| Discuss | Portal | Aaron | My SA |
| Read Discussions | Create New | Last 20 | View Archives | Search |
...
...
|
|
| |||||
| ||||||
|
...
...
|
| < 95 | | | 94 | | | 93 > |
Oh Ho, What's This?
|
 This screenshot of an article on CBS hours before it was completely removed from their site. The screenshot was found here. It's worth reading the article, because the revisions don't stop there. Now, I am not standing behind this image, I just post it because it's interesting. Certainly, CBS could have pulled it because it was untrue. Usually when that happens, media establishments publish a retraction. If you find one from them on this topic, please feel free to post it below. So what then? Why was it pulled? Did the CBS execs get a visit from some men in dark suits, wearing sunglasses? You know, I am seriously considering adding a Conspiracy Nut section to the website. There's just SO MUCH stuff available to feed the tinfoil wrapped mind. So let me make this prediction now: Bush won't make it to election time, he'll be impeached by then. It's not a matter of who did what. The intelligence agencies have turned against him, and the US media is starting to. It's only a matter of time. |
 |
Rob - #1 Sun, Jul 13th 2003 @ 4:55 PM 243 words |
| The United States is not the only country that knows Iraq has weapons. EVERY country in the UN does. They not only agreed, but passed a resolution to that effect. The UN does not pass a resolution demanding Saddam to get rid of weapons unless they are in full agreement that they exist. The intelligence is that good. Sadaam had plenty of time to hide his weapons. It took a year of trying to get the UN to go in earky before Bush and Blair used their balls to get in there and get the Husseins out. Now it is a matter of tracking down where the weapons are hiding - because remember, there is NO DISPUTE that they exist, not from any of the UN. The disputes you hear now are a result of pure partisan politics, and they are clouding your judgement. We are living in dangerous times now, and it takes a leader with brass testes to get out there and rid the world of the people that want us nothing but dead, and that have no respect for their own human lives - that think they will have a better life in "heaven" if they rid the world of as many infidel as they can. So my suggestion is to keep writing, keep stating your opinion, but let the people who really know what is going on in the world, who really know where the danger is, protect you. |
|
|
Aaron - #2 Sun, Jul 13th 2003 @ 5:29 PM 97 words |
| Agreed. And I pay good money to let the people who know what's going on in the world protect me. However, your comment doesn't really address the issue at hand. If Bush knew that the Niger documents were forged prior to telling congress and the American people - he's going to get impeached. It's pretty simple really. The last president we had in the whitehouse nearly got impeached for lying about his idiotic sexual habits. So what do you think should happen to one who lies about justification for going to war? |
|
|
Rob - #3 Mon, Jul 14th 2003 @ 3:44 PM 299 words |
| If someone completely lies about all the reasons to go to war, then yes, that's a problem. But you have fallen into a political trap here. The Niger/Iraq nuclear connection was not the basis for going to war. It was just one of MANY reasons that the US and UN were concerned that Hussein was actively seeking a weapons program. To say this was a "lie" is where the politics come in. This was no lie, and Tony Blair still stands by his information and sources - and has eluded to the information not being verified at the time because it would have exposed and endangered someone on the ground there. You can imagine the assets these countries have on the ground in high-risk places, the things they see, the information they report. The nuclear implication was a result of information that came from multiple assets on the ground, possible step 3 in a process of five steps (I am guessing here) that leads to verifiable proof of the allegations. Because step 5 has not been reached does not mean you shouldn't begin to act. It was not invented information. It was provided by reliable sources, but had not been completely verified. At that time, the White House asked the CIA if the sentence should be in there. They were convinced enough of the intel they were getting that it should be. Now the Democrats are on the offensive trying to nitpick any possible way to topple Bush. That's all this is. You have to believe that there is a lot of highly sensitive information that we can't begin to know about; and also that some of the information must be trusted before it can be 100% verified, lest people get killed. |
|
|
Aaron - #4 Mon, Jul 14th 2003 @ 5:55 PM 345 words |
| "Now the _____ are on the offensive trying to nitpick any possible way to topple _____."I've heard this phrase before, but it was about some other guys from back in the day. Here's the thing. If you're a public figure, doing Big Important Things, usually, some of these things result in people dying (good cause or not), and some other things can highlight potential conflicts of interest. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Replublician, because everyone focuses on that which is questionable. Now there are some pretty big, growing questions about what we're doing to other countries right now. We HAVE to ask the questions. You can't just decide that the most uncomfortable ones aren't valid because those you trust tell you it's okay to do so, and show you lots of nice computer graphs that appear to prove it. If we don't have a good handle on ourselves, Bad Guys will end up being in control - if not now, then soon, and for the rest of our lives, and our kids lives. You can't just pick a party and support it regardless of the data. Which brings us back to the point: It does not matter if there are MANY valid reasons for invading Iraq. If ONE of them is shown to have been false prior to going in, and we KNEW about it then and USED IT ANYWAY as one of the justifications, then someone commited a war crime, and violated their oath of office. Just one time is all it takes, and we're going to find out. I say, sit back and watch the fireworks. I may be a pessimist, but I think we're being fed a line of BS from both sides. I think what's really going on isn't nearly as easy to digest as your daily news. And I think things are about to get a whole lot worse. |
|
|
Rob - #5 Mon, Jul 14th 2003 @ 9:33 PM 496 words |
| Well, I can see where you are coming from and I agree about not blindly following a party line. I am a conservative before I am a Republican. The Republican party supports more of my values and solutions, so I generally now vote that way. But that's another gig. The reality is, we live in a scary world, all the scarier now that we as a nation experienced true hatred. Muslim extremists want us either Muslim or dead. Period. And worst of all, they value the afterlife more than this one. That is the most dangerous kind of  ist. Somebody has to do something. So we go after the ists AND the countries that support them. It's not easy, but it has to be done, or I honestly believe we are going to find ourselves afraid to walk around in our own shopping malls or visiting our own coffee houses, lest someone walk in with a bomb strapped to her chest. Not because Muslim extremists believe we don't feel for them or see the world through their eyes, but because it is their belief that they will see heaven if they kill as many of us, the infidels, as possible, and die in the process. Technology, falling prices, ease of attainment of weapons and chemicals - all of these things mean it is very easy for us to become targets, much easier than ten years ago. So we have a leader now that is doing what has to be done to defend our country before it is too late. It sucks that people are dying, but the difference is that we are doing everything we can to avoid their innocents, while they are doing all they can to aim for our innocents. The reality is that there is a wealth of information that we will never know about, but you have to believe that, for the most part, what can be done with that intel is being done. Remember, this information was seen by the entire UN and the UN unanimously agreed with it. Stating something in a speech that subsequently ends up being "questionable" - not wrong, but questionable (do the research, and you will find that British intelligence still stands by the data) - is not a war crime by any stretch of the term. I believe the only fireworks we will see are Democratic leaders - Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Daschle - failing on this attack like they have failed on so many others, and picking up again with something else (health care, Bush's domestic policy, whatever), then something else after that. They will lose the 2004 election because the majority of Americans believe that getting rid of Saddaam was the right thing to do, and because they are tired of being "accused" of being flag-wavers. |
|
|
Aaron - #6 Tue, Jul 15th 2003 @ 12:49 PM 402 words |
| "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." -- Ann Coulter Extremists are a certainly a problem, but we don't have to nail it down to one religion or philosophy. The trouble comes whenever one group of like-minded people get so caught up in the "rightness" of their point of view that they can justify violence against anyone else who disagrees in the name of that rightness, and for their own personal "safety." Just because your leaders say that they say that they support your values and solutions, does not make it so. If you really stand behind that "WWJD" mantra, and look at our foreign policy, it doesn't hold up. "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." -- Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf Lots of evil people come to power by stating that they are strong supporters of the religion/philosophy of the masses, though they personally don't follow it at any level. It's dangerous to allow this. You can't just let people tell you that they're on your side. You have to carefully review their actions. My problem is this: From what I can gather from the conservative camp, this whole "Bush Might Have Lied" nonsense isn't even worth really looking in to. So what if there was an "error" in the report. The rest of it holds water, and that's enough for me. Well then, I think you guys should really be interested in proving it. Ignoring the possibility of a problem does not make it go away. Ignoring it is not just dumb from the aspect of keeping the guy in office, it's also a sign of brainwashing. I hate to use that word, but it's appropriate for what I'm describing. And I hear you about the fact that we're not going to get to see all of the intel out there that was used to justify the war. Some of it, after the fact, has to be ready to declassify, and I would suggest to the Bush administration that if they want to remain in power, they start convincing their skeptics right now. |
|
|
Rob - #7 Tue, Jul 15th 2003 @ 2:51 PM 245 words |
| You make a lot of statements but I only have time at the moment to comment on one thing. We do have to nail these extremists down to one philosophy. No other extremist is willing to commit suicide to murder as many others as they can. They fit a profile. Other extremists may fit other profiles as well, and we go after them - the unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, the guys that dragged that guy to death down south, who have been twice sentenced to death. Bad people must be gone after. Period. In this case, we have a mass of millions that have claimed Armageddon on the U.S. That's some serious shit. And their leaders are supporting this. They are planning things, getting materials they need, sending coded messages... and we go about our business like we have every day, doing nothing but complaining for the most part. The war against the infidel did not end with 9/11 - it is still going on - you see clubs getting bombed, embassies - they just recently caught people that were planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. These people happen to all fit the same profile - and we must seek out suspicious people with that profile. And it follows, that if the government starts hearing chatter from the U.S. Mountain Men planning something of their own - an attack on a mosque or another federal building - you bet your ass they will be gone after too. |
|
|
Aaron - #8 Tue, Jul 15th 2003 @ 4:06 PM 493 words |
| "Bad people must be gone after." Agreed. Use the intel, catch people before they blow up bridges, yes, good. But then you're supposed to throw them in jail and set up a trial. In America, we have historically set up extensive laws and court processes to make sure the people we go after are guilty of the punishment, and then we make sure the punishment fits. That is the correct, good way, and we are starting to abandon it, in the name of protecting ourselves from the Wiley ist RIGHT THIS SECOND!My point is that I think that there are some "bad people" in the government. I don't mean Bush - I doubt he has the mental capacity for being able to mastermind a vast conspiracy. (Those constant verbal flubs and C average are quite telling.) And I don't mean evil like blowing themselves up in crowded areas - the guys I'm talking about don't have to resort to that. We have seen the trend before. People in power, responding to a perceived or actual threat of some kind, elevate their power to respond to that threat. Rinse and repeat until the people who put them in power have no actual rights, so long as they are first labeled a heretic, Jew, communist or ist.The magic word "terrorist" is what's most disturbing to me. One definition I have read defined it as a person who uses violence to advance their own political view. You understand that under that definition, and considering that we now take "pre-emptive" action against potential ists, you can call ANYONE a ist. Anyone in another country that might have the tools to make a bomb (fertilizer, newspaper, cotton and diesel fuel), or owns a gun. Any citizen of the united states, for the same reasons plus a dissenting political view. Any of these people can be considered ists and dealt with without to getting approval from congress - as we've seen. Or the people in question can get thrown into jail for the rest of their life without a trial down in Guantanamo Bay. That is the reality of our CURRENT situation. The only reason it doesn't seem that bad is because it hasn't affected you personally.It always starts small. If we just pay attention and act accordingly when questions come up, we can prevent further holocausts. Bending over and letting the government methodically delete your rights in the name of safety will not.  |
Aaron #94
Sat, Jul 12th 2003