Why do you think we invaded Iraq?

[Michele 1]

GM, don't you remember? Kallend already claimed it had lost something with the "translators"...Besides, historically, Kallend doesn't back things up - he just "drives by", and now Benny has taken his lead. And Kallend cannot bring himself to retract anything, no matter how incorrect it is.

Lastly, it's always interesting to research quotes to see if they're accurate or have been spun somehow...

Oh well...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[bobsled92 0]

A country that always had favor in our family by by Mom living there above Zurich and my Father since he was young and competed in Bobsleigh in St. Moritz.
June 1981 My Father was called to Zurich due to the Riots of looting and stonestreets pulled up, some fires set by the "supposed Students" which were listed as a French activist group that came in when "welfare" became available in your Country.

_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/

[DJL 235]

You left out the actual reason:

G Bush was trying to rally the anti-terrorism campaign since the efforts to find Bin-Laden were at a standstill so he overstated the existence and intent of a WMD program in Iraq to trick the mostly unintelligent American public into agreeing to go to war.

Seriously, if he'd just said, "We're taking out Hussein because he's guilty of crimes against humanity" then I would fully support him. I still fully support our efforts in Iraq but the reasons for the initial invasion were bullshit.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[quade 4]

To be fair to Kallend, the . . . I dunno what we want to call it . . . "The Flip-Flop quote"(?!?) has been widely circulated on the internet and shows up numerous times if you do a simple Google search of it.

For instance . . . CLICK THIS.

So, it's definately something that's out there and easily found from not completely credible sources. So are reports of UFOs landing in Roswell.

Now, after searching for it myself through some credible sources (whitehouse.gov, CNN, BBC for instance), I have to admit I couldn't find it, but, September 13, 2001 was a pretty long day and just because we can't find it doesn't mean he didn't say it as an off the cuff comment to some White House insider.

The fact is though, we just can't prove a negative. Lack of evidence is not evidence.

It would be really nice if we could track down the actual source of the quote (who the President said this to), but until we do, we probably shouldn't take it as fact.

I will allow all of this, IF the we can apply the same logic to other quotes in the future.

For instance, Michele, remember a few days ago we were talking about General Clark? It's the same thing.

BTW, "The Flip-Flop quote" would be an excellent topic for snopes.com, but unfortunately they have been quiet on the subject so far. Not that Snopes is totally credible, but at least they seem to have a lot of time on their hands to track crap like this down and when they take their time and don't jump to conclusions, they can do a good job.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Why do you think we invaded Iraq?

Chicks. Always for the chicks.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

The fact is though, we just can't prove a negative. Lack of evidence is not evidence.

Ok I'm confused. Are you saying that if you can't find the quote by a credible source, it doesn't mean he didn't say it even though the reason you probably can't find such a quote is because he didn't say it? What 'evidence' are you looking for that might disprove him saying that? What would be sufficient evidence as proof he said the quote/s?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[benny 0]

Quote

The pity is that Kallend hasn't backed up his claim....and Benny never came through. Although you can see that both of them have been around. I wonder why? I'm not that scary....

I dunno, you are pretty scary but I'm really just pretty damn lazy (what a good liberal I am) plus I forgot, what am I supposed to be posting sources regarding?

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[benny 0]

Quote

You left out the actual reason:

G Bush was trying to rally the anti-terrorism campaign since the efforts to find Bin-Laden were at a standstill so he overstated the existence and intent of a WMD program in Iraq to trick the mostly unintelligent American public into agreeing to go to war.

Seriously, if he'd just said, "We're taking out Hussein because he's guilty of crimes against humanity" then I would fully support him. I still fully support our efforts in Iraq but the reasons for the initial invasion were bullshit.

I agree, I honestly think it's a good thing (well maybe, could lead to an even more anti-US, Islamic extremist rule in Iraq) that Saddam is gone. But we were definitely lied to about the reasons (We impeach Clinton for lying about his "little missile" yet it's ok for Bush to lie about big ones). In spite of this, we could have used a variety of methods other than a 150K strong ground INVASION and OCCUPATION. What the hell are all those "smart bombs" for? Did we really have to invade? I didn't and don't think so.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[quade 4]

Quote

What 'evidence' are you looking for that might disprove him saying that? What would be sufficient evidence as proof he said the quote/s?

What I'm saying is that it is impossible to prove someone -didn't- say something. Hell, the man is very well documented publically with video tape, but there's a heck of a lot of times tape isn't rolling as well. It would be almost impossible to "prove" or "disprove" he said something at those times.

It is possible to prove somebody -did- say something if it's actually recorded.

For instance, just because I can't find GWB saying something on whitehouse.gov, definately does -not- mean he didn't say it. As a matter of fact, there was a bruhaha awhile back where White House transcribers were cleaning up his speeches and the transcriptions didn't match the video recordings of the speeches.

It would also be possible for the White House to remove speeches or statements it thought were no longer relevant (or it wanted to hide because they were embarrassing).

However, if I were to find something on whitehouse.gov, I think we can safely assume that it's at least -close- to what was actually said. The White House can't really afford to cheat too much on speeches because, well, they'll get caught because the Fourth Estate publishes their own transcripts of speeches.

Now, if for instance the speech is found on both whitehouse.gov and CNN AND they pretty much agree in their transcriptions, then I think that's pretty much as close as anyone can ask for as proof that something actually was said.

For more information on "web scrubbing" see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9821-2003Dec17?language=printer

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Michele 1]

Quote

The fact is though, we just can't prove a negative. Lack of evidence is not evidence.

So, can we apply that to the WMD?

Anyway, point taken about the Queeg guy - and I stated then that some of the sources were, ah, not top notch....

I think, however, that something along those lines, at that time - 48 hours after the WTC - he would not be alone, he would not be without cameras, and if he stated something like that, it should be resource verifyible (how the heck do you spell that, anyway??).

Honestly, I recall Bin Ladin/Laden's name, and AQ, being bandied about almost immediately...but not from President Bush. From lots of talking heads, lots of media folks...so I would suspect it was said, but not by Bush.

Anyway, the point was made....I still will discount something that is spun in the manner Kallend did (as well as others) to prove something which didn't happen....and to demonstrate a trait which is not accurate, during a political year, on an extremely sensitive topic.

(BTW, Benny, you made the offer, you perform it. Search your own posts....and I am still waiting. And yes, I am that scary according to some And I still haven't voted in your poll.... nor do I believe the results to be accurate).

And back to work with me I go....

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[SkydiverRick 0]

Cool -- I wish everyone who didn't know or care anything about politics would refrain from voting right along with you.

[quade 4]

Quote

So, can we apply that to the WMD?

Absolutely!

In fact, I've been saying that since day one.

Just because we haven't found evidence that he had them doesn't mean he didn't have them.

That said, the ONLY way we can PROVE he had them, is to find them.

Since, the Administration said they knew he had them and since the Administration said in some instances they knew -where- he had them, it seems only reasonable that the Administration PROVE he had them by turning up a few.

Just like you want Kallend and Benny to PROVE the quotes, I want the Administration to PROVE the WMDs.

Both might be tough.

However, one is a bit more serious than the other.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

So, can we apply that to the WMD?

Absolutely!

In fact, I've been saying that since day one.

Just because we haven't found evidence that he had them doesn't mean he didn't have them.

That said, the ONLY way we can PROVE he had them, is to find them.

Since, the Administration said they knew he had them and since the Administration said in some instances they knew -where- he had them, it seems only reasonable that the Administration PROVE he had them by turning up a few.

Just like you want Kallend and Benny to PROVE the quotes, I want the Administration to PROVE the WMDs.

Both might be tough.

However, one is a bit more serious than the other.

Unless you are there, it's all hearsay. Video can be doctored, photos can be "shopped", audio can be edited.

Snopes hasn't debunked it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Snopes hasn't debunked it.

They haven't confirmed it either. I'm going to send it to them and ask them to do the legwork

[quade 4]

Quote

Unless you are there, it's all hearsay. Video can be doctored, photos can be "shopped", audio can be edited.

Snopes hasn't debunked it.

So what are you saying -- we didn't land on the Moon?

I mean, yeah, for a while there I coulda swore I saw Klingons walking around on my TV, but at some point there is what is and what is not believably real. That, and I knew some of the guys that worked in post-production on the series.

Anyway, yeah, evidence -can- be manufactured, but since to date the Administration hasn't shown -any- evidence, we don't need to really go down that conspiratorial path. -- yet.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[FunBobby 0]

I've grown weary of debating our reasons for launching OIF, but I'll still take a moment or two to discuss strategy and tactics.

Quote

In spite of this, we could have used a variety of methods other than a 150K strong ground INVASION and OCCUPATION. What the hell are all those "smart bombs" for? Did we really have to invade? I didn't and don't think so.

You're kidding, right? Aerial bombing is a very, very effective tactic, but the futility of relying solely on aerial bombardment to achieve strategic objectives has been demonstrated over and over again in past conflicts. With the stated objectives of this campaign, it was clear that a strong, decisive ground campaign was necessary.

What was that line? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


Bobby

[benny 0]

Quote

You're kidding, right? Aerial bombing is a very, very effective tactic, but the futility of relying solely on aerial bombardment to achieve strategic objectives has been demonstrated over and over again in past conflicts. With the stated objectives of this campaign, it was clear that a strong, decisive ground campaign was necessary.

What was that line? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


Bobby

What were the stated objectives again? Rid Iraq of WMD? Depose of Saddam and his leadership? Well, if there had been WMD, surely we could have bombed those weapons sites, and we tried to bomb Saddam himself... Oh wait, was it that objective of building roads in Iraq? Or maybe "stabilizing" their oil fields? Ahh, I'm sick of it all mainly, maybe I'll get back into this after the state of DisUnion.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

I dunno, you are pretty scary but I'm really just pretty damn lazy (what a good liberal I am) plus I forgot, what am I supposed to be posting sources regarding?

That's sad, Benny. Really.

With that single post you have sunk to the level of the common troll.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

In spite of this, we could have used a variety of methods other than a 150K strong ground INVASION and OCCUPATION. What the hell are all those "smart bombs" for? Did we really have to invade? I didn't and don't think so.

What other methods do you suggest? What other methods would you have used, had it been your decision?

It's a well understood concept that a war cannot be won simply by aerial assault. Ground troops are necessary, every time.

-
jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[SkydiverRick 0]

What were the stated objectives again? Rid Iraq of WMD? Depose of Saddam and his leadership?

[wmw999 2,545]

Quote

Maybe you haven't heard, we have disposed of Saddam and his leadership

But was that the stated objective? War is a pretty serious thing to simply be happy that there was a serendipitous result. "Well, that wasn't what we were really trying for, but that's OK" isn't really a good epitaph for a war.

And if that was the real reason, but they didn't dare tell the people, well, that's probably even worse.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[benny 0]

Quote

That's sad, Benny. Really.

With that single post you have sunk to the level of the common troll.

-
Jim

Geez Jim, gotta pull out the insults now. Hell, I was admitting to being lazy, but a TROLL?? I'll get around to it sometime, just didn't feel like it at the moment... Grr, you people are gonna drive me to research, yuck.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe you haven't heard, we have disposed of Saddam and his leadership

But was that the stated objective? War is a pretty serious thing to simply be happy that there was a serendipitous result. "Well, that wasn't what we were really trying for, but that's OK" isn't really a good epitaph for a war.

And if that was the real reason, but they didn't dare tell the people, well, that's probably even worse.

Wendy W.

Wendy, I was replying to a specific question. Personally, I think the world is a better place with SH gone, regardless of whether we find WMD or not.

never pull low......unless you are

[benny 0]

OK, by popular demand, this is long folks since I have to post the entire thing unless you folks have access to Lexis-Nexis. Here goes, in response to earlier talk of France selling "WMD" to Iraq:

Quote

The Associated Press

These materials may not be republished without the express written consent of The Associated Press

October 4, 2003, Saturday, BC cycle

SECTION: International News

LENGTH: 683 words

HEADLINE: Poland says it was mistaken in report that troops found newly built French missiles in Iraq

BYLINE: By BEATA PASEK, Associated Press Writer

DATELINE: WARSAW, Poland

BODY:
After a protest from French President Jacques Chirac, Poland said Saturday it had been mistaken in reporting that its troops found new French-made anti-aircraft misiles in central Iraq.

Chirac swiftly denied selling Iraq weapons in violation of the U.N. weapons embargo imposed against Saddam Hussein's regime in 1990. The claims, he said, "are as false today as they were yesterday."

An aide to the Polish prime minister said an initial report that the Roland missiles found by Polish troops days ago were produced in 2003 was incorrect. France said it stopped producing any type of Roland missile in 1993.

Prime Minister Leszek Miller met with Chirac twice to explain the mistake, said the aide, Tadeusz Iwinski. The two leaders were in Rome on Saturday for a European Union summit.

"There can be no 2003 missiles since these missiles have not been made for 15 years," Chirac told reporters in Rome. "Polish soldiers confused things. I told ... Miller so frankly - friendly but firmly."

France used similar arguments to rebut allegations in April that recently made Roland missiles have been found in Iraq.

The report first came in a statement by a ministry spokesman to Polish state television that the troops uncovered French-made Roland missiles in the town of Hilla, in the zone of central Iraq where the Poles lead a peacekeeping force. A ministry statement said the missiles were destroyed on Wednesday.

Maj. Andrzej Wiatrowski, a spokesman in Iraq for the Polish-led force, said pictures of the missiles taken before they were destroyed might clear up when they were made.

"That's the job for our superiors. Our job is to recover and destroy dangerous material," Wiatrowski said by satellite phone.

Iwinski said the matter has been settled. "It was wrongly said that the rockets were produced in that year," Iwinski said by telephone from the summit. "President Chirac has accepted Prime Minister Leszek Miller's explanation."

The Polish defense minister, Jerzy Szmajdzinski, "expressed his regrets" for the mistake, a ministry statement said.

France long had close ties to Iraq that included lucrative weapons deals. Paris supplied arms, in exchange for oil, during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war.

In June, an Associated Press reporter traveling with the 3rd Infantry Division found two Roland 2 missile launchers in excellent condition on Habaniyah airfield, 45 miles west of Baghdad. Each launcher had four missiles mounted on it, but both launchers had been flipped onto their sides, apparently in an effort to unload the flatbed trucks on which they were mounted.

At the time, U.S. Army officers said dozens of such missiles had been found on military bases across Iraq and all were believed to have been delivered before July 1990.

The French Foreign Ministry emphasized on Saturday that France has not authorized the sale of weapons, or even spare parts, to Iraq since July 1990, when the United Nations imposed sanctions on weapons sales following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

The ministry statement said Roland 1 missiles and launchers were exported to Iraq in 1980-81, while Roland 2 missiles were exported from 1983 to 1986. France stopped making Roland 2s in 1988 and Roland 3s in 1993, it said.

France used similar arguments to rebut allegations in april that recently made Roland missiles have been found in iraq.

The Polish Defense Ministry said the Roland missiles were among about a dozen missiles uncovered near Hilla on Tuesday, including Soviet-made Malutka, French Hot and French-German Milan missiles. The Roland missiles are about 25 feet long, radar-guided and launched from the back of a truck.

The U.S. military found 35 Roland missiles when it captured Baghdad International Airport in April. Roland missiles also were found when Australian troops captured an airfield in western Iraq.

The Web site GlobalSecurity.org says the Roland weapon system is intended for anti-aircraft defense of armored and mechanized the units to counter aircraft flying to nearly at 1 1/2 times the speed of sound or hovering helicopters.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[Michele 1]

Quote

Geez Jim, gotta pull out the insults now. Hell, I was admitting to being lazy, but a TROLL?? I'll get around to it sometime, just didn't feel like it at the moment... Grr, you people are gonna drive me to research, yuck.

You're the one who said "show me...and I'll show you". Your reticence to actually do that says more for you - ie you're more than willing to spout a party line than you are to actually debate it - than it says about the topic.

I'm lazy too. Took me less than 1/2 an hour to get what I got.

I said in the beginning, and I'll say it here: your poll options are skewed, and don't seem like an honest questioning for the truth. Because of that, you left out a huge reason. And because you are posting simply to stir up people, yes, then Jim's comment fits.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~