Home | Community | Message Board


Lil Shop Of Spores
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Ranch Dressing

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,808
Loc: Lost In Space
Nothing concrete...
    #1766169 - 07/31/03 03:28 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

.... yet interesting.

Time will tell.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCornholio
A liberal guy(on hiatus)

Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 845
Loc: Austin, TX
Last seen: 13 years, 25 days
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1766199 - 07/31/03 03:44 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

I don't know how many reports I've read saying "evidence of WMD has almost been found". Seems like about one report per week.

I can't deny their existance (how could I possibly know?). But I can say that Bush lied about the evidence he claimed to have.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: Cornholio]
    #1766205 - 07/31/03 03:47 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

What did he lie about?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1766209 - 07/31/03 03:48 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

I heard this last night and i crinched.....


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGernBlanston
unintended sideeffect

Registered: 05/28/03
Posts: 841
Loc: In my pants
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: Cornholio]
    #1766222 - 07/31/03 03:52 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:


Not that critics of President Bush?the people who wanted to wait endlessly while U.N. inspectors played footsy with Saddam?are waiting for the canvassing to be completed before slamming the commander-in-chief.





So, this column filled with partisan editorial comments by some random author... this means what?

The problem now, IMO, is that crediblity has been permanently lost. As in, never to be recovered, permanently. If y'all think this administration is below planting evidence and hiding the truth (28 pages, anyone?) about said evidence, then you just are giving them too much credit. I think that every second that something is not found is one more second that they have time to allow for the possibility that something will be found "soon". And with every passing second, my confidence in the validity of anything else we do, see, kill, or find in Iraq drops one more notch.

I'm seriously going to shut up now. I seem to be rambling a lot today, and don't want to just be a rabid fanboi...

I'll be back later when I calm down and can actually make a point.


--------------------
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
  --  Howard Zinn


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: GernBlanston]
    #1766242 - 07/31/03 03:58 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

If y'all think this administration is below planting evidence and hiding the truth (28 pages, anyone?)




I'm not trying to defend Bush but the 28 pages were classified. It shouldn't be shown as of right now and believe it or not the American people don't have a right to see it...right now that is. I do believe after the classified info is finished it should be released.



--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: GernBlanston]
    #1766257 - 07/31/03 04:02 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Ah yes, it is already starting. Even if they find all of the evidence in the world you libbies won't believe it. Typical really. Oh sorry, I meant to say you 'progressives'. :rolleyes:

You can call the contents of the article partisan all you want. I believe it makes perfect sense personally. Why oh why is a couple of months enough time to assume there are no WMDs? Answer that for once. I am giving them until the end of the year to produce some evidence myself. If they have not by then their will definately be some explaining to do to everyone. What really disturbs me though, is some of the leftists that really hope nothing is found so Bush can be discredited. The amount of credibility the US would lose around the world would be huge, but as long as Bush looks bad it will be worth it I guess.

Here is another question. How come no one demanded a inquiry when Clinton told us the same things before bombing the aspirin factory? It was obvious he did it to get the heat off of himself from the Lewinsky scandal, yet no one said a thing. Sounds like a left wing media bias to me.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGernBlanston
unintended sideeffect

Registered: 05/28/03
Posts: 841
Loc: In my pants
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: Innvertigo]
    #1766290 - 07/31/03 04:09 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

It was, however, not a report for the American people. It was the Joint Congressional Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks Of September 11. A congressional report, detailing evidence that would theoretically support the Bush administration's call for a war on terrorism and it's subsequent invastions of Afghanistan and Iraq - 2 soverign nations, the invasions of Iraq, under international law, was illegal (since the Afghan invasion was UN sanctioned.)

That 28 pages were not for the public, and I'm okay with that. I don't think the public needs to know every little detail... But I do think that our elected representatives DO.


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030729.html (mostly relevant)

The 9/11 Report Raises More Serious Questions About The White House Statements On Intelligence
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Tuesday, Jul. 29, 2003

The recently released Report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks Of September 11, and its dismal findings, have been well reported by the news media. What has not been widely reported, however, are the inescapable conclusions that must be drawn from a close reading of this bipartisan study.

Obviously, Republicans were not going to let Democrats say what needed to be said, or maybe Democrats did not want to politicize the matter. But since the facts could not be ignored or suppressed, they reported them without drawing certain obvious, not to mention devastating, conclusions.

Bluntly stated, either the Bush White House knew about the potential of terrorists flying airplanes into skyscrapers (notwithstanding their claims to the contrary), or the CIA failed to give the White House this essential information, which it possessed and provided to others.

Bush is withholding the document that answers this question. Accordingly, it seems more likely that the former possibility is the truth. That is, it seems very probable that those in the White House knew much more than they have admitted, and they are covering up their failure to take action.

The facts, however, speak for themselves.

Bush's Claim Of Executive Privilege For His Daily Intelligence Briefing

One of the most important sets of documents that the Congressional Inquiry sought was a set of copies of the President's Daily Brief (PDB), which is prepared each night by the CIA. In the Appendix of the 9/11 Report we learn that on August 12, 2002, after getting nowhere with informal discussions, Congress formally requested that the Bush White House provide this information.

More specifically, the Joint Inquiry asked about the process by which the Daily Brief is prepared, and sought several specific Daily Brief items. In particular, it asked for information about the August 6, 2001 Daily Brief relating to Osama Bin Laden's terrorist threats against the United States, and other Daily Brief items regarding Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and pre-September 11 terrorism threats.

The Joint Inquiry explained the basis for its request: "the public has a compelling interest ... in understanding how well the Intelligence Community was performing its principal function of advising the President and NSC of threats to U.S. national security."

In short, the Joint Inquiry wanted to see the records. Bush's public assertion that his intelligence was "darn good" was not sufficient.

The Inquiry had substantial background material, for the Clinton Administration's national security team had been very forthcoming. As a result, it warned President Bush of the inevitable consequences of refusal to provide access to the requested Daily Briefs.

The Inquiry told Bush: "In the absence of such access, we will have no choice but to extrapolate the number and content of [Daily Brief] items on these subjects from the items that appeared on these subjects in the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief and other lower level intelligence products during the same period."

Bush nevertheless denied access, claiming Executive Privilege. While the Inquiry did not chose to draw obvious conclusions, they are right there in the report for everyone else to draw. So I have drawn them, to see what they look like.

Revealing Information In the 9/11 Report

After pulling together the information in the 9/11 Report, it is understandable why Bush is stonewalling. It is not very difficult to deduce what the president knew, and when he knew it. And the portrait that results is devastating.

The president's briefing of August 6, 2001 was the subject of public discussion even before the Inquiry started its work. As the 9/11 Report notes in a footnote (at page 206), "National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated in a May 16, 2002 press briefing that, on August 6, 2001, the President Daily Brief (PDB) included information about Bin Laden's methods of operation from a historical perspective dating back to 1997." (Emphasis added.)

At that May 16, 2002 briefing, Rice went on to say that the Brief made clear that one method Bin Laden might choose was to hijack an airline, taking hostages to gain release of one of their operatives. She said it was "a generalized warring" with nothing about time, place or method. And she added, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon."

Unfortunately, Rice's statements don't fit comfortably with the Inquiry's information. It appears from the 9/11 Report that either Rice was dissembling, or the CIA was withholding information from the President (and hence also from Rice).

But as we have been learning with the missing Weapon of Mass Destruction, the CIA has consistently been forthcoming. So it seems that it is Rice who should explain herself.

A Closer Look At Rice's Statement

Note again that Rice stated, in explaining the August 6, 2001 Daily Brief, that it addressed Bin Laden's "methods of operation from a historical perspective dating back to 1997."

What exactly did it say? We cannot know. But the Inquiry's 9/11 Report lays out all such threats, over that time period, in thirty-six bullet point summaries. It is only necessary to cite a few of these to see the problem:


In September 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information that Bin Laden's next operation might involve flying an explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it. (Emphasis added.)
In the fall of 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information concerning a Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas.
In March 2000, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network might strike. The Statute of Liberty was specifically mentioned , as were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans. (Emphasis added.)

In sum, the 9/11 Report of the Congressional Inquiry indicates that the intelligence community was very aware that Bin Laden might fly an airplane into an American skyscraper.

Given the fact that there had already been an attempt to bring down the twin towers of the World Trade Center with a bomb, how could Rice say what she did?

Certainly, someone could have predicted, contrary to Rice's claim that, among other possibilities, "these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon."

The Unanswered Questions

Is Rice claiming this information in the 9/11 Report was not given to the White House? Or could it be that the White House was given this information, and failed to recognize the problem and take action? Is the White House covering up what the President knew, and when he knew it?

The Joint Inquiry could not answer these questions because they were denied access to Bush's Daily Brief for August 6, 2001, and all other dates. Yet these are not questions that should be stonewalled.

Troublingly, it seems that President Bush trusts foreign heads of state with the information in this daily CIA briefing, but not the United States Congress. It has become part of his routine, when hosting foreign dignitaries at his Crawford, Texas ranch, to invite them to attend his CIA briefing.

Yet he refuses to give Congress any information whatsoever about these briefings, and he has apparently invoked Executive Privilege to suppress the August 6, 2001 Daily Brief. It can only be hoped that the 9/11 Commission, which has picked up where the Congressional Inquiry ended, will get the answers to these questions.

Rest assured that they will be aware of the questions, for I will pass them along.


--------------------
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
  --  Howard Zinn


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGernBlanston
unintended sideeffect

Registered: 05/28/03
Posts: 841
Loc: In my pants
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: shakta]
    #1766309 - 07/31/03 04:14 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

shakta said:
What really disturbs me though, is some of the leftists that really hope nothing is found so Bush can be discredited. The amount of credibility the US would lose around the world would be huge, but as long as Bush looks bad it will be worth it I guess.





Two problems with this.

1. If I were willing to allow the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civillians and hundreds of American soldiers (we are losing one per day - believe that...) - especially until the end of the year - simply to prove a point, to discredit Bush, then I would be a sad, sad little human indeed.

2. You seem to believe that the US has any credibility left to lose abroad. No such.


--------------------
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
  --  Howard Zinn


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: GernBlanston]
    #1766321 - 07/31/03 04:19 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Actually I really don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks. I am not saying you would love to see it fail, but I am sure there are plenty that would. How about the double standard between this scenario and Clinton's? As far as the Iraq war being illegal, I don't agree with that at all either. A group of countries decided that Saddam needed to be removed from power for their own safety. The UN's rules allow for this. Furthermore, I really don't care what the UN thinks about it either. I don't like the idea of leaving my safety up to a bunch of crooked foreign diplomats personally.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 11 years, 11 months
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: shakta]
    #1766329 - 07/31/03 04:22 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

So shatka...you seriously believe saddam was an imminent threat to america and the american people?


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCornholio
A liberal guy(on hiatus)

Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 845
Loc: Austin, TX
Last seen: 13 years, 25 days
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: shakta]
    #1766335 - 07/31/03 04:23 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

shakta said:
What did he lie about?


Here's a previous post of mine.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: Azmodeus]
    #1766346 - 07/31/03 04:27 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Whoever said he had to be an 'imminent' threat to be considered dangerous? I guess we should have waited until the WMDs were used on us to react, eh?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: Cornholio]
    #1766358 - 07/31/03 04:32 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

I read that when you posted it, and I still think the jury is out on all of it. The Al Qaeda link is still not totally disproven, although it looks unlikely. The Czechs still claim Atta was there at the time of the supposed meeting though. The Africa uranium thing is still being reported as true by the British. As far as their ability to deploy goes, who knows for sure? We will have to wait and find out what the truth is. All of this automatic assumption of lieing on the part of the President just seems a bit unfounded, and is based largely on conjecture.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 11 years, 11 months
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: shakta]
    #1766371 - 07/31/03 04:37 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

shakta said:
Whoever said he had to be an 'imminent' threat to be considered dangerous? I guess we should have waited until the WMDs were used on us to react, eh? 




Well considering the fact he doesn't have a weapons program, that probably would have been best...yes.

In that case EVERYONE is a threat.  :tongue:


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 11 years, 11 months
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: shakta]
    #1766374 - 07/31/03 04:39 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

shakta said:
All of this automatic assumption of lieing on the part of the President just seems a bit unfounded,




Are you serious?! :confused:


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: Azmodeus]
    #1766378 - 07/31/03 04:41 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

How do you know they did not have one. You must have been to Iraq personally, and combed over every square inch of the place. :rolleyes:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 11 years, 11 months
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: shakta]
    #1766389 - 07/31/03 04:44 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Yawn.....the burden of proof is on the accuser...
I don't feel the need to prove common sense, so im not going to debate this further.




--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: Azmodeus]
    #1766414 - 07/31/03 04:51 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Azmodeus said:
Yawn.....the burden of proof is on the accuser...
I don't feel the need to prove common sense, so im not going to debate this further.




You are the one accusing Bush of lieing so prove it then. This is a typical cop out. You aren't going to debate it farther because you have no proof either way.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCornholio
A liberal guy(on hiatus)

Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 845
Loc: Austin, TX
Last seen: 13 years, 25 days
Re: Nothing concrete... [Re: shakta]
    #1766417 - 07/31/03 04:52 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

shakta said:
Whoever said he had to be an 'imminent' threat to be considered dangerous? I guess we should have waited until the WMDs were used on us to react, eh?





--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Ranch Dressing

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* gazzbut wtf? shakta 588 10 08/08/03 11:49 AM
by Rono
* what law is the WOD based on
( 1 2 3 all )
hunterthompson 4,298 52 07/30/01 07:03 AM
by Phyl
* For In(di)go
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Phred 5,719 149 05/06/03 12:02 PM
by silversoul7
* Sanity check
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
silversoul7 5,124 157 04/25/04 12:22 AM
by Mushmonkey
* would you like this kind of society?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Anonymous 3,075 79 10/18/03 12:27 AM
by Phred
* The Twelve Myths of Hunger
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
silversoul7 7,588 117 10/21/05 11:48 PM
by Unagipie
* Part of Saddam's WMD found!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Snobrdr311 7,017 97 02/14/04 12:55 PM
by Anonymous
* Commission singles out "lack of imagination"
( 1 2 3 all )
Phred 3,301 57 10/06/04 02:10 AM
by Xlea321

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,022 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Everything Mushrooms
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.119 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.