As I've said repeatedly, there is a DEGREE of fact in what you're saying. But heavily spun to conform to the anti-Bush liberal mindset.
Often the "contadiction" or "inconsistency" you allege, in statements of Bush or Rumsfeld or Powell is explained easily from sources you omit to make your case. As I already explained.

If there's anyone I trust be the most truthful in the Bush administration, it's Colin Powell, and you shatter your credibility by attacking him.

Assuming his "I'm not saying this, it's bullshit !" quote from U.S.NEWS is even accurate, it still makes clear that anything he questioned was not quoted in his presentation to the U.N.

quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
As if news reports that clearly contradict the SOTU assertions wasn't enough, here are some more annotaded footnotes of which you can ignore and call it a partisan ploy.
It IS a partisan ploy, and allegations are constantly reported in a veil of half-truth, so they appear as fact to the uninformed. When I hear Powell live and unsoundbyted, or other Bush officials, what the liberal press reports later as "inconsistencies" ARE EXPLAINED.
Those explanations are soundbyted out or made to sound less convincing on the evening news. The allegations are reported again and again, and through omission of the response, it is made to PRREAR that the Bush administration has no response. Unless you see it live, you don't get the other half of the story.

I saw Colin Powell this morning on Fox News Sunday, and also on CBS's Face the Nation. The difference in coverage for the same facts was just amazing. It seemed obvious to me that CBS reporters absolutely refused to acknowledge the validity of what made perfect sense.

quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
As for unconfirmed allegations? You mean troops inspecting the Ansar Al-Islam camp wasn't good enough for you? Call me silly but I think U.S. special forces carry more weight than you just saying something to the contrary and trying to convince me you're impartial.
You're welcome to your own pre-conceived anti-Bush notions, but that doesn't change the facts in Iraq.

For my money, the David Kaye research team showed that Saddam Hussein clearly had a WMD program, and they found every part of the assembly line for producing WMD's, with the exception of the final product.
And as I've said OVER AND OVER, it is possible that Saddam was holding back WMD production, but keeping the assembly-line ready, until U.N. sanctions were lifted.

Regardless of what you think, while what I hear from Republicans more consistently rings true, I listen to both sides, and have often voted for Democrats.
In 1992, I considered voting for Clinton, and also briefly considered Gore in 2000.

As I've said repeatedly here and elsewhere, I voted Perot in 1992, Perot in 1996 (more in protest for the alternatives given), and Nader in 2000.
You can take your snotty allegation that I'm a relentless no-matter-what supporter of the Republican party, and shove it.

quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
Again, in order to make your explanations work, I have to ignore experts who are there and go on the say so of yourself and the Administration. One of which has reason to lead me to think something other than what the AEA says.
That is, once again, your selective spin of the facts. The David Kaye research team report demonstrates (as I just said above) clear evidence of a WMD program, dangerous bio-weapons viruses hidden in Iraqi citizens' private refrigerators, EVERYTHING short of physical weapons.

You again selectively interpret and say "Bush hasn't found any WMD's". While ignoring the clear evidence of an ongoing WMD program, with only the final product missing as evidence.

quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
It was on your say-so that I was to beleive that everything else in the SOTU apart from the 16 words was justification enough to go to war. I present FACTS from credible news reports as well as from admittedly partisan sites that do a good job documenting and countering in their own right with sources and statements that contradict every last thing Bush declared as fact and you get mad.
You present selective and partisan interpretation, and selective omission of facts, from partisan sites, who clearly despise Bush and will say ANYTHING to trash what he is doing.
If there is counter-argument that will vindicate what Bush is doing, it can be guaranteed they will not present it.

quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
Again, to side with you is to go on faith and beleive everyone is out to "get Bush" while ingnoring news reports. To bring them up is because I take 'glee' in attacking Bush. To defend him after reports to the contrary surface is because someone has to defend the 'unfair' partisan attacks.
To defend Bush is to acknowledge that WMD's have not been proven to have never existed, only not found. YET !

The U.N. itself, as well as Saddam's own records, acknowledge that large stocks of Saddam's inventoried chemical and bio-weapons ARE MISSING, and have never been accounted for.

To defend Bush is to acknowledge that there is NO PROOF that Bush lied about the reasons to invade Iraq, NO PROOF that Bush did anything other than than passionately pursue invasion, because there was ample reason to believe there was a WMD threat in Iraq.
And, AS I SAID ABOVE, many Democrats, including NANCY PELOSI, HILARY CLINTON and others, ALSO acknowledged the danger Iraq posed, right up till the war, based on the best available intelligence at the time.

And once again, THE MAIN REASON Bush stated (in his 1/28/2003 State of the Union address and every other speech) for the Iraq invasion was that Iraq had not complied with the 10 prior U.N. resolutions.
It was NOT (as Democrats allege) because Iraq was hyped as about to use WMD's. It was not SOLELY about WMD's, and it was not PRIMARILY about WMD's. It was about NON-COMPLIANCE WITH U.N.RESOLUTIONS. As Bush's many speeches leading up to the war make clear.


quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
Bush made these statements in the SOTU adress. My last post had numerous sites of legitamite news sources that debunked those statements.
I don't see that they in any way de-bunked Bush's State of the Union comments.

They were just more spiteful liberal speculation and slander.

quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
If that isn't good enough for you, oh well. You're the one who brought up that the SOTU address had MANY justifications for war. Most if not all which have fallen through as new justifications are concocted and old ones are debunked.
That is your SPIN of it.

But in sharp contrast, mass graves in Iraq, torture chambers, 1 million of Saddam's 25 million population dead during the course of his 25-year reign, and extensive evidence of a Saddam-authorized WMD program, including components of WMD's in private homes, the entire assembly line, everything short of the final weapons, speak volumes about "justification".

But please, continue to slander Bush and believe what you want.
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

I, too want to know at any time if my government (Democrat or Republican) has acted unjustly, and would accept the proof of that with anger and sadness.
In contrast to that, your absolute glee at urinating on the integrity of the Bush administration really rubs me the wrong way.
I highly doubt you really want this. Rather the fact that I don't nod my head and say "uh..ok" is what rubs you the wrong way. Alternative perspectives? What good would that do? The time for alternatives was before we attacked Iraq. Now we're stuck there for better or worse. And even if we are there regardless, that doesn't make asking why that is so any less neccessary.
I really don't give a flying crap what you "highly doubt", based on your own vindictiveness. It doesn't change what I believe, and know.

If it's over and done, then why are the Democrats so hell-bent on trashing the President after-the-fact? Except to exploit some minor Iraq setbacks, at the expense of our military and the nation.

I don't think there's ever a time when it's wrong to have alternative perspectives, if the perspectives did not push so deep into misrepresentation, by Democrats.
I just resent the slanderous presumptuousness of the allegations against Bush and his administration.

quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
But just continue to call EVIDENCE, "allegation" thus quickly discrediting it. I'll just continue to respectfully disagree loudly and proudly.
I'll leave others to decide how "respectfully" you disagree. The images alone you post reek of partisan bias, venom and snottiness.

quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
And allegation has been raining down on Republican Administrations for the past 20 years??? I thought we'd established that Iran/Contra was illegal and unconstitutional.
It was. And I acknowledged that Iran-Contra was at the time.

Too bad Democrats couldn't hold Clinton to the same standard, and dismissed the Clinton scandals of Whitewater, Filegate, etc.
(Clinton's administration using FBI files on Republicans to gather private information about them, so Clinton could blackmail his rivals into silence. I'd call that just as serious as Watergate. But Democrats and the liberal press were content to set aside the law and write it off publicly as a "partisan Republican attack", when in the same situation, Republicans participated in the impeachment of Nixon in 1974. And even when Monica Lewinsky produced a semen-stained dress and proved beyond a doubt that Clinton had done the things he lied and said he didn't do, the Democrats self-servingly refused to impeach him. )

quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
Thank god you didn't say 30 years! I was going to ask if you think breaking into the oppositions headquarters in order to influence an election was all rumour too.
I believe in prosecuting the guilty, no matter which party they belong to. I wish the Democrats believed the same.

quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
I'm going to post this because far from being partisans, this article concerns a lawsuit brought forth trying to establish a link between Iraq and Al queda. To your credit, the judge did find that Beasley had "shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida". The article does however present the other side as well.

[I cut the article, already previously posted above]
When I read the following portions, I knew beyond any doubt I was reading a liberal partisan piece, that just couldn't let slip an opportunity to get in its anti-Bush digs:

quote:
( from article posted by Whomod: )

All of this was reported in April of 2003. The lawsuit was not ruled on by Judge Baer until May 7, 2003. But because the finding of ricin and botulinum topped headlines, while the actual findings are still unknown, it is easy to see how the information was manipulated to win $104 million from a country where one out of four children born live weighs less than five pounds, promising short lives, illness and impaired development.

No one looked closely at the ‘evidence’ during the trial. Why should we? Saddam Hussein is evil, he needed to be removed from Iraq twelve years ago. Even if the whole war turns out to be built upon a sandy, unstable foundation of lies, the Iraqi people are better off without him. Even if he didn’t give material aid to al-Queda, we all know he cheered when the twin towers fell. So let’s take the fortune that built him palaces away from him and give it to the victims of September 11.

Professor of International Law and CBS News Analyst Pamela Falk said, “There may be payments in this because of the Iraqi money, but it really puts the Bush administration in a position where they have to decide where the assets that are already in the United States, if they go to the victims, or go back to the Iraq people.”6

And there is the crux of the matter. Push aside the fact that the al-Queda/Iraqi link is tenuous at best. The Administration wants to concentrate on the welfare of the Iraqi people instead of explaining the disappearance of 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents and the design for a nuclear weapon Bush claimed Hussein had in his State of the Union Address (1-28-03).

Concern for the Iraqi people. Bush claims he has freed them and now wants to place Iraq’s oil wealth into their hands. So what about the $104 million they owe two of our dead citizens? How many children should we starve and under-medicate so we are satisfied that somebody other than our own elected government officials pay for the September 11 tragedy?

Really though, when you think about it, $104 million isn’t a lot of money. We took $74.7 billion from the one-paycheck-away-from-homelessness working class in this country to fund the invasion.

One trillion, now that’s a lot of money. It is also the amount of the civil lawsuit filed by Kreindler and Kreindler L.L.P. against a laundry list of offenders, including the country of Iraq, considered accountable for the September 11 deaths.3 The evidence against Iraq will be much of the same that Beasley used in his victory.6

Will the future judge of this case reach a conclusion similar to that of Judge Baer who ended the trial stating, that Beasley had "shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida" or will it topple from the weight of self contradiction?




There is an absurd amount of editorializing, in the presentation of these "facts".

That liberal diatribe rather bypasses that a civil action suing Iraq (a legal action by many families whose loved ones died on 9/11/2001) was a case that sued Iraq and was found to meet the burden of proof, that Saddam WAS involved with al Qaida and partly reponsible for what happened on 9/11, and that Saddam's Iraq was liable to pay damages to the 9/11 families.
THAT crucial fact was bypassed, to allege that the Bush administration would be "cruel" to take that money away from starving Iraqi children.

Classic liberalism.

The rest of the links are more slanted evidence from highly partisan liberal sites.

The one fact I can acknowledge is that in recent weeks I've seen from several sources that Mohammad Atta (leader of the 9/11 terrorists), who had been reported to the U.S. by the Czech Republic intelligence to have met with a Saddam intelligence official in Prague, was later retracted by the Czech government. And FBI investigation of 9/11 found (as you more or less said above) showed that Mohammad Atta had a car rental contract in Florida for the same period he was initially believed to be meeting an Iraqi official in Prague, Czech Republic. So that much, as best as can be determined has been unproven. But when Bush and other administration officials initially said it was evidence of an Iraq/al Qaida connection, it was the best intelligence available at the time, and not a "lie" as liberals allege.