Check this picture out....see if you can figure out which historical figure it resembles.

How do you spell M-A-G-A-L-O-M-A-N-I-CM-e-g-a-l-o-m-a-n-i-a-c.

Sorry, sorry, sorry ... I couldn't resist. I'll leave it be.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

That's a funny picture, but he only says hello...

Arghh... what am I doing? I'm protecting Rumsfeld! No, no, no, sorry I have to clean my soul now if I don't want to go in hell! ;)

seeing Donald "where's ya troosers" inevitably leads one to neo-cons, and hence onto the Panorama special (few weeks back) on neocons.
The sad (or worrying,?) thing is that a large majority of those in Washington who are neocons today, were actually democrats, or at least left of centre a few decades back. Hell one of the neocons interviewed on Panorama said that he had been active in the civil rights movement.

That doesn't mean a whole lot. The center has always skewed right and the left in this country have tended to be right of center. The distinction between democans or republicrats is a trivial set of magnitude issues.

It was a Democrat that ended wellfare and a republican that ended slavery (actually the real story is more interesting). Neither were very sympathetic to the newly freed peoples. Both groups in fact replaced their archaic systems with slave wages.

That he's doing the hitler thing is unsurprising. What always characterized Hitler and the Nazi's were the pronunciations of moral superiority. In fact Hitler and Rumsfeld have much in common. Hitler proclaimed that Poland was invading Germany in order to sell a war to the public. Of course the pictures were doctored and information fabricated, an act purely of expansionism. Sound familiar?

I know that some neo-cons were actually communists! Perle and the gang were Trotkyists for a while:

"Most neo-conservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right." Michael Lind argues in the New Statesman and Salon magazines that many were anti-Stalinist Trotskyists who became anti-communist liberals, then shifted to a "militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history."

They call their revolutionary ideology "Wilsonianism" (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.

The final corner of the neoconservative pentagon is occupied by several right-wing media empires, with roots - odd as it seems - in the Commonwealth and South Korea. Rupert Murdoch disseminates propaganda through his Fox Television network. His magazine the Weekly Standard, edited by William Kristol, the former chief of staff of Dan Quayle (vice-president, 1989-93), acts as a mouthpiece for defence intellectuals such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and Woolsey as well as for Sharon's government. The National Interest (of which I was executive editor, 1991-94) is now funded by Conrad Black, who owns the Jerusalem Post and the Hollinger empire in Britain and Canada.




http://dupagepeace.home.att.net/bush7.html

:eek: pretty scary stuff!

Rummy is my hero! :D
Even if he'd be working on the other side. That guy's just brilliant.

Brilliant at what?

Originally posted by guthrie
Brilliant at what?

at everything he does.
a great speaker, thinker, leader...
the way he carries himself with confidence...
he should be the president.

If I were braindead I'd vote for him as well. He has surpassed Ari Flescher as the most contradictory person on the staff of the white house.

Today Rumsfeld clarified that the bands of Iraqi marauders are not guerrillas. A journalist read the dictionary defintion: a person who engages in irregular warfare especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage (not exactly, but close enough). Rumsfeld still disagreed.

He's also disingenuous in his comparisons. He compared the deaths of U.S. soldiers following the war to death statistics of Washington. Earlier he had stated that the media was misrepresenting Iraq as being out of control.

Too many lies.

If thats all it takes to be president I've got some ex movie stars youd like. No hang on, havnt you had that already?

Originally posted by Teg

Too many lies.

i suppose you know the truth then?
which you know how?

Rums lies?

Iraqi WMD, Iraqi-Al-Qaeda connection? What are those, :rolleyes:

iraq and al-qaeda connection has been established a month ago, when an al-qaeda envoy (maybe UBL himself? i forgot) met with saddam in 99 or 97. don't remember.

WMD? powell was talking about certain mobile labs.
2 were discovered. EXACTLY the type he was talking about.

---------------
i have a feeling that nothing will be good enough as a proof for those who don't want to believe

iraq and al-qaeda connection has been established a month ago, when an al-qaeda envoy (maybe UBL himself? i forgot) met with saddam in 99 or 97. don't remember.


I want a link for that one, b/c if that were in the realm of reality I wouldn't be hearing this on T.V "what connection btwn Al Qaeda- Iraq?", you'll believe anything, and 99 or 97? That sounds real convincing. ;) keep it up one day you'll be a mini-rums too.

WMD? powell was talking about certain mobile labs.
2 were discovered. EXACTLY the type he was talking about.

OMG mobile labs, too bad they haven't found one inch of evidence to support that they were WMD labs. Again no WMD, and they weren't actual WMD. So sorry no somking gun. Nice try.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=7636

And now, within the past few days, the London Telegraph has reported the monumentally important discovery of top-secret documents in the bombed-out Baghdad headquarters of Iraq’s intelligence service, documents that provide "evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein’s regime." The newly unearthed papers show that in March 1998, "an al Qaeda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad . . . to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al Qaeda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia." According to the Telegraph report, "[t]he meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad." Notably, this envoy’s visit took place less than five months before bin Laden’s group bombed two US embassies in Africa.

With each passing week, our understanding of Iraq’s terrorist ties continues to grow. On April 21, the New York Times reported that a scientist affiliated for more than ten years with Saddam’s chemical weapons program told an American military team that Iraq "had secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to Syria, starting in the mid-1990’s, and that more recently Iraq was cooperating with al Qaeda." According to the Times, this scientist, who revealed that Iraq had destroyed chemical and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, "led Americans to a supply of material that proved to be the building blocks of illegal weapons, which he claimed to have buried as evidence of Iraq’s illicit weapons programs."





you'll believe anything
you don't want to believe the truth

This is obviously a big story yet you give me a no name source? Please give me a big news corporation, if they missed this one well there is no telling. Please a CNN,BBC,DW,etc. I am ready to believe some frontpage news, that deserves to be on the back.

Firstly, those two suspicious WMD trailers with canvas sides and no traces of toxins or anything were identified as most likely helium ballon launch trailers, for military use with artillery etc. A system sold to saddam by the british, if my memory serves me correctly. IE nothing to do with WMDs

Then as for the Torygraph, its funny how nobody else has picked up on its findings, and that it hasnt been able to corroborate them with anything else. It was already known that an associate of Bin Laden visited Baghdad, but there is no evidence that he met Saddam or they discussed an alliance, except that very dodgy stuff the telegraph has. There appears a complete lack of real evidence connecting the two partys.

i've seen this on CNN 1st time (i don't have any of the other major networks). it's really surprising this hasn't been made to be a big story. it should have.
check out their archives. i'm sure u'll find the story. i'm too lazy to look for it.

as for sources, the link i provided mentions the London Telegraph, NY Times.

i remember in the story on CNN they said that these papers were clumsily covered with white out (Osama's name and "al-qaeda") but easily restored after scraping off the white out.

Originally posted by guthrie
except that very dodgy stuff the telegraph has.

why is it dodgy?

i've seen this on CNN 1st time

:rolleyes: sure you did.

check out their archives. i'm sure u'll find the story. i'm too lazy to look for it.

HAHA your a ignorant and funny little man, me find something that you have the burdeon of truth to present. Oh man thanks.

London Telegraph, NY Times.

Two sources out of hundreds worldwide, and funny enough are conservative, am i the only one to see a connection? :rolleyes:

That it was found in a bombed out building, in suspiciously good condition, that no-one else has found anything like it, and greater play hasnt been made of it. i mean if its that good, why hasnt the gvt taken it up and trumpeted it from the roofotps?

"sure you did"
are you saying i'm making this up?

"two sources out of hundreds worldwide"

yea. 2 sources that would like to preserve themselves as being viewed as "good" newspapers with something called "journalist integrity".

-----
and i don't know why the gov't haven't used this link.
this is really bizzare

Your right, it is bizzare. So many questions and very few answers.

k i've been looking around.... haven't found a link to that story yet, but found something else.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/26/us.iraq.alqaeda/index.html
We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development," Rice said.
... there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad," she said. "There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented."

At the same time, she cautioned that "no one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11th, so we don't want to push this too far."

How old is the info? And yes maybe you are lying, and journalistic integrity? LOL, sure have you watch the Fox network? Thanks Geraldo for giving out the exact US position and telling the Iraqi's what the US' next moves was, great. What a joke. As for the aforementioned quote it is from the US government I want independant new, not propoganda, last time that happened it was the Niger-Iraq connection.

Thats more like it. Although one has to wonder what evidence is so good that they havnt told us it yet.
And yet a large proportion of americans still believe saddam was directly connected to 11/09.
And still no pesky WMD's.
From the same report:
"A senior U.S. official told CNN on Thursday that the information cited by Rice is a couple of months old and refers to training in chemical weapons development that apparently took place two years ago. The official called the information "circumstantial evidence, and certainly not proof" of any linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda. "
At least now theyre playing it safer than simply announcing it as perfect proof.

if you read the article you will see that this info was 8 months old at the time (sept/2002).

and, "yes maybe you are lying" ???
why would i lie? if i knew it was a lie i wouldn't support it.

"circumstantial evidence, and certainly not proof"
this is an analysis, an opinion of one anonymous U.S. official.

if you read the article you will see that this info was 8 months old at the time (sept/2002).

Ohh then is soo very propoganda, I think Goebells must be working for them. 9/2002! Please that was even before Bushie went to the UN. You shouldn't do that, as a concerned member to another your cred. depends on lies.

why would i lie? if i knew it was a lie i wouldn't support it.

Maybe you are lying with out know it ;)

And you believe the anonymous reports and individual iraqi scientists who they base all their claims on?

the americans were talking about iraq long before they went to the UN with it. through your logic that means it's propaganda. i don't see how.

Originally posted by nico
Maybe you are lying with out know it ;)
maybe you are?:rolleyes:


guthrie:
these reports are not "anonymous"
and if some iraqi scientists tell their stories anonymously, as soon as they get out of Iraq they reveal themselves.

the americans were talking about iraq long before they went to the UN with it. through your logic that means it's propaganda. i don't see how.

I think what makes it even more propogandish is because the world wasn't looking thus these lies aren't left up to Scrutiny of the international community, and bombard the American public before debate begins. The US was talking about Iraq that's it, it was August '02 that America began to talk about invasion. There is a difference. ;)

"the world wasn't looking"
you mean ordinary citizens like you in me? who only know their info from what the media reports? or spies that have been in iraq for years, satelite images, etc etc.. ?

you mean ordinary citizens like you in me?

Don't be coy, you know what I mean. Firstly you and me and most of this forum aren't exactly normal we keep up with the news so obvious not us.

or spies that have been in iraq for years, satelite images, etc etc.. ?

Spies in Iraq? Not many, and obviously not good ones. The only spies are satellites, and UAV's. The news is obviously false face facts. :rolleyes:

They tend not to tell us the sources for the reports, nor the basis for the information, or anything like that that can help others understand the reports and judge them. If the case for iraq being linked to Al Qaeda is that good, why dont we hear more about it?
And iraqi scientists reveealing themselves to whom? The usa, seems to be the only ones who have access to them.

Remember this. When Saddams son in law Hussein Kamel defected across to Syria I think it was back in 95 or so, i forget exactly whe, he was debriefed and told them all abou the WMD programs he had been involved in. However, Newsweek obtained authentic reports of the debriefing and found he had personally ordered the destruction of Iraqs stocks of WMD's, and therefore htat Iraq had none of them left. IE its program had been dismantled. There were bits and pieces of information left around, and hidden, and they still had the scientists, but all teh stocks were destroyed and the manufacturing capability scattered.
So, in that case, knowing that, why carp on about saddams extant stocks and program and his immediate danger to the west?

Originally posted by nico
... you and me and most of this forum aren't exactly normal we keep up with the news so obvious not us.facts. :rolleyes:

so we read the news. do we know the news are accurate? (from either side)

guthrie:
1- iraqi scientists' names are published in the media. that's how they reveal themselves.
2- saddam's son in law defected to Jordan (if im not mistaken).
let's assume he destroyed the WMD. you think he destroyed ALL of them?? then, let's asume he did. that was 8 years ago (!) alotta things can happen in 8 years. besides, wasn't he the guy who Saddam killed after he tricked him back into Iraq?. and another thing. "newsweek obtained authentic reports ..." how authentic are they? who reported it? what's the source? that's only 1 source out of (as Nico said) "hundreds worldwide"

Originally posted by otheadp
Rummy is my hero! :D
Even if he'd be working on the other side. That guy's just brilliant.

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld
March 30, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
May 27, 2003

Mr. Rumsfeld said on CBS's "Face the Nation, " that American intelligence reports indicated that Iraqi forces "have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them, and that they are weaponized, and that, in one case at least, that the command and control arrangements have been established." as reported in the New York Times, March 24, 2003

It is difficult to believe there still could be any quesiton in the minds of reasonable people open to the facts before them.
Rumsfeld
2003-02-09

Rummy helped Saddam...http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

You better pick a different hero, ya hippo-crit. Or better yet, go to Iraq with Rummy and reveal these WMD b/c rummy 'knows where they are'

believe me, i respect him alot more for fixing his misakes of the past.

so we read the news. do we know the news are accurate? (from either side)


So then why do you bring articles from sept/02? I think you need a blend of mainstream and alternative news. That's what I do, and I seem to be well informed wouldn't you say? :m:

Originally posted by otheadp
believe me, i respect him alot more for fixing his misakes of the past.

What has he fixed, exactly? I now question your character and integrity that you would overlook a man's crimes against iraqi and iranian citizens.

othedap, you asked why those documents found in a bombed, burnt-out building were dodgy? It's because the same document cache was used to charge a british politician, Galloway, with being bribed by Saddam by the Telegraph. And the Christian Science Monitor. The latter has since concluded that the documents were forgeries, apologised, and retracted the story. The Telegraph hasn't, and is being sued by Galloway for libel.
That's why the idea of perfectly preserved, unburnt documents found in a bombed and burnt-out shell of a building is a rather dodgy one.