One of the Real Reasons shrub/dickhead, oilmen, started an unnecessary war

[boutons]

BBC NEWS

Exxon Mobil profits exceed $25bn

US oil giant Exxon Mobil made a record $25.3bn (£13.4bn; 19.4bn euros) profit in 2004 as it exploited the surge in crude oil prices.

The world's largest public oil company saw income from exploration, production and refining soar despite a decline in the amount of oil and gas produced.

Revenues hit a record $298bn as worries over disruption to oil supplies in Iraq, Nigeria and Russia lifted prices.

The firm's annual profit is higher than the gross domestic product of Syria.

Soaring prices

Exxon Mobil's profits rose to $25.33bn from $21.51bn last year, on revenues up 17% to $298bn.

The strong performance boosted its shares, which rose 39 cents to $51.66 in early trading.

Along with the world's other biggest oil producers, Exxon Mobil benefited from the giddy rise in crude oil prices last year.

Ever-increasing demand for oil from China and India plus worries over interruptions to output from key markets fuelled a rise in prices to a thirty year high.

The increases culminated in prices hitting $55 a barrel in October.

The Texas-based company exceeded market expectations with its performance, which also broke records for the fourth quarter of 2004.

It made an $8.4bn quarterly profit - its highest ever - on revenues of $83.3bn.

Bumper year

"Strong operational performance in all areas of our business helped Exxon Mobil capture the benefits of favourable market conditions in 2004," said chairman Lee Raymond.

Profits from production and exploration in 2004 rose by more than $1.5bn to $4.8bn while profits from refining tripled to $2.3bn.

Exxon Mobil's chemicals business also prospered, generating profits of $1.25bn, compared to $476m the year before.

The sharp rise in profit was achieved despite a 1% fall in oil production and a 2% decline in gas output.

Analysts said the company's profits were much higher than expected, even taking into account the escalation in crude oil prices.

"This is a particularly impressive set of results given that every segment outperformed expectations," Credit Suisse First Boston said.

According to media reports, Anglo-Dutch oil firm Shell is expected on Thursday to reveal a record annual profit for a UK firm of about £9.2bn.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/4223573.stm

Published: 2005/01/31 17:41:37 GMT

© BBC MMV

[dcole50]

:sleep

[Useruser666]

So buy stock in oil companies.

[SpursWoman]

One of the Real Reasons shrub/dickhead, oilmen, started an unnecessary war

Wow, that was brilliant. That really made me want to hear what you had to say. :shootme :rolleyes

[Marcus Garvey]

Black gold, baby.

[CommanderMcBragg]

I think only the naive may believe that an imperial power would not think of the dream scenario of a cluster of military bases planted over virtually unlimited reserves of oil.

[Yonivore]

I think only the naive may believe that an imperial power would not think of the dream scenario of a cluster of military bases planted over virtually unlimited reserves of oil.
I think only the terminally stupid and cynical would believe this war was fought for oil.

[violentkitten]

then it was fought for a mistake instead

our lord our savior george w bush done fucked up. come on you can say it you old crusty blowhard

[Yonivore]

then it was fought for a mistake instead

our lord our savior george w bush done fucked up. come on you can say it you old crusty blowhard
What mistake?

[dcole50]

He’s referring to the WMD’s.

[Yonivore]

He’s referring to the WMD’s.
Well, if that were the only (or even the most significant) reason we'd gone to war, then he'd be right.

[violentkitten]

uh what did our lord our savior george w bush say was the reason? that was the most significant reason he gave, again and again and again.

[CommanderMcBragg]

Well, if that were the only (or even the most significant) reason we'd gone to war, then he'd be right.

It was the main reason and you fell for it but won't admit it.

[dcole50]

"The Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

W
March 17, 2003

[Bandit2981]

i thought Bush said if sadaam didn't want to be invaded, all he had to do was dismantle his weapons program

[Yonivore]

It was the main reason and you fell for it but won't admit it.
Well, aside from my belief (and the belief of most of the sane world) there were WMD's, prior to invasion, there were a multitude of reasons given for invading Iraq. From continued resistance to and defiance of over a dozen UNSC resolutions, to human rights abuses verging on genocide, to attempted assassination of a sitting president, to frequent and blatant violations of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, to inflammatory rhetoric (to the effect of using WMD's on our troops), and on and on and on...

That you can't seem to be able to avert your attention from the mainstream media's perception of the war is telling.

[dcole50]

yes, yes, it's all that evil media's fault.

thank jesus that fox news can tell us everything is alright.

[violentkitten]

blah blah blah. man it was all about the wmd program.

[Yonivore]

blah blah blah. man it was all about the wmd program.
Maybe for the media and the left.

[violentkitten]

fuck man he said saddam had them and he didnt. he fucked up he isnt going on mount rushmore hes going to be the laughing stock of history

[Yonivore]

fuck man he said saddam had them and he didnt. he fucked up he isnt going on mount rushmore hes going to be the laughing stock of history
Saddam did have them. The question seems to be -- when did he get rid of them and how. And, Saddam Hussein had the entire international community (via the UNSC) demanding he get rid of them and then tell how he did so. That he didn't would, any reasonable person could conclude, seem to mean he didn't get rid of them.

So, where are they?

[dcole50]

So, where are they?

The point is that no one knows. Dubya thought they were in Iraq. Wrong. Where to next?

[violentkitten]

bush said he knew he had them. you dont make a statement like that unless you know with damn near 100 percent certainty. you dont send 1400+ americans to their deaths unless you know.

[Yonivore]

bush said he knew he had them. you dont make a statement like that unless you know with damn near 100 percent certainty. you dont send 1400+ americans to their deaths unless you know.
Once again, there's no reason the statement couldn't have been 100% true at the time it was made only to change because of the actions of Saddam Hussein the very next day.

So, where are they?

[violentkitten]

ask your lord your savior george w bush. you said he knew.

[Yonivore]

ask your lord your savior george w bush. you said he knew.
I'd like your opinion.

I believe the President and I are in agreement on the question. The WMD's were there and, between the time they were last seen and the invasion, they were either moved, hidden, or destroyed...we just don't know which.

So, what do you think? Were they never there? But, that can't be since we know they existed in 1998.

[violentkitten]

bush said they were there present time, not in 1998

[Yonivore]

bush said they were there present time, not in 1998
And that couldn't have changed between the time he said it and the time we invaded? It's not like he had the luxury of sending troops directly to the stockpiles...we had to invade and Baghdad took 21 days to fall. Alot can happen in 21 days...especially when the suspected amounts of WMD materials would fit nicely into a two-car garage.

Why aren't you holding Saddam Hussein responsible for not declaring the dispostion of the weapons?

[NameDropper]

"Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources, these are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more- many more- and he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. Most of the launcher and warheads have been hidden in large groves of palm trees.... This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true- this is all well documented."
-Colin Powell

Sorry Yonivore but rumor has it they LIED!

[Useruser666]

"Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources, these are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more- many more- and he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. Most of the launcher and warheads have been hidden in large groves of palm trees.... This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true- this is all well documented."
-Colin Powell

Sorry Yonivore but rumor has it they LIED!

Or were lied to.

[NameDropper]

Yes, the American public was lied to.

[Useruser666]

Yes, the American public was lied to.

Exactly when?

[Yonivore]

"Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources, these are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more- many more- and he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. Most of the launcher and warheads have been hidden in large groves of palm trees.... This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true- this is all well documented."
-Colin Powell

Sorry Yonivore but rumor has it they LIED!
Again, date the quote.

[violentkitten]

sounds like his presentation to the un in early 2003

[NameDropper]

"There are a lot of people who lie and get away with it, that's just a fact."
- Donald Rumsfeld

[Useruser666]

So where is the lie?

[violentkitten]

dammit man read


"Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources, these are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more- many more- and he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. Most of the launcher and warheads have been hidden in large groves of palm trees.... This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true- this is all well documented."
-Colin Powell

http://www.favreau.info/misc/images/reading_cat.jpg

[Yonivore]

"There are a lot of people who lie and get away with it, that's just a fact."
- Donald Rumsfeld
What's that got to do with anything?

[Useruser666]

So where is the lie?

[Yonivore]

So where is the lie?
I'd still like to hear someone on the left express some opinion of where they think the WMD's, everyone knew Saddam Hussein had, went.

Anyone?

[violentkitten]

"Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources, these are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more- many more- and he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. Most of the launcher and warheads have been hidden in large groves of palm trees.... This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true- this is all well documented."

[Useruser666]

So why is that a lie?

[violentkitten]

hey bitch im not on the left and you for damn sure arent a libertarian

[JohnnyMarzetti]

I'd still like to hear someone on the left express some opinion of where they think the WMD's, everyone knew Saddam Hussein had, went.

Anyone?

They were destroyed. Everyone knew they were not there, even Dubya, but he wanted his war and he got you to give it to him.

[violentkitten]

uh because the facts, the evidence did not exist.

[Useruser666]

Did Powell or Bush make those statements up?

[SpursWoman]

Okay is it me, or does anyone else find it extremely disconcerting to go from spending months reading him defending the invasion of Iraq to spending the last couple of weeks of him arguing against it....whatever name he happens to be using these days?

This is too fucking creepy.....I'm GTFBackO of this forum. Ya'll can keep your nasty derision alllllll to yourselves. :fro

[Yonivore]

They were destroyed. Everyone knew they were not there, even Dubya, but he wanted his war and he got you to give it to him.
When were they destroyed?

[violentkitten]

cant the big cat have some fun?

[Nbadan]

Okay is it me, or does anyone else find it extremely disconcerting to go from spending months reading him defending the invasion of Iraq to spending the last couple of weeks of him arguing against it....whatever name he happens to be using these days?

That's exactly what I've been thinking, but then again, maybe he finally lightened up with the whole missing WMD's thing? Eh, whatever, he's good for a few giggles.

[scott]

Well, aside from my belief (and the belief of most of the sane world) there were WMD's,

So it's the sane people who fucked up? Interesting.

[Yonivore]

So it's the sane people who fucked up? Interesting.
So, is the great and powerful scott willing to answer the question? Where'd they go between 1998 and March 2003? And, since I respect your intelligence (although, lately, you've been off your game), I'll throw in a bonus question.

Why does Saddam Hussein get a pass on having to declare the disposition of WMD's that were known to exist, that he was under sanction to declare, and that he never disclosed? Why is everyone so ready to defend a man than never lifted one finger to comply with over a dozen resolutions, corrupted (with a complicit UN, France, Germany, and Russia) a program intended to feed starving children in his country, tried to assassinate a U.S. President, fired on Coalition Forces over 500 times in 12 years, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and Shi'ites, failed to abide by a cease-fire agreement and return captured U.S. servicemen or the spoils of their Kuwaiti plunder?

Just curious.

[Useruser666]

So Bush lied to everyone because he was told something he believed to be the truth and then later that was proven false? Like when your mommy told you there was a Santa Claus and you believed it with your whole heart. Then it was proven false when you caught daddy shoving your new bike under the tree one night.

[Hook Dem]

So Bush lied to everyone because he was told something he believed to be the truth and then later that was proven false? Like when your mommy told you there was a Santa Claus and you believed it with your whole heart. Then it was proven false when you caught daddy shoving your new bike under the tree one night.
Hey............how dare you use logic in this forum! Are you trying to destroy the basis on which this forum operates? :lol

[violentkitten]

So Bush lied to everyone because he was told something he believed to be the truth and then later that was proven false? Like when your mommy told you there was a Santa Claus and you believed it with your whole heart. Then it was proven false when you caught daddy shoving your new bike under the tree one night.

the administration said it had much more than just a belief. it had "fact", "evidence", etc...that saddam possessed wmds. the santa analogy is more appropo for your position as a supporter of der leader

[sbsquared]

Why do so many of you conveniently forget that Congress saw the same intelligence information as the President and they believed it too! John Kerry, John Edwards, heck, even Hillary believed that Saddam had WMD's - so why is it President Bush's fault that the intelligence proved faulty?

And, no matter what any of you naysayers claim - the sight of thousands of Iraqis dancing in the streets, holding up their purple fingers in defiance of the terriorists, proves that what we did was right and Iraq is now better off! Dan, I would love to see you and others of your ilk go over to Iraq and tell those people that we were wrong to liberate them and that you want them to go back to the days of Saddam - I wonder what their response to you might be?!

[JoeChalupa]

Because the war was started by Bush under his orders...not Kerry's, not Clinton's, not mine.

[Nbadan]

Why do so many of you conveniently forget that Congress saw the same intelligence information as the President and they believed it too! John Kerry, John Edwards, heck, even Hillary believed that Saddam had WMD's - so why is it President Bush's fault that the intelligence proved faulty?

To many people here just conveniently over-look the close working relationship between Cheney, Wolfowitz, PNAC and George Tenet and the CIA. Cheney was in the CIA's business everyday. Even the 911 commission found that pre-war Intelligence that supported the administrations accusations against Saddam Hussein and Iraq was encouraged by Cheney and the Neocons, while that which did not support the charges was frowned upon and buried. Many of the Senate and House members, including John Kerry, who made statements about Iraq's capabilities and whether or not Saddam still possessed WMD's before the war, were working under the intelligence and biased assumptions provided by the Neocon controlled CIA.

Even CIA Chief George Tenet at first fought off the accusations made by the NeoCons and its group of complicit media payola reporters about Saddams working relationship with Al Queda and Iraqi's strike capabilities against western targets using unmanned airplanes and WMD's. Planes that later turned out to have the sophistication of a jr. league home model builder here in the U.S..

Of course, all that came to a head when Tenet sat silently behind Colin Powell at the UN as the former pointed to aerial photos of what turned out to be empty Iraqi water tanks and proclaimed them to be ready to use WMD delivery units.

[Useruser666]

the administration said it had much more than just a belief. it had "fact", "evidence", etc...that saddam possessed wmds. the santa analogy is more appropo for your position as a supporter of der leader

Ok, and those facts were proved wrong. So why is it Bush's fault that those facts were wrong? He's whole job is to make decisions from the info the people around him and those in the field provide to him. If people tell him things that aren't true, he can't necessarily go out and check out every piece of info he gets. That's not his job.

Can anyone show me proof Bush knew there were no WMD before the war? Can anyone show proof that Bush didn't believe in any of the reasons he stated the invasion was for? I might tend to believe the evidence was weak and Bush was just playing the odds, but that is far more respectable than many of the ridiculous things that have been thrown about.

[Nbadan]

Ok, and those facts were proved wrong. So why is it Bush's fault that those facts were wrong? He's whole job is to make decisions from the info the people around him and those in the field provide to him. If people tell him things that aren't true, he can't necessarily go out and check out every piece of info he gets. That's not his job.

'His job' is to oversee those that work under him and he, not the CIA, the Dept. of Education, or any other cabinet or cabinet member has the final word on adminstration policy and decisions that affect those policies. It's time for W to man-up and stop shifting the blame for adminstration policy failure, especially those pertaining to the pre-war intelligence going into Iraq, and the failed reconstruction policies that have alienated 1/3 of the Iraqi population. Only then can serious reconcilation with the New Democratic Party begin.

[Useruser666]

'His job' is to oversee those that work under him and he, not the CIA, the Dept. of Education, or any other cabinet or cabinet member has the final word on adminstration policy and decisions that affect those policies. It's time for W to man-up and stop shifting the blame for adminstration policy failure, especially those pertaining to the pre-war intelligence going into Iraq, and the failed reconstruction policies that have alienated 1/3 of the Iraqi population. Only then can serious reconcilation with the New Democratic Party begin.

Uhhhhh, so it's his fault that the info he had was wrong? The info that had been gathered in the same manner as previous administrations? Are you saying that even if Iraq had WMD and ties to terror Bush was wrong for leading the US to war?

[Nbadan]

Uhhhhh, so it's his fault that the info he had was wrong? The info that had been gathered in the same manner as previous administrations? Are you saying that even if Iraq had WMD and ties to terror Bush was wrong for leading the US to war?

Gathered in the same manner, yes maybe, but certainly not used in the same manner. The invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the plans for this invasion was laid out by PNAC while Clinton was still in office. (Maybe you should ask yourself here why Cheney still refuses to hand over the adminstrations first-term energy report?) This White House just made sure that Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq fit the scene of the crime that they wanted it to fit, so to say.

Today, 60% of Americans say this war was a mistake. Whatever success the recent election had or didn't have, now the hard work really begins for the coalition. If we are talking about a real Jeffersonian-type democracy here and since the Shiite and the Kurds are sure to win a majority, the U.S. could be put into a uncomfortable position where it is protecting the minority rights and 'rule of law' of the new Iraqi minority - the Sunni. That's right, lets see us protect the Sunni from ourselves.

[Useruser666]

Uhhhhhh what???? You must have been brainfart....errrr... storming when you wrote that.

If the plans were written before Bush, and then 9/11 happened after Clinton then why was Bush wrong for leading us to war?

Who care about Chaney and energy reports, that has nothing to do with my question or this topic. Or enlighten me.

60% of Americans? That number changes every day up and down.

What are you talking about the Sunni's for? Did they not vote?

[Spurminator]

You round 52 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci=10024) up to 60? That's some fuzzy math.

I will be very interested to see the first post-election Gallup Poll results.

[Nbadan]

If the plans were written before Bush, and then 9/11 happened after Clinton then why was Bush wrong for leading us to war?

I know your brain can only understand linear thinking, but try and be a little abstract for me here. PNAC presented their plans for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam to the Clinton Administration after the African Embassy bombings, but the same intelligence that pursuaded W after 911 that Saddam possessed WMD's and was a immediate threat to the U.S., wasn't seen that way by the Clinton adminstration in 1998.

Since Tenet was a hold-over from the Clinton adminstration, you have to assume that Clinton was getting the same intelligence on Iraq in 1998 that W was getting in 2001 and beyond, I mean, nothing else changed, right? Yet Clinton wasn't convinced by the same intelligence that Saddam was a domestic threat then, nor that he still clearly possessed WMD's. It's also clear that other intelligence services, including the Russians, French, Chinese and the U.N. weren't convinced either, thus the effort by the Neocons to discredit them.

[Useruser666]

Sorry Dan I will have to get back to you on this later. I'm going to have a few drinks and then go over SW's house now. I'll continue this talk tomorrow. :lol

[scott]

So, is the great and powerful scott willing to answer the question? Where'd they go between 1998 and March 2003? And, since I respect your intelligence (although, lately, you've been off your game), I'll throw in a bonus question.

What's the question?

The only issue I've commented on in this thread is your reference to all sane people believing Iraq had WMDs, which, turns out, they didn't.

[CommanderMcBragg]

Yonivore has placed his "open mind" in a lock box and no matter what the facts say he will not change.

Fact - NO WMD's in Iraq.
Fact - NO ties between Iraq and 9/11.
Fact - The WMD was the main reason Bush wanted this war.

[Ocotillo]

Well, aside from my belief (and the belief of most of the sane world) there were WMD's, prior to invasion, there were a multitude of reasons given for invading Iraq. From continued resistance to and defiance of over a dozen UNSC resolutions, to human rights abuses verging on genocide, to attempted assassination of a sitting president, to frequent and blatant violations of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, to inflammatory rhetoric (to the effect of using WMD's on our troops), and on and on and on...

That you can't seem to be able to avert your attention from the mainstream media's perception of the war is telling.

That is sending the BS meter off the chart!

Most of the sane world may have beleived there were WMDs because of his possession of them back in the 80s but most of the sane world realized he was a toothless tiger that was not even in control of the Kurdish region of this own country and could not fly aircraft.

Regarding the UNSC resolutions, oh today you decide to listen to the UN? What about the fact that the UNSC opposed the US action in Iraq?

Human rights abuses? A red herring. Just a another in the litany of reason's given to go to war because BushCo wanted to sell the war. Hussein was/is a bad guy but there are many other bad guys in the world....they even have some running China committing human rights abuses. I know, bleeding heart that you are Yoni you boycotted the made in Iraq merchandise at Wal-Mart when Saddam was in charge.

Regarding the attempted assasination of a sitting president, while that was reported as being cited in private conversations that bush has had, I don't recall that being included in his public pronouncements, might have been. Wasn't the big one that was cited.

Violations of the 1991 cease fire, he can try, but he couldn't do anything because he was surrounded by the US military.

Inflammatory rhetoric. Good God! I need to start looking over my shoulder if that's a reason for military invasion.

and on and on and on.....puh-leaze BushCo apologist, BushCo cited a number of reasons for going to war but what closed the deal with Congress and the general populace was the boogey man WMD argument.

I guess there was a reason the UN inspectors were not finding WMDs, it turns out they were not there or at least that is what the administration is saying now.

Rational people wanted to give the inspectors time to complete their job. NeoCon hawks wanted to invade Iraq because of it's geoplitical import and oil and Israel so they ignored intelligence that cast doubts upon Iraq's possession of WMDs and played up the intelligence that said they did because they had an agenda.

Go join the reserves Yoni and help Bushie free the world.

[Useruser666]

So where exactly did Bush lie?

[Hook Dem]

So where exactly did Bush lie?
Give up 666! They can't answer that one. It's just a talking point!

[office handle]

what if none of you are right?

[Useruser666]

I'm just asking a question.

[office handle]

so am i motherfuck

[SpursWoman]

wow. another screen name. :fro

[office handle]

fuck yeah. i made a couple others too this morning. go check those out.

[SpursWoman]

:sleep

[office handle]

:depressed :rolleyes :blah :elephant :smokin :fro :pctoss :hat :drunk :oops :spin :king

[Useruser666]

so am i motherfuck

So who are you asking? Since I was asking a question I don't see how I could be right or wrong.

[office handle]

yet, you are advancing a point in the thread

[Useruser666]

So where, when, and what did Bush lie about?

[office handle]

dont ask me

[Useruser666]

I'm asking anyone.

[office handle]

well i am one.

[Hook Dem]

well i am one.
You just said,"don't ask me".

[office handle]

since i was asked i answered

[Nbadan]

So where exactly did Bush lie?

To 666 misleading isn't lieing. SW better watch out.

:hat

[Useruser666]

To 666 misleading isn't lieing. SW better watch out.

:hat

Ok then Dan, what, when, how did Bush "mislead" anyone?

[Spurminator]

The Bush administration should be held accountable (and hold themselves accountable) for being wrong about WMDs. And Bush's supporters shouldn't be afraid to question why the evidence was erroneous. While there's no doubt that WMDs were not the sole reason for entering Iraq, they were certainly a primary concern for many, if not most, of those who supported the Administration's decision to strike.

But as long as his most vocal detractors continue to try to imply that something more sinister was at work, the Right will continue to argue those accusations instead of considering the reality of the situation, which is somewhere in the middle of "Shrub is a greedy liar" and "George W. Bush is the Great Liberator of People Under Tyranny."

In that sense, Marcus is right. You're both wrong.

[Useruser666]

Spurm, I never said, "George W. Bush is the Great Liberator of People Under Tyranny."

I was simply asking the where, when, and why.

[office handle]

spurm, pretty much. its one thing to make an argument that you invade iraq because given what was known you have to err on the side of caution and there was a 12 year history of reasons why that was necessary, reasons ultimately based on a threat to national security. making a correct decision based on faulty intel is not necessarily an impeachable offense.

yet, if instead of just admitting that the intel was faulty you put yourself on the path that leads to claiming that the invasion was not about national security but rather "exporting democracy" then i definitely feel that some criticism is warranted, for that standard is much more loose than the national security standard

[Spurminator]

I wasn't necessarily talking about you, User. I've argued against the "liar" accusations myself. I'm mainly talking about those who refuse to accept the possibility that the Bush Administration erred in some of their justification for the War.

[Useruser666]

I wasn't necessarily talking about you, User. I've argued against the "liar" accuastions myself.

Ok, I totally understand what you said. I never have understood that accusation. I'm not blind to the reasons given and the underlying purposes for going into Iraq. With all the "liar" talk I just wanted to pointed to sometthing of substance if it existed. I think some of the most important reasons for the situation in Iraq were also the least spoken about.

[Yonivore]

Yonivore has placed his "open mind" in a lock box and no matter what the facts say he will not change.
So, answer the question then.

Fact - NO WMD's in Iraq.
Okay, so when did that happen? When did Iraq go from being a country with WMD's in 1998 to one with no WMD's in 2003? It's a simple question, I don't understand why everyone is having such a hard time answering it instead of vomiting the same "there's no WMD's in Iraq" canard.

Fine, let's accept the premise there were no WMD's in Iraq when Baghdad fell in March of 2003. So, where'd they go?

I'll tell you one thing the David Kay report doesn't say about where they went. It doesn't say they never existed. In fact, the David Kay report speculates they were moved to another country, destroyed, or hidden somewhere in Iraq.

In fact, the David Kay report asks the same question I've been asking. THE ENTIRE WORLD KNEW HE HAD THEM IN 1998. THEY WEREN'T FOUND UPON INVASION IN 2003. SADDAM HUSSEIN AIN'T SAYING WHERE THEY ARE. SO, WHERE ARE THEY?

A reasonable person could assume he still had them. And, there was plenty of evidence to support that assumption.

You know, if Bush Supporters were more activist in nature, we'd be picketing Congress with signs such as "Saddam Lied, People Died." The entire invasion could have been avoided if Iraq had yielded to over a dozen UNSC resolutions and disclosed his entire WMD program...which, by the way, did exist. He could have ceased human rights abuses. He could have ended the Oil-for-food corruption and started feeding the starving children of Iraq. He could have returned our missing U.S. Servicemen from Gulf War I. He could have quit shooting at Coalition forces after agreeing not to in the cease-fire agreement. He could have returned all the plundered spoils from Iraq. He could have rejoined civilized nations of the world.

All these things were demanded in the cease-fire of 1991 (not to mention several UNSC resolutions) under the threat of resumed hostilities...which we recommenced in 2003.

Fact - NO ties between Iraq and 9/11.
Although I believe it's probably true, I don't recall this administration ever formally saying there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Just that Iraq had relationships with global terrorism and known contacts with al Qaeda. That's a far cry from claiming a connection to 9/11.

Fact - The WMD was the main reason Bush wanted this war.
That's purely speculation on your part and there's a whole wealth of documentation, video footage, UN resolutions that dispute your claim. I can't help if the crazy left, the Mainstream Media, and Bush Haters were only able to discern one rationalization for going to war in Iraq.

How many, in this forum, remember when it was claimed the only reason Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq was to avenge his father?

Then, it was to enrich his oil buddies...

The fact remains, a joint Congressional Resolution gave President Bush the authority to use military force, in Iraq, to do a number of things (including disarming him of WMD's, if they existed). But, I know it's hard for you to focus on more than one simple hypothesis at a time.

I'm amazed the looney left was able to field such a "nuanced" presidential candidate what with all the simple minds that only know how to regurgitate theh "Bush Lied" lie, over and over again.

It's never just been about WMD's -- that's your perspective -- but, I don't expect you to become any more sophisticated than you are so, I fear any sudden clarity for you, over the situation in Iraq is still a long way off.

I suspect that had we not invaded Iraq the world would be a much more dangerouse place today than it was in February 2003.

[office handle]

as much as you want to blame the media for distorting the reasons for going to war its the administration which has shifted to this "exporting democracy" rationale recently.

sure, the media filters things through a critical point of view with a distinctly left of center flavor but lets not pretend that the administration hasnt been doing the same thing

[JohnnyMarzetti]

No one died when Clinton lied.

[office handle]

what if bush made a decision on faulty intel? is that a "lie"?

[Useruser666]

No one died when Clinton lied.

So Johnny, your saying Bush lied?

[Yonivore]

as much as you want to blame the media for distorting the reasons for going to war its the administration which has shifted to this "exporting democracy" rationale recently.

sure, the media filters things through a critical point of view with a distinctly left of center flavor but lets not pretend that the administration hasnt been doing the same thing
Actually, regime change was one of the earliest rationales -- coming from the Clinton Administration -- for invading Iraq. Just because Saddam Hussein made the decision to invade easier by his continued behaviors doesn't change the fact that from the mid-90's, it has been the stated U.S. position that we favor regime change in Iraq.

[Hook Dem]

No one died when Clinton lied.
"Very few" ever die over a blow job!

[Yonivore]

No one died when Clinton lied.
Of which we are aware...

[Nbadan]

Ok then Dan, what, when, how did Bush "mislead" anyone?

Just a few Bush Lies..

Some critics say Bush's zeal for running Iraq and transforming it into a democracy sounds just like the nation-building efforts he campaigned against. On Oct. 11, 2000, then-Texas Gov. Bush said: "I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not." But yesterday White House press secretary Ari Fleischer proved the critics wrong once again. "During the campaign, the president did not express, as you put it, disdain for nation-building," he said. So there you have it." --Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14057-2003Feb27.html)

-----

A horrible story spread widely by the first Bush administration prior to the Gulf War about Kuwaiti babies pulled from incubators by invading Iraqis turned out not to be true. The current Bush administration may be also misinforming the public in its efforts to justify a possible second war with Saddam Hussein.

One example of misinformation, according to physicist and former weapons inspector David Albright, was the Bush administration’s leak to the media in September about Iraq’s attempt to import aluminum tubes which administration officials claimed were headed for Iraq’s nuclear program.

“I think it was very misleading,” says Albright, who directs the Institute for Science and International Security. Albright says the tubes could be possibly used for a nuclear program, but were more suited to conventional weapons production. Government experts thought that too, Albright tells Simon, but administration officials “were selectively picking information to bolster a case that the Iraqi nuclear threat was more imminent than it is, and, in essence, scare people." --60 Minutes, 12.06.02

----

President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."

All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. --10.22.02, Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61903-2002Oct21.html)

---

Asked later if his [Harken] stock sale had been related to the company's impending setback, {Board member] Bush replied, "I absolutely had no idea and would not have sold it had I known."

In fact, SEC records show that Harken's president had warned board members two months before Bush's sell-off that the company had liquidity problems that would "drastically affect" operations. --SF Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/07/05/BULAZ.DTL), 07.05.02

--

Bush: bragged that in Texas he was signing up children for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as "fast as any other state."

Fact: "As governor he fought to unsuccessfully to limit access to the program. He would have limited its coverage to children with family incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level, though federal law permitted up to 200 percent. The practical effect of Bush's efforts would have been to exclude 200,000 of the 500,000 possible enrollees." Washington Post, 10/12/00

---

Some Bush backers claim he's not a liar, he's just not very bright and doesn't remember things very well. That may be true, but we're sure Bush would not allow such an excuse in his "responsibility era." We're sure Bush would agree that if he's that dumb, he shouldn't be President. Other Bush backers claim that some of his lies are "technically correct" or "tailored to fit the audience," or some such circumlocution. What they're talking about are lies of omission rather than lies of commission. In lies of omission it's what they imply, not what they say. For example, before the 2000 election Bush told Congress and the American people that he was putting a "lock box" on Social Security. Now, it's very clear that Bush wanted us to feel secure in the belief that he was protecting all of our Social Security funds for the future. No question, right? Yet, the very next day when his budget book was released, we learned that Bush told a lie of omission. What he didn't tell Congress and the American people is that he would later take from $.6 to $1 trillion out of that "lock box" to cover his tax cuts. No doubt, Bush lied. He wanted folks to believe something that he knew was not true. Of course, politicians do this all the time. It's second nature. In sum, the thing that really bothers us about Bush's lies is that he is also a hypocrite and pretends he's above lying. As a liar, he reinforces our assumptions about politicians. As a hypocrite, he reinforces our assumptions about his character.

[Useruser666]

Just a few Bush Lies..

Some critics say Bush's zeal for running Iraq and transforming it into a democracy sounds just like the nation-building efforts he campaigned against. On Oct. 11, 2000, then-Texas Gov. Bush said: "I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not." But yesterday White House press secretary Ari Fleischer proved the critics wrong once again. "During the campaign, the president did not express, as you put it, disdain for nation-building," he said. So there you have it." --Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14057-2003Feb27.html)

First off, he was not the president at the time. You can not tell which nations or people he was talking about from the quote. And if you think about how to apply this quote to Afghanistan and Iraq it makes sense. The US couldn't encourage either of those countries to improve themselves. The leadership of both would not allow that to take place. And you can't really supply financial aid to a sworn enemy.

-----

A horrible story spread widely by the first Bush administration prior to the Gulf War about Kuwaiti babies pulled from incubators by invading Iraqis turned out not to be true. The current Bush administration may be also misinforming the public in its efforts to justify a possible second war with
Saddam Hussein.

Dan, why did you even put this in here? The FIRST Bush administration? What does this have to with my question or the topic at hand? So the current Bush MAY be lying? That is ridiculous. Saying this is proof they are lying because they MAY be lying. WTF! OH and about spreading misinformation, maybe they thought the story to be true and were simply wrong for not verifying it. Kind like a certain GI-Joe that was recently captured huh?

One example of misinformation, according to physicist and former weapons inspector David Albright, was the Bush administration’s leak to the media in September about Iraq’s attempt to import aluminum tubes which administration officials claimed were headed for Iraq’s nuclear program.

“I think it was very misleading,” says Albright, who directs the Institute for Science and International Security. Albright says the tubes could be possibly used for a nuclear program, but were more suited to conventional weapons production. Government experts thought that too, Albright tells Simon, but administration officials “were selectively picking information to bolster a case that the Iraqi nuclear threat was more imminent than it is, and, in essence, scare people." --60 Minutes, 12.06.02

So where is the lie? The individual agrees that the tubes could possibly be used for nuclear weapons. Did Bush say there was no other use for them? No.

----

President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."

All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. --10.22.02, Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61903-2002Oct21.html)

This was the next 2 paragraphs from that article.

As Bush leads the nation toward a confrontation with Iraq and his party into battle in midterm elections, his rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy in recent weeks. Statements on subjects ranging from the economy to Iraq suggest that a president who won election underscoring Al Gore's knack for distortions and exaggerations has been guilty of a few himself.

Presidential embroidery is, of course, a hoary tradition. Ronald Reagan was known for his apocryphal story about liberating a concentration camp. Bill Clinton fibbed famously and under oath about his personal indiscretions to keep a step ahead of Whitewater prosecutors. Richard M. Nixon had his Watergate denials, and Lyndon B. Johnson was often accused of stretching the truth to put the best face on the Vietnam War. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, too, played with the truth during the Gary Powers and Bay of Pigs episodes.

---

Asked later if his [Harken] stock sale had been related to the company's impending setback, {Board member] Bush replied, "I absolutely had no idea and would not have sold it had I known."

In fact, SEC records show that Harken's president had warned board members two months before Bush's sell-off that the company had liquidity problems that would "drastically affect" operations. --SF Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/07/05/BULAZ.DTL), 07.05.02

The commission investigated Bush for insider trading but no charges were brought. Nevertheless, the Dallas Morning News quoted a 1993 letter from investigators to Bush's lawyer stressing that this "must in no way be construed as indicating that (Bush) has been exonerated."
--

Bush: bragged that in Texas he was signing up children for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as "fast as any other state."

Fact: "As governor he fought to unsuccessfully to limit access to the program. He would have limited its coverage to children with family incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level, though federal law permitted up to 200 percent. The practical effect of Bush's efforts would have been to exclude 200,000 of the 500,000 possible enrollees." Washington Post, 10/12/00

First off, do you know what bragging means? Bush said he was signing people fast. That means he signed them quickly. He never said he had signed MORE people than any other state. As far as setting standards to limit access from certain families that is a judgement call on his part. It's not a lie.

---

Some Bush backers claim he's not a liar, he's just not very bright and doesn't remember things very well. That may be true, but we're sure Bush would not allow such an excuse in his "responsibility era." We're sure Bush would agree that if he's that dumb, he shouldn't be President. Other Bush backers claim that some of his lies are "technically correct" or "tailored to fit the audience," or some such circumlocution. What they're talking about are lies of omission rather than lies of commission. In lies of omission it's what they imply, not what they say. For example, before the 2000 election Bush told Congress and the American people that he was putting a "lock box" on Social Security. Now, it's very clear that Bush wanted us to feel secure in the belief that he was protecting all of our Social Security funds for the future. No question, right? Yet, the very next day when his budget book was released, we learned that Bush told a lie of omission. What he didn't tell Congress and the American people is that he would later take from $.6 to $1 trillion out of that "lock box" to cover his tax cuts. No doubt, Bush lied. He wanted folks to believe something that he knew was not true. Of course, politicians do this all the time. It's second nature. In sum, the thing that really bothers us about Bush's lies is that he is also a hypocrite and pretends he's above lying. As a liar, he reinforces our assumptions about politicians. As a hypocrite, he reinforces our assumptions about his character.

No doubt, you haven't proven anything. Was he specifically asked if he was going to take any money out? No? And I believe Gore was using the "Lock Box" term with great conviction too.


Well it looks like everyone is splitting hairs here. Nearly every "lie" you present is really either only questionable by it's wording or by the opinions of some othe individual. It's like the basic differences between the left and right philosophies.

[dcole50]

Of which we are aware...
don't go rush on me and tell me he had people killed sopranos style.

[Yonivore]

don't go rush on me and tell me he had people killed sopranos style.
Nope, didn't say that. I'm just saying he's probably the most conniving, dishonest, disreputable, self-serving, megalomaniac ever to occupy the office of the Presidency. There's no telling what's in that man's many closets.

[office handle]

what if bush is that as well? i mean, why could clinton be challenged yet george w bush cannot be?

[Yonivore]

what if bush is that as well? i mean, why could clinton be challenged yet george w bush cannot be?
There is no evidence Bush is any of those things.

[office handle]

ha. then how could it be determined that clinton was when you couldnt question him in the first place?

[Yonivore]

ha. then how could it be determined that clinton was when you couldnt question him in the first place?
huh?

[office handle]

i guess i should try again

how could you tell if clinton was evil and all the other things you claim if one had to accept everything he said at face value?

[Yonivore]

i guess i should try again

how could you tell if clinton was evil and all the other things you claim if one had to accept everything he said at face value?
From the record of lawsuits, investigations, grand jury indictments, prosecutions, imprisonments, impeachment, perjury, obstruction of justice, alleged sexual assaults and rapes, malfeasence, and just plain scumminess that pervaded his office, his family, his cabinet and his 8 years in office.

That's how.

[office handle]

so a president can be critiqued, just not a republican one

[Yonivore]

so a president can be critiqued, just not a republican one
No, never said that. This all started with you whining about the Demoncrats being fact-checked but not Bush. So, fact-check him already...no one is stopping you.

[office handle]

well its the logical outcome of your argument. if you cant question a president until you find out through questioning him that hes evil et al...then what we have here is a conundrum or at least a trip down fascist memory lane

[Yonivore]

well its the logical outcome of your argument. if you cant question a president until you find out through questioning him that hes evil et al...then what we have here is a conundrum or at least a trip down fascist memory lane
Your argument implies the President is the only source for formulating an opinion about his policies and his character.

I'm not asking you to take the President's word on anything. Just look at his record of saying what he means and doing what he's says he's going to do. Then, look a previous administrations.

[office handle]

yeah but thats questioning him and youve said you dont have to do that and implied that doing so is unamerican

[Yonivore]

yeah but thats questioning him and youve said you dont have to do that and implied that doing so is unamerican
I did no such thing. [mixed thread reference] No one called you Un-anything...except, maybe, unintelligent.

There's nothing in this President's first term to suggest he's not to be taken at his word.

In the Clinton administration, we had perjury to suggest he is dishonest.

[office handle]

actually you said


Because, unlike with the Demoncrats, I have no reason to disbelieve the President's assertions.

so if you think that everything the current president says is correct and that only those traitorous "demoncrats" would dare question him then how is anyone supposed to be a good loyal american and question the current administration?

accepting everything someone says without questioning it doesnt sound very intelligent to me.

[Yonivore]

so if you think that everything the current president says is correct and that only those traitorous "demoncrats" would dare question him then how is anyone supposed to be a good loyal american and question the current administration?
First of all there's a difference between being "correct" and being "honest." As I've just said, in another thread, I don't believe this President is always "correct." I do, however, believe he is honest and a person of character. There's always the chance, with that assessment, that he may have more information on which to base his policy decisions than do I.

Secondly, I never used the word "traitor" or "un-American" and, I was referring to my being able to trust a Demoncratic politician (because, frankly they have a pretty poor track record of being honest); I was not referring to anyone's rights or patriotism for exercising their freedom to criticize the President, the government, or anything else.

I was merely stating that I, me, Yonivore saw no reason to distrust President Bush but, that I had plenty of reason to distrust the previous Demoncratic administration.

I think you confused the part of my statement that said, "...unlike with the Demoncrats,..." to say, "...unlike the Demoncrats,..." Big difference.

And, your using the term "der leader" or whatever it is, is more of a direct slur on the President's character and patriotism (and an inferred one on mine) than anything that's been said about you in here.

[office handle]

oh so now he's not correct hes just good old honest george dubya bush.

actually you have used the word traitor before explicity often as well as implicitly.

hey man if you think your patriotism is being questioned, good. that might give you some sense of what you do in here on a daily basis.

[Yonivore]

accepting everything someone says without questioning it doesnt sound very intelligent to me.
I missed this part.

I don't accept everything the president says without a critical assessment.

I disagree on his immigration policy. I think it's dangerous. But, I'm not an expert on immigration and there could be something I'm missing in the formula...I give the President the benefit of the doubt because I trust him. I would have no such trust for Bill Clinton...or John Kerry. Both of whom are proven liars.

I disagree with his law enforcement policy vis-a-vis the war on drugs (actually a holdover from previous administrations). I think it's ineffectual and a drain on an already fractured criminal justice system. But, I also think it's a huge ship that will be hard to turn when, and if, a President finally decides to tackle reform of criminal justice...this President gets a pass from me because, well, he's had bigger fish to fry. In any case, I think this President and I fundamentally disagree over the war on drugs so, even if it was the fish in the pan, I doubt he'd change the policy.

I disagreed, vehemently, on his social spending; from his education compromise with that back-stabbing, woman-drowning, drunkard Ted Kennedy to his handing out prescription drugs to old farts. But, I also believe these were matter of political expedience and that he intends to make up for that in a second term...I've always believed that, even when I disagreed with him signing the legislation. (But, given this, I've always wondered about the "divider not a uniter" cannard of the Left. They've yet to reach over the aisle on any initiative of the President's. In fact, they've become more obstructionist as the term progressed. This cost Tom Daschle his job.

And, that doesn't mean I throw the baby out with the bath water and that doesn't mean I don't believe he has the nations interest at heart, in the final analysis. Fact is, a Demoncratic John Kerry would have done all those things and more and worse.

On the important matters, I agree with his foreign policy inititiative, including the Bush Doctrine. I agree we're doing the right thing in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe his freezing out Arafat until death and a democratic election of a new leader was the right thing to do. I agree with the war on terror and the need to be relentless.

I agree on his Social Security proposal.

I also said, during his first term, when he was spending -- along with Congress -- like a drunken sailor, that I felt he would reign in spending during his second term. He's promised that in this State of the Union Address and I have no reason, and he's got no record, to suggest it will be otherwise. I've long suspected his spending, during the first term was more a result of not wanting to waste political capital on domestic issues when there were more pressing internation affairs for which he needed Congressional support.

I also believe he's offset, somewhat, the spending with a tax policy that gave relief to everyone, increased federal revenues, jump-started a recessionary economy, and usher in record growth. Even unemployment numbers are very promising now. You can't argue with that even though I know you will. All ecomonic indicators are up -- in spite of heading into a recession at the beginning of his term and even after the economic (not to mention national) insult brought on by 9/11.

Do you think a joint resolution on the use of force in Iraq would have passed as easily if he hadn't bucked the Conservative aisle and reached over to Kennedy on education and the others on prescription medicine? I don't.

[Yonivore]

oh so now he's not correct hes just good old honest george dubya bush.
No, he's not and I've never suggested he was correct on everything. But, yes, I believe him to be an honest person of integrity and character.

actually you have used the word traitor before explicity often as well as implicitly.
Not with respect to the issue of criticizing the President and questioning your federal government. Hell, I do that. I've used the term traitor in relation to the Demoncrats efforts to stall the war effort and try to bleed troop moral in the middle of a war.

hey man if you think your patriotism is being questioned, good. that might give you some sense of what you do in here on a daily basis.
I don't let small people in anonymous forums dictate how I feel about my character. Dream on. I really don't dwell too much on what you think of me...

[office handle]

you believe him to be a honest man yet you dont question him because you believe him to be honest yet you have questioned him before.

it all makes sense now.

yes, you have referred to people who disagree with this administration as "traitors" before. thanks.

maybe youre the small person with poor character. if you dont dwell on what i think of you whyd you just drop that essay in this thread?