more attacks from the left

Published on January 10, 2005 By Moderateman In Politics

To those dickheads who think that it's OK for people to treat other people like this, you're disgusting piles of trash. I would hope that you be on the receiving end of this "non-torture"., but I couldn't even wish it on anybody. You're all a disgrace to the American flag, the American way of life, to any global humanity. These things are not "torture-lite", although I understand the idea that Cactoblasta was trying to make. Moderateman (in particular), may you rot in hell, you sick bastard....>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This lovely fair and balanced opinion was posted by dabe..... as you can see if anyone disagrees with the representaives of the luniticleft this is what you get... trashed , slandered, and prayers for your death..

The whole point of my what is torture post is to say.... we are fighting a people bent on our destruction and play by no rules at all. why do we afford them the courtesy of geneva convention rules when they behead, slaughter and maim innocent people, maybe as cactoblasta said the use of torture is an abomination..

But my opinion is that so called torturelite, if it saves one life is ok, and I am not going to change my mind.

on a side note while some of you folks are crying foul about my thoughts and want to play nice in the sandbox with the terrorist try to remember THEY WILL MAIN , KILL YOU TORTURE YOU JUST BECAUSE YOUR AN AMERICAN... or if your not american but just disagree with them they will also do such horrors to you.your mind cannot imagine it... you will tell yourself ,but i was fair and wanted them to be treated better and with respect and that will not make one iota difference to them... they are bent on the total destruction of democracy. glad to know I fought inna war so I can be called unamerican and a disgrace to the american flag...but then again I fought for the american way and free people to be able to voice there opinions whether i agree with them or disagree with them..

Comments (Page 5)

sandy2

on Jan 14, 2005

Get it RIGHT! Bush falsified NOTHING! He just parroted what he was told by his supposed intelligence angencies. So your precious Democrats ate the same line of BS that Bush did! Your spin on this, ain't changing it.

He just parroted what he was told even though it was told with a disclaimer that it might not be ture. Try to twist that to suit your agenda.

Moderateman

on Jan 14, 2005

Reply #56 By: Deference - 1/13/2005 10:50:19 PM
Now Moderateman, calm down!

Allow me to address your points here...

ok then hows this... so fucking what! he made a mistake a horrendous mistake..... so what?

I am not justtifying anything bush did, This whole thing is about the lack of support and constant snipeing the left does

calmly moderateman replies.......... this still holds true! period

Moderateman

on Jan 14, 2005

Reply #61 By: sandy2 - 1/14/2005 10:37:39 AM

He just parroted what he was told even though it was told with a disclaimer that it might not be ture. Try to twist that to suit your agenda.

Ok so what?

Moderateman

on Jan 14, 2005

Reply #59 By: sandy2 - 1/14/2005 7:52:24 AM
BS!!!! Don't say there's no left-wing sniping here, cause that's crap. You seem to forget that democrats also believed the same shit Bush did and OK'd the use of force in Iraq.

NO. WRONG. They took the liberty to trust our C.I.C., a mistake that will NOT be made again. Bush falsified things to congress and misled them. In the business world, such things are known as fraud. The victims of fraud are not held responsable for the actors misdeeds.

Dr. Miller, I have decided you have got to be one of the most irrational doctors I have ever met.

Of course he did {sarcasm} What has bush done that you approve of btw?

I find drmiler to be eminetely sane and rational

drmiler

on Jan 14, 2005

Reply #61 By: sandy2 - 1/14/2005 10:37:39 AM
Get it RIGHT! Bush falsified NOTHING! He just parroted what he was told by his supposed intelligence angencies. So your precious Democrats ate the same line of BS that Bush did! Your spin on this, ain't changing it.

He just parroted what he was told even though it was told with a disclaimer that it might not be ture

Can you show me this disclaimer?

drmiler

on Jan 14, 2005

Reply #64 By: Moderateman - 1/14/2005 11:14:27 AM
Reply #59 By: sandy2 - 1/14/2005 7:52:24 AM
BS!!!! Don't say there's no left-wing sniping here, cause that's crap. You seem to forget that democrats also believed the same shit Bush did and OK'd the use of force in Iraq.

NO. WRONG. They took the liberty to trust our C.I.C., a mistake that will NOT be made again. Bush falsified things to congress and misled them. In the business world, such things are known as fraud. The victims of fraud are not held responsable for the actors misdeeds.

Dr. Miller, I have decided you have got to be one of the most irrational doctors I have ever met.

Of course he did {sarcasm} What has bush done that you approve of btw?

I find drmiler to be eminetely sane and rational

He finds me irrational because I will NOT go along with his BS!!!

sandy2

on Jan 14, 2005

From CBS: (CBS) Senior administration officials tell CBS News the President’s mistaken claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was included in his State of the Union address -- despite objections from the CIA.
Now, because I know you won't consider that credible:

From BBC: Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC.

http://www.clw.org/iraqintelligence/hadley.html

BBC again: "So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement."

But a former diplomat, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went on the record at the weekend to say that he had travelled to Africa to investigate the uranium claims and found no evidence to support them.
Now the CIA has told the BBC that Mr Wilson's findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002.

That means that the administration would have known before the State of the Union address that the information was likely false - not just subsequently.

sandy2

on Jan 14, 2005

In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: “We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.” The report was so definitive that Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a subsequent press conference, Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”

Ten months before the president’s speech, an intelligence review by CIA Director George Tenet contained not a single mention of an imminent nuclear threat—or capability—from Iraq. The CIA was backed up by Bush’s own State Department: Around the time Bush gave his speech, the department’s intelligence bureau said that evidence did not “add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what [we] consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.”

...
To back up claims that Iraq was actively trying to build nuclear weapons, the administration referred to Iraq’s importation of aluminum tubes, which Bush officials said were for enriching uranium. In December 2002, Powell said, “Iraq has tried to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes which can be used to enrich uranium in centrifuges for a nuclear weapons program.” Similarly, in his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush said Iraq “has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”

But, in October 2002, well before these and other administration officials made this claim, two key agencies told the White House exactly the opposite. The State Department affirmed reports from Energy Department experts who concluded those tubes were ill-suited for any kind of uranium enrichment. And according to memos released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the State Department also warned Powell not to use the aluminum tubes hypothesis in the days before his February 2003 U.N. speech. He refused and used the aluminum tubes claim anyway.

The State Department’s warnings were soon validated by the IAEA. In March 2003, the agency’s director stated, “Iraq’s efforts to import these aluminum tubes were not likely to be related” to nuclear weapons deployment.

Yet, this evidence did not stop the White House either. Pretending the administration never received any warnings at all, Rice claimed in July 2003 that “the consensus view” in the intelligence community was that the tubes “were suitable for use in centrifuges to spin material for nuclear weapons.”

Today, experts agree the administration’s aluminum tube claims were wholly without merit.

...
In one of the most famous statements about Iraq’s supposed nuclear arsenals, Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The careful phrasing of this statement highlights how dishonest it was. By attributing the claim to an allied government, the White House made a powerful charge yet protected itself against any consequences should it be proved false. In fact, the president invoked the British because his own intelligence experts had earlier warned the White House not to make the claim at all.

In the fall of 2002, the CIA told administration officials not to include this uranium assertion in presidential speeches. Specifically, the agency sent two memos to the White House and Tenet personally called top national security officials imploring them not to use the claim. While the warnings forced the White House to remove a uranium reference from an October 2002 presidential address, they did not stop the charge from being included in the 2003 State of the Union.

..
They knew there was no hard evidence of chemical or biological weapons
In September 2002, President Bush said Iraq “could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.” The next month, he delivered a major speech to “outline the Iraqi threat,” just two days before a critical U.N. vote. In his address, he claimed without doubt that Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.” He said that “Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons” and that the government was “concerned Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.”

What he did not say was that the White House had been explicitly warned that these assertions were unproved.

As the Washington Post later reported, Bush “ignored the fact that U.S. intelligence mistrusted the source” of the 45-minute claim and, therefore, omitted it from its intelligence estimates. And Bush ignored the fact that the Defense Intelligence Agency previously submitted a report to the administration finding “no reliable information” to prove Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons. According to Newsweek, the conclusion was similar to the findings of a 1998 government commission on WMD chaired by Rumsfeld.

Bush also neglected to point out that in early October 2002, the administration’s top military experts told the White House they “sharply disputed the notion that Iraq’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicles were being designed as attack weapons.” Specifically, the Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center correctly showed the drones in question were too heavy to be used to deploy chemical/biological-weapons spray devices.

THEREFORE: I assert that even though Bush may not have intentionally lied, his office and the White House knew they were misleading congress when they made the case for the war on Iraq. I can find many sources to back up this claim .

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!