Thread: Rebuttal to Farenheit 911:

The temp. at which the brain begin's to die, so this is for brain dead zombies who beleive Bush is saving our country?

How can anyone rebutt the FACT that Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell stated publicly that Iraq had no WMDs 9 months before they started saying Iraq HAD WMDs?

Then we discover, lo-and-behold they never had any.

Iraq NEVER had a connection to Al-Qaeda, but the Bush administration kept saying Iraq did.

The masses were fooled.

Originally Posted by Mr_Snafu

How can anyone rebutt the FACT that Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell stated publicly that Iraq had no WMDs 9 months before they started saying Iraq HAD WMDs?

Then we discover, lo-and-behold they never had any.

Iraq NEVER had a connection to Al-Qaeda, but the Bush administration kept saying Iraq did.

The masses were fooled.

Indeed. As were the pathetic journalists who believe everything they're told. The US media are a huge embarrassment to journalistic ethics.

Originally Posted by Mr_Snafu

How can anyone rebutt the FACT that Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell stated publicly that Iraq had no WMDs 9 months before they started saying Iraq HAD WMDs?

Then we discover, lo-and-behold they never had any.

Iraq NEVER had a connection to Al-Qaeda, but the Bush administration kept saying Iraq did.

The masses were fooled.

You need to add John Kerry and MOST of the Democrats to this list. Most people thought they had them. If you are going to be critical of the folks who were wong, don't just pick out the ones you are crusading against.

Originally Posted by Pepper

You need to add John Kerry and MOST of the Democrats to this list. Most people thought they had them. If you are going to be critical of the folks who were wong, don't just pick out the ones you are crusading against.

And do you know why most people thought they had WMD? Because the administration told themso - repeatedly. Most people assume the government is decent enough to tell the truth, however, with this secretive, corrupt and dishonest government people won't make the same mistake again.

I don't know whay anyone would rebut to Fahrenheit 911. Moore had no reference for any of the things he said. I saw it, thought eh, and figured he could have just as easily made most of that stuff up.

I am not saying what Moore said was false, I am just saying that he didn't really back anything up.

Originally Posted by redspy

And do you know why most people thought they had WMD?

Because we found them after Gulf War #1. Because U.N. Resolution 687 forced him to destroy the found WMD's. Because it also forced him to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to WITNESS and DOCUMENT that destruction. Because that destruction was NOT witnessed OR documented. The only remaining conclusion is that HE STILL HAS/HAD THEM. So, the question SHOULD be, where are they now? Syria is the most likely.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

The only remaining conclusion is that HE STILL HAS/HAD THEM.

No the only remaining conclusion is that we have no idea where the hell they are. Not finding the WMDs has pretty much solidified that conclusion.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

No the only remaining conclusion is that we have no idea where the hell they are. Not finding the WMDs has pretty much solidified that conclusion.

OK, different words to indicate the do/did exist.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I don't know whay anyone would rebut to Fahrenheit 911. Moore had no reference for any of the things he said. I saw it, thought eh, and figured he could have just as easily made most of that stuff up.

I am not saying what Moore said was false, I am just saying that he didn't really back anything up.

He had teams of lawyers and a fact checker from New Yorker magazine The footnotes and sources are posted here http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

In general his fact checking can be sloppy. It's not as though his works are real documentaries, they're more like op-ed pieces. Ultimately he's very self-serving but amusing all the same.

Better safe than sorry....it's not like Saddam was a nice guy.

Originally Posted by Fade

Better safe than sorry....it's not like Saddam was a nice guy.

Holy shit Batman. Look who decided to drop by and show his ugly face. How's things Fade?

Things are good. How bout with you?

Originally Posted by Fade

Things are good. How bout with you?

Job SUCKS............................but at least I've got one.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Because we found them after Gulf War #1. Because U.N. Resolution 687 forced him to destroy the found WMD's. Because it also forced him to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to WITNESS and DOCUMENT that destruction. Because that destruction was NOT witnessed OR documented. The only remaining conclusion is that HE STILL HAS/HAD THEM. So, the question SHOULD be, where are they now? Syria is the most likely.

Agreed. Add to that Saddam Hussein was a belligerent to the US and the free world and not to be trusted. Then post 9-11 impact was that the US would not sit idly by while he funds and supports terrorists on top of all of his other offenses.

He should have fessed up. Too bad for him.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Because we found them after Gulf War #1. Because U.N. Resolution 687 forced him to destroy the found WMD's. Because it also forced him to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to WITNESS and DOCUMENT that destruction. Because that destruction was NOT witnessed OR documented. The only remaining conclusion is that HE STILL HAS/HAD THEM. So, the question SHOULD be, where are they now? Syria is the most likely.

Most sources speculate the small quantity he had prior to the occupation was used for political murders. And even if he had chemical weapons 10 years ago doesn't mean much as they degrade very quickly, they wouldn't be of much use today.

If WMDs are your primary justification for the occupation what are the ChickenHawks planning to do about North Korea or Iran? North Korea almost certainly has WMD and Iran is very close. Saudi Arabia is pursuing nuclear capabilities from Pakistan. When is the next war planned?

Originally Posted by redspy

Most sources speculate the small quantity he had prior to the occupation was used for political murders. And even if he had chemical weapons 10 years ago doesn't mean much as they degrade very quickly, they wouldn't be of much use today.

If WMDs are your primary justification for the occupation what are the ChickenHawks planning to do about North Korea or Iran? North Korea almost certainly has WMD and Iran is very close. Saudi Arabia is pursuing nuclear capabilities from Pakistan. When is the next war planned?

I have read most of your posts Redspy and find alot of truth to them, these other guys are delusional. I like to hear thier rebuttal to that.

The WMD's to which Bush refers are the Billions of gallon's of oil beneath the Iraqi's feet, see after all that oil is burned it will cause such a huge gash in our atmophere that the hurricanes, tornadoes, rising tides, choking pollution will definitely cause Mass Destruction, and Bush wouldn't want anyone else to take credit for that.

^ yes, i beleive Maniclions right.....

IF by WMD bush meant oil, then hell yea, he had a reason to go in. What cracks me up, is we are so obviously in it for oil, and then Cheney's company doubles the price of gas for our troops....

Greedy bastards.

Originally Posted by redspy

If WMDs are your primary justification for the occupation what are the ChickenHawks planning to do about North Korea or Iran? North Korea almost certainly has WMD and Iran is very close. Saudi Arabia is pursuing nuclear capabilities from Pakistan. When is the next war planned?

You're right, NK and Iran are threats. Iraq was as well. They all also support terrorism and the Bush doctrine put them all squarely in our sights. We can't hit them all at once. Iraq drew the short straw, too bad for them. Probably had something to do with the fact that they were already on our sh** list, we already had troops nearby, and Saddam was thumbing his nose at us.

Stick around for a second Bush term and we'll see whose next...

Originally Posted by austinite

You're right, NK and Iran are threats. Iraq was as well. They all also support terrorism and the Bush doctrine put them all squarely in our sights. We can't hit them all at once. Iraq drew the short straw, too bad for them. Probably had something to do with the fact that they were already on our sh** list, we already had troops nearby, and Saddam was thumbing his nose at us.

Stick around for a second Bush term and we'll see whose next...

If we all live to see it.....

Originally Posted by austinite

You're right, NK and Iran are threats. Iraq was as well. They all also support terrorism and the Bush doctrine put them all squarely in our sights. We can't hit them all at once. Iraq drew the short straw, too bad for them. Probably had something to do with the fact that they were already on our sh** list, we already had troops nearby, and Saddam was thumbing his nose at us.

Stick around for a second Bush term and we'll see whose next...

How many times do I have to disabuse you of the lie that Iraq played a major part in terrorism? We all know there was no WMD. We all know there no link between 911. Saddam, and Iraq - The 911 Commission acknowledged this recently. Instead you ignore all the facts and repeat the lies of Cheney and Bush.

The other reason cited for war was to remove a dictator from power - if that's the case why don't you target communist states like China or Cuba. If human rights violations are a concern of yours why not invade Saudi Arabia or uzbekistan?.

As for "who's next" you really don't have any options as the army is bogged down in Iraq and will be for at least another two years. While occupying Iraq the real threats are giving the US and UN the finger. The outlook in Iraq is dire, but the Bush crowd live in a different reality where people are throwing flowers at US troops.

Just admin it, Iraq is a huge unnecessary mess. Put your party polictics aside for one moment and liberate yourself from the smokescreen.

Originally Posted by redspy

How many times do I have to disabuse you of the lie that Iraq played a major part in terrorism? We all know there was no WMD. We all know there no link between 911. Saddam, and Iraq - The 911 Commission acknowledged this recently. Instead you ignore all the facts and repeat the lies of Cheney and Bush.

The other reason cited for war was to remove a dictator from power - if that's the case why don't you target communist states like China or Cuba. If human rights violations are a concern of yours why not invade Saudi Arabia or uzbekistan?.

It's as if you didn't even read my posts. Do you understand the Bush doctrine? Do you agree with it or disagree? And you're wrong, Iraq did support terrorism. Bush never claimed they were directly involved in the 9-11 attacks.

I also acknowledged that there are other countries we could have attacked as a threat. Bush chose Iraq.

Originally Posted by austinite

It's as if you didn't even read my posts. Do you understand the Bush doctrine? Do you agree with it or disagree? And you're wrong, Iraq did support terrorism. Bush never claimed they were directly involved in the 9-11 attacks.

I also acknowledged that there are other countries we could have attacked as a threat. Bush chose Iraq.

The 'Bush Doctrine' basically means the US believes it has the right to use pre-eptive military force against any state that is seen as hostile. Even though you probably think this is an innovative policy it's simply a rehash of the Likud Doctrine.

Now let's look at the main example of this, namely Iraq. Now there's a stunning strategic success. The war was fought with almost exclusively America troops as no other country believed in it - and they were right. The US is now more isolated than ever and yet they desperately need friends in the global war on terror. As recent poll showed the only countries which support the war are America, Israel (surprise surprise) and Spain. Another great isolationist policy.

It will be interesting to see your reaction when Bush brings back the draft in his next term. Some of the ChickenHawks will suddenly become dovish when their asses are on the line.

Please show me official and objective evidence Iraq was supporting terrorism on a large scale. The CIA has failed so let's see you try.

Originally Posted by redspy

The 'Bush Doctrine' basically means the US believes it has the right to use pre-eptive military force against any state that is seen as hostile. Even though you probably think this is an innovative policy it's simply a rehash of the Likud Doctrine.

Please show me official and objective evidence Iraq was supporting terrorism on a large scale. The CIA has failed so let's see you try.

Thanks for obliging me on the Bush doctrine, although you only got it partly right. The enemy is not just the terrorists themselves, but any state that sponsors, feeds, houses or trains terrorists. The US believes it has the right to use military, diplomatic or economic means to thwart them.

Iraq fell into this category:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...5/wnidal25.xml


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C48822%2C00.html

Yeah, thanks for quoting two right-wing media outlets. Very objective and official.

White House Misled World
Over Saddam-911 Connection
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
The Independent - UK
6-17-4 President George Bush, 1 May 2003 "The liberation of Iraq removed... an ally of al-Qa'ida." Vice-President Cheney, 22 January 2004 "There's overwhelming evidence... of a connection between al-Qa'ida and Iraq." Donald Rumsfeld, 14 November 2002 "Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qa'ida." Condoleezza Rice, 17 September 2003 "Saddam was a danger in the region where the 9/11 threat emerged." The Bush administration's credibility was dealt a devastating blow yesterday when the commission investigating the attacks of 11 September said there was no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had assisted al-Qa'ida - something repeatedly suggested by the President and his senior officials and held up as a reason for the invasion of Iraq.

A report by the independent commission said while there were contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida operatives in the 1990s, it appeared Osama bin Laden's requests for a partnership were rebuffed. "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qa'ida co-operated on attacks against the United States," the commission said. It also discounted widespread claims that Mohamed Atta, the hijackers' ringleader, met an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. The report forced the Bush administration on to the defensive, as it appeared to undermine one of its key justifications for the invasion of Iraq. While Mr Bush has been forced to admit there was no specific evidence to link Saddam to 11 September, his deputy, Dick Cheney, claimed on Monday that the former Iraqi leader was "a patron of terrorism [with] long-established ties with al-Qa'ida''. Last autumn Mr Cheney referred to the disputed meeting between Atta and an Iraqi official in the Czech Republic. Critics of the White House say there was a deliberate policy to manipulate public opinion and create an association between Saddam and the attacks on New York and Washington. If true, such a plan has certainly been successful: a poll taken last September by the Washington Post newspaper found 69 per cent of Americans believed that Saddam was involved in the 11 September attacks. The Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry seized on the commission's report last night. "The administration misled America and the administration reached too far," he told Michigan National Public Radio. The commission's report - issued at the start of its final two days of public hearings into the circumstances surrounding the attacks - confirmed that in the early Nineties al-Qa'ida and Saddam's regime had made overtures to each other. In 1994, for instance, Saddam had dispatched a senior intelligence official to Sudan to meet Bin Laden, making three visits before he finally met the al-Qa'ida leader. Bin Laden requested help to procure weapons and establish training camps but Iraq did not respond, the report said. There were also reports of contact with Bin Laden once he moved to Afghanistan in 1996 but these "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship". It added: "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qa'ida and Iraq."

The commission's report also revealed that the initial plan for the attack on the US - drawn up by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a senior al-Qa'ida operative who is now in US custody - envisioned a much broader assault, simultaneously targeting 10 different US cities on both the east and west coasts. That expanded target list included the FBI headquarters in the plot was to have been the 10th plane - on which he which personally have flown. Rather than attacking a building, Mohammed would have killed all of the male passengers on board, before contacting media and landing at an airport where he would have released women and children. He then was to make a speech denouncing the US. That ambitious plan was rejected by Bin Laden, who gave his approval to a scaled-back mission involving four planes and costing as little as between $4-500,000. Mohammed had wanted to use more hijackers for those planes - 25 or 26, instead of 19. It said at least 10 other al-Qa'ida operatives who were initially due to participate in the attacks had been identified. They did not take part in the mission for a variety of reasons including visa problems and suspicions by airport officials in the US. The report also revealed that the plot was riven by internal dissent, including over whether to target the White House or the Capitol building that were apparently not resolved prior to the attacks. Bin Laden also had to overcome opposition to attacking the US from Mullah Omar, leader of the former Taliban regime, who was under pressure from Pakistan to keep al-Qa'ida confined. The commission confirmed that al-Qa'ida, though drastically changed and decentralised since 9-11, retained regional networks that were seeking to attack the US. "Al-Qa'ida remains extremely interested in conducting chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks," said the report. It said that its ability to conduct an anthrax attack is one of the most immediate threats. The network may also try to attack a chemical plant or shipment of hazardous materials, or to use industrial chemicals as a weapon. The report said the CIA estimated the network spent $30m a year before September 11 on training camps and terrorist operations. The money was also used to support the Taliban.

Originally Posted by redspy

Yeah, thanks for quoting two right-wing media outlets. Very objective and official.

Would you prefer I used a more credible source like say, CBS? Do you dispute the facts in the reports?