This woman is very mentally disturbed !!!

mrbigbluelight

Bill Ayotte wrote: »

That is correct, I had the chance to meet some of those Kurds while I was over there the first time....One of them was a historian, who took about five of us into a little library-type building, and showed us pictures of the aftermath from the attack...Disgusting, plain and simple...From what I was told later, the only reason those attacks stopped was because that area was part of the no-fly-zone established by the first Gulf War....There were reports at one point that the night before the current invasion started, they were bused out into Syria....I'll tell you what though, there is nothing scarier than hearing that boom in the middle of the night, then the chemical alarm....The standard time for putting that gear on is pretty long, but you can get it on in about 2 minutes after you hear that alarm...The night that a patriot missile shot down a Mirage fighter (the Mirage did not have the proper Transmitter ID installed for the day) was probably the scariest night of the entire deployment...That boom literally bounced me off of my cot...

It is very interesting, Bill, to hear of real world encounters from one who has been there.

I would have to ask, though, if those Kurds are aware that our government was the entity that supplied Saddam with the chemical weapons and intelligence to use initially against Iran in that war, and then seemingly stood by blindly while Saddam used them on the Kurds.

Also, if I may, what sort of memory do the Kurds retain of the senior George Bush who called for the Kurds to revolt against Saddam, than stood by and denied those Kurds support in the subsequent bloodbath.

I don't believe that I'm incorrect in those statements, but I am recalling those two specific instances from memory. If I'm incorrect, I'm certainly open to correction.

jdhdiggs

rskarvan wrote: »

So, we are the type of country that will fabricate evidence to justify going to war. I'd have more respect for Bush if he had a shred of honesty about him. He would have been better off had he just told the truth and said that he was going after Sadam simply because he was completing his father's objectives.

Again, where's your evidence that we fabricated evidence? All you have is a bunch of accusations and nothing else....

Where's the proof that he lied? How can you say someone's dishonest if you can't prove they lied...

Keep on digging.

mrbigbluelight

jdhdiggs wrote: »

Again, where's your proof that there was no evidence as you claimed...

It is pretty difficult to prove a negative; it might be easier to prove the positive, ie, that President Bush had proof that there was WMD.

If I'm not mistaken, I don't believe the entire world agreed with President Bush's assertion that there were WMD in Iraq. I recall Colin Powell's speech before the UN, and the French, Germans, amongst others disagreeing with Colin Powell on numerous specific points. They disagreed on the "artist's rendering" of a mobile chemical lab that could be used for production of weapons material. They disagreed with the satellite photos that showed a bunker complex of some sort, and Colin Powell's assertion that it showed that it was being used as a station for making WMD's.

In all cases that they disagreed with Colin Powell (which, if I recall, was almost every case), they were correct.

If my memory isn't as accurate as I'd like, I'm certainly open to correction.

rskarvan

Revealed: How the Road to War was Paved with Lies
By Raymond Whitaker
Independent
April 27, 2003

The case for invading Iraq to remove its weapons of mass destruction was based on selective use of intelligence, exaggeration, use of sources known to be discredited and outright fabrication, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. A high-level UK source said last night that intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war with Iraq. "They ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat," the source said. Quoting an editorial in a Middle East newspaper which said, "Washington has to prove its case. If it does not, the world will for ever believe that it paved the road to war with lies", he added: "You can draw your own conclusions."

UN inspectors who left Iraq just before the war started were searching for four categories of weapons: nuclear, chemical, biological and missiles capable of flying beyond a range of 93 miles. They found ample evidence that Iraq was not co-operating, but none to support British and American assertions that Saddam Hussein's regime posed an imminent threat to the world. On nuclear weapons, the British Government claimed that the former regime sought uranium feed material from the government of Niger in west Africa. This was based on letters later described by the International Atomic Energy Agency as crude forgeries.

On chemical weapons, a CIA report on the likelihood that Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction was partially declassified. The parts released were those which made it appear that the danger was high; only after pressure from Senator Bob Graham, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was the whole report declassified, including the conclusion that the chances of Iraq using chemical weapons were "very low" for the "foreseeable future". On biological weapons, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told the UN Security Council in February that the former regime had up to 18 mobile laboratories. He attributed the information to "defectors" from Iraq, without saying that their claims - including one of a "secret biological laboratory beneath the Saddam Hussein hospital in central Baghdad" - had repeatedly been disproved by UN weapons inspectors.

On missiles, Iraq accepted UN demands to destroy its al-Samoud weapons, despite disputing claims that they exceeded the permitted range. No banned Scud missiles were found before or since, but last week the Secretary of State for Defense, Geoff Hoon, suggested Scuds had been fired during the war. There is no proof any were in fact Scuds. Some American officials have all but conceded that the weapons of mass destruction campaign was simply a means to an end - a "global show of American power and democracy", as ABC News in the US put it. "We were not lying," it was told by one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." American and British teams claim they are scouring Iraq in search of definitive evidence but none has so far been found, even though the sites considered most promising have been searched, and senior figures such as Tariq Aziz, the former Deputy Prime Minister, intelligence chiefs and the man believed to be in charge of Iraq's chemical weapons program are in custody.

Robin Cook, who as Foreign Secretary would have received high-level security briefings, said last week that "it was difficult to believe that Saddam had the capacity to hit us". Mr Cook resigned from the Government on the eve of war, but was still in the Cabinet as Leader of the House when it released highly contentious dossiers to bolster its case. One report released last autumn by Tony Blair said that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes, but last week Mr Hoon said that such weapons might have escaped detection because they had been dismantled and buried. A later Downing Street "intelligence" dossier was shown to have been largely plagiarized from three articles in academic publications. "You cannot just cherry-pick evidence that suits your case and ignore the rest. It is a cardinal rule of intelligence," said one aggrieved officer. "Yet that is what the PM is doing." Another said: "What we have is a few strands of highly circumstantial evidence, and to justify an attack on Iraq it is being presented as a cast-iron case. That really is not good enough."

Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge University analyst who first pointed out Downing Street's plagiarism, said ministers had claimed before the war to have information which could not be disclosed because agents in Iraq would be endangered. "That doesn't apply any more, but they haven't come up with the evidence," he said. "They lack credibility." Mr Rangwala said much of the information on WMDs had come from Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC), which received Pentagon money for intelligence-gathering. "The INC saw the demand, and provided what was needed," he said. "The implication is that they polluted the whole US intelligence effort."

Facing calls for proof of their allegations, senior members of both the US and British governments are suggesting that so-called WMDs were destroyed after the departure of UN inspectors on the eve of war - a possibility raised by President George Bush for the first time on Thursday. This in itself, however, appears to be an example of what the chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix called "shaky intelligence". An Iraqi scientist, writing under a pseudonym, said in a note slipped to a driver in a US convoy that he had proof information was kept from the inspectors, and that Iraqi officials had destroyed chemical weapons just before the war.

Other explanations for the failure to find WMDs include the possibility that they might have been smuggled to Syria, or so well hidden that they could take months, even years, to find. But last week it emerged that two of four American mobile teams in Iraq had been switched from looking for WMDs to other tasks, though three new teams from less specialized units were said to have been assigned to the quest for "unconventional weapons" - the less emotive term which is now preferred. Mr Powell and Mr Bush both repeated last week that Iraq had WMDs. But one official said privately that "in the end, history and the American people will judge the US not by whether its officials found canisters of poison gas or vials of some biological agent [but] by whether this war marked the beginning of the end for the terrorists who hate America".

PolkThug

I remember watching part of Powell's speech and he was showing a sat image of buildings and saying that trucks were going in an out of them, and I thought to myself that it was a pretty weak case. Then I thought, they must obviously know more than what they were willing to show on TV; I was wrong.

Maurice

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

It is pretty difficult to prove a negative; it might be easier to prove the positive, ie, that President Bush had proof that there was WMD.

If I'm not mistaken, I don't believe the entire world agreed with President Bush's assertion that there were WMD in Iraq. I recall Colin Powell's speech before the UN, and the French, Germans, amongst others disagreeing with Colin Powell on numerous specific points. They disagreed on the "artist's rendering" of a mobile chemical lab that could be used for production of weapons material. They disagreed with the satellite photos that showed a bunker complex of some sort, and Colin Powell's assertion that it showed that it was being used as a station for making WMD's.

In all cases that they disagreed with Colin Powell (which, if I recall, was almost every case), they were correct.

If my memory isn't as accurate as I'd like, I'm certainly open to correction.

the french, germans & russians were all in bed with sadaam on the oil for food scam. That's why they each vetoed. That has been clearly documented and ignored by the media.

rskarvan

I knew France and Russia were involved in the oil-for-food scam. Didn't know that Germany was implicated.

jdhdiggs

Maurice wrote: »

That has been clearly documented and ignored by the media.

As has the actual finding of the weapons... Sorry, but if it's a binary agent with one chemical on one side of the warehouse and the other chemical on the otherside with artillery shells setup as a binary chemical weapon device in the middle. I'd call that locating WMD. But it didn't count because the shells weren't loaded? Thanks for that wonderful logic libs... By current estimates it would have taken 45 minutes to load the first shell, but that doesn't count in the eyes of the "appease at any price" party. To me, if you can prep and arm a WMD in less than a month, you have WMD's.

Proof that Saddam had WMD? How about the 10's of thousands of Dead kurds or Iranians dead at the hand of WMD's? How about the finding of mustard gas and other nerve agents dumbed in the Tigris and Euphrates... No, he didn't have WMD, all those people just died because of some bad seafood... :rolleyes:

Also not reported: the burying of hundreds of fighter aircraft, tanks, and artillery. How a good portion of Saddams army left into Iran and Syria... A trailer of shells could still be buried in the desert and we wouldn't find it in a decade. Additionally, it wouldn't have been that hard to move them in busses across the border into Syria or Iran without the US knowing.

Anyway, your article still has no proof in it, just conjecture. Each of the allegations it has in it has been proven false or as a backwards looking 20/20 vision puff piece. Is that really your evidence that he lied? Well then Hilary, Ted Kennedy, Obama, and most of the liberal congressional leaders lied as well about the same thing... Lying and not knowing all the facts are to different things entirely.

rskarvan

It looks like Jimmy Carter isn't the only ex-President that thinks Bush is error prone.

GERALD FORD ON IRAQ
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

In a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.

"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."

hearingimpared

So what does everyone think, is Rosie mentally disturbed or what?:D :rolleyes:

Three pages of major derail!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa

hearingimpared

rskarvan wrote: »

It looks like Jimmy Carter isn't the only ex-President that thinks Bush is error prone.

GERALD FORD ON IRAQ
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

In a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.

"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."

If you put any credance in what an imbecile like Jimmy Carter thinks then you are worse off than I thought. Carter is still an angry bitter slug who is still hurting over his one and done presidency!!! You keep bringing him up like he is anything but a looser!

Also let the guy who you have quoting Ford present the whole interview. . . see how much of what you've posted is taken out of context!! Dems can lie like dogs and think that people are gullible . . . oh you are, well I guess they are right with their flock of sheep!

rskarvan

hearingimpared wrote: »

So what does everyone think, is Rosie mentally disturbed or what?:D :rolleyes:

Three pages of major derail!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa

QUOTE FROM ROSIE O'DONNELL
No one was feeling the love on Wednesday, when the argument with Hasselbeck began over O'Donnell's statement last week about the war:
"655,000 Iraqi civilians have died. Who are the terrorists?"

Hearingimpared, how exactly is the war on Iraq off-topic?

Ok... so, both Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford aren't as knowledgeable as YOU?

And, per your request....her is a link to the entire article re: Gerald Ford on Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701558.html

hearingimpared

rskarvan wrote: »

QUOTE FROM ROSIE O'DONNELL
No one was feeling the love on Wednesday, when the argument with Hasselbeck began over O'Donnell's statement last week about the war:
"655,000 Iraqi civilians have died. Who are the terrorists?"

Hearingimpared, how exactly is the war on Iraq off-topic?

Ok... so, both Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford aren't as knowledgeable as YOU?

I'm definitely more knowledgable than Ford as probably are you cause he has passed on. One of my farts have more knowledge, guts and common sense than Jimmy Carter has.

How is it a derail you ask? If you have to asked that then you really are a lost cause!

rskarvan

Jimmy Carter has a degree in Nuclear Physics (along with post-graduate work in the field).
George W. can't even pronounce Nuclear properly.

I'd love to hear an intelligent debate about ANYTHING between Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush.

---

Jimmy Carter was educated in the Plains public schools, attended Georgia Southwestern College and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and received a B.S. degree from the United States Naval Academy in 1946. In the Navy he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and rising to the rank of lieutenant. Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program, he was assigned to Schenectady, N.Y., where he took graduate work at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officer of the pre-commissioning crew of the Seawolf, the second nuclear submarine.

Maurice

Education and intelligence are two totally different things.

rskarvan

Hopefully, the 2008 Democratic Nominee will have BOTH!

F1nut

rskarvan wrote: »

Spoken like a true republican... lots of opinion supported by absolutely no facts.

Your posts provide all the facts needed to back my comment. Keep digging, the entertainmant value is off the charts.

Spacedeckman

rskarvan wrote: »

Before you start dissing Mikey Moore, did you even watch Fahrenheit 911? That move will piss you off. Most Republicans can't stomach that movie and instead just dismiss it all together. Sometimes, the truth hurts.

If you've seen that, then the next step you need to do is see Farenhype911. That movie will really piss you off. Most Democrats can't stomach that movie, and instead will just dismiss it all together. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Mark

bobman1235

rskarvan wrote: »

Jimmy Carter has a degree in Nuclear Physics (along with post-graduate work in the field).
George W. can't even pronounce Nuclear properly.

GW graduated from Yale, an Ivy League School.

I dislike the guy, but your argument is completely worthless. As others have said, education != intelligence.

For example, did you go to school?...

krabby5

janmike wrote: »

Pathetic representative of your Nation.

representative of our nation?

I wasn't aware that most people in the US were ****, fat, and psychotic POS?

well..fat maybe..:D

krabby5

rskarvan wrote: »

The Downing Street "Memo" is actually the minutes of a meeting, transcribed during a gathering many of the British Prime Minister's senior ministers on July 23, 2002. Published by The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005 this document was the first hard evidence from within the UK or US governments that exposed the truth about how the Iraq war began.

Since that time, much more information has come to light through leaks of secret government documents and the accounts of an increasing number of people who have witnessed the administration’s wrongdoing firsthand.

There is now in the public record a large body of evidence that vividly illustrates:

Bush’s long-standing intent to invade Iraq
Bush’s willingness to provoke Saddam (in a variety of ways) into providing a pretext for war
The fact that the war effectively began with an air campaign nearly a year before the March 2003 invasion and months before Congressional approval for the use of force
The administration’s widespread effort to crush dissent and manipulate information that would counter its justification for war
The lack of planning for the war’s aftermath and a fundamental lack of understanding of the Iraqi society
From cherry-picked intelligence to a non-existent plan to win the peace; from no-bid contracts for reconstruction to character assassination for anyone who dares to question the premises of the war—the Bush administration has perpetrated what is by any measure one of the most egregious foreign policy misstep in our history.

A majority of the American people now believes that the president intentionally misled our nation into war, and nearly half say he should be impeached if that assertion can be proven. The only question that remains is: will he and his administration be held accountable?

people like you scare me..

because you think democrats can do no wrong...or that anybody who doesn't agree with you (or democrats) are idiots..

life's too short to be a hater..

BaggedLancer

Don't hate, ****.

krabby5

rskarvan wrote: »

Hopefully, the 2008 Democratic Nominee will have BOTH!

if a democratic president was accused of raping his assistant, you'd say she must have had it coming

if a democratic senator killed somebody while driving drunk, you'd say he was set up by an obviously republican police commissioner

republican extremists would insert "republican" instead of "democrat"

when you walk do you always find yourself turning left?

THX 3417

LOL this is precisely why I don’t watch TV no more at all period on TV I don’t care for British TV or any other show shown on British TV from other counties. I just use the TV monitor for laserdisc and DVD viewing.

Stuff Rosie, she is a waste air someone would they please dumb her sorry a££ on Mars where there is no pressure! I’d say she be a gonna within a minute.:D

tonyb

rskarvan wrote: »

Crackpot-name-calling jdhdiggs:

The "Downing Street memo" (occasionally DSM, or the "Downing Street Minutes"), sometimes described by critics of the Iraq War as the "smoking gun memo", contains an overview of a secret 23 July 2002 meeting among United Kingdom Labour government, defense and intelligence figures, discussing the build-up to the war—including direct reference to classified United States policy of the time. It clearly states that, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

If I remember correctly,wasn't it good old Clintons policy for regime change in Iraq?

THX 3417

And where does Sadam, keep his CD collection?

tonyb

Btw,I love how the left throws around "655,000 Iraq's dead,who's the terrorist?"
Typical,always useing missinformation as talking points.Truth is,how many are killed by their own people vs. soldiers?
Remember people,a president alone does not run this country.Though in the end,he takes the rap for everything people perceive to be wrong with it.A real change is needed,and all the old timers need to go.You have to change congress also,like Kennedy who is just so clueless about america.I have been alive long enough to realize that these people in congress have way too much power over us.Democratic president,Republican president,doesn't matter anymore,nothing changes,just who gets the money,and who gets relieved of theirs.

rskarvan

bobman1235 wrote: »

GW graduated from Yale, an Ivy League School.

I dislike the guy, but your argument is completely worthless. As others have said, education != intelligence.

For example, did you go to school?...

Did you? And, if so, did they teach you to think for yourself?

rskarvan

krabby5 wrote: »

people like you scare me..

because you think democrats can do no wrong...or that anybody who doesn't agree with you (or democrats) are idiots..

life's too short to be a hater..

I'm not a hater at all. I love democracy and look forward to seeing it revived in 2008! Republicans have few good ideas. I think they do a good job protecting unborn babies and upholding the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately, these plus's are outweighed by their really poor economic policies.

rskarvan

krabby5 wrote: »

if a democratic president was accused of raping his assistant, you'd say she must have had it coming

if a democratic senator killed somebody while driving drunk, you'd say he was set up by an obviously republican police commissioner

republican extremists would insert "republican" instead of "democrat"

when you walk do you always find yourself turning left?

I'm sorry...but, I can't support a party that supports Bush. Anyone, including Captain Kangaroo, would be a better president than George W. The only ex-president that supports Geoge W. is his father. Go figure.