babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » the media   » Saddam lied, people died

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Saddam lied, people died
PissChrist
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12111

posted 27 February 2006 10:33 PM      Profile for PissChrist        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But where is the media?

quote:
Yes, the linchpin of opposition to the Iraq War — never really strong to begin with — has taken some real hits in recent weeks. And "Bush lied" — the anti-war mantra about the president, Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction — looks the most battered.

Inconveniently for critics of the war, Saddam made tapes in his version of the Oval Office.
(snip)
These are extraordinary developments. They deserve a full airing in the media, since they essentially validate part of Bush's casus belli for invading Iraq and deposing the murderous Saddam.

But once again, the mainstream media have dropped the ball. They seem more interested in Dick Cheney's marksmanship and American port management than in setting the record straight about one of the most important developments of our time.


http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060224

[ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: PissChrist ]


From: mecca | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2006 10:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I read about that when it came out on CNN.

Nothing new here.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 27 February 2006 10:59 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well. I'd like to see the purported evidence myself, then see it put into independent hands and tested for actual time lines claimed and possible product tampering, if its so all fired convincing and all.

Especially since we now have documented evidence that Bush and Blair both knowingly lied about the evidence for Iraqi WMDS they presented to the UN, evidence which has been systematically and thoroughly discredited, for weapons which still haven't been found to exist let alone used, even when Saddam was under direct attack.

I also note the article printed in this rightwing source implied yet again that Hussein May have something to do with 9/11 all along. Without actually coming out and saying as much. Add the Republican Guard spin about "liberal media" (Jay Leno??) and the curious assurance they display about this as yet unverified footage, and I for one just can't help smelling yet another White House lie.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 27 February 2006 11:10 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Please do not feed the troll (PC, I mean).
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 27 February 2006 11:11 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From the linked source:

quote:
In a tape dating to April 1995...

You're gonna have to do a hell of a lot better than that to link it to the events of 2002-03, PissChrist.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 27 February 2006 11:11 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, man. I really, really hate doing this.

But, in the interest of truth, I must ...

quote:
Throughout his interview with UNSCOM, a U.N. special commission, Hussein Kamel reiterated his main point—that nothing was left. "All chemical weapons were destroyed," he said. "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed."

Missing from ABC's WMD "scoop" -- Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting

Sorry, I know you really thought you had something there.

[ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 27 February 2006 11:47 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whatta surprise, the "liberal media" removing a key slice of footage and presenting it so far out of context it comes out the opposite side. Thanks for the heads up.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 28 February 2006 12:08 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You guys sure must hate freedom, don't you.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hawkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3306

posted 28 February 2006 12:24 AM      Profile for Hawkins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:
Please do not feed the troll (PC, I mean).

Not even ONE freedom fry?


From: Burlington Ont | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 28 February 2006 12:49 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Of course, the other point is this: even if Saddam's regime DID still have WMDs at the time of Bush's invasion (although evidently that was not the case), that alone would not have justified an invasion. If the possession of WMDs is enough to justify an invasion, then why aren't we clamouring to invade Israel, China or the U.S.?
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 28 February 2006 12:53 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
You guys sure must hate freedom, don't you.

No, no, no. Please to pay attention.

We hate them because of their freedoms.

Can you dig it?

I knew that you could.

quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins:
Not even ONE freedom fry?

Did you hear that buddy the Republican congresscritter who coined "freedom fries" now thinks USia should pull out of Iraq?

Evidently even a Republican congresscritter can learn. Pretty expensive education, though.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Northern54
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5325

posted 28 February 2006 12:57 AM      Profile for Northern54     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think Albireo has it right... I know the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction at one time (because the Americans, among others, sold them to Iraq -- it was in the news in the mid 1980's, and I can remember it). To think that they were all destroyed is something that I do not believe because Saddam was in charge and I do not trust him. That being said, I think the question should have been, "does this justify an invasion?" The United Nations decided that it did not and that is the body I'd prefer made those decisions rather than the American government. I am thankful that Canada did not get into that bog with the Americans/British.
From: Yellowknife | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 28 February 2006 07:05 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think you couldn't even get agreement on what exactly 'weapons of mass destruction' are.

I think most would agree that nuclear weapons are massively destructive, but what else.

There are no weapons that have the destructive power of nuclear weapons, so the phrase itself is extremely suspect. It seems designed to be expandable as necessary to include any number of different weapons of much different destructive powers.

I think the phrase should be abandoned, and weapons referred to strictly by their type. I think people readily recognize the difference between a nuclear weapon and a 500-lb bomb, or even a chemical or biological weapon.

One of the problems with the phrase 'weapons of mass destruction' is it also removes from the user the necessity of defining their terms.

Just say 'weapons of mass destruction' and that could be anything from a SCUD missile to a 100-megaton nuclear weapon.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 February 2006 07:08 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Garth Brasseur:
I am thankful that Canada did not get into that bog with the Americans/British.

We did get involved in our own little way. Bull's cannon were used on BOTH sides of the Iran-Iraq war.

Bull was also instrumental in tipping the balance of power in favour of Jonas Savimbi's UNITA forces in Angola, another fourth world hell hole shipping oil to the States while half the population are missing limbs and family members.

I'm afraid we're already known in parts of the world as satan's little brother.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 28 February 2006 09:35 AM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, you guys have put in all the nails that needed to go into that shit-assed source's thesis.

I just wanted to add a cuppulla things: When you have less than zero credibility, shadowy "evidence" like these alleged tapes isn't really going to do anything for you.

The shit-assed source says: "Nobody disputes the tapes' authenticity."

To which I say: "Ha-ha-ha-ha!" Is that like when true-believer weapons inspector David Kay said "We were all wrong" and he obviously didn't mean the pro-peace side that had already looked at the evidence and found it to be weak?

And, finally, after the bush II team sent Colin Powell to the UN with fabricated "proof" of Saddam's programs, and after David Kay admitted there was nothing, and after bush II stammered something about: "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."

You see. There was nothing. "WMD-related program activities" is an essentially meaningless term. So bush II can go fuck himself with that crap. [WHOA! Is that an ugly mixed-metaphor or what??]
..and "equipment" can mean anything you want.

The same sort of weasel words like: "Tried to buy yellow cake in Africa" after your only source about yellow cake purchases in Niger turned out to be a crude forgery.

That some morons want to show themselves as throroughly contemptible by contintuing to spew this drivel is beyond belief.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 28 February 2006 09:56 AM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The world is flat! It's flat as a pancake! The world is flat, there were WMD's, and Paris Hilton is the next Einstein. The world is FLAT FLAT FLAT and one of these days they'll release the tapes which prove it. FLAT! Flat as piss on a plate! FLAT
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 28 February 2006 11:27 AM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If anyone cares to read the entire CIA Report on WMD in Iraq, all three volumes, and the 9/11 Commision report, its impossible to walk away without coming to at least two conclusions:

1. Iraq was not a threat to the United States nor even its neighbours, from 2001 onward, and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

2. Hussein was afraid of UN inspection regimes UNMOVIC and UNSCOM plus the IAEA nuclear inspectors. That fear of detection was heightened by the fear of information released by defectors such as Kamel, and helped push Hussein into making the decision to destroy his stockpiles of all WMD.

The CIA, after travelling all over Iraq and spending thousands of person-years of investigation on the case, concluded that Hussein had actually more or less done what he disclosed - destroyed most of his WMD stockpiles and production facilities in 1991, and finished the job in 1995 (fearing UN reprisals because of Kamal).

No one disputes that once upon a time Hussein was actively pursuing WMD.

But the whole pretext for the war was that Hussein was a clear and present danger; it is clear that he was not.

When the UN called upon Iraq to provide a Complete And Full Disclosure as to its weapons and capabilities, Iraq did comply. At the time, Bush, Powell, etc called Iraq's submission "inadequate" - a falsehood, a lie.

The CIA report on WMD essentially confirmed that Iraq's CAFD document was basically accurate.

Funny, I don't see ABC shining the spotlight on these contrary facts.


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 28 February 2006 11:47 AM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, another thing about the CIA report - Hussein and his subordinates were known for exageration and for distorting facts.

Underlings wanted Hussein to believe they were more effective than they actually were and would overstate capabilities and facts at times.

Hussein, well known for his swagger and bluster, continually overstated Iraq's true strength.

Hussein's fear and concern over UN inspections was well documented; its natural he felt a little impotent over having to submit to these inspections in order to keep the oil for food program running. Anything he says has to be taken in context - he was a ruthless dictator used to having his own way that had been beaten back by foreign military to a shell of his former power, and there was no way he was going to regain that power any time soon. Meanwhile foreign inspectors continue to undermine his ability to project strength.

He was emasculated, tied up, largely defenseless, and surrounded.

He was also a bad judge of his opposition. Clearly he never believed Bush would invade, or he bought his own BS and believed his forces - who were not armed properly, as he never rebuilt his armies after Gulf War I - would somehow repell the strongest army on the planet.

Nothing in Hussein's past thinking suggests he was willing to throw Iraq to the American's to spark what we see today - a civil war and training ground for terrorism. No, Hussein wasn't planning on being on trial today, nor losing his dictatorship. He miscalculated the will of Washington, or his own abilities, or both.

Bush could easily have tightened the security perimiter around Iraq and used his influence to reform the Oil for Food program and clean it of corruption. Both of these could have been done at very low cost and with very little loss of life ( have to remember the Brits and US were bombing Iraqi power stations and air defenses on a regular basis) compared to the carngage that "lover of life" Bush has presided over.


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 28 February 2006 03:47 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From Michaell, on Hussein:

quote:
He was also a bad judge of his opposition. Clearly he never believed Bush would invade, or he bought his own BS and believed his forces - who were not armed properly, as he never rebuilt his armies after Gulf War I - would somehow repell the strongest army on the planet.

For the most part I agree with the things you say, but I gotta disagree with this.

In fact, Hussein was a very good judge of his opposition, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to remain in power for the amount of time he did.

I don't think he believed for a second that Iraq's military could repel the invader, so he specifically went out and made sure everyone in Iraq had the opportunity of getting guns and ammo before the invasion.

I remember reading a report in the Globe & Mail from Iraq (before the invasion), and the writer commented on this fact. I thought it was a bit funny at the time, because one of the rants of the right wing was always tha the government was trying to take their guns away because they were worried about the guns being used against them.

Well, here was Saddam arming his population, apparently unafraid of those guns being used against him. Or, more likely, he realized the invasion was coming and was 'poisoning the well', a tactic for which he was well known.

Everyone laughed when he said Iraq would 'grind up' the US forces, imagining he meant in a face to face military confrontation.

We can look back now, and see that he was right, the US military is being turned into hamburger, albeit at a slow pace.

Saddam Hussein was a very shrewd person, who in the end couldn't be allowed to stand in the way of US control of spare capacity oil. He tried over the years to ingratiate himself to the US, but in the end his efforts failed, mostly because the US didn't want to deal with a middleman.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 February 2006 04:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with this. Though I will point out that being good at manipulating the internal politics of a country, does not necessarilly indicate military competence -- Stalin comes to mind. Stalin, whom Saddam admired immensly was great at manipulation but was a mediocre military commander.

Saddam's big mistake, as an example, was the initial invasion of Kuwait. Also the war with Iran did not work out so well, either.

It would seem though that the main purpose of the sometimes tanacious defence of the Iraqi forces during the initial US invasion, was to buy time so that Saddam could escape from Baghdad and prepare post war opposition.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 28 February 2006 07:47 PM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Funny how Pisher hasn't been back since his initial bit of drive-by trollery.
From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 February 2006 08:01 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No kidding. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it's some right-wing troll who wants to see how long a name like "PissChrist" will last with those godless lefties who persecute Christians, so he can prove that we would "tolerate" anti-Christian monikers on babble.

I think I'll oblige him.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 28 February 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I could be out to lunch, but I have a vague memory of a flame-baiter with a similar handle a few years back, and an even stronger memory of someone who claimed that his location was "mecca." (Different gyu from the one whose handle was NukeMecca).

Of course I could be right out to lunch.

What am I saying, I should be right out to lunch -- worked right through it today.

Well, then, I'm going home and not coming back until tomorrow morning! (And where's that confounded pout smiley when you need it?)


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 28 February 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle, are you actually saying that people who join and have PMs turned off are often trolls?
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 February 2006 09:11 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No. I think there's a misunderstanding here about the PMs turned off.

When I ban people, I toggle off all their settings so that they won't continue to get private message notifications through their e-mail which they then can't answer.

So, all people who have been banned (at least in the last few months) will have their private messages set to not accepting them. I do that every time I ban them.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca