Rumsfeld and the WMD claims

Originally posted by Army
I call it a leftist leaning site, for the fact that ONLY a leftist take is presented on it. Whether Mr. Rumsfeld said it or not was obviously not a point in my post.

Truth is neither left nor right.

The site does not research how old the info that Mr. Rumsfeld spoke of actually is, or who else said it...

On that site, it's all laid out and its quite plain, not to mention well-documented/sourced. Like the material you criticized. Presented by the BBC. Rumsfeld's very own words.

Neither you nor he can make his words go away.

You will notice that the above quotes are from the current group who is the most vocal in opposition to GW's efforts to battle against those who want all of you dead....islamic terrorists.

Those quotes mean little in the face of Rumsfeld's dissembling. If Clinton had not been tough on Saddam, I can only imagine how is critics and the Neo Con crowd would have attacked him for being weak. I would've been one of them btw.

For the record, this whole thing has been (from day one) a Neo Con wet dream, steeped in utter fantasy. A fantasy turned fiasco. No one can blame this on Clinton.

Again, I am not disputing Mr. Rumsfeld words.

The argument for military action against Iraq for nuclear ambitions and WMD production has been a rally cry since the mid-90's...and most vociferously from the US political LEFT. The same US political LEFT that now claims LIES from this administration on Iraq's WMD and nuke programs. The left immediately changed their hawkish stance on the eve of US ground forces rolling across the Kuwait border. "Go to war! Go to war! Stop the WMD's! Stop the nukes!....What the hell? What do you mean you're going to war over WMD's and nukes?"

You can't have it both ways, nor when it only suits your agenda. Who is lying, the right, or the left? If Mr. Rumsfeld is only repeating the words of John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, doesn't that make them liars? Or are there different standards for the truth?

The straight truth is indeed neither left nor right....but it is always correct. Truth can be proven with real facts. Lies and distortions must always be explained and excused.

That site only wants to present the leftist view(yes, the BBC is to the left) of the situation; "Rumsfeld caught in a lie about WMD's!" Completely ignoring...or avoiding...the full truth of the whole matter.

Originally posted by Army
Again, I am not disputing Mr. Rumsfeld words.

Neither are you accepting or acknowledging that he said them.

the argument for military action against Iraq for nuclear ambitions and WMD production has been a rally cry since the mid-90's...and most vociferously from the US political LEFT.

Well, no, that's not true. The Neo Cons tried to hijack the Democratic party but the Dems weren't having it, so the Neo Cons fled the coup over into the Republican party. In the early '90's the Neo Cons hatched a plan called "The Clean Break Strategy." They presented it to Isreali Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu and then US president George H. W. Bush. Neither bit. Bush later referred to the Neo Cons, on the record, as "those crazies."

When Clinton reigned the Neo Cons shored up in the hinterlands of the think tanks and came up with their grand strategy, the PNAC. We are now operating under that insane agenda cooked up by cooks too radical even for the US Democratic party. Go figure.

It's late and I figure anyone reading this with a brain and google can find all of these facts out there for themselves. It's easy pie to find them: run a seach on Clean Break Strategy and PNAC. It's out there, a click away.

You can't have it both ways, nor when it only suits your agenda. Who is lying, the right, or the left? If Mr. Rumsfeld is only repeating the words of John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, doesn't that make them liars? Or are there different standards for the truth?

Pelosi? You might want to do some historical background before you start going off like that. Pelosi was no one back then. And why would Rummy ever quote one of those liberals? That's preposterous.

Word to the wise: get better sources.

I think if Iraq had wepons of mass destruction they should know by now. This war has been going on for a while, and we still cant get a strait answer out of a simple question: Does Iraq have WMD? its a yes or no question, not a yes and no question!

Originally posted by BigPimpin
I think if Iraq had wepons of mass destruction they should know by now. This war has been going on for a while, and we still cant get a strait answer out of a simple question: Does Iraq have WMD? its a yes or no question, not a yes and no question!

No. Iraq has not had such weapons since at least the early 1990's. If we did anything during the Gulf War, it was crushing any nuclear ambitions Saddam actually may have had.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Originally posted by Army
First, it's VIAL.

Along ECK's line of "surely there are more important things to argue":


There is nothing at all wrong with the word PHIAL.

Using your own limited world view and indoctrinated belief set can be far worse than using what some adversary cites that you subjectively see as "drivel".

Back into file.

I agree. Trying to correct a persons use of words when they are entirely legitimate only makes you look stupid.

dictionary.reference.com...

Maybe if you were more educated you would have known this.

fixed link


[edit on 4-7-2005 by cargo]

Here's a useful link for those having trouble remembering what the Bush admin was saying about Iraq weapons capabilities in the run up to war;

The House of Representatives report "IRAQ ON THE RECORD
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ" categorizing the misleading or false statements made by the Bush administration in the build up to invasion . (Rumsfeld made 52, by the way)


www.house.gov...

I agree. Trying to correct a persons use of words when they are entirely legitimate only makes you look stupid.

dictionary.reference.com...

Maybe if you were more educated you would have known this.




[edit on 4-7-2005 by cargo]

My apologies. I speak neither OLD FRENCH or GREEK. I use the modern scientific accepted version. However, I had no need to call anyone stupid. Perhaps if you had more couth and a proper upbringing, you would not be so inclined to ridicule others. Do you on a normal daily basis, use old French or the Greek language? You sould watch what you type, in case the pedestal you put yourself on....has nothing to support it.

I stand by my posts. Your link AGAIN refers to any and all statements and opinions that were touted by the extreme left in the USA prior to military action against Iraq. That ad-hoc committee that wrote that report, has as it's board the very same people that said the very same things! Cripes, Henry Waxman leads it...AND HE VOTED FOR MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ, using the same reason he NOW blames as a lie on President Bush!

I don't care what political bent you are, what religion, color, or sexual prefference. But I do care about the truth, backed with real and honest facts. If you are incapable of this, and must refer to one-sided arguments (or berate another for not knowing old, unused, foriegn words), then why bother?

(BTW...I'm betting he mispelled Vial, and had no idea that phial was a old unused French and Greek word)

Originally posted by Army
I stand by my posts. Your link AGAIN refers to any and all statements and opinions that were touted by the extreme left in the USA prior to military action against Iraq. That ad-hoc committee that wrote that report, has as it's board the very same people that said the very same things! Cripes, Henry Waxman leads it...AND HE VOTED FOR MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ, using the same reason he NOW blames as a lie on President Bush!

I do care about the truth, backed with real and honest facts.

And that is why you completely blew off the PNAC and Clean Break Strategy documents? And the authors of today's dubious plan of action? Until you explain that, you're argument is completely hollow.



[edit on 7/4/05 by EastCoastKid]

The authors of todays planning? A group of businessmen and forward thinkers? Men and women who have no say in Presidential policy, nor any position in the American Congress, yet according to you,wield some sharp sword of world change? Are you speaking of this PNAC? This is your rebuttal? A non-profit, non-government organisation?

An Israeli/American plan to bring peace to that area is a bad thing? Pray tell how? Israel has been Israel for over 2000 years, yet the Arabs have been trying to kill the Israelis and take the land since before Christ. If the Palestinians and Arabs truly wish a Palestinian State...then why haven't any ARAB states given any territory to their biblical and blood bretheren? Why must they "push the Israelis into the sea"? What is so important about Israel, that the very wealthy Arab world refuses to help the Palestinians with land of its own? Or, do you subscribe to the "Jewish problem" of the all the worlds ills?

None of which makes your argument. The liberal left of this country cried loud and long for military action against Saddam and Iraq, and used WMD's and nukes as the reason. But now, as I said, that very same liberal left calls GW and Rumsfeld liars for actually going to war for the very same reasons.

GW and DR either lied (while constantly reffering to world-wide intell reports since the '91 war), or repeated the mantra of the left (who also used the same intell reports). What is it? Why is it a lie from the right, and not a lie from the left?

So many questions with obvious answers....

Originally posted by Army

My apologies. I speak neither OLD FRENCH or GREEK. I use the modern scientific accepted version. However, I had no need to call anyone stupid. Perhaps if you had more couth and a proper upbringing, you would not be so inclined to ridicule others. Do you on a normal daily basis, use old French or the Greek language? You sould watch what you type, in case the pedestal you put yourself on....has nothing to support it.

No, I just dont like your attitude. Now you know what it feels like to have the grammar police come down on you. Consider it next time you take someone to task on their use of the English language outside of the modernised or bastardised (yes, with an "s") version we may be more familiar with.

Perhaps you would not have been so inclined to ridicule the poster if you had just done a quick dictionary check first. Welcome to the internet. It's international, believe it or not.

You may right your pedestal now, and proceed to place yourself upon it.

hahahahahaaaa! And you can determine "attitude" over the internet! Marvelous!

Yes. You clearly displayed it in your post which attempted to ridicule a fellow poster's use of the word "phial". I thought we had been through this already. Keep up.

I think my point has been made clear. Your last post will be accepted as receipt.



[edit on 4-7-2005 by cargo]

Army

Alex Jones and Infowars.com/ infowars.net. Are libritarian, and have brutaly critisised Clinton during his reign.
I suggest you educate yourself before making accusations of that sort.

from the same site;

Clinton rides on elder Bush's boat

Alex jones Biography
(from above)

Whether it be Bill Clinton or George W. Bush, Jones pulls no punches in bringing to light corruption on both sides of the political equation. He also points out that the left/right paradigm is a controlling mechanism to get people squabbling about issues of little or no significance. This is why he is respected by liberals and conservatives alike.

deny ignorance indeed

GW and DR either lied (while constantly reffering to world-wide intell reports since the '91 war), or repeated the mantra of the left (who also used the same intell reports). What is it? Why is it a lie from the right, and not a lie from the left?

What does this kind of arguement accomplish?
Ok so the left lied too. WOW what a wonderful web you have discovered. It still does not detract from the validity of the claim. All the bush bashing aside can you not see that you have been lied to? You blow off the facts because the package it was delivered in wasn't the right colour for you. How sad. Well in any case, you are wrong, so it makes no difference.
Corruption is colour blind.
(and I'm Canadian so it is colour not color )

[edit on 4-7-2005 by Halfofone]

Army, you're clearly out of your depth in this discussion (regarding plans, credible information and sites). You are actually accusing the liberals of doing the very thing the Neo Cons (which you obviously support) have done. Know this: Neo Cons are no friends of Democrats or Republicans. They are a special interest group that has hijacked the GOP. They TRIED to hijack the DNC but (a.) they weren't havin it, and (b.) they didn't have the power or reach of the GOP does. Those rats jumped that ship and swarmed the Republican party. Do some homework and you'll see what I'm saying.

[edit on 7/4/05 by EastCoastKid]

Tell me this; where was the outcry about lies, corruption, changing stories, criminal conduct, and illegal use of military power prior to, and up to, 1999?

Where were you people? Were was your self righteous condemnation of the then administration, and the liberal left spouting these very same lies? Why are you only NOW calling for criminal prosecution of GW and DR, when they are only repeating the same rhetoric, intell reports, and call to action that was driving the liberal left?

All I want to know is, why is it bad NOW, and not THEN? Where is your hate for John Kerry, who said the very same thing GW did...at the very same time?

The hypocrisy on this thread is remarkable. And it is humorous that you attack me for my "attitude", rather than giving a reasonable and coherent answer.



Had I written; "Hey stupid, it's spelled V.I.A.L ya moron!", then I would wholeheatedly agree that I had an attitude toward the poster, and would then deserve a U2U berating me. However...I didn't do that, did I? I simply gave a correction, whilst unknowing the old French and Greek version of the word. Did any of you really, honestly, know there was another way to spell it, albeit from the old French and/or Greek, or did you simply want to try to embarrass me?

Attitude...feh.

Originally posted by Army
Tell me this; where was the outcry about lies, corruption, changing stories, criminal conduct, and illegal use of military power prior to, and up to, 1999?

The question seems to be where were you?

Where were you people? Were was your self righteous condemnation of the then administration, and the liberal left spouting these very same lies?

Can you provide us with quotes?

Actually, that statement makes no sense.

Like I suggested, study the PNAC and WHO wrote it.

All I want to know is, why is it bad NOW, and not THEN? Where is your hate for John Kerry, who said the very same thing GW did...at the very same time?

The bottom line is this, the NeoCons presented this "plan of action" to Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, President Bush and then President Clinton. All three gents passed on the plan. But George Dubya liked it and signed off onnit. So there you go.

It is my opinion, Army, that you are not here for the conspiracy. You are here as many republicans are, because you see predominantly left community exploring topics of conspiracy. Those like you drip in here at a steady rate, seemingly disgusted at the number of left-wing commie pinko hippies talking trash about Bush, who happened to be the president during 911 and the president who (with a little help from his friends) initiated the Iraq War.

Don't get me wrong, nobody is to say you are not welcome here, but your intentions seem to be as a crusader wading into battle against conspiracy theorists who (by nature, it seems) are predominantly left leaning thinkers. You follow in the footsteps of infamous crusaders such as edsinger, Dr Horacid, American Mad Man and a host of others.

This is a conspiracy site and a WOT conspiracy forum. I believe it was ruined a while ago and has pissed me off ever since. They made a seperate forum called Politics@ATS but it didn't really seem to make much of a difference. The WOT forum at ATS (conspiracies) still reigns supreme and is used to get the bigger audience. I don't really care about who was wrong, the Dems or the Repubs. Im not American. Quite frankly it is my opinion that they are as bad as eachother, your country is divided and the rabid hate for eachother is blinding you all to something far more important. ECK is right.

It is true, polarising the American population is the biggest conspiracy of the new century. You won't get me to argue for the dems over the repubs, I don't have a problem with conservatives really. It's the "religious fundamentalist fascist extremist right-wing neocon zealots" that I have a problem with. Right up there with the "eco-terrorist anarchist anti-military feral property destroying extreme-left". Somewhere inbetween are people who think for themselves, and consider the multitude of possibilities. And those people are what ATS is (should be) about. In my opinion.

But you are here for a reason. If my perception of that reason is wrong, then perhaps you can help us by identifying exactly why it is you are here. Do you believe that each and every commie pinko liberal anti-Iraq War conspiracy theorist should be thrown in gaol?

Nope, you are 100% correct. I am here to learn how "the other side" thinks and behaves...and to add my $.02 worth.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, I prefer to deal in absolutes. I am very right wing, but far from "extreme". I encourage free speech and expression, but bristle when it is used to contort the truth, or flat out lie about a situation.

I am in the Army (hence the nickname I have had for nearly 10 years on the web), and take it personal when lies and distortion are presented against the US military. I also find it very distasteful when only ONE side of an position is aired, and is claimed as the ONLY position that is correct. Which is why I always say, if you are going to link to a site, make sure it can be seen as middle of the road. For example; don't tell me that GW and DR lied to the public to front this war, and only link me to a anti-bush/leftist site as your proof. Link me to both sides of the fence, let me decide if what you say is real or not. That is just being honest, regardless if you are a conspiricist or not.

That is the gist of my posts on this thread, honesty. You tell me that DR lied his butt off about WMD's to get us into this war. But that is all you told us. To counter that, I showed that DR and GW are not saying anything new, and are not making up any intell as they go along. I showed that even hard-core liberals were saying EXACTLY the very same words that GW and DR are saying today. But you guys deny this by avoiding what I say, and attack me publically and privately for simply correcting a fellow poster for using an ancient version of a word.

I do not know why EastCoastKid and others cannot figure out what I am saying about showing both sides. I said that I do not REFUTE what DR said...that simply means I know he said it, and do not deny he did. That is when I pointed out, that he did not say anything new....and you guys start going off about Israel, and a few businessmen who have created a think-tank that has NO say in our government.

I prefer defending my country from terrorism and evil, regardless of where that takes me, than to have to live through another murderous 9/11.

So, now you know where I come from.

Army, you're only about ten years behind the conversation and the curve.

Those 'few business men and whatnot' you mentioned are actually the architects of your great disaster. They're called NEO CONS. Do some reserach and then get back to us.