liberals....

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I told you repeatedly last night that I would tackle your lies today because I was tired. If that's not good enough for you, tough tacos. It may be the truth as you best remember it, but it isn't the truth according to the facts.

Here are some quotes from Bix when he was reporting to the UN -they indicate that although SH was cooperating with access to sites, he was once again not meeting his burden of proving the destruction of the WMD, which according the bolded text, Blix indicates SH was not doing:

Blix's report hinted at undisclosed weapons but provided no fresh evidence. In carefully modulated, neutral language, Blix said he found circumstantial evidence that Iraq could hold a devastating arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq provided a "workable environment" for inspections and did not directly refuse access to any weapons site, but he also described some "disturbing incidents and harassments" such as anti-inspection demonstrations.

The meat of the report was a list of Iraqi weapons the U.N. team had not been able to find or the destruction of which could not be verified.

Blix disclosed, for example, that there is a "discrepancy of 6,500 bombs" between the number of chemical weapons explosives Iraq admitted to having, and that Saddam has accounted for.

"The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons," he said.

Blix noted that the 122 mm chemical rockets inspectors found "could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets ... points to the issue of several thousand ... chemical rockets that are unaccounted for."

Also, according to Blix, "Iraq has provided little evidence for production of (8,500 liters of anthrax and other biological toxins) and no convincing evidence for its destruction."

He added, "There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date."

On the issue of whether Saddam was attempting to build nuclear weapons, U.N. atomic weapons official Mohamed ElBaradei said investigations were under way despite some interference by Iraqi officials. He said, however, that inspectors needed more time.

"We should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program," he said.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...l/iraq/1753597
_______________________________________________________________

Here is another article with quotations from Blix's report to the UN:


Monday, 27 January, 2003, 17:34 GMT
Inspections report: Key points
Chief UN weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix and Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN's nuclear agency, presented their crucial report on the progress of weapons inspections in Iraq to the UN Security Council on 27 January.
Here are the key points:

Statement by Dr Blix:

Iraq has provided co-operation with regards to the inspection process, but it still needs to co-operate in matters of substance.

Iraq has provided access to all sites inspectors have wanted to inspect and the environment has been "workable".

There was a "sense of urgency" to achieve disarmament within "a reasonable period of time."

However, Iraq appeared "not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it."

Iraq has failed to comply with the inspectors' request to deploy a U2 plane to carry out aerial imagery and surveillance.

There have been recent incidents of harassment and demonstrations against the inspectors - these are unlikely to have occurred without the initiative of the Iraqi authorities. Iraq is aware allegations that the inspections serve intelligence purposes are untrue.

" Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament which was demanded of it "

Dr Hans Blix

Iraq's 7 December, 2002, weapons declaration still leaves questions unanswered.

Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs.

Iraq said VX nerve gas it produced was never turned into weapons - Unmovic (the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) has information which conflicts with this account.

Iraq has failed to account for supplies of anthrax it said it had produced and later destroyed. There are "strong indications" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it admitted and might still have some stocks.

Iraq has imported banned items, including 300 rocket engines, as recently as December, 2002, which could be used in a missile programme.

Regarding the recent discovery of undeclared documents on nuclear development in an Iraqi scientist's home, "there can be no sanctuaries for proscribed items".

Inspectors have requested 11 private interviews with Iraqi scientists, all of which have been turned down.

Statement by Dr ElBaradei:

Iraq's 2002 declaration did not answer questions which have been outstanding since inspectors were barred from returning to Iraq in 1998.

Good progress has been made during the latest inspections.

No prohibited nuclear activities have been identified during the inspections, but Baghdad needs to be more "pro-active" during further inspections.

"We have found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s."

Inspectors "should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program".

"Our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course."

Another "few months" for inspections "would be a valuable investment because they could help us avoid a war."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/2698857.stm

____________________________________________________________

So, while Iraq was giving Blix and his team access, SH was not meeting his burden of providing the proof that these weapons and other materials had been destroyed. Blix says this repeatedly. So, I think it cannot be said SH was cooperating 100% when he was not providing the requested evidence Blix was calling for?

In any event, my earlier point was not that SH was not providing access to Blix, it was that when the UN decided to send the inspectors back in, SH initially refused to allow them access to his palaces. THe UN balked at this and noted SH's palaces were more than homes, they were potential storage sites and war rooms and could contain important documents. SH caved on this initial demand when the UN refuted it and he say the 200,000 plus troops amassing on his borders. I think that SH initial refusal to allow access to his palaces indicates he was up to his old games again.

I am unsure how that makes me a liar and I would appreciate a retraction

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Like the flak jackets they never got?

BTW, mocking his death is beneath you.

I was not mocking his death. I am unsure how you got that from my statement. I said "I did not know that [he was killed by friendly fire]. That blows. Apaprently many were in Afganistan. You would think there would be a way to prevent that with all of our technology." Where is the mocking in that. I said it "blows" that means it was a bad thing and then I wondered why it could not be prevented because apparently many other soldiers were killed by friendly fire. That was expressing regret not mocking him.

[dissention]

Again, you lied about Iraq playing games with inspections:

"All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."

"Access has been provided to all sites we have requested to inspect."

"Iraq has provided access to all sites inspectors have wanted to inspect and the environment has been 'workable.'"

"The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect, and with one exception it has been prompt."

"We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul."

"Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable."

"We have found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s."

"With this long period, I'm inclined to think that the Iraqi statement that they destroyed all the biological and chemical weapons, which they had in the summer of 1991 may well be the truth."

"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all, almost, of what they had in the summer of 1991."

"The numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as 'active', or even 'proactive.'"


-All quotes from Dr. Hans Blix

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2967598.stm
Blix criticises coalition over Iraq weapons

In a BBC interview on Thursday, Mr Blix said he had been disappointed with the tip-offs provided by British and US intelligence.

"Only in three of those cases did we find anything at all, and in none of these cases were there any weapons of mass destruction, and that shook me a bit, I must say."

He said UN inspectors had been promised the best information available.
"I thought - my God, if this is the best intelligence they have and we find nothing, what about the rest?"


8,000 pages of the weapons report were excised by the White House. Why?

http://www.unmovic.org/
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/...raq/index.html

"More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations."

"We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 litres of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under UNMOVIC seal at the Muthanna site. One-third of the quantity has already been destroyed. The laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, which we found at another site, has also been destroyed."

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."

[gldstwmn]

Conservative opinion piece from Stars And Stripes to rebut original article in this thread- Please note, I do not share all of these opinions.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?...&article=22996

Conservatives feel betrayed

Conservatives feel betrayed by President Bush because he’s failed them on so many core issues. Christian conservatives view his actions as being in direct opposition to their values. Examples of how this administration has failed to uphold conservative positions are:

1. Military weakness. Military leadership knows that troops are spread too thin, but this administration is proposing further personnel cuts, unaccompanied extended tours, and closing more bases. Cutting veterans’ benefits doesn’t keep the bargain with those who have served and doesn’t help recruitment and retention efforts. Closing European bases doesn’t make strategic or diplomatic sense, since strengthening NATO was stated as a priority in the election campaign and after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

2. Deficit spending. The United States now has a $500 billion deficit, but there is no shortage of future spending plans from the White House, such as a mission to Mars and the recent billion dollar payoffs to tobacco farmers.

3. Bigger government. The largest expansion of government bureaucracy since the Great Society programs of the ’60s was supported by this administration with the passage of the Medicare prescription drug bill.

4. Shortchanging U.S. anti-terrorism. This administration’s budget proposals cut emergency first-responders by $1 billion. Money that should be spent on hardening potential targets in the States, such as bridges, tunnels, ports and transit is instead used to build schools, clinics and infrastructure in other countries, paid by U.S. taxpayers. Terrorism experts maintain that the United States is as vulnerable now as it was before 9/11, but funds for projects remain mostly in Washington.

5. Lying about reasons for war. The 9/11 Commission has concluded that there was no connection between Iraq or Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. The CIA’s and the U.N. weapons inspections teams concluded before the invasion that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

6. Flip-flopping on social issues. The president says he is pro-life, but appoints judges who aren’t. He hasn’t ended government grants to Planned Parenthood. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and switched positions only after religious groups objected. Cheney's activist lesbian daughter is paid $180,000 for a highly visible position as his campaign manager.

7. Poor financial planning. The White House will run out of money for the war effort by October. Delaying tax cuts for the wealthiest would have provided a financial cushion, but instead the DOD was told to cut programs across the board.

The death of former President Ronald Reagan was a powerful reminder of what conservatives value most: character and trust. President Bush has proven that he can’t be trusted to strengthen the military, limit government spending, or effectively fight terrorism. Conservatives won’t support someone who breaks promises and does the opposite of what he says.

M.D. Wooldridge
Würzburg, Germany

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

So, while Iraq was giving Blix and his team access, SH was not meeting his burden of providing the proof that these weapons and other materials had been destroyed. Blix says this repeatedly. So, I think it cannot be said SH was cooperating 100% when he was not providing the requested evidence Blix was calling for?

In any event, my earlier point was not that SH was not providing access to Blix, it was that when the UN decided to send the inspectors back in, SH initially refused to allow them access to his palaces. THe UN balked at this and noted SH's palaces were more than homes, they were potential storage sites and war rooms and could contain important documents. SH caved on this initial demand when the UN refuted it and he say the 200,000 plus troops amassing on his borders. I think that SH initial refusal to allow access to his palaces indicates he was up to his old games again.

I am unsure how that makes me a liar and I would appreciate a retraction

Again, you lied and said that Iraq was playing games with the inspectors; it was not.

And while Blix stated that they were given no new info whatsoever, it simply did not mean that they had resumed weapons development or possessed any new weapons. Now that we've been in there, he says that all of the info Iraq provided was correct and there was nothing new. He also calle dout the administration and said that they lied about Saddam destroying or hiding the weapons; he said it was impossible.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

1) It's from Michael Moore's point of view. He's the brains behind it. I believe he's a staunch democrat but he's also as far to the left as you can get. That borders on liberal. To me, that's worse than just SAYING you are a liberal. He's got a hidden agenda, as most liberals do.

Micahel Moore is not a democrat and faults the democratic party just as much as the republican party. He has no hidden agenda, he's said numerous times, and even on his website, that he hates Bush and that he hopes this helps get him out of office.

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

2) It's a MOVIE! Michael Moore is making a big paycheck off this. He's a guy out there trying to make a living. Don't think for a minute he's not sitting back laughing and flipping thru his stack of money.

So now he's being faulted for his profession? He's been making movies and TV shows like this for twenty years.

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

3) Moore is also a big Kerry supporter. When all is said and done, you have Bush in your right hand and Kerry on the left. I know that Kerry will not take matters into his own hands. He will bend to his parties' will and will not fight terror. He even stated he'd apologize to the terrorists if and when he took office! That's scary to me. I'm not a proponent of war, but damnit, if it's them or us, it sure as hell better be them!

Moore is not a big Kerry supporter, he simply wants Bush gone and will vote for someone to get him out. And please post that quote about apologizing to the terrorists, that's a lie.

Again, please point out the lies and half-truths contained in the film. I submit you cannot.

[Bella Figura]

to break this down into the meaning of liberalism and conservatism and why these views have become so polarized in recent decades is to ask some hard questions of ourselves and our government.

a basic question I struggle with is how can I as a basically nice person with limited power face cruelty, hatred and true evil. and as I grow older, I find it harder and harder to see if I can even effect change on any large scale.

People can effect it on a small scale, someone yesterday brought me coffee as his random act of kindness and I was in a good happy caring mood all day which is why I felt I had the strength and fortitude to engage in this thread.
and I know I will pass on this gift to someone else because it made me feel so good. but to do it on a large scale to help our planet???

this is where the true differences between liberalism and conservatism come into play. Liberals believe is actively helping and doing their best to use diplomacy and words to combat the horrors of the world. This is a way to be but then it opens one up to others making you feel guilty and manipulating your niceness to achieve their own agendas. People always perceive nice for weak...

Conservatives believe in basically leave me alone, I'll leave you alone (this can be a definition of nice) but augmented with an attitude of get into my business and I'll be forced to "kick you butt". This is way to be but it requires you to forsaking a natural urge to help and becoming somewhat colder/heartless in this world. and then when religion throws itself into this mix to balance out this coldness, watch out!! People always perceive that their religion overides the basic rule of conservatism number one: no-meddling.

so what are we left with...bickering, yelling, calling one another liars and unable to realize that currently there is no real political way to effect change on a larger scale then our own lives. and this is the real dilemma our country is in, we have lots of good people who want to do good things or at people who don't want to be bothered and are willing to not get in the other peoples's way. yet we are unable to be human beings in the political structures we have set in place and that's why all; conservative, liberal are pissed off.

so we are once again back in the same landscape of the late 19th/early 20th century but a new political ideology has not yet surfaced to answer an ancient question. we remain stuck in endless debate (using half-truths and spin to justify our ineptness while our opponent screams liar!!!) as world-wide issues push us closer to the brink and our deaths...so how do we as basically nice people face cruely, hatred and evil???

[CarneVaca]

This thread is still going?

Its time to put the cap back on this can of mixed nuts!

[mylittledemon]

Dissention, you're obviously pro-Kerry and opposed to Bush. NOTHING anyone will or can say will change your mind, so it's pointless to argue with you about just for arguments sake.

Kerry said at the beginning of his campaign that when and if he took office, within the first six months he would personally go to the Middle East apologize to those people for what Bush has done. I remember seeing it all over Fox news and in the local papers. It's not a lie. Someone like that does not deserve to be the leader of this country.

[mylittledemon]

And one more thing, you said it yourself. Michael Moore "HATES" Bush and will do anything to get him out of office.

Ok...so what does that tell you? His hatred of Bush is his bias. And I'm not faulting him for being a filmaker, however you have to remember that's what he is. I take what Michael Moore does and says with a grain of salt. It's propoganda in it's rudamentary form. Either way we've all had the wool pulled over our eyes.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

Kerry said at the beginning of his campaign that when and if he took office, within the first six months he would personally go to the Middle East apologize to those people for what Bush has done. I remember seeing it all over Fox news and in the local papers. It's not a lie. Someone like that does not deserve to be the leader of this country.

It is a lie unless you can prove that he said it by providing a link or video. I consider myself to quite well-versed when it comes to these matters and would know if he said that. Also, Fox News is not a reliable source of news. If you don't know that already, there's nothing to discuss. If Kerry said that, the Bushies and the conservative media would be all over it like white on rice. But I will tell you who does not deserve to be the leader of this country: an old drunk and cocaine user who stole the 2000 election with the help of his brother and who lied to us more time sthan I can count to get us into Iraq, not to mention the fact that he wants to write hate into our Constitution, doesn't fund his initiatives, and uses religion to polarize and get votes.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

And one more thing, you said it yourself. Michael Moore "HATES" Bush and will do anything to get him out of office.

Ok...so what does that tell you? His hatred of Bush is his bias. And I'm not faulting him for being a filmaker, however you have to remember that's what he is. I take what Michael Moore does and says with a grain of salt. It's propoganda in it's rudamentary form. Either way we've all had the wool pulled over our eyes.

We can sit here all day and go back and forth, but the simple fact is that it doesn't matter if he's biased or not, the film contains nothing but factual footage and documents. There's not a single lie or half-truth in the film. Like I said, point one out. You cannot.

And, yes, Bush has pulled the wool over your eyes.

[mylittledemon]

I'm sorry you believe that Michael Moore's movie is 100% truth. There's nothing in this world that is 100% truth. You literally sound like you've been brainwashed. (Maybe you're Michael Moore himself!!) haha... Oh well...its good that we all have our own opinions. That's what makes the world go around. Otherwise we'd all be ****ing sheep.

[mylittledemon]

Oh and I like your personal attacks on Bush too! You have to remember that NO president has ever been lily-white. Look at Clinton! Sheesh...he was a sexual deviant who lied under-oath to the American people, on camera! TWICE! ugh...hey he's a human being. No one's perfect.

The liberals in this country like pointing out imperfections of the presidency so they can have their way. And a liberals point of view and their mindsets are in the minority. It's a scary thing.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

3) Moore is also a big Kerry supporter.

Actually, that's not true. Michael Moore is not supporting anyone that supported IWR. HE IS NOT ENDORSING KERRY. Please check your facts before you start spreading these lies.