Article

2004-02-12 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-02-12 12:40:32 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This is a Democrat tactic: repeat a lie often enough and people will start believing it, no matter what the facts are to the contrary.

Its time to sue these bastards for slander.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-2-12 12:53:31 AM|| 2004-2-12 12:53:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I saw this on TV, it was great. Powell looked like a Man and Mr. Brown looked like a boy! He's da general!

Posted by CobraCommander 2004-2-12 1:33:42 AM|| 2004-2-12 1:33:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Medved played part of it today on his show. Way to go Sec. ABC news has really been a puppet in this whole (hole) low life attempt to frame the dialogue. If GW played poker, drank Brew 102, or chased tuna during his hitch, thats good enough for me as long as he got his Honorable. If Kerry had his boxers all in a twist, hated Johnson, Nixon, don't matter. What matters is who going to win this war. Antiwar thinks the war is either a farce or not worth fighting. So far that sounds like Kerry.

Posted by Lucky 2004-2-12 1:34:23 AM|| 2004-2-12 1:34:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Repeat the lie Old Spook?! OK Repeat this: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction --repeat it in the State of the Union Address--send Condi out to Meet the Press to say the same thing--send Cheney out to repeat it--all lies---but wait a damn minute--the Repooplicans said it so suddenly it's not a lie

Posted by NotMike Moore 2004-2-12 2:16:59 AM|| 2004-2-12 2:16:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Here's something for you to repeat NMM: France, Clinton, Russia, Al Gore, the UN, Germany. What do they all have in common? They ALL believed that Iraq had WMDs. All of them, no exception.

BTW: has it struck you yet that France, not exactly our pals these days, hasn't made an issue about the "WMD lies"? Guess why? Because THEY believed the weapons were there too.

So here it is friend: either EVERYBODY lied or they were ALL fooled.

Not too, that as the investigations into intelligence roll out here and the UK, and there are several that have already reported, including the congressional one mentioned in the posting earlier today and the UK "sexed up" story, and NONE has found that there was any manipulation of intelligence. NONE.

If the Democrats are going to try and stand on this leg, they'll find that it's made of balsa.

Posted by RMcLeod 2004-2-12 3:25:23 AM|| 2004-2-12 3:25:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I can't wait until Frank J. gets ahold of this article. Then builds another 'In My World' story about it at IMAO! Rumsfeld is usually the Strangler there. It'll be cool to read SecDef Powell flexing his chops. And pounding a few foreheads across mahogany desk tops!... BTW, let me know when NMM says something relevant!

Posted by Jack Deth 2004-2-12 3:28:06 AM|| 2004-2-12 3:28:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 NMM

Dont you ever get tired from repeating the same old s*** and never being able to contribute anything to a reasonable discussion?

You must be a truly small person.

Posted by Evert Visser 2004-2-12 4:26:41 AM|| [http://chinditz.blog-city.com/] 2004-2-12 4:26:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Once more NMM: If Bush lied, so did Clinton. So did MI6. So did French, German, Russian and Chinese intelligence. EVERYBODY was wrong about Saddam's possesion of WMDs. And quite possibly, even Saddam himself may have thought he had them.

But, the conclusion of your argument is troublesome. You complain about the war, and are saying that it was wrong to remove Saddam. Essentially what you are saying is that Saddam should still be in power, that the mass graves should still be open to his people, Qusay's plastic's shredder should still be running, and Uday should still have his "special arraignment" with jr. high school principles.

Tell me again how your side cares so much more for the little guys, the ordinary Iraqi people than Bush does? You and your side would do nothing, did nothing for 8 years. And the Iraqi people suffered.

Posted by Ben 2004-2-12 5:06:44 AM|| 2004-2-12 5:06:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Evert Visser - Can't you see? NMM is a BIG man. How do I know? NMM spends his entire life, running around letting everyone know how he is sooo much bigger and better and smarter than the US president and all of the other men who have achieved success. If they are smaller than him, he must be big.

Posted by B 2004-2-12 7:02:00 AM|| 2004-2-12 7:02:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 I'd like to note that my $20 bet is still open (proceeds to Fred's tip jar). if anyone locates a quote from a senior administration official stating we have not found WMD's in Iraq.

I pointed out yesterday that in these exchanges with Powell, there are no quotes even though the reporters worked hard on the copy to make it appear that the are. Same with the GW interview.

$20 on the line for anyone who can give me a quote from the likes of GW, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheny, Franks, etc ( must be serious source, in a position to know - ie: Scott Ritter and partisan hacks don't count. I'll be the judge of that, but I'm reasonable.).

Posted by B 2004-2-12 7:15:48 AM|| 2004-2-12 7:15:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 come on help me out here!!....I actually need to hit Fred's tip jar as I haven't done it in a long time. With all this hype about poor intelligence and the entire DU blogging 24/7 about Bush lied/people died - are they really so foolish that not a single quote to be found????

Posted by B 2004-2-12 7:23:19 AM|| 2004-2-12 7:23:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Powell be Da Man.

Posted by dataman1 2004-2-12 7:56:43 AM|| 2004-2-12 7:56:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Sigh...still no quote, but the good news is that after reading this article, I think I finally figured this out.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE STOCKPILES, STUPID!!
Powell says:
"The reason we told you there were stockpiles there was because we believed it to be true," Powell said. "We were surprised when they did not turn up."

I think that what this will boil down to is "stockpiles". They expected to find "stockpiles" but they did not. Oh...they found plenty of WMD's alright, just not "stockpiles" of them. Instead what they found was small mobile labs, and lots of WMD's buried in gardens and hidden in homes.

Didn't they just find that big cyanide block in a home? I'm just guessing, but the fact that they didn't catch that this idea of individuals hiding bits and pieces in their homes/businesses is how the intelligence failed.

Posted by B 2004-2-12 8:17:51 AM|| 2004-2-12 8:17:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 B, that's questionable. "Stockpiles" doesn't necessarily mean a huge ammo dump. The little caches of weapons in mosques, schools, and hospitals (why are there no prosecutions for these war crimes?) are "stockpiles."

It may sound like hair-splitting, but how many weapons constitute a "stockpile?" If it's "a lot," then above quote doesn't get Fred paid. If it's "more than one," I'm listening for the ka-ching.

Posted by Jackal 2004-2-12 8:26:18 AM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-2-12 8:26:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Jackal...hmm...that's a good point. Fact is, I don't really know what constitutes a "stockpile". But...we do know for a fact that they have already some barrels, so stockpiles must mean more than that. So, Powell's statement would be untrue if a stockpile can be considered just a couple of barrels or cyanide blocks.

Well..if no one can do better than this, I may have to hit the tip jar on a technicality. But this statement isn't exactly the same as "Sadaam did not have any wmds".

If it's true that they are just coming up dry, I think someone should be able to find something more conclusive than a hair-splitter like this.

Posted by B 2004-2-12 9:05:56 AM|| 2004-2-12 9:05:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 perhaps a more informed rantburger could clarify this "stockpile" issue for us.

Posted by B 2004-2-12 9:11:29 AM|| 2004-2-12 9:11:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 hey...wait just a dog gone minute here. If "stockpiles can be considered the little caches already found in mosques, schools, and hospitals...then when Colin says..."We were surprised when they did not turn up" it logically implies that he is referring to something other than that when he uses the word, "stockpiles".

Judges??

Posted by B 2004-2-12 9:34:10 AM|| 2004-2-12 9:34:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Well, my definition of "stockpile" would be a bunker with a cache of hundreds or thousands of rounds of artillery rounds loaded with chemical agents. A couple of barrels of, say, old mustard gas would not be a "stockpile".
It all depends on how you define something, you have to look behind the words. Like when the police say they found a "arsenal" including a "thousand rounds" of ammunition. The average person thinks "Oh my god!". A shooter thinks "What, they found a couple of bricks of .22 ammo? Big deal."

Posted by Steve 2004-2-12 9:54:45 AM|| 2004-2-12 9:54:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Ah ha! Thanks Steve!! My bet still stands!

Posted by B 2004-2-12 10:00:05 AM|| 2004-2-12 10:00:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 I'd give a weeks pay to see someone clock Chuck Schumer. I can't stand that guy.

Posted by Lil Dhimmi 2004-2-12 11:14:09 AM|| 2004-2-12 11:14:09 AM|| Front Page Top

08:47 john bragg
07:01 B
00:16 Anonymous
00:01 SON OF TOLUI
23:45 Barbara Skolaut
23:45 Lucky
23:40 Lucky
23:28 Lucky
23:23 Tresho
23:21 Dan
23:08 tu3031
22:55 tu3031
22:53 tu3031
22:52 Lucky
22:40 chainey
22:24 tu3031
22:18 tu3031
21:46 john
21:46 Anonymous2U
21:43 Lurker
21:39 Paul Moloney
21:37 Anonymous2U
21:36 dataman1
21:29 john