Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JBA on July 21, 2003, 08:16:21 AM
-
Where in this speech doses the President say “I or OUR IA knows Saddem is trying to buy Uranium” He says “BRITISH government”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
“The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. “
-
13 views no post.
What? Cat got your tongues? Our are the facts hard to spin when they are right in front of you?
-
OK, i'll bite. So if the british tell us japan is about to attack us, we attack japan?
The point i'm trying to make is that you should rely on your own intel.
The africa intel wouldn't have changed my mind anyway, I wanted saddam gone.
-
So if you know something is not factual, it's fine to imply that it is by saying someone else thinks it's factual?
Sounds like another recent President's semantic gymnastics. Only it isn't about the definition of sexual intercourse. We're talking about a State of the Union speech, in which the President is trying to make the case for sending people into a war.
-
JBA, stop that , your just trying to confuse us with the truth.
-
Originally posted by john9001
JBA, stop that , your just trying to confuse us with the truth.
Is it the truth, or did british intel tell him it was the truth;)
-
yes, of course, and if saddam had built a nuke bomb , all you people would be saying " boosh KNEW about it , why didn't he DO SOMETHING?"
armchair quarterbacks never won a game.
-
The soviets built a bomb, why didn't we do anything?
-
Ahem..believing the British Government about ANYTHING is probably grounds for impeachment.....you should have asked guys, we could have warned you...but nooooo.
The hint of course is - if someone is called Phony Tony back home, perhaps they know something about him that you don't.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
The soviets built a bomb, why didn't we do anything?
we did , read your history book.
-
What did we do? You mean don't declare war and play economics?
-
I see..it is all the Brits fault....rrrrrrrriiiight.
The US military only invades places when their supreme commander orders them to do so. If that order was given and was based upon bad info the blame rests with that supreme commander no matter how much you desire to blame the source.
I think the billions you guys spend on intelligence gathering is wasted cash if the US will jump to war based on information supplied by someone else.
GWB needs to accept responsibility for HIS actions. He is looking really bad blaming everyone else including the CIA.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Ahem..believing the British Government about ANYTHING is probably grounds for impeachment.....you should have asked guys, we could have warned you...but nooooo.
The hint of course is - if someone is called Phony Tony back home, perhaps they know something about him that you don't.
That's not all true, I believe british intel told him his oil stock was about to plummet. That was good info.
-
iraq was not attacked because of 'uranium from Africa'. iraq was attacked because saddam did not/would not comply with the UN resolution. stop trying to spin it into 'bad intel'. 'the war was wrong' 'impeach boosh'
-
Originally posted by JBA
13 views no post.
Where do you see number of views?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
OK, i'll bite. So if the british tell us japan is about to attack us, we attack japan?
The point i'm trying to make is that you should rely on your own intel.
The africa intel wouldn't have changed my mind anyway, I wanted saddam gone.
-
QUOTE]Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Where do you see number of views? [/QUOTE]
Do a search on your own name, upper right corner of screen. You get all your post. Response and views.
Curval. The issue is not to blame anyone. But we have Dems. and media here stating that Bush "said ". when in fact he never stated that He or his Admin. Or CIA said anything about uranium.
In the 90's the government cut spending to CIA, they also past a ban/law on using "undesirable characters" to collect intel. So I suppose a White man from (pick a state) will be able to infiltrate an all Arab group to gather intel.
The blame is not on the CIA. Or the Pres. But more importantly, we should ask why we are forced to use foreign intel. in the first place?
-
So what you're saying, is that it's Clinton's fault?
I knew we'd get there eventually!
-
Fair enough...we are on the same page by the sound of it.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
So what you're saying, is that it's Clinton's fault?
I knew we'd get there eventually!
I stated nothing that isn't true. You make of it what you want.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
So what you're saying, is that it's Clinton's fault?
I knew we'd get there eventually!
Was there any doubt?
-
If the president puts it in his state of the union speech, he is endorsing it. He is putting his stamp of approval on the british intelligence.
If that intelligence had no merit, I don't blame people for being pissed, even if the statement is factually true.
Honestly, these types of arguments sound like Clinton trying to say a blowjob isn't sex.
-
Mwahahaha, and it all was just 16 words. A president should be allowed 16 wrong words.
"We hereby declare war on every other nation on earth."
There ! Just 10 words !
"Effective as of 2004, the US abolishes all taxes"
9 words !
-
Dems are clinging by a frayed thread, in the hope that they can spin this into a few points about the elections. It is so clear and obvious it is laughable they really grasping at straws.
It must suck to be a Dem. about now as the American public is really seeing the truth about their ways now. I have several friends that are so discusted with there own party they are changeing to the GOP, seems Daschel is not well received at all.
-
Well I know I'm gonna get slammed for this but here goes...
Who are we to say who can or can't have nuclear reactors?
Think for a minute and then flame away.
-
Just a bump.
Since this is about the possible impeachment or re-election of the President it's a bit more important the "pics of your pets"
-
Originally posted by JBA
Just a bump.
Since this is about the possible impeachment or re-election of the President it's a bit more important the "pics of your pets"
-
Did Bush/Cheney know the information was false, but used it in the Speech to the Nation anyway?
"The British gov't has learned..." line sounds like lawyer talk to me. The whitehouse would say "We have learned..." if they didn't doubt the info to begin with.
-
Virage, are you trying to say saddam did NOT try to buy uranium from Africa??
-
John, did I miss the sarcasm tags ? The intelligence on Iraq uranium purchases was proven false.
-
Originally posted by JBA
Just a bump.
Since this is about the possible impeachment or re-election of the President it's a bit more important the "pics of your pets"
No it isn't, especially not if more people have pirate animals like Ac1d's Captain Jack.
-SW
-
<>
nobody said saddam BOUGHT uranium from Africa. they said he was TRYING to buy it . and that is not a lie. only a fool would think that saddam did not want a nuke.
you people are so easly misled.
-
Originally posted by john9001
"... you people are so easly misled."
That's funny. Thanks for the chuckle.
-
Originally posted by Nash
That's funny. Thanks for the chuckle.
When you are done, please tell me what part of John's post was not true.
Show me any proof that SH was not working on building a nuke, there is pleanty of proof that shows he has and was working on that very thing. Or do you only see what you want to?
Not picking a fight but it seems that the hate some people have for this country and the current adminastration have blinded them to simple facts, sad but true.
Tell me what will the next 9/11 be like, it matter who is in the White House. What if the next time we lose the better part of a city or another country does. The people that do this need support from nations to carry out there tasks. Is this really so hard to understand, have we forgotten the 3000+ people in NY City, we seem to have a much shorter memory then the folks in 1942 around say Dec. 7th.
The new arms race has only one end, if we put our head in the sand and hope it won't happen. Playing politics is really not the answer, if a Dem wins fine, then what, do you think they really care? Do you think a Dem will make you safer, Look how JFK handled the nukes in Cuba had they not been removed do you think he was bluffing. If Al Gore was President on Sep. 11 do you think things would have been differant? What would be going on now that would make us safer?
Why do these questions never get asked ?
Seems that NK paid no attention to Clinton or the UN regarding there nukes.
You see they don't care they just want us infadels dead, listen to them they have no hidden adgenda.
The fact that the terrorests have no hidden adgenda is where we break down in our thinking we don't know how to handle or accept that.
JFK a Democrat once said we will "oppose any foe, fight any fight, help any friend". or something to that effect. Well this is "any fight" and they are "any foe" don't you think, or do you have another better plan?
-
Show me any proof that SH was not working on building a nuke...
How the hell do you do that? This 'proving a negative' bull**** is getting beyond a joke.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
How the hell do you do that? This 'proving a negative' bull**** is getting beyond a joke.
OK then at least agree that he was working on a weapon program of that kind, we just are not sure how far it has been deveoped.
I will agree that it does not seem like he was as far along as we once thought, however the fact remains he was and most likely would have continued this program to its compleation if left unchecked.
Would you say that is a resonable statement or are you gleanin some special insight as to his goodness and changed ways.
Why is it you seem to need all this proof that his programs existed, yet allowed SH to just say he had no WMD with no proof of there dismantelment and that is good enough for you. Or do you think he never had any WMD in spite of all the hard proof and the full UN belief of these weapon?
Please explain
-
Weak babble.
"Would have continued this program to completion if left unchecked" (when, in 2035? that is if he picked up the pace a bit)
"Why is it you seem to need all this proof that his programs existed, yet allowed SH to just say he had no WMD with no proof of there dismantelment and that is good enough for you."
Because we are a democracy going to war, and Dowding is right, this proving a negative crap is really sad. Given the slightest half-assed effort, the administration could have built support simply based on Saddam being Saddam and the truce from the first war, but they had to push it.
I'm all set for impeachment. I wanted a primary anyway so we could get a better candidate to run for my party.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Weak babble.
Because we are a democracy going to war, and Dowding is right, this proving a negative crap is really sad. Given the slightest half-assed effort, the administration could have built support simply based on Saddam being Saddam and the truce from the first war, but they had to push it.
I'm all set for impeachment. I wanted a primary anyway so we could get a better candidate to run for my party.
Where were you on the last 4 actions (Panama, Haiti, Cosavo, Samaula,) when we went in to fight a war against ruthless dictators. Or where were your complaints when Clinton attacked SH three times due to his information about WMD. Never saw this call for his proof or the justification in the last 4 actions.
As I have said this is about Bush not anything else, if not this then you guys would be scraping up something else. What’s next the fact that he partied in the past, who hasn’t (funny thing when people accused Clinton about his not inhaling I could not care less about his smoking pot just his lame not inhaling crap). If you cant see the blinders you and others have on, I understand this, as it is a form of blind rage and hate for Bush. I don't expect to change your minds, I only hoped you can see how Partisan this issue is. I found the same thing happening to me with Clinton in office and it was hard to accept that I was not as objective as perhaps I should have been.
Take care and good luck with your impeachment.
The issues for the Dems. are not looking very good, so I can understand your witch hunt Things are getting better in Iraq, the economy will get better (already started) and we will get our more and more proof of WMD, we will also get SH and his sons, all this will happen in time for the election, This is what you and the Dems fear the most, admit it. This is why these issues have taken a back seat to 17 words in a speech.
-
Impeachment? I think we're going a little overboard.
-
Scooter, I have no problem with the war in Iraq at all and I'm no supporter of Clinton, I voted against him twice.
I do have a big problem with tweaking the information to present a case, especially when the case could have been made without it. I don't want to see a democrat in the White House in 2005, but unless we get a better candidate that's likely going to happen.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
I'm all set for impeachment. I wanted a primary anyway so we could get a better candidate to run for my party.
Impeachment, you'd just be cutting the tail off a wolf.
-
The issue is not 17 words, but whether we were duped by our government. It is whether they purposefully manipulated intelligence and/or knowingly used bad intelligence in an attempt to lead us into a war. What you consider as merely 17 words, I and many others consider as possible evidence of what could easily be the most horrible and damaging betrayal of the public trust in American history.
It is not democrat yelping that make this an issue. It is that no WMD have been found and at least some of intelligence pushed by the administration was refuted by the CIA before the war that makes this an issue. What Bush and his backers need to do is answer the questions and show the public that they did not try to manipulate the evidence against Iraq to lead us and the world to war. What they/you do not need to do is try to spin this down to a partisan non-issue. That just makes it look like they/you can't win the argument on facts and must hope to convince people that this is just partisan politics.
Sorry, that won't do for me. However, I vote for more democrats than republicans and was leery of the war to begin with, so my opinion doesn't count. Perhaps this will work for the rest of America, but then again, perhaps not.
-
"""easily be the most horrible and damaging betrayal of the public trust in American history. """
oh brother, when in worry or in doubt , run in circles, scream and shout.
-
Originally posted by Lance
It is not democrat yelping that make this an issue...
Sorry, that won't do for me. However, I vote for more democrats than republicans and was leery of the war to begin with,
No your right. It's the Liberal Media
Then by your own admissions you are partisan.