liberals....

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

Look at Clinton! Sheesh...he was a sexual deviant who lied under-oath to the American people, on camera! TWICE!

Whoa, wait a minute... "Sexual deviant!?" What is the basis for that characterization? Do you consider oral sex deviant behavior?

[Bella Figura]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Well, the film is available for download on the internet for free...

now I find out!!! but I only illegally download FM music

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

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.

You have not addressed my point and are talking about something competely different that I was. You seem to think I said SH blocked Hans Blix and his team when they were there. I never said that.

Here was the interchange (please check for accuracy because cutting and pasting can lead to errors - I had to eliminate the emoticons because it would not let me post with them). I think you will see I was never talking about the actual inspections Blix conducted when I said that SH was playing cat and mouse with the palaces, I said I was referring to when the UN started inspections up again, SH told them his palaces were off limits. I realize he later caved in on this issue, but that he even brought it up indicates he was not compliant with the UN's order that he demonstrate he had disarmed and that he allow inspectors in so they could see for themselves. Thus, I was not lying then and I am not lying now. Sadly, you will never see that. But, I do and I know you do as well.
_____________________________________________________________

Post No. 275, I said:
But SH did not give them accrate info in the beginning and he was playng his whole you cannot go here but you can go here game again. IT WAS HIS BURDEN - he did not meet it. He alone is responsible for the fate of Iraq.

You replied in Post No. 282:
Foul!

That is an outright lie and you know it.
I responded in Post No. 285:

Once again, you are just wrong. SH submitted all those docs and the CD's of them and it was proven they were the same stuff he sent before. Then he started his "my palaces are exempt" schpeel when it was determined his palaces were more than just residences. Do you not remember that? That is what I am talking about. Moreover, he could lead Hans Blix all over the country and take him to tea, that does not mean he met his burden of proving he destroyed the WMD. To do that he had to produce the destroyes stuff, pictures of it, etc. He did not do that. Instead, once again, he said to the inspectors, you can go here go here go here. That was NOT meeting his burden. Why are you so willing to let him off on that?

You responded in Post No. 289:

Again, your previous statement is an outright lie. I know you like to spin, but this is getting absurd. He NEVER played the "you can go here but not here" game leading up to the invasion. You lied, simply put.

I responded in Post No. 302:

I cannot believe you do not remember Iraq at first refusing to allow any inspections in the so called palaces (I think there were over 50 of them), which were not just homes but war rooms and possible storage sites. Then, after negotiatons with the UN and the amassing of like 200,000 plus troops on his borders, SH caved. So, I think I am correct in saying in the beginning SH was not cooperative. He tried the same crap he had been trying for the last 11 years and the world refused to put up with it.

And, I have never said SH was not cooperating with Blix. Here is an interview with Blix http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/19/ip.00.html Blix says SH was cooperating in the process, etc. - it actually sounded cagey to me - but he cooperated on the surface nonetheless. But, NONE of that answers the main question of the need for inspectors in the first place. Again, why did he not produce the required evidence instead of making us look for it - it was SH's burden - you still have not answered that one. The answer is he did not.

You responded on Post No. 313:

I can't believe you still continue to lie about Saddam playing games leading up to the invasion.

I advocated some sort of military action immediately, but again, I did not support what the admin. did in November. I thought it was a waste and had no purpose.

I responded in Post No. 320:

You honestly do not remember SH saying the palaces were off limits and then negotiating to let the inpsectors in them. That is game playing pure and simple. AND - I am still waiting for your explanation regarding why you give SH a free pass on failing to meet his burden and instead making the inspectors look for a needle in a haystack

I also responded in Post No. 323 (to your assertion that I lied in Post No. 318):

I did not. SH originally would not let the inspectors into his so called palaces. That and the regurgitation of the same 1998 documents is what I was referring to. Prove me wrong. prove that he did not do that. You cannot and you know it.

You responded in Post No. 324:

I will tomorrow, I don't have the energy right now; it's past midnight.

And besides, this thread has gotten too nasty even for my tastes.

And the Post No. 326:

I certainly can and will.

I responded in Post No. 334:

I agree, but when you call someone a liar and do not back it up, you should not be surprised when they call you on it. Actually, I think other than that, we were being civil for us

You responded in Post No. 336:

No, it's gotten a quite nasty and I'm not too keen on it.

I've posted so much in the past that refute what you posted as fact when it comes to Saddam and inspections, if you haven't read it, it's your problem and not mine. If I have to, I'll post it again tomorrow, but not now because I'm tired.

I responded in Post No. 338:

I am sorry if the truth that SH played cat and mouse with the palaces in the beginning of the negotiations for inspections does not fit into your points. But it is the truth as best as I remember it. I cannot change that. Again, I am not arguing that SH did not cooperate with Blix. I am arguing about the negotiations for the inpesctions. And you have never answered in this thread or anywhere else why SH never produced evidence that he destroyed his WMD - which was his burden for 11 years to do. I think that is an important point because if he had done that, none of this would have happened. It just amazes me how people (not necessarily you) are just willing to let him slide on that one and instead focus on the inspections. But, I thijnk I have angered you by putting you in a corner. That is interesting to me because I always concede a poit when I am wrong. I do not understand when others cannot. Again, whenever you are ready to prove SH did not play cat and mouse a the beginning of the negotiations for the inspectors and when you are willing to provide an explanation of why SH did not meet his burden of proving he destroyed the WMD or even that we did in the 1998 bombing, I am all ears. But, if you want, we can drop this right now with the full knowledge that it will only come up again

You then responded in Post No. 346:

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.

I then responded in post No. 349:

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/ssistor...al/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 in January 2003. 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
___________________________________________________________________________

You answered this in Post No. 351:

"Again, you lied about Iraq playing games with inspections."
________________________________________________________________

As evidenced above, I was talking about the initial negotiations before the inspections. During those, SH tried to limit access to his palaces. NOTHING you have cited refutes that. Instead you go on about SH actually limiting Blix while he was there, which I never said. So, I am not lying and I wish you would stop saying so.

Interestigly, in the January 2003, report to the UN, Blix does say he was limited in certain aspects and he again says SH was not forthcoming to meet his burden. Those statements are a FAR cry from the your statement in Post No. 282 to support your, not my, point that "Hans Blix and the UN refute your claim 100%."

I will be awaiting the apology because you are dead wrong and have falsely accused my with derision of lying when I did no such thing. Shame on you.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Bella Figura

and just to reiterate, the "just don't watch it" arguement does not apply here due to the fact MM's film is current events not to mention political in nature and I try to keep up with current events...so I used my precious weekend time to view this movie.

Of course it applies. You can always stay home and browse the internet to see what Moore is talking about, no one is forcing you to pay money to see something.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

Bull****. If you're opposed to one then you propose the other. He's against Bush, so he supports Kerry.

If you're opposed to one, you "propose" the other? That is shockingly narrow, even for a republican.

I oppose both of them. What do you say about that?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Bella Figura

now I find out!!! but I only illegally download FM music

It's legal. Moore himself put it online because he wants everyone to have access to it.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. Bush or Kerry are going to win the presidency. SO...if you are against BUSH, then by default you have to be FOR the other candidate. It's that simple. Getting Bush out of office means that he is FOR Kerry. DURRRRRRR!

Nonsense. See my previous post.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You have not addressed my point and are talking about something competely different that I was. You seem to think I said SH blocked Hans Blix and his team when they were there. I never said that.

You still continue to lie, unbelievable. You said, and I quote:

"He was playng his whole you cannot go here but you can go here game again."

That is utterly false and you know it. That's what I took issue with because it's a total fabrication. If don't want to admit that, fine, but it's still a lie.

[mylittledemon]

Well there's no swaying here either way. People believe what they want to, blindly or not. I'm going to bow out of this discussion considering I'm starting to insult fellow Ledgies, and that's not the idea, nor my original intention.

What I'm proud of the most is, at least we are all taking a stand on something. And that's better than not voting at all. Those are the worst kind.

As for my comments about Clinton being a sexual deviant. Yes...oral sex with another woman counts. Especially when you are MARRIED. Hello?!

Michael Moore is a business man in the end. He's trying to make a living. Maybe it's not "all" about the money, but in the END he's a guy trying to make a dollar like the rest of us.

And opposing Bush means you are a proponent of Kerry? I don't believe that view is "shockingly narrow." It's logical and realistic! We all know that 3rd party candidates NEVER win. They merely take votes away one from the other. It's always Rep vs. Democrat, and one of them WILL win. So you take the lesser of the two evils and pick one. It's your right and privilege as an American to do so.

[Bella Figura]

Originally Posted by dissention

Of course it applies. You can always stay home and browse the internet to see what Moore is talking about, no one is forcing you to pay money to see something.

I could not have done that and kept up with this thread...but the money thing is a good point, I'm sure MM would not be happy if people just downloaded his film...and I don't want to be dismissed because I illegally pirated his work...

never mind, glddstwmn just pointed out the film for free but to me it's still a sermon, free or not. Church is free too...

so now I'm even more pissed off

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

It's legal. Moore himself put it online because he wants everyone to have access to it.

Kinda shoots down mylittledemon's argument that this is all about money, eh?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Bella Figura

I could not have done that and kept up with this thread

We all did it on a regular basis with every other political thread. There's nothing in Moore's film that we haven't seen or heard before, sans the Iraq footage and Lila Lipscomb.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

You still continue to lie, unbelievable. You said, and I quote:

"He was playng his whole you cannot go here but you can go here game again."

That is utterly false and you know it. That's what I took issue with because it's a total fabrication. If don't want to admit that, fine, but it's still a lie.

I said it in reference to the initial negotiations - I REPEATEDLY said I was not referring to the actual time Blix was there. If I ever did, show me where I did. You cannot. But, you cannot ever admit being wrong, which you are here and you know it and the interchage posted above proves it.

[Bella Figura]

dissention says "We all did it on a regular basis with every other political thread. There's nothing in Moore's film that we haven't seen or heard before, sans the Iraq footage and Lila Lipscomb."

yes, but I am a casual purueser of the political scene at best but I do have an interest in current events so sometimes they collide...

My interest lie more in philosophy and human nature (anthopology) which are in themselves lots of intensive reading so to add political articles would truly fry my brain...

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

Well there's no swaying here either way. People believe what they want to, blindly or not. I'm going to bow out of this discussion considering I'm starting to insult fellow Ledgies, and that's not the idea, nor my original intention.

With all due respect, it seems all the conservatives ever seem to be able to do around here is to jump in, make claims of lies and distortions, and when they are challenged to back up the claims, they bow out.

Doesn't make your side of the aisle look that good, does it?