226187 Bullies, 3942 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 71 to 78 of 78
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. patfromlogan is offline
    patfromlogan's Avatar

    Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hilo Island of Hawaii
    Posts
    8,850

    Posted On:
    10/22/2005 6:47pm

    supporting member
     Style: Kyokushinkai / Kajukenbo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Kungfoolss
    Repeating a lie a million times isn't going to lend itself to the truth.
    So let me get this straight.

    1) You alone on planet Earth know that Matthew Rycroft is a liar?
    2) You were too "busy" to bother reading the post?

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


    Matthew Rycroft is a British foreign policy aide whose name became familiar as the author of a secret memo to British Ambassador to the United States David Manning, summarizing a July 23, 2002 meeting with Blair and other government officials "to discuss Iraq"[1]. The memo was leaked to The Sunday Times, who printed it on May 1, 2005.

    The memo includes discussion of a "shift of attitude" in the Bush administration which made it appear that at this point, while the public was still being told that Iraq could avoid an invasion by agreeing to abide by UN resolutions,

    "Military action was now seen as inevitable."

    Furthermore, the memo went on to state,

    "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Rycroft
    http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html
    http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/


    Meanwhile, to keep drag Kungfoolss back into reality land.... or maybe you and moron asswipe Leodom are the only ones who know the truth?

    I personally think that Dennis is showing some balls:

    Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich Press Release

    Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) today introduced a Resolution of Inquiry to demand the White House turn over all white papers, minutes, notes, emails or other communications kept by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG).

    "This group, comprised of the President and Vice President's top aides, was critical in selling the Administration's case for war," stated Kucinich. "We now know that the Administration hyped intelligence and misled the American public and Congress in their effort to 'sell' the war. After over 1,900 American troops have been killed in Iraq, it is long past time for this Congress to ask serious questions about WHIG and its role in the lead up to the war."
    "Preparing mentally, the most important thing is, if you aren't doing it for the love of it, then don't do it." - Benny Urquidez
  2. patfromlogan is offline
    patfromlogan's Avatar

    Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hilo Island of Hawaii
    Posts
    8,850

    Posted On:
    10/22/2005 6:52pm

    supporting member
     Style: Kyokushinkai / Kajukenbo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    And to help Kungfoolss and asswipe Leodom (mother fucker dick sucker etc etc - by the way asswipe, don't question me ever about anything, you have lost the right... betrayer, calling vets baby killers? **** you deeply) back to reality land here is Scott Ritter - but don't worry, he's just another liar I'm sure, repeating lies even though, as Kungfoolss sez, "Repeating a lie a million times isn't going to lend itself to the truth."


    ----------------
    We speak with Scott Ritter, the chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 about his new book: "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein." It details how the CIA manipulated and sabotaged the work of UN departments to achieve the foreign policy agenda of the United States in the Middle East.

    In a major article in The New York Times this weekend, reporter Judith Miller admitted she was wrong when she wrote several of the key articles that claimed Iraq had an extensive weapons of mass destruction program ahead of the 2003 invasion. Miller wrote, "W.M.D. -- I got it totally wrong. The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them -- we were all wrong." Today we are joined by someone who was not wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - Scott Ritter. He was the United Nations" top weapons inspector in Iraq at UNSCOM between 1991 and 1998. Before working at the UN he served as an officer in the US marines and as a ballistic missile adviser to General Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf war.

    Scott Ritter has just published a new book titled "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein." The book details how the CIA manipulated and sabotaged the work of UN departments to achieve the foreign policy agenda of the United States in the Middle East.

    * Scott Ritter, was the United Nations' top weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998. Before working for the UN he served as an officer in the US marines and as a ballistic missile adviser to General Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf war. He is author of a new book, just out, titled "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein."


    AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!.

    SCOTT RITTER: Thank you.

    AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Well, what do you think is the greatest misunderstanding of the American people right now about what has happened in Iraq?

    SCOTT RITTER: Well, first of all, the reason that we're there. They think that this was an accident, that this was a noble cause, that people like the president, like Bill Clinton before him, like their respective administrations, journalists like Judith Miller just honestly got it wrong. And I don't think – you know, here we are today in Iraq and it's a disaster. I don't think anybody's going to debate that statement. Some people say though, ‘We're working towards a continuation of this noble objective. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. That's a good thing. And now we're going to try to build on that good.’ I'm not going to debate whether or not getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a good thing or not. But, you know, if you embrace the notion that the ends justify the means, that's about as un-American a notion as you can possibly get into. We're talking about solving a problem. We have yet to define the problem. The problem isn't just what's happening in Iraq but it's the whole process that took place in the United States leading up to the war, this dishonest process of deliberately deceiving the American public. And it's not just George W. Bush. For eight years of the Clinton administration, that administration said the same things. The C.I.A. knew, since 1992, that significant aspects of the Iraqi weapons programs had been completely eliminated, but this was never about disarmament

    AMY GOODMAN: How did they know this?

    SCOTT RITTER: They knew it, (a) because of their own access to intelligence information and (b) because of the work of the weapons inspectors. In October of 1992, I personally confronted the C.I.A. on the reality that we had accounted for all of Iraq's ballistic missile programs. That same year they had an Iraqi defector who had laid out the totality of the Iraqi biological weapons program and had acknowledged that all of the weapons had been destroyed. The C.I.A. knew this. But, see, the policy wasn't disarmament. The policy was regime change. Disarmament was only useful in so far as it facilitated regime change. That's what people need to understand, that this was not about getting rid of weapons that threatened international peace and security. This has been about, since 1991, solving a domestic political embarrassment. That is the continued survival of Saddam Hussein, a man who in March 1990 was labeled as a true friend of the American people and then in October 1990 in a dramatic flip-flop was called the Middle East equivalent of Adolph Hitler.

    JUAN GONZALES: You were involved for quite a long time with UNSCOM. At what point did you, as you were working for the United Nations, reach the conclusion that regime change really was the intent of the program that – well, the United States intent behind the program that you were involved with?

    SCOTT RITTER: It wasn't a matter of reaching a conclusion. When I joined in September of 1991, that was already the stated policy of the United States government. I outlined this in the book. The fact that in April, 1991, the United States helps draft and then votes in favor of a Chapter 7 resolution 687 that creates the weapons inspections, call upon Iraq to disarm and in Paragraph 14 says if Iraq complies, economic sanctions will be lifted. This is the law. A few months later, the president, George Herbert Walker Bush and the Secretary of State say economic sanctions will never be lifted against Iraq, even if they comply with their obligation to disarm, until which time Saddam Hussein is removed from power. It's the stated policy of the United States government. What we weren't quite aware of is just to what extreme they would go in undermining the credibility and integrity of the United Nations inspection process to achieve this objective.

    AMY GOODMAN: Something that has been repeated over and over again is that Saddam Hussein kicked out the U.N. weapons inspectors. Can you tell us what happened?

    SCOTT RITTER: Well, there are several periods of time, but the most dramatic is the December 1998 period right before Bill Clinton got on national TV, talked about the threat of W.M.D. and said he is launching an air campaign, 72 hours of bombardment called Operation Desert Fox. No, Saddam did not kick the inspectors out. Actually, what was happening at that point in time is that the Iraqi government was complying with every single requirement set forth by the Security Counsel and the inspectors. They were cooperating with the inspectors, giving the inspectors access in accordance to something called the ‘modalities of sensitive site inspections.’

    Public perception is that the Iraqis were confrontational and blocking the work of the inspectors. In 98% of the inspections, the Iraqis did everything we asked them to because it dealt with disarmament. However when we got into issues of sensitivity, such as coming close to presidential security installations, Iraqis raised a flag and said, “Time out. We got a C.I.A. out there that's trying to kill our president and we're not very happy about giving you access to the most sensitive installations and the most sensitive personalities in Iraq.” So we had these modalities, where we agreed that if we came to a site and the Iraqis called it ‘sensitive,’ we go in with four people.

    In 1998, the inspection team went to a site. It was the Baath Party headquarters, like going to Republican Party headquarters or Democratic Party headquarters. The Iraqis said, “You can't come in – you can come in. Come on in.” The inspectors said, “The modalities no longer apply.” The Iraqis said, “If you don't agree to the modalities, we can't support letting you in,” and the Iraqis wouldn't allow the inspections to take place.

    Bill Clinton said, “This proves the Iraqis are not cooperating,” and he ordered the inspectors out. But you know the United States government ordered the inspectors to withdraw from the modalities without conferring with the Security Council. It took Iraqis by surprise. Iraqis were saying, “We're playing by the rules, why aren’t you? If you're not going play by the rules, then it’s a game that we don't want to participate in.” Bill Clinton ordered the inspectors out. Saddam didn't kick them out.

    JUAN GONZALEZ: Your point that this kind of deception occurred under both Democrats and Republicans would at least suggest that what's happened in Iraq is not just a question of a bunch – of a cabal of zealots in the White House right now that are conducting this – that are hijacking policy but that there are deeper interests involved in the United States and the kind of policy that we've had in Iraq. You get into some of that in the book. Could you talk about that a little bit?

    SCOTT RITTER: Well, I don't want to sound – I'm not somebody who’s into conspiracy theories, and I'm not somebody who’s out there saying this is about global oil. The tragedy of Iraq is that it’s about domestic American politics. This is a president, George Herbert Walker Bush, who in 1990, traps himself rhetorically by linking Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler. Once you do that, once you speak of a Nuremburg-like retribution, you can't negotiate your way out of that problem. Now it's either deliver Saddam Hussein's head on a platter or you failed. He tried to during the Gulf War. I was part of a team that was targeting Saddam. We didn't succeed.

    Now the C.I.A. says, “Don't worry, Saddam will be gone in six months. All you have to do is contain him, put these sanctions in place and keep him bottled up and he'll collapse.” Six months later Saddam Hussein is still there. His continued survival became a political embarrassment that had to be dealt with.

    This was inherited by Bill Clinton. The irony is that Bill Clinton – and I'm very critical of Bill Clinton, but you know, in the period between his election in 1992 and his being sworn in, his administration reached out to the Iraqis in saying, “Look, this is a ridiculous policy, let's figure out how we can get sanctions lifted and get you back into the family of nations.” But when politicians in Congress, both Democrat and Republican, found out about this, they said, “You can't do this. We have told our constituents this man is Hitler, and we can't negotiate with the devil.”

    We were trapped by this policy. And this cabal we speak of, the neoconservatives, they may not have originated this policy but they exploited eight years of Clinton administration's ineffective policy of dealing with Saddam. Saddam's survival for eight years empowered the neoconservatives to use regime change as a rallying cry for the Republican Party.
    Last edited by patfromlogan; 10/22/2005 7:05pm at .
    "Preparing mentally, the most important thing is, if you aren't doing it for the love of it, then don't do it." - Benny Urquidez
  3. Cakemaster is offline

    Ex-RAF

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Cardiff, UK
    Posts
    476

    Posted On:
    10/22/2005 9:10pm


     Style: Kyokushin

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Kungfoolss
    That anti-American sentiment probably doesn't come as any surprise to the brave servicemen recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical center.
    Funny. I don't recall bashing America. The people in charge at the moment, yes, but not the people who make up the nation, and definitely not the nation itself. I've worked with USAF and Army troopers, and they were all extremely professional and friendly to work with. I have a great deal of respect for the nation and the ideals it was founded on, and every American I've talked to and am friends with have been excellent people. My major beef is this: Bush acted on bad intelligence, which is a massive no-no. Ok, the UN had problems with Saddam as well, but Bush has successfully undermined the UN by going it alone and starting a war in Iraq. My MAJOR problem is that he's willing to take people who have sworn an oath to defend their country to the death, and throw them into a mincer. I won't comment on what other service people think of the situation, but I for one despise it.

    Come to think of it: how is me saying that US soldiers' lives should be treated with more respect "anti-American"?
  4. FlyingGuillotin is offline

    Member #10,000

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    14

    Posted On:
    10/23/2005 4:29am


     Style: Muay Thai

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Kungfoolss
    Don't forget how the lib's went and spit on folks like Doug, that has to be the biggest irony of all considering the tone of Pats letter.
    http://slate.msn.com/id/2097195/

    I'm not arguing that protesters don't do some dumb, insensitive ****. Just try to use examples that actually happened.

    --

    Edit: Upon further reading, it looks like it might have. Accidental self-pwnage.
    Last edited by FlyingGuillotin; 10/23/2005 3:51pm at .
  5. patfromlogan is offline
    patfromlogan's Avatar

    Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hilo Island of Hawaii
    Posts
    8,850

    Posted On:
    10/23/2005 10:07am

    supporting member
     Style: Kyokushinkai / Kajukenbo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Cakemaster, logic has never been Kungfoolss strong point. Inflamatory statements, blanket assumptions and trolling are his strengths.

    On spitting: http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21778&
    "Preparing mentally, the most important thing is, if you aren't doing it for the love of it, then don't do it." - Benny Urquidez
  6. Sun Wukong is offline
    Sun Wukong's Avatar

    ¡Viva los Muertos!

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,789

    Posted On:
    10/24/2005 12:58am


     Style: Boxing/Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Kungfoolss
    Repeating a lie a million times isn't going to lend itself to the truth.
    That's so very profound coming from you.
    A lie gets half-way around the world before the truth has time to get it's pants on. - Winston Churchhill
  7. Zendetta is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Posts
    2,681

    Posted On:
    10/24/2005 12:11pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: MMA, functional JKD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by chris_ketchens
    That's so very profound coming from you.
    I though the same thing. A Nazi will know his own.
    "You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."
  8. TheManchu is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    588

    Posted On:
    10/24/2005 11:17pm


     Style: luk chua bik da

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by patfromlogan
    OH! You mean the sham elections
    That's exactly what I meant.
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.