Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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!

PhytoExtractum Shop: Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5567173 - 04/28/06 02:40 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Sigh.

What is the title of Public Law 107-243? Why, it's --

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Can you not understand that the sole purpose of Public Law 107-243 was to lay out in great detail Congress's rationale for authorizing the use of US armed forces in Iraq? All that is taking place in those two notifications is that Bush is letting them know he's finally getting around to using their authorization.

If you contend Congress wasn't trying to link Iraq with 9/11 in their authorization to use the US military, how can you with a straight face then turn around and contend that Bush -- using the identical wording as Congress -- is trying to link Iraq with 9/11 when he informs Congress he'll be taking them up on their authorization?

You can't have it both ways, Alex213.




Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSlooch
Lead Apprentice
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/07/06
Posts: 246
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5567847 - 04/28/06 06:25 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

No matter what bush said, how can anyone belive him after he lied about WMD's?

You cant trust what the Bush administaion is saying about anything, no matter what the context.


--------------------
Hey Just take some time and look at this pic here, below... Its a Smile Face ON THE CAP! WHAT ARE THE CHANCES? AND THE OTHER AN 8???!!!! IS this a SIGN?



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Slooch]
    #5568015 - 04/28/06 07:04 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

No matter what bush said...




Not following the conversation, I see.

Bush "said" essentially nothing in the notifications to Congress. He complied with the bare bones minimum reporting to Congress required by Public Law 107-243 in the first notification dated March 18, 2003. The follow up notification 48 hours after the troops crossed the border contained a little more comment, true, but none of the additional commentary implied Hussein had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Quote:

... how can anyone belive him after he lied about WMD's?




Seeing as how he didn't lie about WMDs, your comment makes no sense.



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSlooch
Lead Apprentice
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/07/06
Posts: 246
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5568321 - 04/28/06 08:18 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Dude its mainsteam news that Bush lied about WMD's, Phred obviously you dont know what is going on in the world.

Here is an article if you can bring your self to read it Phred.
Clearly the WMD statement to the public was FALSE.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/


--------------------
Hey Just take some time and look at this pic here, below... Its a Smile Face ON THE CAP! WHAT ARE THE CHANCES? AND THE OTHER AN 8???!!!! IS this a SIGN?



Edited by Slooch (04/28/06 08:41 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Slooch]
    #5568703 - 04/28/06 09:56 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Here's the thing. I fall in the middle of the debate.

I don't think Bush outright lied....but I think he cherrypicked intelligence. I think the CIA and all major nation's intelligence agencies thought Saddam had WMD. I think Bush thought he would find some shit. He obviously didn't.

There were many political reasons to take out Saddam. I listed them in a thread a long time ago.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Slooch]
    #5569626 - 04/29/06 05:25 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Dude its mainsteam news that Bush lied about WMD's, Phred obviously you dont know what is going on in the world.




Dewd, it's a leftie canard that Bush "lied" about WMDs. You obviously don't know what is going on in the world.

Was the US intelligence community mistaken about how much of Hussein's known stockpiles of bio and chem weaponry remained in Iraq? As of today, it looks as if they were. But so were the intelligence agencies of everyone else. So were Hussein's own generals.

Believing faulty intelligence (especially when everyone else believes it) isn't "lying".



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoker
Stranger
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/02/05
Posts: 343
Loc: outer spiral arm
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5569628 - 04/29/06 05:33 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Hey Phred, how long have you been working for bush?


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5569736 - 04/29/06 07:44 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

contend that Bush -- using the identical wording as Congress

Bush does not use identical wording as Congress.

in those two notifications is that Bush is letting them know he's finally getting around to using their authorization.


Nonsense. The letter is the Bush administrations formal justification for war with Iraq.

You can't have it both ways

What do you mean by "both ways"? You have yet to explain how 9/11 can be used as justification for an attack on Iraq when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Please do so.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5569744 - 04/29/06 07:51 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Was the US intelligence community mistaken about how much of Hussein's known stockpiles of bio and chem weaponry remained in Iraq?

"Mistaken"? How laughable. Are you still telling us you believe Bush was utterly sincere in it's belief in WMD? Seriously?

But so were the intelligence agencies of everyone else

Bullshit.

Believing faulty intelligence (especially when everyone else believes it) isn't "lying".


No-one "believed" it except Bush and Blair. As the British intelligence agency have since said they were extremely uneasy at the weight Bush and Blair were attaching to such weak intelligence. It was well knows the intelligence was incredibly weak and based largely on the word of corrupt exiles like Chalabi.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5569746 - 04/29/06 07:54 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
What do you mean by "both ways"? You have yet to explain how 9/11 can be used as justification for an attack on Iraq when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Please do so.




Here's how I remember it being presented by the Bush administration:

1. We are pretty sure Saddam has WMD's.
2. Saddam is blatantly hostile to the U.S.
3. Saddam has had some contact with Islamic militants before. Also, he is known for rewarding Islamic terrorism by giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
4. Saddam could possibly supply Islamic nutcases with some WMD's. The possible risks that Saddam poses are great.
5. Was Saddam involved or complicit in 9/11? No. Did 9/11 make us look at things differently? Yes. Are we now willing to go after people preemptively to avert possible future problems? Yes.

Obviously, #1 ended up being wrong. #2 is true and was never in doubt. #3 is true. #4 is iffy at best. #5 is a policy that I do not agree with.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5569750 - 04/29/06 07:59 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Was the US intelligence community mistaken about how much of Hussein's known stockpiles of bio and chem weaponry remained in Iraq?

"Mistaken"? How laughable. Are you still telling us you believe Bush was utterly sincere in it's belief in WMD? Seriously?




Nobody really knows what was going on in the mind of Bush. We're not psychic and we can only make educated guesses. Some people think he flat-out lied about WMD's and some think he really believed the WMD stuff. I'm kind of in the middle. I think he thought that Saddam had some WMD-ish capabilities. But, I also think that Bush and his policy-makers were salivating over all of the geo-political advantages that could be had by getting rid of Saddam.

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Quote:

But so were the intelligence agencies of everyone else




Bullshit.




Actually, many other nation's intelligence agencies thought that Saddam had WMD's or WMD aspirations as well.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5569752 - 04/29/06 08:01 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Blatantly hostile to the US in what way tho? He might talk a lot of shit but so what. Bush talked a lot of shit about him.

I'm not sure about 3 being true. He was well known for slaughtering thousands of islamic militants. Hell, the first thing he did when he entered Kuwait was ban beards.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5569759 - 04/29/06 08:10 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Some people think he flat-out lied about WMD's and some think he really believed the WMD stuff.

I think they knew there was a very good chance it was all bullshit which is why the white house lawyers were so careful to phrase every statement he ever made in such a way as to give him plausible deniability when it was exposed as untrue.

Actually, many other nation's intelligence agencies thought that Saddam had WMD's or WMD aspirations as well.

I've not seen any evidence of this. No agency had anyone on the ground in Iraq, all they were going on was the word of Iraqi exiles like Chalabi. None of it was reliable and both British and American intelligence have since said they were horrified at the way Bush represented "evidence". Second hand talk they'd picked up from two bit drunks like "Curveball" was being presented as "intelligence evidence". It was nothing of the sort. The yellow cake nonsense was a prime example.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5569766 - 04/29/06 08:13 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Blatantly hostile to the US in what way tho? He might talk a lot of shit but so what. Bush talked a lot of shit about him.




Off the top of my head:

1. Shooting at our planes in the no-fly zones.
2. Attempting to assassinate Bush Sr. during a trip.

True, most of his hostility was bluster. But, after 9/11 maybe it was wise to take bluster a little more seriously.

Quote:

Alex213 said:
I'm not sure about 3 being true.




Saddam had a weird relationship with the Islamic extremists. The Islamists hated Saddam for how secular Iraqi society was, how corrupt his regime was, and how fake of a Muslim he was (Saddam drank, had mistresses, etc..). But, Saddam did make attempts every now and then to boost his "Islamic cred". For example, he had the Koran written in his blood and put on display. He changed the Iraqi flag to include an Islamic slogan. Granted, all of this was probably him just hamming it up to the "Muslim street".

Did he send out "feelers" to Al Qaeda or other Islamic groups? From what I have seen it appears so. Did anything come of this though? Not from what I have seen.


Edited by RandalFlagg (04/29/06 08:35 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5569775 - 04/29/06 08:20 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Quote:

Actually, many other nation's intelligence agencies thought that Saddam had WMD's or WMD aspirations as well.




I've not seen any evidence of this. No agency had anyone on the ground in Iraq, all they were going on was the word of Iraqi exiles like Chalabi. None of it was reliable and both British and American intelligence have since said they were horrified at the way Bush represented "evidence".




I remember seeing a thread a while ago that listed all of the various nation's intelligence agencies that were suspicious of Saddam and WMD's. Maybe Phred remembers which one it was.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5569781 - 04/29/06 08:26 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

This list isn't going to be like the coalition of the willing is it? So the federated islands of micronesia's intelligence agency beleived the story of WMD?

The trouble is none of the intelligence agencies had anyone on the ground. All any of them had was the word of Chalabi and drunks like Curveball. Combine that with Bush putting massive pressure on them to come up with absolutely anything that could be used no matter how inaccurate and wrong it proved to be. The white house lawyers would make sure any lie was phrased in such a way as to give plausible deniability when it was exposed.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5569786 - 04/29/06 08:31 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
This list isn't going to be like the coalition of the willing is it? So the federated islands of micronesia's intelligence agency beleived the story of WMD?




:lol:

I'm not sure.  It has been a while since I saw it.


Edited by RandalFlagg (04/29/06 08:33 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5569790 - 04/29/06 08:35 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Doesn't sound like they were too keen on the truth does it...

(CNN) -- A retired CIA official has accused the Bush administration of ignoring intelligence indicating that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no active nuclear program before the United States-led coalition invaded it, CBS News said Sunday.

Tyler Drumheller, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe, told "60 Minutes" that the administration "chose to ignore" good intelligence, the network said in a posting on its Web site.

Drumheller said that, before the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003, the White House "ignored crucial information" from Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, that indicated Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Drumheller said that, when then-CIA Director George Tenet told President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking officials that Sabri was providing information, his comments were met with excitement that proved short-lived.

"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

Drumheller said the administration officials wanted no more information from Sabri because: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/index.html


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Roker]
    #5569891 - 04/29/06 11:14 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Roker said:
Hey Phred, how long have you been working for bush?




Its always been my theory that Phred is a spook stationed in South America to look after Illuminati interests...  :lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5570587 - 04/29/06 02:52 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Bush does not use identical wording as Congress.




Alex213, it is a source of constant amazement to me how little you care for your own credibility. Why you insist on setting yourself up over and over for public embarassment will always remain a mystery to me. But hey... I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.

I even gave you ample opportunity to cure your ignorance in private -- by providing you only the link to Public Law 107-243 so you could look it over on your own (as other interested readers did), educate yourself in private, then just let the matter drop without me needing to walk you through this in front of the whole forum. Sadly, it seems I'll have to do the walkthrough after all.

Ready to follow along? Here we go.

First, bring up in a separate browser window the full text of Public Law 107-243. It's at this link -- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Next, scroll past all the "whereas" clauses, then scroll past SEC. 1 and SEC. 2 till you come to SEC. 3. Go to part (b) of SEC. 3 -- the part that is titled PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION. Read the intro there. You will note it says:

"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that --"

Now, before we get to exactly what they require him to determine, let's note the phrasing here. The use of the word "shall" specifies that this is a mandatory notification. In other words, Congress is telling Bush that when it comes time for him to actually exercise the authority Congress has granted him under Public Law 107-243, he must notify the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate within the specified time frame.

And what is it he must notify them of? He must notify them he has determined the following two things --

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."


Now, let's go to Bush's notification of March 18, 2003. This is the day before the coalition troops crossed the border into Iraq. To make the comparison easier, you can bring that notification up in yet another separate browser window. Here is the link -- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

We can see that in his notification he tells them he has determined that --

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."


Now let's do a word for word comparison of Congress's wording in red, and Bush's wording in blue to see which words don't match. I'll reprint the words in common in black, and any differences in red (Congress) and blue (Bush) so we can easily see which words have been changed --

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or/and other peaceful means alone either/will neither (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or/nor (B) is not likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."


Well, well, well. Look at that! The only changes Bush (or White House legal counsel, more probably) made were those required to tidy up the grammar of determination (1). Determination (2) is identical to the language Congress used. Word for word. Letter for letter. Even including the "(", the "2", and the ")".

Now let's do a quick flip back through this thread to your post # 5566039 -- http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5558402/page/0/fpart/3/vc/1/nt/4 -- and see what you had presented as "proof" that Bush had claimed Iraq bore responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Why, it's a sentence fragment of Bush's followup notification to Congress dated March 21, 2003. Here's the sentence fragment you quoted --

"[T]he use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

And here once again is Congress's wording --

"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

And finally, here is a comparison of the two statements. Again, words common to both are in black, Congress's wording in red, Bush's wording in blue --

"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243/[T]he use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."



I rest my case. Members of the jury may now make their determination.



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]

PhytoExtractum Shop: Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Iraq war keeps oil from terrorists, Bush says Vvellum 1,799 11 09/01/05 11:18 AM
by lonestar2004
* More 'Terrorists' created in Pakistan
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 6,272 56 01/23/06 05:04 PM
by zappaisgod
* U.S. Rolls Out Nuclear Plan asd11 324 0 04/06/06 03:24 PM
by asd11
* Religion of Peace (TM) on a roll in Russia
( 1 2 all )
Phred 2,501 25 09/05/04 03:43 AM
by Xlea321
* Even more questions regarding 9/11 and scrambling jets. RonoS 525 5 06/01/03 12:42 AM
by cortex
* What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
1stimer 9,428 80 07/01/05 01:22 PM
by Ancalagon
* Fox News: Half of the Terrorists in Fallujah are Iraqis
( 1 2 all )
Swami 2,913 26 11/09/04 06:35 AM
by 1stimer
* IRA Terrorists
( 1 2 all )
ElPrimo 2,759 23 12/08/01 01:11 AM
by Innvertigo

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,834 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 15 queries.