Is Rumsfeld an honest man?

Any bets on which secretary that is completely unknown comes out of this mess posing for playboy? Instead of paper shredding this time it will be “I was told to run a magnet over the hard drive thingy”.

I dont think it matters whether or not the information about WMD was exaggerated, or even forged to justify a war, because i think that the need for justification was ridiculous. I think based on what we know Saddam has done, and what we can assume he has done, and also what we guess he has done, there was more than enough evidence to justify a war.

@Janus1:

I dont think it matters whether or not the information about WMD was exaggerated, or even forged to justify a war, because i think that the need for justification was ridiculous.

But then, you’d like that the exclusionary urle, the 4th amendment and the habeas corpus to be skipped….
WHat kind of state would you like to live in, where the ones with power have ultimate power and the peole are nothing more than sheep to be slaughtered?
Hello?
You don’t want any legal system, you want the strongest to be able to force its will onto others no matter what…

Probably you think that you defend high US-american values, like freedom and justice, with that.

I think based on what we know Saddam has done, and what we can assume he has done, and also what we guess he has done, there was more than enough evidence to justify a war.

Based on what i assume you have done, what i guess you have done, what i feel you may do, what i could probably be conviced you might be doing some day……

… Guess again … and tell me what we know he has done…

Or ask D:S for some names for you…

I think Rumsfeld is the most disgusting, power-hungry, walking-over-corpses-to-achive-his-very-own-goals-and-interests liar i can think of at the moment.

And GWB is not much more like a little puppet.
Reminds me strongly of the German Empire with Kaiser Wilhelm II, who was nothing more than a puppet to his military high command.

Maybe we should try to find those people that build the Berlin Wall in 1961, and build such a thing around the US. With chance, many of the USies wouldn’t even notice, if they are self-centered and self complacent enough.

I honestly believe that one day Canada, Germany, Mexico, or some other sovereign nation with different values.

Now why would we want to go taking on that fine group of moose-lovers north of the border? :wink: I love having my dollar go further in Whistler! :P

CC, no I honestly do not care that I was lied to because I know that the American people are selfish, ignorant idiots when taken as a group, and often times even as individuals. The only thing that would gain their support for a war in Iraq, no matter how justified at the time (in my opinion at least) was to say there are WMD in Iraq, which there still may be, or may have been. It does seem very likely now that we have been lied to, but I personally dont care, because there is still a chance they were telling the truth, and I think the war was justified, WMD or not.

Falk, what we know Saddam has done is to invade Kuwait. Attempted to purchase materials to build nuclear weapons, violated UN decrees with his possession of missiles he should not have had, obstructed UN weapons inspectors, tortured countless citizens of his country, instructed his son (either Uday or Qusay, Im unable to recall which) to slaughter hundreds of Muslims (I think the shiites, my memory on the matter escapes me at the time), allowed his sons to torture, rape, and kill the people of his country at a whim.
What we can assume he has done, and what he has probably done is to aid and abeit terrorists and terrorist organizations, solicited and/or contributed to attacks on the US and other nations, obtain and hide WMD

Falk wrote

You don’t want any legal system, you want the strongest to be able to force its will onto others no matter what……

You are twisting my words. Ive never once argued against having a legal system of any kind, I just think our current system is BS. I would chance much of the current system if given the chance, but I would not abolish a legal system all together.

WHat kind of state would you like to live in, where the ones with power have ultimate power and the peole are nothing more than sheep to be slaughtered?

Oh, you mean like Iraq under Saddam’s rule?

And GWB is not much more like a little puppet.

Your DAMN RIGHT he is. He is absolutely a puppet. The other Republicans are running the show, GWB is like a decoy. You ever see Robin Williams Live on Broadway? Notice how GWB never speaks while Cheney is drinking water? and notice how Cheney was in the Bunker after 9-11 and GWB was out there? :)

But then, If you agree that Bush is a puppet, why does it matter whether or not he is an idiot? why attack Bush, when he is merely the puppet for others?

like Janus said i dont think it matters. although i find dishonesty a bad trait in a person, in his case it was neccisary. its just that he needed to lie in order for our boys in green to go into Iraq, and hey if Michiavelli (spelling) approved of it, its alright with me.

@Janus1:

Falk, what we know Saddam has done is to
… Attempted to purchase materials to build nuclear weapons, …

The other ones are correct, this one is old, and too often confused with the lies of “purchase of uranium from Niger” and “purchase of aluminium parts for centrifuges”.

What we can assume he has done, and what he has probably done is to aid and abeit terrorists and terrorist organizations, solicited and/or contributed to attacks on the US and other nations, obtain and hide WMD

We can assume that you want to have no legal system, but a rule of the strongest. Whatever you say against this claim obviously must be a lie. By that you also hinder finding your true motivation and evilness, making you more evil etc. etc. etc.

Does this way of arguing sound familiar?

…but I would not abolish a legal system all together.
…
Oh, you mean like Iraq under Saddam’s rule?

Well, you can paint it pink if you want, and call it legal system.

Falk, notice the line, attempted. He may not have ever succeeded. I think he probably did, but it doesnt matter.

Evilness is all in perspective, thats why its not really a good term. To the “evil” the “good” are the “evil” ones. So its not really an applicable term.
You can assume whatever you want, the fact is, you are wrong. I absolutely want a legal system, and you can ask me about it in another thread if you want, but I wholly (well, mostly at least) disagree with our current legal system, and if you continue falsely saying that i dont want any legal system, i will probably get pissed off to the point where i get myself banned again (uhoh, shouldnt have told you that)

Quote:
…but I would not abolish a legal system all together.
…
Oh, you mean like Iraq under Saddam’s rule?

Well, you can paint it pink if you want, and call it legal system.

First, just surrender the point. and second, did i miss something? paint it all pink and call it a legal system? WTF are you talking about? I think I must have missed a joke or something, because IDK WTF you are talking about with this.

@Janus1:

Falk, notice the line, attempted. He may not have ever succeeded.

The Niger document was about an attempt (AFAIR), and faked. He may have tried before the second Gulf war though (that is, after Gulf War I against Iran).

…I absolutely want a legal system, and you can ask me about it in another thread if you want,

Ok, let me say it differently:
Do you want a just legal system or a judical system (notice the difference between legal-laws and judical-judge/justice)?
YOu seem to be very fond of the first, but not at all of the second, as you seem to dislike the idea of “checks and balances”.

The Niger document was about an attempt (AFAIR), and faked. He may have tried before the second Gulf war though (that is, after Gulf War I against Iran).

No one ever said it was “faked.” One document related to the claim turned out to be a forgery. The administration and CIA say that they regret putting it in the speech, but the Brits still maintain that the Niger information was accurate:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33543

@Deviant:Scripter:

The administration and CIA say that they regret putting it in the speech,

Then, why was this taken out of a speech that GWB held two month prior to the …was it state-of-the-union-address… ? Why was it “allowed” later, with no change in the facts?

Probably becuase they didn’t know the controversy behind it when they published it.

Sorry, don’t understand what you mean by that.

Okay, I’ll explain myself a little better than. :D

Obviously, those 16 words wouldn’t have been published if the administration knew that they were false, so it’s apparent that on some level they have evidence to back up that claim, otherwise they’d just be pulling it out of their ass. In the case of the Brits, they still maintain that the information is entirely true. Now, the United States could very well have that same position, yet not be announcing it publicly (don’t ask me why). Whether those words should or shouldn’t have been put into the speech is entirely a judgement call. It’s foolish to focus on the fact that the line was in the speech. We need to look at the theory behind that and realize that we did indeed have substantial reason to believe that Iraq was seeking nuclear technology/weaponry.

@Deviant:Scripter:

Obviously, those 16 words wouldn’t have been published if the administration knew that they were false, so it’s apparent that on some level they have evidence to back up that claim, otherwise they’d just be pulling it out of their a**.

All this is true if and only if your very first assumption is true.
As you call that “obviously”…… well, whenever i see someone call something “obviously” or “without effort the following equation results” then i know that there is something “dubious”.

And, why should a president say something on the basis of something that a foreign secret service thinks to be true becuase of “credible” third-countries intelligence?
Would you tend to do that if something serves your wishes, tneding towards it the more, the more it serves?

A last thing:
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3079271.stm

The National Intelligence Estimate is a US intelligence summary based on the work of six agencies.

The summary said that “most agencies believe that Saddam’s personal interest in and Iraq’s aggressive attempts” to obtain nuclear weapons materials “provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad’s nuclear weapons programme”.

Since when is “personal interest” an “evidence”?

In the case of the Brits, they still maintain that the information is entirely true. Now, the United States could very well have that same position, yet not be announcing it publicly (don’t ask me why). Whether those words should or shouldn’t have been put into the speech is entirely a judgement call.

It is not a judgement call. You assume the info (which could come from the syrian secret service, btw) is correct, i assume it to be untrustworthy to the highest extend, in other words: as wrong.
Just for the fun of it: Assume it was wrong, and Bill Clinton who said it: how would you react then?

It’s foolish to focus on the fact that the line was in the speech. We need to look at the theory behind that and realize that we did indeed have substantial reason to believe that Iraq was seeking nuclear technology/weaponry.

No!
The goal does not and will never sanctify the means.
Starting a war, with an excuse based on a handful of lies, is unexcusable.
And for your “substantial reason”: How much “substantial reason” does the world have to disgust the US?

As you call that “obviously”…… well, whenever i see someone call something “obviously” or “without effort the following equation results” then i know that there is something “dubious”.

It’s not dubious. I use the term “obviously” becuase it’s not logical that a President would fill his State-of-the-Union speech with intentional lies, that simply doesn’t make sense.

why should a president say something on the basis of something that a foreign secret service thinks to be true becuase of “credible” third-countries intelligence?

He would say such things because that’s how our intelligence services are forced to work these days. Our CIA is forced to use other countries intelligence becuase the last administration gutted us so bad. When we aren’t able to easily have spies inside the Iraq government, then we have to rely (to a certain extent) on other ways of gathering our intel.

Since when is “personal interest” an “evidence”?

Not sure what you mean here, explain please. :-?

It is not a judgement call. You assume the info (which could come from the syrian secret service, btw) is correct, i assume it to be untrustworthy to the highest extend, in other words: as wrong.
Just for the fun of it: Assume it was wrong, and Bill Clinton who said it: how would you react then?

No, I’m not going to assume it’s wrong, becuase you have nothing to suggest that that line of reasoning is true.

If you want to bring ol’ Clinton into this, fine. Clinton believed that Iraq posed a grave danger and was a growing threat. He was even considering the possibility of launching a full-scale war himself. The UN knew that Iraq was a threat. Our intelligence services have known that Iraq is a threat for some time now. Even f*cking Saddam Hussein told us he was developing the weapons! And I can’t understand it, but for some reason you believe that Bush is making all these lies up. :-? I’m sorry to tell you, but logic and reasoning is not on your side. :(

Starting a war, with an excuse based on a handful of lies, is unexcusable.

Now it’s a handful!?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. See my above comment. :roll:

And for your “substantial reason”: How much “substantial reason” does the world have to disgust the US?

Again, what are you talking about??

@Deviant:Scripter:

It’s not dubious. I use the term “obviously” becuase it’s not logical that a President would fill his State-of-the-Union speech with intentional lies, that simply doesn’t make sense.

Then you are one of the most naive people i have ever met.

He would say such things because that’s how our intelligence services are forced to work these days. Our CIA is forced to use other countries intelligence becuase the last administration gutted us so bad. When we aren’t able to easily have spies inside the Iraq government, then we have to rely (to a certain extent) on other ways of gathering our intel.

Wasn’t it you who said that you have to trust your gov’t and secret service, but not others? Or something like that, in the “Iraq again” thread somewhere IIRC…

Since when is “personal interest” an “evidence”?

Not sure what you mean here, explain please. :-?

Sure:
Read my previous post, with the quotation of the article about the US intel summary. There it says (i quote again):
“most agencies believe that Saddam’s personal interest in and Iraq’s aggressive attempts” to obtain nuclear weapons materials “provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad’s nuclear weapons programme”.

So, most agencies believe that personal interest provide compelling evidence….
If any liberal said something like that, you’d laugh or go berserk i bet, like:
I believe that the personal interests of GWB are compelling evidence for the illegality of the war.

No, I’m not going to assume it’s wrong, becuase you have nothing to suggest that that line of reasoning is true.

Not only that you are naive, you also don’t seem to be interested in a discussion. Assuming that something else is true can lead to insight. It doesn’t have to, but you will always learn about the other side (how they think, what they want, how they reason etc.)….
Assuming something as true for a gedankenexperiment does not at all need any backing up, that’ why it is called that way.

If you want to bring ol’ Clinton into this, fine. …

And you pull things out of context. Probably you haven’t noticed the context in the first place.

I’m sorry to tell you, but logic and reasoning is not on your side. :(

lol

Starting a war, with an excuse based on a handful of lies, is unexcusable.

Now it’s a handful!?

You want to hear them, though you won’t believe a single one of them, it could disrupt your way of …. thinking is not the right word, i must look for something else there.

(1) The Iraq - Al Qaeda connection:
Richard Perle insists that iraqi agent Ahmad al-Ani met Mohammed Atta in Prague in april 2001.
Juli 2003: No evidence found for a cooperation between SH and alQ. In autumn 2003 czech president Havel sent a note that such a meeting did not take place. al Ani was captured by US troops on 2nd July 2003: he denies that such a meeting took place.

(2) Niger
state of the union address (Jan 2003), GWB claims the Iraq has received a substantial amount of uranium for building nuclear weapons.
Juli 2003: In Jan 2002 the CIA classified the reports of the Iraq buying Uranium from Niger as “false”. 7th March 2003 Mohammed el-Baradei of the IAEO showed the documents were blun and blantant forgeries. 9th July, the US gov’t admits that they knowingly have used unproven information.

(3) 45 min (a Blair thing)
talking to the house of commons on 24th Sept 2002, Blair claims that the Iraq produces WMDs, that biological and chemical weapons could be readied by the Iraq in 45 minutes.
July 2003: a UK secreat service member admits that this passage was added due to orders/pressure from gov’t. A. Ingram (of the ministry of defense) admits that the “45 minutes” is from a single source and could not be proven/secured as true information.

(4) WMDs
Upon inauguration, GWB claims on 19th Jan 2001 that the Iraq possesses WMDs. Since then this has been repeated and repeated.
July 2003: Neither the UN-inspecotrs under Blix nor the 1400 men of the Iraq Survey Group under Gen. Keith Dayton have found neither any WMDs nor hints for their production.

(5) biological weapons
Colin Powell claimed on 5th Feb 2003 in front of the UN Security Council:
Saddam Hussein has research running on dozens of bacteria and virusses, like Anthrax, Plague, Cholera, Pocks etc., holding up a small glas tube into the camera.
July 2003: It is said that, when Powell first read the script, he threw all the papers in the air and said “i will not say this, it’s BS”.
No traces of biological wepaons hve been found in the Iraq.

(6) long range missiles
Januar 2002, US intelligence said the Iraq probably will use it’s experierence with teh SCUD to produce rockets of 650 km range, 900 km range or even longer. British intelligence gave evidence for the existance of rockest with a range of more than the allowed 150 km in Sept 2002
July 2003: The rockets with range of 200km (al Samud) were known to the UN inspectors and dismantled as a breach of the 1991 resolution. Since then, neither the UN nor the US army inspectors could find rcokets that would fit to the above descriptions.

(7) high precision bombs
before the war started, the US department of defense said that 80% of all rockets, bombs and cruise missiles would be high precision weapons to save civilian lifes.
July 2003: US air force says, that more than 2/3 of the bombs used were high precision bombs (19948 of 29199, 68%) Pentagon admits the use of 1500 “spraying bombs” (i don’t know the correct english word for that, sorry, bombs that have a huge radius of effect and are most effective against soft targets). UK arti used 2000 of these around Basra. Amnesty International reckons that about 9000 highly explosive “duds” are left in Iraq.

(8) Jessica Lynch
NY Times said (4th April), she had put up fierce resistance before being captured, fighting on after being injured by several bullets. Later she was “mistreated” in hospital and freed by a US special unit. Pentagon handed out some nice videos of that action.
July 2003: Lynch drove against another vehicle, she had a broken leg and was bleeding severly. She has the (ask CC) rare blood type “Zero positive”. Members of the family of Dr. Saad Abdul Razak (who treated her) donated blood. Tries of the hospital to contact the US troops were unsuccessful: the US soldiers opened fire when the ambulance coach with Lynch approached them. When the US stormed the hospital, there were no iraqi troops around, no resistance. The “journalist” who shot the movie came from Hollywood and was assistant to Ridley Scott when they made “Black Hawk Down”.

(9) the bunker
20th March, Rumsfeld declared the successful bombing of a bunker in Bagdadm were SH or his son were suspected to be.
July 2003: CIA and US Colonel Tim Madere examined that area. They found a huge crater, but there never was a bunker nor did they find any human remains, as Madere reported.

So, we have a handful of lies before the war, during the war, a handful of dubious connections and interest groups involved…… but well, as i said, you will not believe that, it would only disturb your way to see the world …
do you have the saying “to see the world through blinkers”, btw?

And for your “substantial reason”: How much “substantial reason” does the world have to disgust the US?

Again, what are you talking about??

I am talking about your use of words.
I will not make the effort of explaining that to you, unless you ask for it and actually convince me that you are indeed interested in what i mean by that.