The deception of linking iraq with the "war on terror"

Your entire post is nothing but speculative mindlessness. Truly, it was even worth the response you got.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I will grant you a great response on the first part.

However, how can you prove any lawyer intentional presented false evidence?

But, the second part is where you start to lose reason.

You better check your sources about the IAEA, they agreed with everyone else about Iraq and WMD's. I think what you need to do is actually read it from the direct source, and not hide behind CNN.

Simply because WMD's were not found at the time we searched for them does not mean it never existed. Especially when Hussein had over a year to do something about it.
more useless speculation and unfounded allegations without an iota of fact to back it up

Truly if think this is speculation, then maybe I need to reconsider having a conversation with you. The fact remains give anyone time to get rid of evidence and then conduct a find nothing search. Does not mean there never was any evidence. If you think that is speculative, then the problem is you not me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again, how are you going to prove a lawyer intentionally withheld evidence that would exonerate the defendant. I will grant you the legal field leaves much to be desired.

However, if you just went with those points alone. Think how easy it would be to get a lawyer disbarred? Sorry, I just think you would have to prove intent.

Intent is a hard thing to prove. What may seem obvious to you or I, may not seem so to the people involved.

You cannot tell me that Bush purposely lied about anything when it comes to the War on Terror, especially Iraq. All your favorite congressmen and women had the same intel as Bush did. Many of them held the same view years before. What changed? The truth is nothing. The only change was that when presented with the same intel there was a republican president. That's it.

BTW- I see your point about working the analogy again, I really do. I do not think anyone can prove intent.

You know I grant that perhaps Bush's mind was mind up with Iraq, but that does not necessarily mean that he crave a war with Iraq; perhaps more specifically Hussein. I am not one of those people who use the UN sanctions as a cause of war. First, I do not recognize the UN as a legitimate institution. Second, the oil for food scandal pretty much means those sanctions were worthless anyway.

I still truly believe that there is not one freedom loving person in this world that wishes war. But unfortunately force is the only thing some people understand, and ultimately the only way to defend ourselves.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We will never know when Saddam had WMD or why or If Bush, Blair and Clinton really believed Saddam had WMD. But why did Bush and Powell use the already discredited stories of Niger Uranium, auminium tubes, and Curveball's mobile weapons labs?

 

Because you refuse to think outside your little deluded box, I am mindless? Good one.

 

Then why are you offended?

 

why would i?
incompetence and willful negligence works for me.

Constructive intent
Involves cases where the accused should have known their behavior created a high or unreasonable risk of injury. Also called criminal negligence, and replaces any specific intent contained in statute, thereby constructing or converting an innocent act to a crime.

 

please provide link if available

 

"why would i?
incompetence and willful negligence works for me."

More importantly why would you, the work is too hard.


"Constructive intent
Involves cases where the accused should have known their behavior created a high or unreasonable risk of injury. Also called criminal negligence, and replaces any specific intent contained in statute, thereby constructing or converting an innocent act to a crime."


Psycho-babble is all that is. It is this type of definition that somehow finds cigarette companies liable for individual use; gun companies liable for individual use; medical companies liable for individual use; have you gotten the picture yet?

In other words, removes all individual responsibility from one's actions. And, that can work both ways. All one has to do claim that another's action created a high or unreasonable risk. The catch is that that individual should have known.

God, I hope you are not a lawyer. It is this type of thinking that is sending our constitutional republic down the drain.

 

I am already aware of the criticism that will come from this response. I did the research myself better than two years ago. You do your own research. It may require you not linking up with CNN, Newsweek, Time, MichaelMoorelunaticfringe.com, Moveon.org, and Ihategeorgewbush.com.

If you can remove yourself from the fringe, then some education might follow.

If you look, you will find!!!!!!!

 

a worthless claim since you cannot provide any form of corrobaration.

 

pardon
i shall try foxnews.com, ilovelimbaugh.com, killaniraqi.com and nazisrus.com

 

randicand

More importantly why would you, the work is too hard.

relevance?
that is, apart from making you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Psycho-babble is all that is.

your opinion once again, is worthless and utterly disconnected to reality
people and corporations have been convicted successfully by this.
secondly, cig companies were not sued for "individual use"

i suggest you crack open some case files before spouting off garbage

In other words, removes all individual responsibility from one's actions. And, that can work both ways. All one has to do claim that another's action created a high or unreasonable risk. The catch is that that individual should have known.

this has to be a brain on drugs

God, I hope you are not a lawyer. It is this type of thinking that is sending our constitutional republic down the drain.

fortunately, i do not give a rats ass about your sensibilities

 

It was not in the national interests for the USA to suddenly and profoundly disturb the delicate, flawed balance of the entire Mideast in a knee-jerk panic grab. The ill-considered, ill-advised lunge was made because peak oil is unpredictable, imminent, and certainly will be accompanied by highly disturbing economic consequences (which scares the hell out of Washington's most powerful lobbyists). Our government actually panicked into irrational action even before they rediscoverred the basic autocratic trick of persuading the Congress and public to panic ouselves, and unquestioningly appeal to authority in order to avoid reality.

Oh, and bristle at my terminolgy if you like, just because it can't go through your air-conditioned political consciousness without discomfortingly contradicting the dated oversimplifications you are making. If you truly contend that my sources have been Marxist, and are not just being silly, then please pick one "Marxist" source and explain how and why it is so. If we are having some difficulty with terms, why don't we agree to use the cmmon idiom.

Marxist- One that believes in or follows the ideas of Marx and Engels.

Capitalist- An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.

Republic-
1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
2. A nation that has such a political order.

Banana Republic- A small country that is economically dependent on a single export commodity, such as bananas, and is typically governed by a dictator or the armed forces.

Capitalistic Republic- A post-tribal, post-monarchist, post-colonial, pre-democratic juicy target for corporations such as Bell Helicopters, Halliburton, and the like.

 

radicand, from days ago: Something good about Bush? I like his willingness to be brave and take political chances. Most politicians particularly the Dems are Poll watching wishy washy wimps. Bush is not like that. He is a real leader but so was Napoleon. Leadership is a good quality but without good judgement leadership will not be helpful.

I like tha Bush put the problems with Social Security issue on the table. But I don't like his answer to the problem.

On Policy I could not think of any area where I preferred Bush to Clinton or Bush's father. I do prefer Bush to some of the extremists on the left and right. I don't like socialism and neither does Bush. I did not like Clinton or Bush the father either. I voted for Perot and cared enough about the Reform party to be a delagate at a State Reform Party convention.

It is pretty amazing that I can't find one area where Bush is better than what came before him on policy. I must be overlooking something but I can't think of it.

 

Credibility Rating: 1

Bullshit Level: 10

You of all people should be citing your sources since you claim everyone else to be Marxists. I wouldn't have expected any other response from you than that of above -- typical from someone basically calling others ill-informed liars.

- N

 

For a moment I thought you were serious about having a legitimate conversation, then I read your definitions and could not stop laughing.

Hey at least you are humorous, or is it silly?!?

 

I know you thought this was funny, but the truth is it was over the top. Of course you are going to say mine was too, but the fact remains simply because one supports the war does not mean one love limbaugh, or more importantly support any effort to kill an iraqi.

That last one was a racist implication. This only proves how emotional you are.

Finally, you have not shown yourself to have enough understanding of political structures to even joke about nazism. You have I am sure absolutely no clue what a nazi is? Please spare me the unintellectual claims about bush, big business, profits, and other anti-capitalist rants.

 

Not that you need any approval from me, but your post is fair and seemingly well-thought.

I disagree with some of your comparisions, but at least you have provided something other i hate bush. You have provided some groundwork for a legitimate debate. Thus far only two have tried, odin'izm and you. For that I thank you both for at least trying to bring forth something to work with.

I had a college professor that still believes Perot would have won had he not dropped out of the campaign. While I think Perot legitimately did not like Bush, I think if he had his rathers he would have probably thought better Bush win than Clinton. I obviously cannot substantiate that claim, it is just a feeling I have.

 

The greater point is that he/she do the research on his/her own. Not rely on me to provide links.

Furthermore, I already did provide the link indirectly. I said I read straight from the source. In short, go to the source.

Finally, I do not need links to provide my own analysis. This is part of the confusion for most of the leftists on these boards. They have followed news by CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and others. Literally everyone of them have built in analysis with their news. This is why people hate Fox. Fox purposely separates news from analysis. When people criticize it they are criticizing the analysis, which is fair. But you cannot criticize their news portions, because all they do is say what happened.

Therefore, whenever I write something that you disagree with you want me to provide sources. I am not reporting news. All I am doing is givng my thoughts about the news. Thus far, most of my replies have dealt with others and their sources. When the time is appropriate, I will provide links.

But please do not confuse my words with news, they are not. They are simply my expression of what I think about the news.
BTW-Point of clarification, if I have come across as saying that others are ill-informed liars that is not my intention. I truly do not recall ever saying this or even implying it. What my greater issue is that most of the bashing is not well-thoughtout; rather it is simply clouded with hatred towards bush.