PHOTO-OP COVER-UP: BOXES READ 'Made in China' Not 'Made in U.S.A.'

In the blurb I heard from this speech Bush referred to the "'so-called' weapons inspectors."

How rude.

 

Of course he's pissed off at them. They refuse to lie and confirm Bush's so-called "reasons" for going to war.

Oops, was I rude?

 

Not in my book, but our "so-called" President might think you are.

 

As reported in the so-called liberal media.

 

So you're on the record as believing Saddam when he says they have no weapons of mass destruction. We'll hold you to this when we go in and find the stuff. Hope you will admit that you were wrong when that happens.

 

Define "weapons of mass destruction," first of all. The stuff we sold them to gas the Iranians in the 1980's really doesn't qualify, to me.

Rush apparently thinks - I also read this on a pro-war blog called USS Clueless - that France and Germany busted the boycott in the 1990's and sold them weapons. But apart from our actions in the 1980's, didn't Halliburton do something like $26 billion in business during the 1990's? Yeah, under Clinton's watch, but wasn't Halliburton kind of working offshore...let me look this up.

Holy crap. Typing "Halliburton Iraq" into Google is like typing in "clitoris" or something - and gobsmacked I was to see who came up first:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml

Oh, it was $73 million, not $26. OOPS. Wonder how many empty warheads you could have bought for $73 million.

 

Why do you guys insist on coming out on the wrong side of this issue? When the evidence is revealed and/or discovered by our troops, you all are going to be looking pretty foolish.

US Says Has Proof of Iraq Weapons

TOKYO/BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States said Friday it had "very convincing evidence" Baghdad possessed banned weapons, as the EU's foreign policy chief urged Washington and Europe to tone down their war of words over Iraq.

In Tokyo, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, Washington's top arms control diplomat, said Iraq had maintained an extensive program for producing weapons of mass destruction, including long-range ballistic missiles banned since the 1991 Gulf War.

"That is information that we have, and I think that, at an appropriate time and in an appropriate way, we will make the case about Iraq's violations," Bolton told a news conference on the third and last stop of a tour of Asia.

 

This post was union made in the USA

John Bolton's words are proof?
Heston was freaking Moses with stone tablets in hand and nobody believes him!

Our troops will provide the proof?
They must have been trained with the LAPD.

 

Hold me to that.

The reason I'm so skeptical is because the administration has lied so often. Those aluminum tubes. The link with Al-Qaeda. Even deciding that the empty chemical warheads were troubling - uh, didn't we already have better evidence than that?

I disagree entirely with the premise that the President can declare a war based on secret evidence. Yes, I realize Constitutionally he's gotten his resolution, but it's a hideous precedent. You didn't hear FDR say he had proof of Japanese infamy, but that he'd tell us after Tokyo was liberated.

You DID, on the other hand, have LBJ lying more or less constantly about Vietnam. You DID, on the other hand, have the first Bush administration lie more or less constantly about the Gulf War.

One of the things I've been reading is that Saddam's human rights violations are up there with Pol Pot's. This would cut more ice, if Amnesty International didn't snarl about how their reports were being cynically exploited when it suited the British and American governments' purposes. And I've got a sneaking suspicion that a lot of Saddam's worst crimes were committed when he was on Uncle Sam's payroll alongside Noriega and - well, Osama hasn't been proved. Still - if the human rights violations are that bad, then make that case. We went into Bosnia and Kosovo, and most people think we should have gone into Rwanda, so the precedent is there. And there's no reason to keep human rights horrors on that scale a secret.

I mean, we can't have a taste? A hint? Anything? It's that sensitive? All of it? Protecting whichever operatives we have on the case is worth this mess? Hell, pull the guy out, and have him spill the beans, if the evidence is that freaking good already. There's absolutely no reason to keep the nation, and the world, guessing about this.

Fine, so Dubya and the junta want the mother of all "I told you so's." It better be pretty damned impressive, is all I've got to say.

 

Ian, I like your way of thinking. By the way, I hope you will pay me that $100,000 you promissed.

Of course I have proof you owe me that money. I just won't show it to you yet. Maybe after I get my money.

 

BTW: here is an article showing the damage our trust game is causing.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2077558/

 

Hell, start with Bush running like a bitch on September 11th, then making up a story that someone was AFTER him. Noone's after him; certainly not America's enemies. They have too much fun and too much opportunity with him in office...

Oh and BTW: McCracken what is UP with your obfuscating change-the-subject attempt here? Must be embarrasing for you. This thread is about the President, and his people, attempting to concoct a small charade, and getting busted. But I guess you're all "wave the flag and shut up" when it come to charades by this government anyway...

 

You obviously do not know the story. It has been well documented that Bush wanted to go back to the White House but the Secret Service, to their credit, prevailed. To suggest he was somehow a wimp in the aftermath is pretty foolish.

No, I just happen to think there are more pressing issues than to worry about whether some political hacks super-imposed "Made In USA" on some boxes. It wouldn't be the first time that political operatives were looking for a good visual and it certainly won't be the last. If this is the biggest criticism you can muster for Bush then he's got nothing to worry about.

 

Andrew Card on NPR this morning once again propogated the myth to the ingorant that a) there were Iraqis on the 9/11 planes and that b) there was a documented link between the Iraqi government and the 9/11 attacks.

I think it's an insult to the victims of 9/11 to exploit their tragedy for this war.

 

There is documented proof that at least one of the leaders of the 911 attacks, Atta, met with officials of the Iraqi intelligence agency in January of that year. There is proof that the resources utilized by Al Qaeda (sp?) go far beyond those available to terrorists groups of their size and they are most likely being provided by some nation-state. There is strong reason to believe that Hussein has been using the Iraqi intelligence agencies to provide the false docuements, detailed intelligence, and operational resources that are needed for operations of the scope carried out by Al Qaeda. There is also strong reason to believe that Hussein has provided training areas for Al Qaeda terrorists. This is all declassified information I've been able to gather from knowledgeable friends and acquaintances who are or were in government service. Though I am by no means a Washingtion power broker I'm sure you'll find that everything you hear coming out of that town has at least some grain of truth to it. Intelligence is about putting the pieces of the puzzle that you have together, and trying to figure out what the hell it is you're looking at. With this limited information, I believe we can see the beginnings of a very definite picture. Brass tax, the weapons inspectors are never going to find the weapons because Iraq will not let them. So it comes down to this, you either believe what your government is telling you or you don't. If you do then you will eventually support the use of force if you don't already. If you don't, nothing I'm writing here will change your mind.

 

There is no conclusive proof that the said meeting had ever taken place. The story has been dismissed:

BBC

NY Times

 

Mmmm - fresh-brewed comedy.

 

What is conclusive proof? Its easy to dismiss almost anything as not having conclusive proof if you truly want to. I could for instance claim that their were never any atrocities committed on US POW's in Vietnam. After all, there are no videos, photos, or documented evidence that those atrocities happened. The Vietnamese government has never publicly admitted that it committed any of the acts alledged against them. Their is no independent third party verification of the claims made. In fact, the only information we have is the unsubstantiated claims of US POW's themselves and the stories coming out of that cesspool of misinformation, the United States government. Certainly you must see that any who would believe drivel such as this are malcontents, fanatical flag wavers and ignorant misinformed yokels who could not possibly match intellectual wits with the average reporter or big soccer poster. I apologize most humbly and will retreat to the hell thou hath reserved for me and those of my ilk.

 

All joking aside. The information leading to the link between Atta and Iraq is about a meeting in Iraq not Prague. The information was provided by members of the Iraqi National Congress. By all means doubt the veracity of the comments of that group if you so wish but their are reports to that affect. The INC is also a source of information for US intelligence in Iraq.

 

Nemesis, you are just being silly. POWs of the Vietnamese have very good credibility because 1) they have nothing to gain by lying and 2) we see physical evidence from their own bodies that they were tortured.

The Iraqi National Congress is a hopelessly inept "organization" that represents groups that have more to gain than you can possibly imagine. I have no doubt they will lie and cheat for the slightest chance to get what they want. And we already know that the US government is pre-determined to accept such evidence on the weakest evidence as Bush has ordered his intelligence organizations to look for such links a-priori of knowing if any such link exist.

 

Am I really being silly? I picked Vietnamese POW's for precisely the reasons you mentioned above, it seems to be a clear cut case. Yet if I was a journalist I could easily draft an article claiming that there was no documented proof of the allegations and that our outrage was based on the unverified reports of our POW's. Physical evidence from the POW bodies would seem to corroborate their stories but at this time it has not been verified that these injuries originated in Vietnam POW camps. You and I both know that the pieces of the puzzle all add to something nefarious but we certainly don't have a "smoking gun" as it were.

I agree to a certain extent, that's why I've stated in other forums that I'm still not completely sold on our intelligence information. The only solid unclassified source I've heard about is the INC, I would hope that this is not the only one. I can't imagaine that we would be contemplating the action we are now contemplating without additional sources of information. The INC are completely self serving in this matter and hope to replace Hussein in power in Iraq, this is a given. Everything else to us, the relatively uninformed, is variable.

 

Yes.

And by the way, we never landed on the moon.

 

Fine, dismiss me out of hand. FWIW, the POW potential story and your moon landing example differ in that the moon landing has photographic and video evidence. To discount that story you must step beyond the no corroborating evidence angle and enter the scary world of conspiracy theories. The blood for oil crowd should know all about conspiracy theories though. Probably shouldn't have said that.

 

Sounds about right.