OT - 9/11 Video.

[++ Gregos v.4]

George W Bush covers U2's, "Sunday Bloody Sunday". Click here. Then click "stream hi" or "stream lo" depending on your connection.

 

[millersnose]

Well the 2 big ones were the links between Sadam and Osama and the WMD.

the UN
the french
the israelis
the russians
the egyptians
the british

all concluded iraq had WMD's
in fact only a few weeks before the invasion hans blix reported to the UN on a NEW bunker containing chemical weapons and missiles exceeding distance limits

in terms of links between saddam and osama i dont remember bush making any

perhaps you could show me where....

Are suggesting they didn't lie? You happy that you were told the truth? That their stated reasons were valid?

yes
yes
yes

The absolute classic was the supposed Uranium supplied from North Africa. Bush sent a family friend and former ambassodor from the area to check it out. When the guy, whose name I can't remember but a bit from the story later may jog your memory, came back and reported to him there was nothing to support the report and in all likelihood it was wrong the Bush administration ignored that.

while being vaguely aware of the story many intelligence agancies were concluding the same thing.

many intelligence reports contridict each other that is not uncommon

Worse still in the State of the Union address (the most important public address of the year for a President) Bush told the nation that the link was proven by the same visit. Then when the guy wrote an open letter saying that it was not true the someone, and someone who had to be high up in the administration, outed the guys wife who was a senior spy in the CIA. Now this is not only treasonous but also an act that put a lot of CIA personnel and informants in danger and effectively ruined her career.

sorry i dont remember that story

sounds like a conspiracy theory to me

Sure Moore spins a line and is a bit easy with some of the facts. But his lies haven't led directly to the death of thousands.

oh well at least you can see moore is a liar

on the death of thousands point do you accept that saddam husseins regime was responsible for the deaths of millions?

if the world sits by and another hundred thousand die in the sudan because of the sort of isolationist ideas you advocate will it mollify you we did nothing nothing to save the hundred thousand people?

 

[PJ]

sorry i dont remember that story

sounds like a conspiracy theory to me

No, not a conspiracy theory.

The open letter was in the Washington Post and it was widely reported. I'll chase down names and dates etc later.

It was about the same time that the guy from England topped himself over some of the spy info.

in fact only a few weeks before the invasion hans blix reported to the UN on a NEW bunker containing chemical weapons and missiles exceeding distance limits

Link or reference please. Every time I saw Hans he was saying tdey needed more time and didn't believe the weapons the US were claiming were there were actually there.

in terms of links between saddam and osama i dont remember bush making any

They were constantly doing it, though maybe not directly. I forget the term but it is where they mention things in the same sentence and do it often enough that people form an association. Advertisers use it all the time.

while being vaguely aware of the story many intelligence agancies were concluding the same thing.

No they weren't. The initial report was extremely vague. Every serious attempt to find it came back with the same report. there was no evidence to support the story and it was more than likely crap. That was why Bush sent his friend, because the other US intelligence had come back negative. So he sent someone he knew who knew the area well. Then when he reprted the same he ignored it and lied further.

on the death of thousands point do you accept that saddam husseins regime was responsible for the deaths of millions?

if the world sits by and another hundred thousand die in the sudan because of the sort of isolationist ideas you advocate will it mollify you we did nothing nothing to save the hundred thousand people?

Don't lump me in as totally against the war. I am glad the world has seen the back of Sadam.

My question is over the motives and, more importantly, the apparent lack of any long term plan.

The West has got a long history of stuffing up the Middle East going back to the Crusaders kicking it all off when the Jews, Muslims and Christians were all getting along fine in Jerusalem.

Then the Brits and French tunred their backs on, and broke their word to, the thousands of arabs who fought against the Turks in WW1.

By what they have done now all they have achieved is to provide motivation to thousands of new terrorists. This war would be like a dream come true for Osama.

The US was allways going to win the war. Winning the peace was going to be the problem. A good start may have been to let local companies have a chance in the rebuilding. Instead all the contracts go to Halliburton. You can see more on that from last weeks 4 corners when they interviewed the Iraq minister for

on the death of thousands point do you accept that saddam husseins regime was responsible for the deaths of millions?

Wasn't he still killing them while the US was supporting him? Why didn't they just topple him when they had all the world behind them in the 1st Guf War if their only motive is to remove a bad guy?

And how much responsibility does the US take the all the Kurds they encouraged to rise up against Sadam at the end of the last Gulf War, with the promise of support, only to stop and leave them to Saddam's revenge.

if the world sits by and another hundred thousand die in the sudan because of the sort of isolationist ideas you advocate will it mollify you we did nothing nothing to save the hundred thousand people?

I am not for an isolationist view at all and I would have thought that sort of throw away line beneath you. I am just anti the motives and methods of the Bush government. Clark and others maintain it was spoken about from day one of the current regime and I believe it personally.

Since helping the world is what you seem to think it is all about then great. North Korea next?

 

[PJ]

From CBS

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/27/eveningnews/main575449.shtml

"CBS) The Justice Department is investigating whether to launch a criminal probe of the White House after the CIA complained someone there may have leaked the classified identity of an agency operative, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.

If the allegations are true - whoever is responsible for the leak could be headed to jail - for ten years.

The president's national security advisor, Condoleeza Rice, issued the latest White House denial that senior administration officials had blown the cover of a CIA operative.

“I know nothing about any such calls, and I do know that that president of the United States does not expect his White House to behave in that way,” Rice said in a broadcast interview.

In a July article, syndicated columnist Robert Novak said two senior administration officials gave him the agent's name. But a new report reveals the leak may have been more extensive.

A senior administration official told the Washington Post that before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife.

The senior official said he or she came forward to the Post because the leaks were “wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson’s credibility.”

Former CIA analyst Raymond McGovern is out raged. “People frequently die from revelations like this,” he says. “We don’t know what will happen in this case and I suppose it will come out in the end.”

The alleged motive for outing the agent, may have been revenge against her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson had just published an article detailing his warnings to the administration that there was no concrete evidence that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger.

“Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,” the senior official told the Washington Post.

Wilson says, “For an administration that came to Washington promising to restore honor and dignity to the White House, this kind of low blow, even in a bare knuckled town like Washington, was neither honorable nor dignified.”

Wilson has publicly suggested Bush advisor Karl Rove broke his wife’s cover.

Rice downplayed the accusations, saying, “The Justice Department gets these as a matter of routine."
"

I'm sure if you want to dig a little deeper there are other articles that talk about how high up in the CIA his wife is and some major projects screwed by this revelation.

Revenge against peole who speak against them is a specialty of this organisation. Just look at what they did to Blicks public persona.

Still, you don't think they'd lie to us.

 

[millersnose]

sorry i dont remember that story

sounds like a conspiracy theory to me

No, not a conspiracy theory.

The open letter was in the Washington Post and it was widely reported. I'll chase down names and dates etc later.

i look forward to it

in fact only a few weeks before the invasion hans blix reported to the UN on a NEW bunker containing chemical weapons and missiles exceeding distance limits

Link or reference please. Every time I saw Hans he was saying tdey needed more time and didn't believe the weapons the US were claiming were there were actually there.

sure

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

no chemical weapons in iraq huh?

in terms of links between saddam and osama i dont remember bush making any

They were constantly doing it, though maybe not directly.

so they did or they didnt?

while being vaguely aware of the story many intelligence agancies were concluding the same thing.

No they weren't. The initial report was extremely vague.

yes they were

and what report do you refer to?

on the death of thousands point do you accept that saddam husseins regime was responsible for the deaths of millions?

if the world sits by and another hundred thousand die in the sudan because of the sort of isolationist ideas you advocate will it mollify you we did nothing nothing to save the hundred thousand people?

Don't lump me in as totally against the war. I am glad the world has seen the back of Sadam.

My question is over the motives and, more importantly, the apparent lack of any long term plan.

The West has got a long history of stuffing up the Middle East going back to the Crusaders kicking it all off when the Jews, Muslims and Christians were all getting along fine in Jerusalem.

of for goodness sake we have gone back in time 1000 years now

by the way your simplistic conclusion of love and tolerance between muslims and christians at the time of the crusades does not bear out the facts

islamic expansion turned chritian areas like turkey syria egypt and even jureslam and evirons into islam ic controled autocracies

islam had even expanded controlled most of spain

Then the Brits and French tunred their backs on, and broke their word to, the thousands of arabs who fought against the Turks in WW1.

By what they have done now all they have achieved is to provide motivation to thousands of new terrorists. This war would be like a dream come true for Osama.

it may surprise you to learn terrorism existed before the iraq war

The US was allways going to win the war. Winning the peace was going to be the problem. A good start may have been to let local companies have a chance in the rebuilding. Instead all the contracts go to Halliburton

all the contracts?

you are starting to sound like michael moore

even the company i work for as we have a subsidary in bahrain have got contracts

Wasn't he still killing them while the US was supporting him? Why didn't they just topple him when they had all the world behind them in the 1st Guf War if their only motive is to remove a bad guy?

i did not say that was their motive

and in any case the reason they didnt persue total victory in GW1 was the UN only mandated them to expel iraq from kuwait and the arab states insisted the US do not invade iraq

And how much responsibility does the US take the all the Kurds they encouraged to rise up against Sadam at the end of the last Gulf War, with the promise of support, only to stop and leave them to Saddam's revenge.

you confuse the kurds with the shiites

saddam still controlled iraq

I am not for an isolationist view at all and I would have thought that sort of throw away line beneath you. I am just anti the motives and methods of the Bush government. Clark and others maintain it was spoken about from day one of the current regime and I believe it personally.

Since helping the world is what you seem to think it is all about then great. North Korea next?

the hard reality is that north korea has acheived nuclear status - as such they are untouchable with nukes pointed at japan and south korea

thats the whole point PJ

dictatorships should not be permitted to get this far

 

[PJ]

PJ wrote:
Quote:
sorry i dont remember that story

sounds like a conspiracy theory to me



No, not a conspiracy theory.

The open letter was in the Washington Post and it was widely reported. I'll chase down names and dates etc later.


i look forward to it

It's above.

so they did or they didnt?

They did, as I discussed after your selective excerpt. Very Mooreish.

it may surprise you to learn terrorism existed before the iraq war

No it wouldn't. IN the modern age I think it was the Jews who started the non-wartime stuff by bombing the Brits. But that wasn't the point. I'm talking about the future.

dictatorships should not be permitted to get this far

True, but that wasn't why they went after him.

So who is next then? Plenty to choose from.

How about trying to sort out Zimbabwe?

 

[millersnose]

From CBS

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/27/eveningnews/main575449.shtml

"CBS) The Justice Department is investigating whether to launch a criminal probe of the White House after the CIA complained someone there may have leaked the classified identity of an agency operative, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.

If the allegations are true - whoever is responsible for the leak could be headed to jail - for ten years.

thats it??

a year old newspaper claim by a reporter that ended up being wrong

 

[millersnose]

They did, as I discussed after your selective excerpt. Very Mooreish.

huh?

So who is next then? Plenty to choose from.

How about trying to sort out Zimbabwe?

hey i think zimbabwe would be a good place to start

i think russia and france would veto though and the yanks have their hands full in iraq and afghanistan?

time for the UN to live up to its mandate maybe?

not farging likely

 

[PJ]

time for the UN to live up to its mandate maybe?

not farging likely
_________________

Agreed there and also on Zim being a place that needs an Ineternatinal intervention but I can't see the Yanks doing it. Not enough money to be made.

Checked the article on the "conspiracy theory" regarding the outing of that blokes wife?

 

[millersnose]

time for the UN to live up to its mandate maybe?

not farging likely
_________________

Agreed there and also on Zim being a place that needs an Ineternatinal intervention but I can't see the Yanks doing it. Not enough money to be made.

Checked the article on the "conspiracy theory" regarding the outing of that blokes wife?

not enough money to be made?

your implication is the US will not go to war except for monetary gain

tell me how much did they make from:

somalia?
afghanistan?
bosnia?

the big problem bush is experiencing at the moment is that iraq is costing billions

that argument is silly



as for your leaked story - explain to me again how this prooves bush lied about iraq

 

[PJ]

as for your leaked story - explain to me again how this prooves bush lied about iraq

Well the reason the guy in question wrote the articel that led to the outing of his wife was because the Bush administration, after being told straight out that there was no evidence to support the story, went ahead and used it as a reason for invading Iraq in the State of the Union address. The same as you said they won't touch North Korea becuase they have nukes the threat, even though they knew it false, of Iraq having nukes was used to gain support amongst the people for the war.

Secondly it shows the visious, deceitful and vengeful spirit of the organisation.

the big problem bush is experiencing at the moment is that iraq is costing billions

Yep. But that's the American people paying. Carlyle and Haliburton are raking it in.

somalia?

Different administration.

bosnia?

Wasn't that a UN one. And as Woody Harrelson said in Good Morning Sarejevo "I can't help but think we would have gotten here quicker if it was the Muslims killing the Christians"

afghanistan?

Had to be done and another reason I was anti the Iraq war. Did they achieve there major objective of getting Sadam? No. Instead tey diverted resources away from what I would have thought would be the major target and threat.

not enough money to be made?

your implication is the US will not go to war except for monetary gain

I firmly believe that motives other than those stated by the Bush administration played a major role in the decision to invade Iraq.

 

[millersnose]

as for your leaked story - explain to me again how this prooves bush lied about iraq

Well the reason the guy in question wrote the articel that led to the outing of his wife was because the Bush administration, after being told straight out that there was no evidence to support the story, went ahead and used it as a reason for invading Iraq in the State of the Union address. The same as you said they won't touch North Korea becuase they have nukes the threat, even though they knew it false, of Iraq having nukes was used to gain support amongst the people for the war.

Secondly it shows the visious, deceitful and vengeful spirit of the organisation.

your article does not even mention bush or iraq

and the episode fizzled out anyway

Yep. But that's the American people paying. Carlyle and Haliburton are raking it in.

so you are saying that bush invaded iraq so haliburton could get some business deals?

this at the expense of the american economy!!


do you realise how stupid that sounds???

somalia?

Different administration.

oh so only bush is evil.......

bosnia?

Wasn't that a UN one. And as Woody Harrelson said in Good Morning Sarejevo "I can't help but think we would have gotten here quicker if it was the Muslims killing the Christians"

woody harelson???

so the US was evil in this regard because they waited a while???

i thought the left are accusing bush of "rushing to war"

seems damned if they do damned if they dont

seems the left can blame the US for acting .... failing to act

you guys cant loose

afghanistan?

Had to be done and another reason I was anti the Iraq war. Did they achieve there major objective of getting Sadam? No. Instead tey diverted resources away from what I would have thought would be the major target and threat.

al quada were established there - administration training facilities

thousands were arrested the taliban ousted

this was a huge blow to al qeada

there are still thousands of troops there

not enough money to be made?

your implication is the US will not go to war except for monetary gain

I firmly believe that motives other than those stated by the Bush administration played a major role in the decision to invade Iraq.

you can "firmly" beleive whatever you want

conspiracy theories abound

this thread was about one

 

[PJ]

seems the left can blame the US for acting .... failing to act

you guys cant loose

Problem with labelling people Millers is they don't all fit.

I am far from a leftist.

Moderate right. Just don't believe I have to follow that thinking on everything.

your article does not even mention bush or iraq

"The alleged motive for outing the agent, may have been revenge against her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson had just published an article detailing his warnings to the administration that there was no concrete evidence that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger. "

Yes it does. That article was posted directly after the State of the Union address which Bush used to say that the link was there despite being told it wasn't.

The episode is still under investigation but you are right, it probably won't go any further because they can't find the culprits. Certainly doesn't mean that it is something that is unimportant.

oh so only bush is evil.......

I don't think Bush is evil. I think he's an idiot who is being easily manipulated by people motivated by personal greed.

so the US was evil in this regard because they waited a while???

I never said the US was evil for what they did in the Baltic. I fully supported it. Just thought that was an interesting line. And again wasn't that a UN thing?

 

[millersnose]

seems the left can blame the US for acting .... failing to act

you guys cant loose

Problem with labelling people Millers is they don't all fit.

I am far from a leftist.

Moderate right. Just don't believe I have to follow that thinking on everything.

lol

yeah ok

i'll play along ;-)

your article does not even mention bush or iraq

"The alleged motive for outing the agent, may have been revenge against her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson had just published an article detailing his warnings to the administration that there was no concrete evidence that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger. "

Yes it does. That article was posted directly after the State of the Union address which Bush used to say that the link was there despite being told it wasn't.

no it didnt

this was september 2003
the SOU was february 2003

The episode is still under investigation but you are right, it probably won't go any further because they can't find the culprits. Certainly doesn't mean that it is something that is unimportant.

but it certainly is not proof of anything

i thought this was supposed to be proof bush lied

oh so only bush is evil.......

I don't think Bush is evil. I think he's an idiot who is being easily manipulated by people motivated by personal greed.

you said he lied to start a war and now you dont think he is evil????

so the US was evil in this regard because they waited a while???

I never said the US was evil for what they did in the Baltic. I fully supported it. Just thought that was an interesting line. And again wasn't that a UN thing?

you just posted a criticism that the US took too long to get involved!!!

and the US security council members russia and france threatened to veto any action in bosnia so the US went in with nato

sound familiar?

 

[Sharkhead]

Quote:

it may surprise you to learn terrorism existed before the iraq war



No it wouldn't. IN the modern age I think it was the Jews who started the non-wartime stuff by bombing the Brits. But that wasn't the point. I'm talking about the future.

:shock: wow how ironic :lol: :lol:

 

[King of the Hill]

Geez what a shitfight
In the Sharks forum!!!
What a disaster!

 

[Booyah]

Did you all watch 'the great debate tonight on 60 minutes'?

I didn't. JAG was far more appealing then listening to fat-head Latham 'borrow' other politicians ideas and policy innovations.

 

[Anonymous]

I watched it. Boring as shit mind you, but I thought Latham held up reasonably well given it was his first crack at it.

 

[carcharias]

you should have watched Aus Idol , Chanel was sublime doing a version of the Shirley Bassey/propellorheads "History Repeating" .
Ironic really.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

I hope you learnt your 4 corners lesson PJ.

But take heart, Millers has those responses down pat!

I liken it to OJ.

In fact I think it is exactly like that.

OJ Bush

&

Millers Cochrane