Rumsfeld on the Ropes

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You guys need to quit hammering on the Illuminati, for the most part we hang out, eat ribs and play ping pong.

Har!!

But I really know what you guys have been doing all along.

You were forecasting the events of 9/11 in movies for years beforehand with subtle hints!!

Im onto you now though.

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Hollywood_911.htm

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You guys need to quit hammering on the Illuminati, for the most part we hang out, eat ribs and play ping pong.

Don't you guys also prevent the development of the electric car?

Hey, I have no beef with it--but I want in!

As for the question of whether they "lied" or were simply "wrong"--there's a ton of evidence now that the administration at least disregarded evidence that contradicted their views. Is that as bad as lying? Well let's look at the consequences 3000+ American soldiers dead, about five times that (I think--too lazy to get the actual numbers) wounded, and untold Iraqi casualties.

If I were Bush, I'd be spending some sleepless nights thinking about whether I might have had other options. He doesn't seem overly troubled by anything like a conscience, though.

To say that it's a "conspiracy," we have to assume that there is some other agenda going on here--and I'm a little unconvinced. The Oil argument doesn't hold a lot of water for me. First of all, the US gets most of its Oil from Canada, believe it or not. Secondly, war in the middle east just raises the price of crude oil globally, resulting in higher gas prices--which are fatal for any presidency. Just ask Jimmy Carter--or now, you might ask on George W. Bush. Military bases for a later invasion of Iran? Time will tell, but if that's the motivation, this will turn out to be a massive strategic blunder, given the U.S.' failure to establish command and control over any reasonable portion of the country. The best metaphor for Iraq right now is the "Tar Baby."

It may not have been a conspiracy--but it IS a disaster--and for those who supported it, I'm sorry to say that it was a predictable disaster, to anyone not drinking the "New American Century" kool-aid.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally when the phone company wanted to set up emergency numbers like 4-1-1 and 9-1-1 it was suppossed to be 1-2-3 and 1-0-1 which was felt to be easier. We in the Illuminati put the events of 9/11 in motion much earlier and to warn our brotheren of this day of enlightenment changed 1-2-3 to 4-1-1 since both numbers add to 6, and its a reminder of April 1, 2001 which we predicted would be a sunny day where we could walk amongst the ignorant shrouded in shadows and wearing our flip flops. And we changed 1-0-1 which is an accepted translation of S-O-S, to 9/11 so our super shadowy secret organization would know when all of our secret plotting and conspiring would erupt in chaos.

(toungue in cheek alert . . . toungue in cheek alert)

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Vietnam: I think most people blame LBJ for Vietnam, not Nixon. But don't you think Nixon deserves part of the blame for not ending American involvement sooner? Of course, hindsight is 20/20--but I highly doubt there's anyone who blames Republicans for this war per se.

You and Vulcan are the only ones worth answering, so here goes.

Can Vietnam be blamed on the democrats? Sure thing, they started it, Nixon tried too and was for a while ending it. But who actually gets blamed? Maybe we should ask Lanny about that. I'm sure he'll come up with another conspiracy theory to back up his opinion.

Remember, Kennedy sent in diplomatic workers, Johnson sent in troops and Nixon was left to deal with the mess.

I'm not talking about WW2 either; I believe FDR did an admirable job for the situation he was in.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I can't speak for others but I don't hate Bush and although I lean to the left, I don't consider myself an idealogue. I'm angry that his lies have been used to justify a war and cause the deaths of many soldiers and civilians. I'm angry that instead of bringing stability to the mideast, he's given the terrorists a new breeding ground. I'm angry that instead of looking after the U.S.A.s economy, his policies have caused a huge deficit propped up by printing more money which has caused the price of oil to skyrocket. Can inflation be far behind?

An American can say these are their own problems, but every Canadian knows that when the USA flinches Canada takes an elbow to the ribs.

Trust me, I'm not happy with what is going on in Iraq too. But was the war based on lies? That is your opinion.

To me if Bush had lied about going to war he would have at least planted WMD is Iraq to justify his lying. But trust me, had the US found WMD in Iraq, Bush would have been accused of putting them there.

Its a no-win situation either way.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Can Vietnam be blamed on the democrats? Sure thing, they started it, Nixon tried too and was for a while ending it. But who actually gets blamed? Maybe we should ask Lanny about that. I'm sure he'll come up with another conspiracy theory to back up his opinion.

Bwaaaahahahaha! Beat you to it bonehead. I already laid the blame of Vietnam at the feet of the responsible, the Democrats. But nice try.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

To say that it's a "conspiracy," we have to assume that there is some other agenda going on here--and I'm a little unconvinced. The Oil argument doesn't hold a lot of water for me. First of all, the US gets most of its Oil from Canada, believe it or not. Secondly, war in the middle east just raises the price of crude oil globally, resulting in higher gas prices--which are fatal for any presidency. Just ask Jimmy Carter--or now, you might ask on George W. Bush. Military bases for a later invasion of Iran? Time will tell, but if that's the motivation, this will turn out to be a massive strategic blunder, given the U.S.' failure to establish command and control over any reasonable portion of the country. The best metaphor for Iraq right now is the "Tar Baby."

It may not have been a conspiracy--but it IS a disaster--and for those who supported it, I'm sorry to say that it was a predictable disaster, to anyone not drinking the "New American Century" kool-aid.

And because of those comments I can look upon what you read and approach it with an open mind. But the minute someone starts hammering out conspiracy theories or "blood for oil" nonsense, I quit reading it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Trust me, I'm not happy with what is going on in Iraq too. But was the war based on lies? That is your opinion.

"Lies" is such a strong word. I prefer "truth-impaired utterances."

Seriously, though. Whether you believe Bush lied or not all depends on who knew what when. It's now quite clear that the administration was receiving extremely mixed signals at the very least--and I'll give you two examples of things that can in all probability be called "lies," if your definition (like mine) is "knowingly making a statement designed to misinform or mislead."

The first has to do with aluminium tubes ordered by Iraq. Bush claimed in the State of the Union address that these tubes were intended for the enrichment of Uranium--but it now appears that both he and his administration had known for MONTHS that these tubes were completely unsuitable for this purpose. Isn't that a lie?

The famous "trailers" cited by Colin Powell in his address to the U.N. had ALREADY been investigated by American intelligence operatives--and had been conclusively found to have nothing to do with WMD production. Powell went ahead and used them in his address anyway. Isn't that a lie?

I'm not commenting on conspiracies, or what the actual agenda may have been--but I don't see how these can be anything but untruths. And these are merely the tip of the iceberg. I haven't even got into Rumsfeld claiming "bulletproof" evidence that Al-Qaeda and Iraq were tied to one another, Dick Cheney making the same claim and then later DENYING ever having made that claim when it was clear that it was untrue. Condi Rice saying the "smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud"--the list goes on. If these aren't lies, then I don't know what the standard could possibly be.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Bwaaaahahahaha! Beat you to it bonehead. I already laid the blame of Vietnam at the feet of the responsible, the Democrats. But nice try.

Naturally. Just like we hold Clinton responsible for not dealing with Iraq when he had the chance, right?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

"Lies" is such a strong word. I prefer "truth-impaired utterances."

Seriously, though. Whether you believe Bush lied or not all depends on who knew what when. It's now quite clear that the administration was receiving extremely mixed signals at the very least--and I'll give you two examples of things that can in all probability be called "lies," if your definition (like mine) is "knowingly making a statement designed to misinform or mislead."

I realize what you're saying but still think that the government has information we don't have. They knew about certain things we still don't know about. Which is why the whole "no WMD found" arguement does not hold water for me.

I know I'm going to be labeled a Bush-lover for saying that, but to me I will give the government the benefit of the doubt until its term is over. Bush still has two years left, God knows what could happen.

When those two years are over and Iraq is still in the same situation it is now, then will I say Bush did not justify his war.

Funny that no one mentions Oil-for-Food......

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Okay, how about this theory for the reason to invade Iraq, and now have an eye on Iran... to save the empire. The American dollar is the defacto standard for trade because of the direct relationship between oil and the greenback. This artificially keeps the American currency strong, even in times of discord, when currencies traditionally take a beating. What if Bush and Co. were just protecting the empire by insuring the dollar remained the standard for oil purchases and the standard for international trade? Should the standard change currencies, the American dollar would likely be dumped on the open market causing the dollar to plummet and the deficit to rise to even greater levels than it is. Maybe the invasion of Iraq and sabre rattling with Iran is to prevent this change from being initiated by oil producers in the middle east?

Too much of a conspiracy theory for you?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

And because of those comments I can look upon what you read and approach it with an open mind. But the minute someone starts hammering out conspiracy theories or "blood for oil" nonsense, I quit reading it.

Agreed. One of the things that bothers me about this debate is that it seems like either one is in favour of the Bushies' foreign policy, or one believes in a vast global conspiracy of the powerful, which is a bit goofy. That's not to say "mini-conspiracies" don't exist, but the extreme left's "blood for oil" angle on this conflict doesn't (if you'll forgive the expression) hold a lot of water.

But on the other hand it's pretty clear that Wolfowitz and the New American Century folks wanted into Iraq for years before 9/11--and saw that attack as the opportunity they needed to create the right political environment to make this war possible. I think they're now learning that their actual objectives are pretty far off, though--it's more incompetence than a conspiracy.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Okay, how about this theory for the reason to invade Iraq, and now have an eye on Iran... to save the empire. The American dollar is the defacto standard for trade because of the direct relationship between oil and the greenback. This artificially keeps the American currency strong, even in times of discord, when currencies traditionally take a beating. What if Bush and Co. were just protecting the empire by insuring the dollar remained the standard for oil purchases and the standard for international trade? Should the standard change currencies, the American dollar would likely be dumped on the open market causing the dollar to plummet and the deficit to rise to even greater levels than it is. Maybe the invasion of Iraq and sabre rattling with Iran is to prevent this change from being initiated by oil producers in the middle east?

Too much of a conspiracy theory for you?

Well, if that was their reason, it isn't working very well--since Oil prices have risen, and the US dollar is now taking a beating because of the deficit (among other reasons).

Alberta oil companies must be loving life about now, though...

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

Naturally. Just like we hold Clinton responsible for not dealing with Iraq when he had the chance, right?

EDIT: n/m

[Lurch]

To say that it's a "conspiracy," we have to assume that there is some other agenda going on here--and I'm a little unconvinced. The Oil argument doesn't hold a lot of water for me. First of all, the US gets most of its Oil from Canada, believe it or not.

Believe it not. I don't think the US invaded Iraq for oil, but this comment is simply not true. Canada produces 2.6 million bbl/day, while the US imports something like 14 million bbl/day. Canada would need to produce 5 times its current levels to meet US demand. I believe we are the single biggest source, but even still account for less than 20% of US imports.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Funny that no one mentions Oil-for-Food......

You really like to do that, don't you? You like to try to change the subject when you can't defend your point of view. What does the oil/food scandal have to do with all those "un-truths" you were confronted with?

Which is why the whole "no WMD found" arguement does not hold water for me.

"No WMD found" is not an argument, it's the truth. They've admitted it. You don't really believe they did find them and aren't telling us, do you?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Believe it not. I don't think the US invaded Iraq for oil, but this comment is simply not true. Canada produces 2.6 million bbl/day, while the US imports something like 14 million bbl/day. Canada would need to produce 5 times its current levels to meet US demand. I believe we are the single biggest source, but even still account for less than 20% of US imports.

Fair enough--I must have misunderstood my source. Single biggest producer is still pretty substantial, though. And I still don't think it helps the US to create instability in the middle east, though.... but I'm no economist.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Believe it not. I don't think the US invaded Iraq for oil, but this comment is simply not true. Canada produces 2.6 million bbl/day, while the US imports something like 14 million bbl/day. Canada would need to produce 5 times its current levels to meet US demand. I believe we are the single biggest source, but even still account for less than 20% of US imports.

Canada is currently the biggest oil exporter to the US. Something 66 million barrels per month, if I remember correctly.

There are a couple nations around 50 million though.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You really like to do that, don't you? You like to try to change the subject when you can't defend your point of view. What does the oil/food scandal have to do with all those "un-truths" you were confronted with?

Which is why the whole "no WMD found" arguement does not hold water for me.

"No WMD found" is not an argument, it's the truth. They've admitted it. You don't really believe they did find them and aren't telling us, do you?

Actually I really am wondering where all that money went. Surely Saddam didn't use it to build weapons, right?

Saddam had WMD, Clinton said so.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Naturally. Just like we hold Clinton responsible for not dealing with Iraq when he had the chance, right?

WTF are you talking about? Clinton dealt with Iraq the best way that he could. Clinton did not invade Iraq because he knew there was no way to manage the situation effectively. He knew going in that it was a quagmire waiting to happen. And how did he know that? He LISTENED to the military and they told him it was a no win situation. The best thing they could have done was to contain and use diplomacy. That is what the military wanted to do and that was exactly what they did.

If you want to blame someone for not getting the job done in Iraq place the blame where it really belongs, at the feet of Bush41. Bush had an international coalition in 1991 and could have easily removed Hussein from power, but he chose not to. If the most pressing issue was to get Hussein out of the way, it could have been done then and there, with international approval. Unfortunately there was the thing of maintaining Iraq and the stability of the region, even then. Bush41 knew that Iraq was better with a crippled Hussein in power than having the mayhem in the region that his removal would cause. Bush41 made the decision, and in retrospect, it was the right one. A secular Iraq was the best thing possible in region. Now that is nothing more than a pipe dream.

Originally Posted by Azure

I realize what you're saying but still think that the government has information we don't have. They knew about certain things we still don't know about. Which is why the whole "no WMD found" arguement does not hold water for me.

That's right, we do. What the public sees is about 1/10th of 1% of the information available on a given subject. The story that is released to the media looks nothing at all what the facts of the matter is. There was a boatload of information that showed that Iraq HAD WMDs, but there was also a load that said it had been destroyed. The intelligence was picked over and the stuff that supported the plan to invade was presented. The stuff that echoed the sentiments of the UN and the inspectors was buried. Congress voted on what the Bush admin presented, and what they presented was a well shaped package that was designed to make you believe one thing, which was counter to the facts. I'm not sure what you're mother taught you, but mine taught me that is lying.

I guess I have to ask you, if the American evidence was so damning, why did it not convince anyone else in the security council and in the general assembly when Powell presented it? I'll save you the time. Because it conflicted with the intelligence that other nations had, that's why.

I know I'm going to be labeled a Bush-lover for saying that, but to me I will give the government the benefit of the doubt until its term is over. Bush still has two years left, God knows what could happen.

That's your perogative, and its great to hear someone living in small town Alberta say as much. Too bad its not your tax money that is paying for all that is going on in Iraq. Too bad you don't live in a city of 5.5 million people with infrastructure for 2 million. Too bad you aren't subject to the grid lock that politics has caused in this country. You might have a completely different view on the subject.

When those two years are over and Iraq is still in the same situation it is now, then will I say Bush did not justify his war.

Why should any time frame have anything to do with justifying the war? Good lord, that's weak. And how about America? How the situation IT is in? Shouldn't the President of the United States be first concerned about what goes on in his country? There are so many things in the country that are dog**** it isn't even funny, but Bush is still blowin' a billion and a half dollars a day over in Iraq.

Funny that no one mentions Oil-for-Food......

What's to mention? It's done. Sanctions have meen handed out. The real funny thing is that American companies got the majority of the goodies in that whole mess, but none of that has hardly been mentioned. Why is that?