Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Lockheed-Martin employee featured in new hostage video   (edition.cnn.com ) divider line 623
    More: News  
•       •       •

14069 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jun 2004 at 6:31 PM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



623 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-06-15 11:21:22 PM  
Ike
/fumbles with 1967 World Atlas and searches for an English-Canadian travel dictionary

I know you meant that as a joke but that comment actually says a lot about the US. I think there's a few Americans who would need an atlas to find Canada.

Quadriplegic

Here's the link to the website for that documentry, it doesn't have the actual program on it but it does have a lot of information.


Pops open..

Informationclearinghouse.info has the link to the actual video, warning it is in realplayer. Also ich has a pretty good newsletter. Spam free and full of informative links from newspapers and news agencies from around the world. I'll be the first to admit that some of the homegrown articles can be out there but those are just entertaining.


/On that note I'm outta here.

Peace
 
2004-06-15 11:22:14 PM  

"When fighting a war against people who don't follow the "rules" of modern combat you must be willing to be completely ruthless. It's the only way to win this kind of war.


what's this "not playing by the rules" bit? They're guerillas. This is the way guerillas have always fought, just now they have video cameras.

Like the venerable war nerd said: "I heard a Marine officer complaining that the insurgents in Fallujah use the locals for human shields. Don't they teach you anything about guerrilla war in the service? The whole idea of guerrilla warfare is to hide in the civilian population. You snipe from the mosque or the kindergarten till finally the occupiers get mad enough to start firing blind at the mosque, the kindergarten, whatever. The people blame the occupiers, not the guerrilla. You're doing the guerrillas' recruiting for them.

It's a little weird, if you ask me, how nobody in charge seems to know all that. After all, we just went through a whole century of guerrilla warfare. Take a world map, point at random and you'll find a country that probably had a guerrilla war in the past 100 years.

But we're acting like it's a shock, like the Iraqis are breaking the rules. That's like calling a personal foul in a bar brawl. "

Same ol same ol.

And, if you look at historical precedence, guerilla wars are never won with "ruthlessness". Soviets were plenty ruthless in Afghanistan, The French were ruthless as hell with the algerians, we were ruthless in vietnam. . .etc etc.

Guerilla wars are won through politics. They're influenced by military victories, which the coalition has under its belt, but they're never "won" through them; there's no "capital to take, no ground to take, no government to overthrow."

Guerilla wars are won through one side or the other making a deal the other can live with, and encouraging the rebels to put down their arms.

There are signs this is happening. Al Sadr has been subdued now that Al Sistani and Lebanese Hizbullah have renounced him, and his militias are being called to disarm (and appear to be doing so). This is also helped by the fact that the US troops have been good at killing the insurgents when they show up, but this is not the be all end all. As important as it is to kill em', you gotta get em to stop wanting to get killed.

And ruthlessness aint the way to get that result.
 
2004-06-15 11:22:23 PM  
Quadriplegic
I concur that the methods are brutal. I don't think a war should get to the point where it is now.

The problem with Iraq as I see it is that we will need to commit a massive amount of resources to fight it from a moral high ground while still ensuring that when a new Iraqi gov't is instituted and we leave the entire nation doesn't erupt into civil war.

Oh yea. Do this all while the citizens grow even more hateful to the troops occupying their country which further fuels the hostility towards our nation as a whole.

If we had pulled out any earlier Iraq would collapse. If we stay we further these kinds of actions towards Americans.
 
2004-06-15 11:28:40 PM  
Father_Jack

Rules being those set down after WWI to prevent the kind of warfare that occured from happening again. Rules like the treatment of prisoners. Etc. I realise that Iraq wasn't at Geneva but what does one do to combat someone who is willing to do whatever it takes to resist?

When a radical group resists and executes innocent civilians how do we respond? There will be resistance to our presence as long as we decide to occupy the area.
 
2004-06-15 11:29:35 PM  
Khaotix
The moment the U.S. drops support to Israeli, war and potential genocide will result. It'll never happen. I do agree that we never should have invaded Iraq though. How to get out? We don't. Not for a long while. And probably not before cival war. Administration change is the first step though. Oh, that and abolish religion. Hopefully the interm Iraqi government will be able to establish a degree of order. But I'm not gonna hold my breath.
 
2004-06-15 11:29:35 PM  
Khaotix,

"Sure, fear to get respect is a pretty pathetic way to earn it but when people react the way they do to Americans what should we do?"

War is a biatch. We declare it when all other options fail. It is not pretty and in my opinion, it is not open to public scrutiny. When you win, it is then time to earn respect. Respect on how you act when the governments and businesses have to be re-built. In America, we have a great system that allows us to speak our minds. I support that wholeheartedly. Personally, I'd like to think it is universal. It is not.

Democracy is the only way governments can succeed. It places the personal goals of the people above the private goals of the "chosen." The great thing about it is that if you don't like it, you can change it.
 
2004-06-15 11:29:39 PM  
Quadriplegic

I forgot here's that book I was talking about. It's dryer than a popcorn fart and took me forever to read it but it is very interesting and a good read. The author mentions that attacking Iraq is exactly what Osama wants the US to do. He figures it's easier if the enemy comes to him and thinks the Arabs are patient enough to wait it out. BTW the book was written back in 2002.

/adios

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/1574885529/qid=1087356186/sr=1-7/ref=sr_ 1_3_7/701-4340595-8614732

Here "a senior U.S. civil servant with two decades of experience in the U.S. intelligence community's work on Afghanistan and South Asia" argues that the U.S. was unprepared for September 11 because "our own naivet and insularity led us to underestimate the complexity and determination of our adversaries." Examining bin Laden's words and his leadership qualities, the author says that Al Qaeda remains largely intact and that its next attack will be more lethal than September 11.
 
2004-06-15 11:29:46 PM  
KHAOTIX
"If we had pulled out any earlier Iraq would collapse. If we stay we further these kinds of actions towards Americans."

kidnappings and horrific executions are much better than armed rebellion.

if this is the worst the guys can muster and the odd road side bomb, i'd say things are improving.

two months ago was much scarier than whats been going on the last few weeks.

to be honest, i'm cautiously optimisitc about things again.
 
m00
2004-06-15 11:33:51 PM  
2004-06-15 11:28:40 PM Khaotix

And the British were quite pissed when the revolutionaries refused to operate by the European rules of engagement. It was touched on in the movie The Patriot.

But we cared more about taking our country back than fighting by the "rules of war."

I suspect the Iraqis feel the same way.
 
2004-06-15 11:34:59 PM  
KHAOTIX

the point youre missing is the geneva convention that was signed by nation states.

we're not dealing with nation states who sign treaties.
 
2004-06-15 11:35:49 PM  
Khaotix:

Quadriplegic,
I concur that the methods are brutal. I don't think a war should get to the point where it is now.

War is brutal. Get a grip. Anything goes when you are at war. Geneva Convention aside, what would you do if someone punched you in the face at a concert?
 
2004-06-15 11:37:33 PM  
"War is a biatch. We declare it when all other options fail."

"In America, we have a great system that allows us to speak our minds."

"It places the personal goals of the people above the private goals of the "chosen."

i don't know what america you're living in, pal...
 
2004-06-15 11:37:47 PM  
Ike

I think we're on the same side here, I'm not sure why it's not translating. Let's go through your last post.

We're talking about either our conflict with remnants of or pretenders to the Iraqi government we took out (option one, off-topic) or the kidnappers (who appear to be just a couple of fundamentalist crazies, apropos to no organization).

The second. The entire point of my message was against the few crazies who would commit atrocities on civilian populations in order to stop terrorism (fighting terrorism with terrorism).

They're not terrorists, we're not bombing terrorists. Terrorists and Iraqis are not one and the same. We can't bomb Terroristland (though it's a thrinning proposition).

Yes. I completely agree. I never said to bomb Terroristland, I was arguing against those who wanted to turn the whole MidEast into a glass parking lot.

Are we on a moral higher ground than terrorists? ABSOFARKINGLUTELY. When we, as a nation, respond in kind to an attack on our soldiers overseas (anywhere), are we justified? You bet your ass we are.

Right, I was never arguing against military action against other militaries, just the military action against civilian populations that some are calling for.

But there's no connection between the kidnapping, Iraq, and terrorism (in a general sense). You're not making sense!

I'm not making sense because (I think) you missed that I was replying to people who were calling for (essentially, state-authorized) terrorism against the Middle East. To sum it aaaaaaall up:

We cannot torture/murder/indiscriminately bomb the living fark out of civilian populations in retaliation for kidnappings/9 11/whatever without turning into terrorists ourselves.

Lockemallup

You cannot kill ideology. It exists and will exist for the remainder of time. If it is evil, you can control it with bombs, bullets and truth.

You sir, are an idiot. Ideologies can be defeated by reason and "better" ideologies. For a simple example, look at religions and converting. For a more complex one, look at, say, mind/body dualists or Ether-based physics. These are ideas that have been proven wrong. There are even more ideas that have been abandoned because another was better.

Your "evil" ideology, I'm afraid, will only grow on the hate you feed to it. The more fodder you provide, the stronger it gets. The only way to destroy fundamentalism is through education and reason.

I'll let it go at that cause I know you are bummed because Phish broke up.

Ooh, I'm quaking, he's calling me a hippie! Help!

Violence is the last refuge of the wise, and the first of the foolish.
 
2004-06-15 11:38:53 PM  
SPELUNKING

"i don't know what america you're living in, pal..."

an idealistic one that exists only in the minds of under 25 year old white american males?
 
m00
2004-06-15 11:39:27 PM  
2004-06-15 11:29:35 PM Lockemallup

Democracy is the only way governments can succeed.

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are far more failed democracies than successful ones. Look at South America / Carribean and most of Africa.

But, in all fairness, you *do* realize the US is not a democracy right? We are a constitutional republic.

It places the personal goals of the people above the private goals of the "chosen." The great thing about it is that if you don't like it, you can change it.

Ahh... the chosen. You mean like political families? Because we don't have any of those around here...
 
2004-06-15 11:44:45 PM  
trad16

harryjrf

So was it the Navy's idea or Bush's idea to turn the ship around so you couldn't see how close the ship was to shore?

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it.

"We took care of the production of it," McClellan said. "We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up." "

Mind leading me through this? I fail to see your point. My point was that "Mission Accomplished" banner had nothing to do with his speech or in any way say that everything was done in Iraq. Major hostilites and conflicts yes, but not the whole thing.

That's the incorrect impression people get from that picture. Even my own parents didn't understand it until I did the research.

So what, exactly, is your point? Or do you have one?
 
2004-06-15 11:45:11 PM  
hm, the angry-white-male in training...

mr. lockemallup, no government can ever give you freedom, and no system works. i'm just trying to save you a lifetime of identifying with the sick bastards in power than your fellow-man is all. don't get mad.

peace.
 
2004-06-15 11:45:45 PM  
m00 and others

To clarify - I never said I expected Iraq to "play fair" or any such shiat. It's obviously a guerilla warfare situation and you do whatever it takes to win. If I were an Iraqi fighting against Americans I would have the exact same mentality.

I'm not sure if it was me not being lucid enough in my writing or you just not reading it as it was written.

Iraq had nothing to do with any "rules of warfare" like the rest of Europe did. Even if they had they would have tossed the accords out once we were at war with them. Guerilla warfare is the only way for a country with the military resources of ... Iraq or say ... the US during the Revolution ... to repulse a larger invading force.

Lockemallup
So then I take it you'd support my suggestion of fighting this war as a total war? Try reading what I write. That particular comment was to say that it isn't the prefered way to fight a war.
 
m00
2004-06-15 11:48:17 PM  
2004-06-15 11:45:45 PM Khaotix

That's exactly my point... you can't expect them NOT to engage in guerilla warfare.

So why is this obvious to all of us, but not to the people in charge of the war?
 
2004-06-15 11:52:12 PM  
Anyone wonder how we dealt with insurection in Germany after WWII? Do a little research...We should deal with Iraqi insurgency in the same manner.
 
2004-06-15 11:53:41 PM  
Thanks trad16, there's some interesting information there, to say the least. It's a good time for the conspiracy theorist, though I must say my favourite is the People for the New American Century. You'll see POAC posting his website link every now and then. (www.POAC.com? .org?)

The gist is that the PNAC, a thinktank of (now) administration high-ups (Karl Rove, Cheney, etc. etc.) was angling on cutting down civil liberties and increasing America's military presence, but needed (from one of their own quotes) "a new Pearl Harbor". Very creepy stuff.
 
2004-06-15 11:53:45 PM  
m00
Nobody bothers looking at history?

Meh. I'm spent.
night all.
 
2004-06-15 11:54:56 PM  
fark, not another one...
 
2004-06-15 11:59:46 PM  
This sucks.


But remember, even terrorists need to blow off some steam once in a while, just like Rush Limbaugh said.
 
2004-06-16 12:00:41 AM  
yes quadriplegic, evil has a website!

www.newamericancentury.org
 
2004-06-16 12:01:32 AM  
quadriplegic

very creepy indeed.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."
 
2004-06-16 12:03:47 AM  
spelunkabadonkadonk

and this whole time i thought evil's URL was something like www.baklagoattubsegirl.com
 
2004-06-16 12:06:35 AM  
I completely support the war on Iraq. Having said that, I am counting the days to the June 30th handover. HUGE sigh of relief that will be.

/loves America
 
2004-06-16 12:06:36 AM  
heap-
you'll have to wake up pretty early in the afternoon to get me with that one
 
2004-06-16 12:11:42 AM  
re: PNAC

Damn. It's amazing how this kinda stuff just fails to get mentioned over the long run. Frankly, with the laundry list of strange "coincidences" that brought Bush to power and allowed 9/11, coupled with disasters like Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib, not to mention the countless lies told by the administration, I'm surprised you haven't locked them all away for good.

Actually, any time I really want my mind blown, I remember that some Americans still support Bush and co.

How the fark can that possibly be?
 
2004-06-16 12:19:58 AM  
spelunking_defenestrator
the overwhelming evil made me do it.

Quadriplegic
a lot of the time, support for this administration falls along the 'political party as a sports team' mentality. it makes little sense, but hell...i've rooted for the white sox for 20 years, what do i know...

that's not saying there aren't those that feel that this administration can do no wrong, and actually trust them. i dunno what mental ailment causes people to trust politicians, but it was just as present 4 years ago.
 
2004-06-16 12:21:14 AM  
2004-06-15 10:52:39 PM TheWizard


I'll just post this for some of you more insensitive folks.

Lockheed Martin homepage

This is a memo we got a while back and it has been posted on the Lockheed Martin website. Sorry to burst the bubble for you Military-Industrial complex folks but it isn't as evil as you think.



haha, so they post a feel-good email for the staff, and you think that shows they all have good hearts and love you?

I work for a big firm and get the silly happy emails too. But I'm not dumb enough to think they are anything other than PR.

I guess it really works on some people though, huh.
 
2004-06-16 12:25:39 AM  
Quadriplegic
Good question. But day by day people are starting to wake up and see the mounting damage caused by this administration.
Overall though, The apathy of our country regarding these issues leaves me slacked-jawed.
/shakes head in dismay
 
2004-06-16 12:28:21 AM  
[image from img8.imageshack.us too old to be available]

When there is no one to blame but Lockheed-Martin.
 
2004-06-16 12:30:22 AM  
people dislike admitting folly, to others and to themselves, so their egos construct all manner of barriers against that which challenges their cherished assumptions.

here is where i bug out and recite buddha's four noble truths from memory
 
2004-06-16 12:31:46 AM  
[image from roboticgladiator.com too old to be available]

Sun Tzu's logic might have very well worked in Iraq but alas we charged head-first. Now it's Machiavelli that we should be turning to if we insist on continuing this conflict.

Dumbya would do well to read Machiavelli's "The Prince", or get Cheney to read it to him at his bedtime because he is violating one of the key principles in the book about ruling a kingdom. In the chapter that debates the question whether it is better to be loved or feared, Machiavelli concludes that it doesn't matter so long as you're not despised, lest the subjects rise up against you in anger. Machiavelli also cautions against looting the kingdom (of oil in this case) lest a revolt ensue.
 
2004-06-16 12:34:26 AM  
This guy's family lives near me, and I have a cousin named Paul who works at Lockheed. This guy's family is understandably freaked. If this were my cousin, I don't know what I would do. I don't know why Lockheed sends people over there really, but then I don't know much about Lockheed either. I just know guys named Paul who get caught up in shiat like this shouldn't. I hope they pull everyone else back before someone else gets grabbed. If they pull back all the support people from independent agencies, stuff won't get maintained I guess. If stuff is not maintained then the US troops might have to pull back as well. If that happens the people that live in these areas are going to be in deep shiat, which IMO is not such a bad thing. If they see how bad things get, mabye they will do more to bust people who do things like this. But I don't know. Mabye they are helping all they can and shiat like this is just so out of control there's nothing to be done about it. I know a bunch of Iraqi's in one of these smaller towns infested with assholes started pitching the idiots in their population out because the idiots were interfering with tourism. It was some sort of Muslim shrine situation that brought a lot of people to their area. The assholes were making it impossible for people to get to this town safely, so the people living there were missing out on the benefits of tourism. So the people all got together and opened up on the assholes and now the situation is under control. They murdered people for tourism, so no doubt someone can come up to a solution for this if properly motivated. But mabye they are already and its just a mess.

I hope Paul from Lockheed is OK.
 
2004-06-16 12:39:39 AM  
harryjrf
That's the incorrect impression people get from that picture. Even my own parents didn't understand it until I did the research.

So what, exactly, is your point? Or do you have one?


I bet Mr. and Mrs. harryjrf are so proud of they're little boy doing all his own research and on CNN no less. I can't believe I'm debating that stupid sign. But here it goes...

So does the Navy put Mission Accomplished signs on are their boats?
Here's some more rearch for you. Sorry but it's not really worth the HTML.

"Military officials agreed that the banner was their idea but said White House aides signed off on it, made it and positioned it prominently behind the spot where Bush made his remarks."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-10-28-bush-baner_x.htm


"Despite initial claims that the ship was too far out to sea for a helicopter landing, forcing the president to use a jet, the Lincoln was actually within helicopter range when Mr. Bush arrived on May 1. "

"On April 30, spokesman Ari Fleischer said: "The ship will be hundreds of miles from shore when the president arrives. It will be steaming the entire time."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/politics/main552894.shtml


"Officials also acknowledged positioning the massive ship to provide the best TV angle for Bush's speech, with the vast sea as his background instead of the very visible San Diego coastline. "
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05032003/nation_w/53561.asp



Maybe you should research publicity and propaganda next.
 
2004-06-16 12:43:54 AM  
I work for Lockheed Martin. The same plant Paul works for. The same building. In fact, the program he works for is about 200 feet from my cubicle. I can tell you Lockheed is taking this very seriously. As you can imagine, the air is rather somber around the plant yesterday and today, and that was before this video surfaced.

I am so sorry to hear about this latest development, and my heart aches for the Johnson family.

I do not know Paul personally, but know literally dozens of people who worked with him on a regular basis. I am a software engineer, as well as a field support engineer, and although I have traveled for Lockheed internationally, I haven't gone to the Middle East as of yet. Somewhat unsurprisingly, it's becoming more and more difficult to find engineers willing to travel to those areas to support our products.

I was headed to bed, and figured I'd hop on Fark one more quick time... Goodnight, all. Good luck, Paul.
 
2004-06-16 12:44:22 AM  
***Quadriplegic***

"Damn. It's amazing how this kinda stuff just fails to get mentioned over the long run."

Really, then I must be imagining Ted Rall, Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, moveon.org, democratic underground, cnn, msnbc, etc etc.

" the laundry list of strange "coincidences" that brought Bush to power"

Like how our founding fathers "just happened" to be at the same place at the same time and put their names on a piece of paper called the US Constitution? Try reading it.

"and allowed 9/11"

I think the tinfoil is cutting the circulation to your brain.


"coupled with disasters like Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib"

Disaster-A calamity caused by accident, fire, explosion, or technical failure, or by the forces of nature that has resulted in serious harm to the health, safety or welfare of people, or in widespread damage to property.

I don't remember any tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc at either place.

"countless lies told by the administration"

Remove the tinfoil, define the word "lie" and prove a lie was told.

"Actually, any time I really want my mind blown, I remember that some Americans still support Bush and co.

How the fark can that possibly be?"

Increasing intelligence = Increasing chance you support Bush.



"
 
2004-06-16 12:46:29 AM  
Quadriplegic

The gist is that the PNAC, a thinktank of (now) administration high-ups (Karl Rove, Cheney, etc. etc.) was angling on cutting down civil liberties and increasing America's military presence, but needed (from one of their own quotes) "a new Pearl Harbor". Very creepy stuff.

Hi I'm back for more fun.
That's creepy. Who knows though. The cool thing about that CBC doc is that it starts off with the wackos then slowy starts going on about the Bush's and Saudi Arabia and it's the wackiest story of the whole show and it's the only story that's true.
 
2004-06-16 12:49:27 AM  
I say give them back their prisoners, but not before secretly putting mini self-destructing GPS trackers in their abdomens. Then, a few weeks from now when the terrorists have been traced back to their caves, track them down and pop 'em.
 
2004-06-16 12:51:31 AM  
*****defwack*****

"I say give them back their prisoners, but not before secretly putting mini self-destructing GPS trackers in their abdomens. Then, a few weeks from now when the terrorists have been traced back to their caves, track them down and pop 'em."

As crazy as that sounds, it might work
 
2004-06-16 12:53:31 AM  
Khaotix

If only the U.S. would respond like the KGB did back in the day. Take a group these prisoners and line them up in the middle of town. Bind them all. Pick your favorite, painful way to kill them. If our hostage isn't returned ... kill another handful. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

When fighting a war against people who don't follow the "rules" of modern combat you must be willing to be completely ruthless. It's the only way to win this kind of war.


Yeah, that technique sure helped the Ruskies kick Afghan and Chechnyan ass. They didn't have any problems once they got low-down ruthless. Oh wait, now that I think about it. They didn't have any problems once they pulled their army out of Afghanistan and Chechyna. Right. Nevermind. Maybe invading countries for stupid reasons is just a bad idea?
 
2004-06-16 12:55:15 AM  
As crazy as that sounds, it might work

I don't support Bush, so you must be smarter than me. So can you tell me how exactly this mythical device would work?
 
2004-06-16 12:57:54 AM  
killerwizard

I completely support the war on Iraq. Having said that, I am counting the days to the June 30th handover. HUGE sigh of relief that will be.


Oh right. Because once the U.S. hands "sovereignty" over to the INC puppet government, Iraqis won't wonder why all the American troops are still in their country. Yep, that
"handover"'ll fix everything.
 
m00
2004-06-16 01:00:13 AM  
2004-06-16 12:06:35 AM killerwizard

So why exactly do you support the war?
 
2004-06-16 01:00:50 AM  
"I don't support Bush, so you must be smarter than me. So can you tell me how exactly this mythical device would work?"

They make GPS tracking devices the size of a watch battery. This would be easy to implant and hard to detect without the proper equipment.

/watch too many movies
 
2004-06-16 01:01:33 AM  
wytchocolate,

lim-dul and faethe's posts should be your responses to the question: "why should i not support bush?"

paul johnson may meet nick berg's fate, and i for one would not envy the task of explaining the purpose of this war to their families. the fact that no one from the bush administration has deigned to offer anything other than "we had to get saddam out of there" and numerous smokescreens, half-truths and deceptions, will most likely not satisfy many members of their families, nor should it any thinking, peace-loving person. WMD, chalabi, "mission accomplished"? "open arms", axis of evil, torture cover-ups?

we, americans, are rightfully wary of war. we ask that justifiable cause be shown. we have not gotten justifiable cause- we have gotten a cascade of lies.

i do not support bush because he is a war criminal, running a criminal regime.
 
2004-06-16 01:01:35 AM  
Wytchocolate
Not that Quadriplegic needs any help but I'll bite while I wait for that tard harryjrf to do his "research".

Remove the tinfoil, define the word "lie" and prove a lie was told.

How many lies do you want? If you want more lies or if you want me to post some links about 9-11 feel free to email me.

-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld acknowledged Wednesday that remarks he made in 2002 claiming to know where Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were stored may have been misleading.

Isn't misleading the same as lying?

Opens in new window

Bush, Aides Ignored CIA Caveats on Iraq :

Clear-Cut Assertions Were Made Before Arms Assessment Was Completed:

On Aug. 26, 2002, Cheney said: "Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon." The estimate, several weeks later, would say it would take as many as five years, unless Baghdad immediately obtained weapons-grade materials.


In December 2002, you said, "We do not know whether or not [Hussein] has a nuclear weapon"--a remark suggesting that Hussein might have one. But the National Intelligence Estimate said that he did not have a nuclear weapon and that it would take Iraq five to seven years to produce a nuclear weapon--and then only if its nuclear weapons program was "left unchecked." This past week, Tenet said, "We said Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapon." Was it not misleading to tell the public that "we don't know" whether Iraq had a nuclear weapon, when, in fact, we did know?
Eight Questions for Bush

Burkett says that the state Guard commander, Maj. Gen. Daniel James III, discussed "cleansing" Bush's military files of embarrassing or incriminating documents in the summer of 1997. At the time, Burkett was a lieutenant colonel and a chief adviser to James. He says he was just outside James' open office door when his boss discussed the records on a speakerphone with Joe Allbaugh, who was then Gov. Bush's chief of staff.
USA-Today

Most Americans believe President Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2400657


Intelligence agencies told the Federal Government in the weeks before the Iraq war that some of the Bush Administration's claims justifying an invasion were
exaggerated, according to one of Australia's most senior intelligence officials.
Opens in new window


A comprehensive record of the statements made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney,
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
Opens in new window
 
Displayed 50 of 623 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report