It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Oh, God, do I have to read such drivel?
No, I guess I don't, really. It's my choice to read this to see how far some people will sink in their efforts to discredit what they don't like.
Howlrunner;
That was a toungue-in-cheek statement on how the left-leaning media would likely report on that invasion if it happened today.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You attempted to discredit those you don't like by choosing the once GREAT thing the US did during the last century and playing with it.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Remember who was President at the time of said invasion? Remember what party he came from?
The "left-leaning" media was reporting the Battle of Britain for the US because the "right-leaning" media didn't want (or want the US) to go near the war.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The fact is the media supports the men (and women) who wear the uniform.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The only part of your story that is true is that today the media would list how many French died during the assault, that number would be added to the story as it was reported, it would not be the single, salient fact highlighted. They would also give the numbers for how many civilians were baing killed during the air-war. 60 years ago those numbers were deemed unimportant, thankfully we've moved beyond tolerating the slaughter of thousands of civilians during war, even when we're in the right.
Originally posted by LostSailor
You have voted Freedom_for_sum for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.
Nicely said and I agree 100%.
Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
So the FBI, in the 9/11 Commission's report (which commission was empowered, in part, to investigate intelligence failures among agencies including the FBI) claims that the FBI has successfully foiled terrorist attacks.
This is evidence?
You are certainly entitled to believe that the Bush administration's policies have prevented terrorist attacks, but I sincerely doubt that you, or anyone else, can prove it, and you certainly can't by posting a version of events related by the very agency that was so recently accused of failing to protect us on 9/11. Of course they're going to say that they have successfully prevented attacks-- their image, and more importantly their funding, depends on it.
Ironically, since this is the original topic of this thread, this is a fine example of the sort of thing that is at the heart of the WMD intelligence debate. The simple fact is that the intelligence was spotty to begin with, was already subject to human error and to deliberate misinterpretation, but was accepted unquestioningly by the Bush administration and his supporters not because they had any reason to believe it to be absolutely true, but because it supported their preconceptions. Similarly, it is now being criticized by Bush's opponents not because of any certainty of its falsehood, but because its falsehood supports their preconceptions.
The truth regarding the WMDs, as regarding the nominal prevention of terrorist attacks, no doubt lies somewhere in the middle, between the monochromatic interpretations upon which the partisans on each side of the issue insist.
The left-armed and left-eyed and the right-armed and right-eyed flail away at each other while...
well...
You know the rest.
Originally posted by ArchAngel
You do of course understand that this was simply a draft resolution the US proposed.
It was never even voted on.
PLEASE don't quote meaningless items.
Originally posted by ArchAngel
......................
We have a signed deposition with Bush linking Iraq, and 911.
EDIT NOTE: For some reason your link died. So here is another link to the same letter...
Presidential Letter March 18, 2003
[edit on 12-17-2005 by Valhall]
............
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Originally posted by Valhall
Well don't stop there...it gets better:
But he added that he believed the two issues were related even in the absence of direct ties.
"I think they are related in the war on terror because he (Saddam) had terrorist connections. Again, he was a sworn enemy and he'd had weapons of mass destruction, had used them," Bush said.
TWO reasons blown out of the water in one article.
Amazing.
Defection and Revelation ::: Aug. 8, 1995
Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, responsible for all WMD programs, defects to Jordan. As a result, Iraq admits to a far more developed biological weapons programs than it had previously disclosed. Saddam Hussein's government also hands over documents related to its nuclear weapons program and admits to the attempted recovery of highly-enriched uranium.
Although UNSCOM was monitoring some 86 sites with resident biological weapons teams in April 1997, the Secretary General of the UN had just reported to the Security Council that "several pieces of significant undeclared equipment, spare parts, and supplies" were discovered in recent inspections of additional facilities, and that, "Iraq has still not declared all sites where dual-use equipment is present. The Commission's resident team continues to identify such sites that should have been declared by Iraq...On a number of occasions, Iraq did not produce the required information on changes that have been uncovered" (in key sites).
Our coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council resolutions, violated a cease-fire agreement, sponsored terrorism, and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction.
It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.
Originally posted by Valhall
For Pete's sake, Muaddib, and the sake of all of us who have read these repetitive statements by you, knowing full well they are hooey. Stop trying to defend something that Bush himself has given up defending!
Don't you think if there was ANY shred of a WMD program, or WMDs in Iraq, last night when Bush himself was trying to justify why we're there now and all the great stuff that's come from it, HE WOULD HAVE POINTED THAT OUT HIMSELF!
He didn't - because there was no evidence!
Originally posted by Valhall
Muaddib, You are officially standing ALONE in your claims of any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The president has abandoned you.
[edit on 12-20-2005 by Valhall]
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I don't believe the media was left or right-leaning back then as I'm not sure that notion existed. At least not to the extremes it does today.
Irrespective of who the president was; we're talking about the media and its methods of reporting. Back then, I feel the media did a great job (from old news reels and such) of explaining, without hyperbole or bipartisan wordsmithing, what went on.
Now, much of news sources are owned by left-leaning individuals/corporations; which, in and of itself is not a problem. But it becomes a problem when they focus only on certain events that typically villifies the position of the left.
I find it ironic, however, that in today's world of dirty deals (oil-for-food, etc) that some countries (France) seem to have forgotten the sacrifices made by our troops to liberate them.
As far as my comments: they are simply an indictment on what I perceive is a problem with the media today--nothing more; and they certainly aren't meant as criticism for our involvement in WWII. Good day!
Originally posted by Valhall
Don't you think if there was ANY shred of a WMD program, or WMDs in Iraq, last night when Bush himself was trying to justify why we're there now and all the great stuff that's come from it, HE WOULD HAVE POINTED THAT OUT HIMSELF!
He didn't - because there was no evidence!
Originally posted by Freedon_for_sum
Cindy (her son is rolling in his grave) Sheehan got MORE than her fair share on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
How do you know he's rolling in his grave? I like the fact that "right-wingers" are so willing to tell Cindy Sheehan how her son felt, without ever having known him.
George, it has been seven months today since your reckless and wanton foreign policies killed my son...
It has been seven months since your ignorant and arrogant lack of planning for the peace murdered my oldest child...
Hard work is having your country abandon you after they killed your son. Hard work is coming to the realization that your son had his future robbed from him and that you have had your son's future and future grand-children stolen from you. Hard work is knowing that there are so many people in this world that have prospered handsomely from your son's death....
By the way, George, how many more innocent Iraqis are your policies going to kill before you convince them that you are better than Saddam?
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Why can't you just accept that she's a mother lost in her grief and let it go, why do you have to directly attack her?
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
In one sweeping generalisation you have revealed yourself as anti-anything on the left.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You attack the media that reports the facts from Iraq.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You intimate that said media finds the deaths of Iraqis more important than the deaths of US service personnel, thereby opening yourself to the charge that you find Iraqis to be less important and therefore less human.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You make it obvious that regardless of the truth, you will support the president and his errors or downright illegalities.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
How do you feel about Watergate, the plumbers and the bombing of Cambodia?
Originally posted by BlackThought
The IAEA Said before the invasion that there was no reason to step up pressure because he as not reconstituted this weapons program. They also said it was working and that the inspections had full access to Sadam’s residents, palaces, and manufacturing areas. They said what was true on the ground and that has more leverage with me than politicians that are trying to get a rise out of you.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Valhall;
You, as well as others, continue to judge our decision to attack Iraq based on information we know now--gleaned from the luxury of hindsight; not what we knew then. Everyone agreed that Iraq had WMD's. Again; the disagreement to atttack was over whether Iraq was the degree of threat the US perceived her to be. I've presented evidence here showing this fact. You cannot judge a decision made in the past based on information that wasn't widely available at the time.
I'm now at the point where I'm inclined to say that we should just simply say "we agree to disagree"; as I believe this thread has about run its course.
[edit on 21-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]
Originally posted by Valhall
Excuse me? Where the heck have you been for the past year? There are insinuations that the false intelligence that led everybody but the ones who knew it was false to believe the reasons you state was intentionally manufactured - not just incompetence.
Originally posted by Valhall
And there is still a lot that needs to be cleared up.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Originally posted by Valhall
Excuse me? Where the heck have you been for the past year? There are insinuations that the false intelligence that led everybody but the ones who knew it was false to believe the reasons you state was intentionally manufactured - not just incompetence.
Valhall;
You're not getting it man! I only care about that information the administration was using in the days, weeks, months, leading up to the Iraq war. Since we've been in Iraq almost three years now, what has happened in the last year is irrelevent to the decisions made leading up to the war.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were
killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight.
I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."
Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion,
and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a
public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in
advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."