DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq having found none
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 367, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/30/2005 07:51:54 PM · #51
Originally posted by jmritz:

Now that the left has destroyed the meaning of the word FREEDOM we have nowhere to go do we? You will blame it on Bush Im sure but I believe he understands the meaning of the word and hopes to help in his way but you will presume to know he is wrong and has some diabolical reasons, motives behind what he does. He was called Dubya the dummy just a few years ago and now he is one of the most cunning diabolical villains in history. You know, sorry Im not buying it.
I am a Viet Nam Vet. I went to war after being drafted. I did not want to go period but I went and came back and some of my friends never did come back. Ive had my issues with our government at times. Please do not blame Bush on that war.
bdobe that speech Bush gave scared the heck out of me. It was aimed at the people who are scared of him, that I understand and it would have sounded better to my ears if he would lighten the rhetoric. Hillary will be President one day and all this will be history. I still just hope Iraq can find some sort of freedom (sorry I used the word now that it means nothing).


jmritz,

I'm trying to catch your exact meaning, but am having difficulties deciphering it. For example, "Please do not blame Bush on that war (Vietnam)." Huh!? Where does this come from? Why would anyone blame Bush for a war he didn't even fight in? Please explain what you mean.

Also, as you put it, "that speech Bush gave scared the heck out of me," yet you defend Bush. Again, your points are confused... please explain what you mean, otherwise how do we know what to respond to.

As for "freedom," I didn't ruin the meaning of the word, the meaning of the word is lost when used an empty slogan. Again, remember, Bush's father said that his son did not mean anything concrete -- no policy direction; in other words, it was just a rhetorical flourish -- an empty slogan. It was Bush himself that wastefully used the word.

And don't be, as you put it, "sorry I used the word [freedom] now that it means nothing," you're doing exactly what was expected. Bush used the word freedom 27 times exactly so that his supporters would have an immediate and easy fallback rationale for continuing to support his war, now that we know that he lied about WMDs, about the Iraq/Al Queda connection, and all the rest. So, don't feel sorry, such a reflexive response was expected. I may not like Bush's policies, but I do respect the marketing machine behind him -- they've done and incredible job of selling a lie to many of my fellow Americans.

Oh, yes, it was Andrew Card (Bush's 1st Term Chief of Staff) that said, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," in response to a question on why was it that Bush waited till the 2002 congressional elections to drum up the rhetoric on invading Iraq.

Message edited by author 2005-01-30 20:19:59.
01/30/2005 08:11:56 PM · #52
It amazes me that no matter what happens over their people will have a negative twist. They are voting and no longer under the rule of a brutal murdering dictator. How is that a bad thing?

Its a great day for the Iraqi people and its a great day for anyone who thinks freedom is a natural right, all politics aside.

No matter what political side you take, this should be a celebration not another fight about politics.
01/30/2005 08:22:42 PM · #53
Originally posted by Riggs:

Senator John Kerry and loser of the presidential election also thought there were WMD's.

Oh well, a war based on nothing but crappy intelligence.

Sorta sad really.

BTW, I voted for Bush and support him....but thats messed up.

01/30/2005 08:27:18 PM · #54
Bdobe you are having trouble deciphering me because I am of two minds. I do not condone the war but that does not stop me from hoping for the right outcome now that it has come to where it is. I think that Iraq with a stable government will help in the war against terrorism. It will be better for the people of Iraq and us.
I know you didnt blame Bush for the Viet Nam war it was just a rationalization I can envision the left concocting.
Truthfully I do not think you have destroyed the word Freedom. But the assault has begun and in no time the meaning will change. That is just a hunch on my part. And they will blame it ultimately on Bush.
I am glad that Iraq got the chance to vote today. I hope it means something to all of us
01/30/2005 08:28:41 PM · #55
I wonder if the Iraqi people are celebrating, or even feel like celebrating after more than 100,000 of their people have been killed, countless ruined lives, cities and infrastructure in shambles, environment poisoned, etc. And this is just from this past war. They have been through way too much since the early 80s to really think that an election is going to change their lives for the better.

With no exit strategy by the Americans they know their country will be occupied by a government that they do not want there. They know their country is going to be westernized and corporatized and that's something they don't want.
01/30/2005 08:42:10 PM · #56
Well, no matter what your views are about the war today is a wonderful day for the Iraqis. Try to dispute that. I may waffle a bit because I hated seeing all the death and really it started to bother me.

But there is no question the Iraqi people are better off today then they were 2 years ago.

Did we spend too much...maybe
Did it cost too much in lives...maybe
Was it a silly reason to go to war....yeah it was

But...hey its a great thing....no matter what side your on to see those people vote.
01/30/2005 08:49:58 PM · #57
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I wonder if the Iraqi people are celebrating, or even feel like celebrating after more than 100,000 of their people have been killed, countless ruined lives, cities and infrastructure in shambles, environment poisoned, etc. And this is just from this past war. They have been through way too much since the early 80s to really think that an election is going to change their lives for the better.

With no exit strategy by the Americans they know their country will be occupied by a government that they do not want there. They know their country is going to be westernized and corporatized and that's something they don't want.


If the Iraquis were as defeatist as you, NONE of them would have voted; they would have just pouted and sulked.
01/30/2005 09:22:37 PM · #58
Originally posted by Riggs:

They are voting and no longer under the rule of a brutal murdering dictator. How is that a bad thing?

Its a great day for the Iraqi people and its a great day for anyone who thinks freedom is a natural right, all politics aside.


No, they are not under the rule of a brutal murdering dictator. They are now under the rule of a brutal occupying country that has murdered and tortured the Iraqi people, all in the name of "Freedom". And yes, these are well documented facts. And no, I don't hate our troops. I support our troops and wish they were NOT there, but were at home with their families and loved ones.

Guess it's a good day to celebrate in Iraq huh?

Maybe the US will now withdraw all of it's troops now that the "Mission is Accomplished"? Or maybe this isn't the overall mission of the Bush white House? Maybe it's to get the WMD? Or to stop Iraq from aquiring nuclear arms? Or maybe because Iraq was responsible for sept. 11th? Or how about this, to topple Saddam? Oh, I guess it's now to "promote freedom"?

We've been told so many reasons for this war, I'm willing to bet that no one knows why we are really there anymore. And if you think you do know, your probably wrong. Why do I say this? Because the administration will change the reason we are there again and again. So we might be there because of "nukes" one day, to stop the "terrorist" another day, for "freedom" the next, and maybe tommorow "to promote democracy"


01/30/2005 09:29:17 PM · #59
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:

And I'm NOT shocked that the ABB crowd continue to repeat ad-nauseum that "we've been lied to" when time and time and time again they have been unwilling, or, better, unable to document a single lie.


Quote George Bush We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." State of the Union Address 1/28/2003

Lie
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq

Quote George Bush "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites." Bush speech to the nation 10/7/2002

Lie
Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there - IAEA report to UN Security Council 1/27/2003

Quote George Bush "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

Lie
UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003 and were told by the US government to get out before the bombs start dropping

Wait, lets blame it on the intelligence! Well, if a ship sinks, it's it's the captains fault. As "Commander in Chief" the president of the good ol' USA is responsible for what he presents to the nation and the world. Better get his facts straight, unless he want's to be called a liar.

Or maybe blame it on the speech writer? since Georgy doesn't even write his own speeches, maybe there is some "evil element" at work, puting these words on paper, and George doesn't even look at what's writen before reading it to the nation?

That must be it, cause the President wouldn't lie, now would he?


As I have stated before, a LIE is a statement that is know to be false at the time it is made. The first two statements that YOU claim are lies have not been proven to satisfy that criteria ( not to mention the fact that just because something wasn't found months ( or years ) later, does not mean that it did not exist at the time the statement was made. As for your so-called third lie, in an interview on Channel One News, in November, 2001, Tim McCarthy ( an UNSCOM inspector ) said: "so finally after about seven years, we knew where all the remaining weapons were and they realized this...and they weren't going to allow us to really to get these weapons and they wanted to keep them, so they simply refused to let us into facilities, and at one point we were in Iraq and we had word that the americans were going to bomb and we very quickly got out of there, this was in Dec, 98 and the americans bombed and we were never let back in." ( emphasis mine ).
01/30/2005 09:34:21 PM · #60
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by ericlimon:

That must be it, cause the President wouldn't lie, now would he?


No of course not; when the person becomes president he turns into a saint. Didnt you know that Eric? Jeez.

This could explain alot of that thinking though, The Seperate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters


An interesting report, but they failed to mention perhaps the most important reason many Bush supporters cannot face the truth about the lies and distortions of this administration, that reason being the fact that so many of them believe that Bush is an emissary of God, doing God's work, speaking God's word, and other such ridiculous nonsense. If you're delusional enough to believe that, you'll believe anything and will justify any outrage. The Hidden Passages in Bush's Inaugural Address
01/30/2005 09:38:22 PM · #61
they are lies ron, no matter how much you argue for his sake, he's a liar.
he lied
he's a liar.
he continues to lie.
and you seem to blindly believe anything he says.
Oh well.
good luck to you.

01/30/2005 09:40:04 PM · #62

I would like to add to this a letter from a retired Special Forces Master Sergeant: An Open Letter to GIs in Iraq

Also for those who dont trust media for whatever reason, here is a great short 37mb analysis of the "Liberal Media"
01/30/2005 09:41:34 PM · #63
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

so many of them believe that Bush is an emissary of God, doing God's work, speaking God's word, and other such ridiculous nonsense.


Hey Judith,
you know what they say?
"God is the ultimate judge"
They better hope that the christian god isn't looking!

01/30/2005 09:57:25 PM · #64
Wade Horn can say what ever he wants to but Maggie Gallagher is a syndicated columnist and has expressed herself in other venues other than just HHS writings. Her articles have appeared in newspapers like the Washington Post and NY Times and she has appeared on television, as well. She espouses the views of the Bush initiatives and downplays those in opposition. The issue with her and Armstrong Williams is not to deny them, or any other conservative voice, expression in the mainstream, but rather that neither disclosed their contracts with the government. The other issue here is VNRs that the government produces and is aired on TV and radio to appear as legitimate news but in actuality is just public relations. Though I disagree with Gallagher and the president about the marriage initiative (a whole other issue), I am not opposed to conservative viewpoints in the media and I do believe that freedom of speech applies to ALL. It seems to me, however, that there is a big deception going on here by both the government and mainstream news media outlets.

We can let the Government Accounting Office and the Education Dept do their investigations and see what they come up with but one fact that you chose to ignore is the 88 million dollars spent of taxpayer dollars by the Bush administration on public relations contracts in just 2004 alone! (Reported by the House Committee on Government Reform). I would love to hear what the numbers were for 2002 and 2003 and Ill bet they are inflated as well. What appears more obvious, at least to me, is that the US government is acting more and more like a corporation and less and less like a government of, by and for the people. Their aim has been to sell the citizenry of this country a bill of goods. If they attempted doing it with the marriage initiative and No Child Left Behind program, then you can be sure that a good portion of the millions of taxpayer dollars went into selling us the war. There is a good chance that the deception the government has perpetrated is that they presented propaganda in the form of legitimate news stories and that they used taxpayer dollars and the lives and health of our military men and women for their greedy, imperialistic and diabolical purposes. In this sense it would be considered propaganda which is illegal within the US.

What were seeing is that the news media has been corrupted and intimidated into being just a voice for the government and not an organization to question and investigate what the government says and report its findings accurately to the public. This is most damaging to our democracy as without a legitimate press and an informed electorate democracy will not survive and our liberties and freedoms will be eroded.

Make no mistake about it, the Bush administration lied and deceived about the reasons to invade Iraq and the American press just went along with it without a peep. I dont believe there was one mainstream newsmedia outlet that oppossed the invasion.

Originally posted by RonB:

...Maybe that's why I'm NOT suprised that you would take the position you do. Most liberals really DON'T believe in first amendment rights for conservatives.

By the way, my question concerned what other broadcasters were paid "big bucks" so that they would ( in your words ) "get out the propoganda". It would appear that Ms. Gallagher was NOT paid to "get out the propaganda" according to the one who paid her. Rather, she was paid as any contracted author would be. It appears that you have a problem with that. ( But probably wouldn't if she were endorsing liberal viewpoints ).

An amusing read, as always.
01/31/2005 08:42:35 AM · #65
Originally posted by bdobe:

I'm always amazed at how so many of my fellow Americans fall into line so easily, and so readily repeat whatever the slogan of the day is. What's the rule of advertisement, oh, yes: repetition, repetition, repetition...


Yes, I know exactly what you mean - for example:

Originally posted by ericlimon:

they are lies ron, no matter how much you argue for his sake, he's a liar.
he lied
he's a liar.
he continues to lie.
01/31/2005 09:35:47 AM · #66
Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by bdobe:

I'm always amazed at how so many of my fellow Americans fall into line so easily, and so readily repeat whatever the slogan of the day is. What's the rule of advertisement, oh, yes: repetition, repetition, repetition...


Yes, I know exactly what you mean - for example:


for example?

this is what you really meant right ron? repeat this

liar here, with a video to PROVE it Ron
without knowing the FACTS???
Hey Jerry, ya better hope God isn't watching

repeat, repeat, repeat.
just keep on believing the lies, lies, lies

01/31/2005 10:16:10 AM · #67
Here are ALOT more video's to go along with yours Eric: reality videos There is an incredible amount of important info within this page.
01/31/2005 10:17:06 AM · #68
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Wade Horn can say what ever he wants to but Maggie Gallagher is a syndicated columnist and has expressed herself in other venues other than just HHS writings. Her articles have appeared in newspapers like the Washington Post and NY Times and she has appeared on television, as well. She espouses the views of the Bush initiatives and downplays those in opposition. The issue with her and Armstrong Williams is not to deny them, or any other conservative voice, expression in the mainstream, but rather that neither disclosed their contracts with the government.


Not that it means anything to liberals, but Maggie Gallagher was supporting the administration's views long before she accepted payment for writing HHS material. According to HHS, she was first contacted about writing material for them in late 2001. Yet, way, way before that first contact, she was writing articles for TownHall.com concerning marriage. She wrote an article way back on October 5, 2000, The case for marriage they don't want you to hear, which discussed a recently released book that she had co-authored with Linda Waite entitled The Case for Marriage. She didn't suddenly come to be a proponent for Bush's agenda when she got paid.
01/31/2005 10:49:32 AM · #69
what, no witty remarks to any of the videos i posted? did you even watch them? theres the "proof" you wanted so badly. or is it just more "liberal innuedo"?

open your eyes. there is a whole world out there you might be missing!

the truth is out there! don't blindly follow the "shepard"

because ya know what? the shepard always eventually brings his flock of sheep to the meat market!!!
01/31/2005 11:54:40 AM · #70
Originally posted by ericlimon:

what, no witty remarks to any of the videos i posted? did you even watch them? theres the "proof" you wanted so badly. or is it just more "liberal innuedo"?

open your eyes. there is a whole world out there you might be missing!

the truth is out there! don't blindly follow the "shepard"

because ya know what? the shepard always eventually brings his flock of sheep to the meat market!!!


Yes, I watched them. But in order to respond, I either have to transcribe or find transcripts of the videos. I find it interesting that liberals complain about how much money was spent on Bush's inauguration, but they seem to have limitless funds to maintain very high bandwidth web-sites dedicated to bashing Bush. I don't seem to be able to find that level of anti-liberal sites. I will get back to you later, however - but it may take a while. And yes, of course it's just liberal innuendo. It will just take me a while to prepare the rebuttals.

Message edited by author 2005-01-31 11:54:55.
01/31/2005 12:03:31 PM · #71

How can you possible deny this or call it "liberal innuedo"? HE LIED, so therefor he's a LIAR... DUH

let's just change the subject and blame the "liberals" because they complain about 40 MILLION being spent on GW's inaguration during a time of WAR. Hello???? is ANYBODY in there?

Yeah, get back "later" with some rebuttals. Your just fooling yourself.
01/31/2005 12:27:36 PM · #72
The Jessica Lynch story (completely fabricated) and the topple of Hussein's statue in Firdos Square (a staged event by the military made to look like a spontaneous action by Iraqis). Two additional phony news stories brought to you by the Bush administration for the purpose of deceiving the American public? I think so. Did they lie to us about the cost of the Medicare drug plan?

I find it interesting that right wingers complain about Bush bashing but say nothing about Fox News who continue to bash (in their own words and said in very derogatory tones) "leftists." The very limited funds for high bandwidth web sites that criticize the government is a drop in the bucket compared to the money spent by the shock jocks and other conservative media outlets. They just hate it when their lies they and Bush have been perpetrating are being exposed.

40 million dollars spent on the inauguration party...what else were they giving out besides corporate access to the White House?

Message edited by author 2005-01-31 12:29:04.
01/31/2005 12:28:27 PM · #73
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by bdobe:

I'm always amazed at how so many of my fellow Americans fall into line so easily, and so readily repeat whatever the slogan of the day is. What's the rule of advertisement, oh, yes: repetition, repetition, repetition...


Yes, I know exactly what you mean - for example:


for example?

this is what you really meant right ron? repeat this

liar here, with a video to PROVE it Ron
without knowing the FACTS???
Hey Jerry, ya better hope God isn't watching

repeat, repeat, repeat.
just keep on believing the lies, lies, lies


OK. Links One and two ( the "for example" and "repeat this" links - which are one and the same ). Transcription:

Bush: Cut1) Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths...Cut2) nuclear weapons...Cut3) nuclear weapons...Cut4) nuclear weapons

I assume that this portion of the video is implying that Bush Lied about Saddam's efforts re: nuclear weapons. But the cuts do not make it clear what that connection is - in fact, the way the opening part of the video is pieced together ( in 4 separate cuts ), there is no continuity between the "elaborate lengths" cut and any of the others. For all I know, cuts 2, 3, and 4, are from speeches Bush made about Russia, Iran, or North Korea and are being used out-of-context.

The same can be said for the remainder of the video - it's a jumble of various short video clips from separate speeches spliced together that, when taken together, imply that lies were being told. But no single video clip that supports that premise.

It's just like when I quoted your profile bio - I took your own words and piecemealed them together to change the gist of what was in the actual bio. To wit -

Originally posted by RonB:

From Ericlimon's profile:
"I'm a total...dork.
I've...been taken...so I...post...photos."

I did that to demonstrate the same point I'm making here - that anyone can pick and choose small pieces of speeches and make it "say" something completely different. Interestingly enough, your response to my posting that cobbled quote from your bio was

Originally posted by ericlimon:

"You sound like a republican, miss quoting me like that!"

Actually, now that I've seen that video clip, it appears to be more of a liberal tactic.

Ergo - link number one/two must be dismissed. It doesn't show anything in-context as being a lie or lies.

Stay tuned - more to come.

Message edited by author 2005-01-31 12:31:40.
01/31/2005 12:52:18 PM · #74
actually, it was a link showing you the "repeat tactics" used in force by the administration. it was a good attempt to mislead everyone though ron.

that video is NOT, i repeat NOT proving that he lied (this is the video proving thathe lied), it's showing the very tactics you are denying, the repeat tactics. the one where GW basically says "I never said that" is the PROOF you are avoiding that he is a LIAR. DOY!

it looks like your falling vicim to your own accusations of "innuedo". keep repeating those two words to yourself and to everyone else "liberal innuedo, liberal innuedo, liberal innuedo" and you might make the rest of humanity believe it. Just like our good "savior" GW Bush is doing :D

and, bravo! You were able to twist the words perfectly when you re-wrote the lines from my bio to read whatever you wanted it to. I wonder if they teach this in school. maybe it's an off shoot of "conservative politics 101"?

maybe you can do a bit more research ron, maybe thew truth will find you, since you can't seem to find it.

Message edited by author 2005-01-31 12:54:55.
01/31/2005 01:06:33 PM · #75
Originally posted by ericlimon:

actually, it was a link showing you the "repeat tactics" used in force by the administration. it was a good attempt to mislead everyone though ron.

that video is NOT, i repeat NOT proving that he lied (this is the video proving thathe lied), it's showing the very tactics you are denying, the repeat tactics. the one where GW basically says "I never said that" is the PROOF you are avoiding that he is a LIAR. DOY!

it looks like your falling vicim to your own accusations of "innuedo". keep repeating those two words to yourself and to everyone else "liberal innuedo, liberal innuedo, liberal innuedo" and you might make the rest of humanity believe it. Just like our good "savior" GW Bush is doing :D

and, bravo! You were able to twist the words perfectly when you re-wrote the lines from my bio to read whatever you wanted it to. I wonder if they teach this in school. maybe it's an off shoot of "conservative politics 101"?

maybe you can do a bit more research ron, maybe thew truth will find you, since you can't seem to find it.

Ahh. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I thought that you were demonstrating the repetition charge by posting the same exact url under two different hyperlinks.

So, now that we have shown that repitition is used by almost ANYONE, yourself included, to make their point - and that the use of repetition, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad ( but is effective, else it wouldn't be employed ), let's get back to the charge that Bush LIED.

From the earlier link number two, and from the "he lied" link above in this post.

Transcription:

Cut1) Kerry: When the President had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of him; outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped. Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned.". We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

Bush: Gosh, I just don' think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

Cut2) Bush: And, you know, again, I don't know where he is. I, uh, I, uh, I repeat what I said, I truly am not that concerned about...

I took the liberty of emphasing the pertinent part of his statement in Cut1. Now YOU maintain that he lied when he said "I don' think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden". So then, you must believe that Bush is incapable of forgetting what he has said previously - meaning that you believe him to have above-normal memory capababilities. Because you certainly cannot PROVE that he actually DID think ( remember ) that he had said he wasn't worried about OBL but was LYING about what he thought. By the way, have YOU ever said that you didn't think you had said/done something, and later remembered that you did? Hmmm. probably not - that's why you are unwilling to grant that someone else might do the same.

Sorry, but I'm giving this one to George, too. First of all, I don't believe that he LIED; but Secondly, even if he DID lie, it can't be PROVEN, since Kreskin wasn't in the audience to PROVE that Bush really did think that he said he wasn't worried about OBL. Then again, I can believe that he didn't lie because I, too, have thought I didn't do or say something, only to remember later that I did. I think that I represent the majority in that respect.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 09/17/2021 07:20:22 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/17/2021 07:20:22 PM EDT.