Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Aug 2004 02:02:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1915 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
| |
And unlike George Bush, I try to never make a statement without
backing it up with fact.
|
Well, Chris, how about that very statement for one? How do you know that
George Bush makes statements that he never tries to back up with facts?
|
He told me so, but then he wouldn’t explain why.
|
Well, if there is anything that is unhelpful here in this NG, it is
sarcasm.
|
Well I hope this helps:
George Bush knowingly lied to the Congress,
|
That he reported evidence that was later found to be false is not the same
thing as presenting evidence that you knowingly is false. You have no proof
of this accusation, because there is none.
| |
the American People, and the
World in his State of the Union Address on January 28, 2003 to make his case
for the invasion of Iraq. Numerous “facts” that he stated about Iraqs
weapons programs have been shown to be false, and it has further been shown
that his administration knew these statements were false prior to the
address. This is an impeachable offense.
|
Now I must ask you to provide specific cites for this allegation, because I
reject your assertion.
|
This is hardly new ground, but alright, here are the specific cites:
From George Bush’s State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003:
Lie #1:
“The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological
weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to
kill several million people.”
In support of this claim, Bush cited a UN Special Commission report that states
with low confidence only that Iraq posessed “growth media” that might be used to
develop anthrax. Furthermore, to conclude that the amount of growth media
estimated by the UN could produce 25,000 liters was based on a series of dubious
assumptions that went well beyond the scope of the UN report. Bush took a
report which suggested a possibilty and stated it as fact, couched in terms
designed to alarm (dare I say terrorize?) the public.
Lie #2:
“The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to
produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions
of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn’t accounted for that
material.”
The UN never “concluded” that Hussein had this material. Hussein had declared
19,000 liters to the UN, and they estimated that he “could have produced” more
than double that amount. Bush took the most extreme interpretation of an
outside estimate and stated it as fact. The fact that Hussein had actually
declared the materials to the UN was conveniently forgotten.
Lie #3:
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to
produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such
quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands.”
This claim was based on a CIA report which only stated that “gaps in Iraqi
accounting, and estimates of current production capacity strongly suggest that
Iraq maintains a stockpile of chemical agents, probably VX, sarin, cyclosarin,
and mustard.” Again, Bush took this report to its worst possible extreme, and
stated it in the most alarming terms possible.
Lie #4:
“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000
munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up
16 of them -- despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam
Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited
munitions.”
The UN report cited earlier credited Hussein with at most 15,000 munitions, and
had overseen the destruction of 40,000. Unless Bush sold him another 15,000
that nobody else knows about, he wildly exagerated these numbers. Furthermore,
the fact that the UN had already succeeded in ordering the destruction of 40,000
implies that the sanctions were working.
Lie #5:
“From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several
mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare
agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam
Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He’s given no evidence that he has
destroyed them.”
The 3 defectors remain unidentified, and the administration refuses to provide
even the least bit of information as to why their testimony was deemed credible.
Regardless, no mobile weapons labs have been found. Hussein may not have given
evidence that they were destroyed, but to date, Bush has offered no evidence
that they ever existed.
Lie #6:
“The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam
Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a
nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium
for a bomb.”
By Iraq’s own admission, they had a fledgling nuclear program in the early
1990s, but the International Atomic Energy Agency reported in 1998 that “there
were no indications of Iraq having achieved its program goals of producing a
nuclear weapon; nor were there any indications that there remained in Iraq any
physical capability for production of amounts of weapon-useable nuclear material
of any practical significance.” Bush chose to ignore the latest intelligence
and rely instead on the most alarming report from a decade earlier.
Lie #7:
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Not only did these reports turn out to be false, but it has been shown that
members of the Bush administration (including Dick Cheney) knew that this was
the case at the time of the SOTU address. The reference had been scrubbed from
an earlier speech because the information was deemed unreliable, and Colin
Powell refused to use it for the same reasons when he addressed the UN several
days after the address.
Lie #8:
“Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam
Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to
hide.”
The CIA report on the aluminum tubes was inconclusive at best. Our experts
could not state with any certainty that these tubes (which SH hadn’t even
succeeded in acquiring) were intended for a nuclear weapons program. However,
the IAEA had concluded and had already reported to the UN that the tubes sought
by Iraq were not suitable for a nuclear program.
Was SH flouting the UN resolutions? Of course! But it was the UN’s job to
enforce those resolutions and we had no business taking any enforcement action
over the objections of the UN Security Council. On the other hand, Bush
purposely distorted the facts available to him in such a way as to alarm the
American people and silence opposition to an ill-conceived, poorly-planned, and
illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. Bush still refuses to provide any proof
to back up his wild exagerations, or even acknowledge that he may have made some
mistakes in overstating his case for war.
So John, how exactly are these direct lies to Congress, the American People,
and the world not grounds for impeachment? I sense another dodge coming
on...
| |
| |
After much debate, the legislature authorized the invasion of Iraq,
|
Did the president force Congress to vote for war? They had access the
exact same evidence that was presented to the President!
| |
contingent on the president filing a finding within 48 hours of the invasion
containing proof of two facts: (1) that Iraq posessed WMD, and (2) that all
diplomatic avenues had been completely exhausted.
Do you know what Bush’s “finding of proof” was? He quoted back the very
declaration that asked him to provide this proof! He took the assumptions
spelled out by the Senate and quoted them back as if the Senate had
concluded these to be fact!
|
They did assume it to be fact; why else did they approve of the invasion in
the first place? Everybody assumed it to be fact!
|
You are wrong here, John. The Senate resolution authorized the invasion of Iraq
only if the president filed a finding of fact within 48 hours of the invasion
to prove the two facts that I stated above. As with any legal document of this
type, the Senate resolution began by stating the underlying assumptions which
Bush was required to prove.
Bush’s “proof” was to quote the assumptions back as if they were a declaration
of fact, concluded by the Senate. If the declaration included these statements
of “fact” then it would hardly call upon the president to provide evidence to
back up those statements, now would it? (Oh, that ‘s right, you reject logic.)
I dispute your assertion that “everybody” assumed that Bush’s lies to be fact,
but even so, this does not meet the burden of proof that was required of Bush by
the Senate. His declaration of fact wouldn’t even have earned him a C at Yale.
| |
| |
Furthermore, he never even attempted to prove point #2,
that all diplomatic efforts had failed.
|
SH could have strung Blix along indefinitely. Scum like SH laugh at
diplomats.
|
If that were the case, then why didn’t Bush spell this out, as required by the
resolution as a prerequisite for invading Iraq?
| |
| |
Bush is in violation of the very act which authorized his invasion.
|
So you would have advocated an immediate withdrawal after no WMDs were found?
How is Bush in violation?
|
My point has nothing to do with the fact that no WMD were found. My point has
everything to do with the president ignoring the legal obligations of his office
on the way into war. The fact that no WMD were found simply underscores the
dangers inherent in the kind of blind arrogance our president is afflicted with.
| |
| |
He has
refused to provide facts to support the premise of the invasion.
|
??? All of Congress saw the facts he used.
|
Again, Congress approved the invasion only on the condition that Bush provide a
declaration of proof that his allegations against Saddam Hussein were true.
Bush never provided any such proof.
| |
| |
Clear enough for you? The man is an international outlaw,
|
Then would you advocate him standing trial before the Hague?
|
Why not? We can’t expect to hold other nations to the rule of laws that we
ourselves do not respect and obey.
| |
| |
and the American public will be complicit in his crimes if we don’t throw
the bum out of office.
| |
| |
| |
If you have a given institution, say marriage, that is
defined as the union of 1 man and 1 woman, and you change that
definition to something other than that, you have, in essence, forever
altered that institution, and thus destroyed it. It ceases to be what it
once was.
|
Oh, alright. Now I understand. Simply to change it means you destroy it.
|
See, now I can’t ascertain whether you are serious or being sarcastic.
|
:)
|
See, now is that a grin, or an evil grin?
| |
| |
| |
This still doesn’t explain why that is a bad thing, and why you were so
willing to go around in circles for weeks on end on the topic. As you are
trying to do once again.
|
Why don’t you explain why changing the definition of marriage is a good
thing. Again I defy you to come up with an alternative definition. Nobody
will.
|
See you in November, John.
|
I’m not sure what that means exactly, but I’ve noticed that you have avoided
my direct challenge twice now....
|
If you had been reading this thread, you would realize that I have already
explained this to you. I will not waste my time endlessly debating with you
about an issue as relatively trivial as same-sex marriage (especially when you
admit that you have a closed mind anyway) when our country is going to hell in a
rocket.
I will gladly come back and discuss that issue with you ad nauseum after we
vote George W. Bush out of office in November.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
What personal liberties of yours have been eroded?
|
Our e-mail and telephone conversations are routinely scanned by the
government, as are the list of books that we purchase or borrow at the
public library.
|
Are you claiming that these actions began at the behest of the Bush
Administration?
|
Are you claiming that they did not?
|
By any chance are you closely related to Scott Arthur? ;-)
Seriously, you are attacking the Bush administration’s policies that you
claim are eroding personal liberties. You gave an example of email and phone
conversations being monitored. If these policies were in place before Bush
came into office, I think it’s disingenuous to blame him for them.
|
The Patriot Act was enacted under the Bush administration, slammed through the
congress right after the worst terrorist attack on American soil. Regardless of
whether some of its provisions had been sought by previous presidents, I submit
that the gross violation of basic constitutional rights that this vile piece of
law represents were championed by Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft.
| |
| |
| |
| |
US citizens and foreign nationals are taken into custody and held
without charges or due process of law for years on end.
|
For one who hates generalities, you use them a lot. Specifics.
|
|
|
Guantanamo Bay. Abu Ghraib. Even Afghanistan and America have been the
locations of these unconstitutional arrests and human rights violations. I
would be more specific with names and dates, except that in the most eggregious
cases, the government will not release this information.
| |
| |
| |
| |
These are violations of my rights and yours, even if we personally have
not (to our knowledge) had them violated. Yet.
|
Again, without knowing specifics, I would draw no conclusions.
|
See above.
| |
| |
| |
| |
and to ignore international law.
|
International law does not and never will trump US law. That is why
being a member in an international body such as the UN is a bad idea.
|
To ignore international standards of conduct is to become a rogue nation.
|
Whose standards would those be? Sudan’s? China’s? North Korea’s? To
what standards are you referring? If ignoring their standards means
being a rogue, then so be it!
|
Hmm... We signed the Geneva Convention, did we not? Yet we have sought in
this “war that is not really a war against terror” to avoid answering to
this long-held norm of conduct.
|
That’s because it deals with very specific definitions, and al-Qaeda does not
conform to the Geneva Convention’s definition of combatants.
|
That is a load of BS. If international law does not trump US law, then it does
not trump Iraqi law, or North Korean law, or Iranian law. If we expect to hold
anyone to standards of civility and decency, we must first hold ourselves to
those same standards.
| |
| |
Invading a sovereign nation in “preventive war” has never been accepted
under international law, either.
|
So if a brutal dictator were executing his citizens by the 100,000s and you
knew it and you could end it, you wouldn’t because of the sovereignty of his
nation?
|
Which sounds nice, but wasn’t the reason Bush told us we needed to go into Iraq.
It is merely a convenient afterthought now that Bush’s lies have been exposed.
There are plenty of countries ruled by brutal dictators that we haven’t
intervened in. And our intervention is the primary reason why Iraq was saddled
with Hussein in the first place.
- Chris.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) (snip) (...) What's wrong with that? In theory he was correct. (...) So did he lie, or did he present a feasible worst-case scenario? (...) Again, in theory it could have been the case. We are talking about WMDs here. Would you want your (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) Okay, I accept that definition and gladly state that in a lot of areas, I am close-minded. Here is one example: on the topic of adultery, I am close-minded and reject that behavior. Do you have a problem with that? (...) More generalities. You (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
113 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
