Comparing nukes to scuds? Chemical 'battlefield ready' weapons to WMDs? ZOMG Cars, trucks, and TRAINS crossing the BORDER?!?!?! OH NOES! I don't know the specifics of this biochemical weapon, but I don't think it would qualify as a WMD. And for those of you who are tired of hearing about the WMDs, so am I. So are most of us. I've been tired of hearing about it before the invasion took place. So, why is it OK for the US and other UN countries to have nukes, and not Iran and North Korea? Or Pakistan and India? I would imagine that not ALL the soviet nukes were destroyed. So EVEN IF there had been nukes in Iraq, which there was no evidence of, why is invading the right thing to do? Big question, I guess. I feel the answer revolves around fear. __________________ "Who put the fun in dysfunctional? I." - Aesop Rock (http://www.mushrecords.com/release.php?REAID=38) "Cuz you can choose to say 'Good morning, God' or 'Good God.. morning!" -Blackalicious It is my firm belief that, until we humans stop using human nature as an excuse for our actions, we will never realize our true nature. Last edited by aesop rock; 02-23-2006 at 04:50 AM.

02-23-2006, 09:23 AM	#15 (permalink)
Faultline Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Tennessee Age: 30 Posts: 1,559	Re: "Bush Was Right" I was under the impression that biochemical weapons ARE considered WMD's, alongside nukes. __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links