White House caught lying about sequestration

Quote from smegalicious : Care to explain why after a year and over 600 posts, you can't seem to follow the rules? How do we maintain this environment of open conversation? Some rules have been put in place below as a guideline to follow. It is impossible to list every possible infraction so please remember this is just a guideline and will be updated as needed. Moderators will remove posts that go against the above stated purpose even if not specifically mentioned in the below rules. If you question why a post is removed, private message (PM) a moderator. Do not make a post asking why. Well?

Because I'm sick of politically disagreeable posts being removed for no reason simply because the mods don't like the post.

Quote from jonsmith74 : Because I'm sick of politically disagreeable posts being removed for no reason simply because the mods don't like the post.

So because you don't like getting in trouble for not following the rules, you decide to break more rules? Sounds like a great plan...



Btw, one thing that has always been consistent here in TP are the posters who -- regardlesss of political ideology -- will cry about unfair treatment from the mods rather than actually choose to engage in meaningful debate. Enjoying that victimhood yet?

Quote from smegalicious : So because you don't like getting in trouble for not following the rules, you decide to break more rules? Sounds like a great plan... Btw, one thing that has always been consistent here in TP are the posters who -- regardlesss of political ideology -- will cry about unfair treatment from the mods rather than actually choose to engage in meaningful debate. Enjoying that victimhood yet?

Hmm, I have been engaging in meaningful debate, it's just that posts filled with links about UN weapons inspections reports that clearly demonstrate 124nic8 has no idea what he is talking about keeps getting deleted.

The first time it was deleted the reasoning was that I told the poster he had no idea what he was talking about. Ironically, you see that very same comment strewn throughout threads here, like the current NRA thread, and they're not removed.

So I re-posted the same thread minus the offending language. And it is deleted with no reason, no warning, no pm.

So, yeah, I'm gonna carp about it here. However, it says nothing about the quality of my argument that I was putting forth.

I will re-post that entire post absent the alleged personal attack and lets see if it is deleted, again.

Quote from 124nic8 : None of what you presented is evidence that Iraq continued to possess deployable quantities of WMD after 1994.

You are aware that Iraq, not the US, was responsible for proving that it had disarmed and dismantled it's weapons programs right? Right?

From Blix's report that I linked to above:

Quote : While the fundamental aim of inspections in Iraq has always been to verify disarmament, the successive resolutions adopted by the council over the years had varied somewhat in emphasis and approach. In 1991, Resolution 687 adopted unanimously as a part of the cease-fire after the Gulf War had five major elements, the three first related to disarmament. They called for declarations by Iraq of its programs of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles; verification of the declarations through UNSCOM [U.N. Special Commission] and the IAEA; supervision by these organizations of the destruction or the elimination of proscribed programs and items.

The inspections regime was always a twin-operation: disarm and dismantle.

Quote : And yes, the US was obligated to verify they possessed those weapons before committing American lives to that invasion. At least morally. As stated by Rumsfeld: [thinkprogress.org]

Have you ever read the multiple resolutions establishing Iraq's responsibility and obligations to declare, verify, disarm, and dismantle? Have you ever read the UN inspections reports which uniformly reported that Iraq had failed all four phases?

Read Resolution 687. [fas.org]

In part:
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:
(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

In 2003, we have Hans Blix as I noted above, reporting to the UN that Iraq had failed to declare, verify, disarm, and dismantle. It was never the obligation or responsibility of the US to verify anything as resolution after resolution after resolution demonstrates. It was always Iraq's obligation to declare, verify, dismantle, and disarm as many UN resolutions required.

Why do you think that the US or the UN had some obligation to run around Iraq trying to figure out whether Iraq still had it's weapons and weapons programs? That is so clearly not the case as the resolutions demonstrate, so I am curious why you maintain this.

Quote from 124nic8 : "Only"? Hardly. OTOH, we could have gathered real intelligence instead of relying almost exclusively on a nut called "Curveball." But they were just looking for an excuse, not real evidence.

Hmmm, so Iraq submits 12,000 pages of documents as required by Resolution 687. Hans Blix attempts to verify the declarations made by Iraq of weapons and weapons dismantling and cannot as we see in his January 2003 report to the UN that I linked to before.

So we see Iraq telling us about their nerve gas, their VX, their enriched uranium.

But you want us to believe that the US only relied on info from a single source? Really?

And, again, it was never the obligation of the US to collect intelligence to prove anything. The ceasefire required, as did multiple successive resolutions require, that Iraq declare, verify, and dismantle. Why do you think Blix reported his struggles with verification to the UN? Why do you think Blix was using tens of thousands of pages of declarations from Iraq to conduct is verification activities?

But you want us all to believe that the US had an obligation to seek out intelligence about the weapons and programs that Iraq was required to declare and dismantle?

Seriously?

The quote from some general or something was always amusing. Something like: "We know Saddam had WMDs because we're the ones who sold them to him."

Anyway, in relation to the topic, I'm glad we are all able to still participate in this thread despite the sky falling and mass swarms of locusts and the end of the world due to not increasing spending next year quite as much as originally planned.

Quote from jonsmith74 : Why do you think that the US or the UN had some obligation to run around Iraq trying to figure out whether Iraq still had it's weapons and weapons programs? That is so clearly not the case as the resolutions demonstrate, so I am curious why you maintain this.

Resolutions sponsored by the US in the UN have no bearing on the morality of invading a foreign nation.

That would be like requiring a criminal to prove his innocence before executing him.

Completely foreign to the US concept of justice.

You are in error if you think the US did not suffer a huge black eye from the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses. One for which we are still paying today.

Quote from 124nic8 : Resolutions sponsored by the US in the UN have no bearing on the morality of invading a foreign nation.

Oh, I see...so after having your lunch eaten on the legal basis for which Iraq was obligated to act and under which the US acted, you move the goalposts to morality.

Quote : That would be like requiring a criminal to prove his innocence before executing him.

Except it's not.

Quote : Completely foreign to the US concept of justice.

Wow. This makes no sense at all. On so many level this is just wrong and silly.

Iraq is not an American citizen. As a consequence of it's war of aggression against Kuwait, Iraq agreed to the resolutions establishing the ceasefire. Why do you think this is at all similar to or analogous to an American citizen who has been stopped and detained?

Quote : You are in error if you think the US did not suffer a huge black eye from the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses. One for which we are still paying today.

America's image only suffered to people like you who would rather coddle or even empower countries like Iraq and Iran and North Korea. Sure, those governments hate the US, but so what? As if their perception of the world matters. You think they're equal to the US. That's a sickening thought.

And there was no false pretense. Had you any idea about the resolutions, Iraq's obligations, the actual inspections reports, you'd be disabused of this infantile notion that the US acted under false pretense.

Quote from jonsmith74 : Oh, I see...so after having your lunch eaten on the legal basis for which Iraq was obligated to act and under which the US acted, you move the goalposts to morality.

No moving of goalposts. I never said Bush did not have the authority to invade.

In fact I specifically said that Congress gave him the authority to make that decision.

Quote : Except it's not.

Yes, it is.

Quote : Wow. This makes no sense at all. On so many level this is just wrong and silly.

Not as silly as saying only "this is just wrong and silly."

Quote : Iraq is not an American citizen. As a consequence of it's war of aggression against Kuwait, Iraq agreed to the resolutions establishing the ceasefire. Why do you think this is at all similar to or analogous to an American citizen who has been stopped and detained?

The war was sold to the American people as defense against Iraq's WMD.

There were none, so the pretenses were false. Iraq was innocent of the charges used to justify the invasion.

"skyfall" sequestration remix
http://www.youtube.com/embed/M5hlHI12Pfc?rel=0

Quote from 124nic8 : No moving of goalposts. I never said Bush did not have the authority to invade. In fact I specifically said that Congress gave him the authority to make that decision. Yes, it is. Not as silly as saying only "this is just wrong and silly." The war was sold to the American people as defense against Iraq's WMD. There were none, so the pretenses were false. Iraq was innocent of the charges used to justify the invasion.

There were no wmd's? So Iraq was lying when it declared that it had weaponized tons of bioagents and vx? Hans Blix lied when he reported to the UN that Iraq not just failed to verify that it had destroyed or otherwise dismantled this weaponized material, but Iraq was actively interfering with the inspections process?

I never knew how sympathetic you were toward Saddam Hussein who gassed his own people...oh, but he didn't have wmds.

LOL!

As long as the welfare continues ...... it's all OK for bho...

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324539404578340730017454220.html%3Fmod%3Drss_US_News&r=

Major airports reported smooth operations Monday after the Obama administration called attention to delays at two big airports over the weekend, adding to other early indications that the impact on air travel from forced government spending cuts may be less abrupt and in some ways less dramatic than many feared.

Quote from Krazen1211 : Major airports reported smooth operations Monday after the Obama administration called attention to delays at two big airports over the weekend, adding to other early indications that the impact on air travel from forced government spending cuts may be less abrupt and in some ways less dramatic than many feared.

Many?? That should say, than "what bho and his cronies" kept telling people.