Woman sues over Janet's breast

Vince said:
Pascal said:
Sorry Vince, but I am really tired of all this BS talk about Iraq´s WMD
Don't be sorry, thats your opinion. But, I'd then suggest that you don't read the thread.
One problem with that...this thread is supposed to be about Janet's boob and the moron that is suing her not WMD's.

And about the whole boob issue...the reason that a lot of people are upset is that they didn't want to see that or expect to see that on broadcast TV. As has already been mentioned there are rules saying that stuff like that can't be shown on broadcast TV. No one is saying that it can't be shown on other cable channels or PPV, but it doesn't have a place on broadcast TV.
 
Razor04 said:
One problem with that...this thread is supposed to be about Janet's boob and the moron that is suing her not WMD's.

Good call, I stop.

And about the whole boob issue...the reason that a lot of people are upset is that they didn't want to see that or expect to see that on broadcast TV. As has already been mentioned there are rules saying that stuff like that can't be shown on broadcast TV. No one is saying that it can't be shown on other cable channels or PPV, but it doesn't have a place on broadcast TV.

Agree completely.
 
Okay, so it seems Americans don't have a problem with the fact it's a breast that was shown, more that they weren't informed beforehand, thus meaning parents couldn't make an informed choice as to whether it was suitable for their child - correct?

If that's the case, then I say this: If you're that bothered about being able to veto everything your child may see, then you shouldn't let them watch TV at all, let alone live TV. The world is unpredictable, and things happen that are out of your control. As I said at another forum, the parents are making a bigger deal out of this than the kids who probably didn't even notice or care.
 
Vince said:
And how was this a case of "premeditated lying" again? The statements are all based in facts of the time and the view of the intelligence community of a whole. Did you even hear what David Kay and George Tenet just said?

I heard. Classic CYA if ever I've heard it. Kay, if you recall, was fairly gung-ho pre-war. What do you expect him to now say? As for Tenet:

CIA Director George J. Tenet delivered a vigorous defense today of his agency's intelligence assessments on Iraq before last year's U.S.-led invasion, saying the country had illegal missiles, as well as the ability and intent to quickly produce biological and chemical weapons.

But he said the agency never described Iraq as "an imminent threat" in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion, and he acknowledged shortcomings in the CIA's performance, especially in penetrating the regime of former president Saddam Hussein with the agency's own spies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15287-2004Feb5.html

Here's something for you to chew on, Vince:

Precisely because of qualms the administration encountered within, it created a rogue intelligence operation -- the Office of Special Plans, located within the bowels of the Pentagon. The OSP was under the control of neoconservatives; it roamed outside the regular interagency intelligence process, stamped its approval on stories retailed by Iraqi exiles that the other agencies dismissed as lacking credibility, and directly piped them into the president through the vice president's office. It was fail-safe in producing disinformation and feeding the impulses of a self-isolated president, but it was not what anyone involved in the craft of intelligence calls intelligence.

There was no general intelligence failure; on the contrary, there was a successful effort by the Bush administration to intimidate, subordinate and punish intelligence to fit its political objectives.

When Bush insisted that Saddam was actively and urgently engaged in a nuclear weapons program and had renewed production of chemical weapons, the Defense Intelligence Agency denied the assertions. Bruce Hardcastle, defense intelligence officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Counterterrorism, "told them that the way they were handling evidence was wrong," Patrick Lang, former head of Human Intelligence at CIA, told me. The Bush administration response was not only to remove Hardcastle from his post. "They did away with his job. They wanted just liaison officers who were junior. They didn't want a senior intelligence person who argued with them. Hardcastle said, 'I couldn't deal with these people.' They are such ideologues that they knew what the outcome should be and they thought when they didn't get it from intelligence people they thought they were stupid. They start with an almost pseudo-religious faith. They wanted the intelligence agencies to produce material to show a threat, particularly an imminent threat. Then they worked back to prove their case. It was the opposite of what the process should have been like, that the evidence should prove the case."

When the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) submitted reports that aluminum tubes Saddam possessed were for conventional rocketry, not nuclear weapons (a report corroborated by Department of Energy analysts), that mobile laboratories were not for WMD, that the story about Saddam seeking uranium in Niger was bogus, and that there was no link between Saddam and al-Qaida (a report backed by the CIA), its analyses were shunted aside. Greg Thielman, chief of INR at the time, told me: "What everyone in the intelligence community knew was that the White House couldn't care less about any kind of information that there were no WMD or that the U.N. inspectors were very effective. Everyone knew the White House was deaf to that input. It was worse than pressure; they didn't care."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/02/05/wmd/index.html

Yes, Blumenthal is extremely left wing but I'd like to see you refute what he says with facts.

And of Bush's "investigation", one initiated only under mounting political pressure and most likely because it's an election year:

Can all these awkward facts be whited out of the historical record? Probably. Almost surely, President Bush's handpicked "independent" commission won't investigate the Office of Special Plans. Like Lord Hutton in Britain — who chose to disregard Mr. Jones's testimony — it will brush aside evidence that intelligence professionals were pressured. It will focus only on intelligence mistakes, not on the fact that the experts, while wrong, weren't nearly wrong enough to satisfy their political masters. (Among those mentioned as possible members of the commission is James Woolsey, who wrote one of the blurbs for Ms. Mylroie's book.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/06/opinion/06KRUG.html

For an administration that's keen on broadening the scope of the federal government's powers, the White House is horribly intent on keeping its on goings-on out of the public eye. Gwarsch, I wonder why?

Bush's administration has gotten a virtual free pass from the press for the past three years. Hopefully the tide turns and the dirt on this astoundingly corrupt administration comes to light.
 
Give it up John. Vince probably still thinks we'll find WMD in Iraq. He's like Dick Cheney.

Colin Powell: No WMD or Terrorist Ties exist in Iraq
President Bush: No WMD or Terrorist Ties exist in Iraq
David Kay: We were all wrong. No WMD existed in Iraq after 1997

Dick Cheney: I have complete confidence we'll find the WMD. I know it's there.

All this was said in the past couple of weeks. Sad isn't it?

Everyone is beginning to wake up to the truth John, as evidenced by the fact that Bush's approval ratings have, for the first time in his presidency, dipped below 50%. They're sitting at 47% last I checked. And he's also losing handily in some polls now to Kerry and Edwards both, and barely beating Dean and Clark. It's taken a while, but the American public is finally waking up to the truth.

Leave the diehard right wingers be. You'll just get a migraine headache trying to show them the light. Take it from someone who has experience in that regard. ;)
 
Natoma said:
Give it up John. Vince probably still thinks we'll find WMD in Iraq. He's like Dick Cheney.
Natoma, again with the lies. ;) Cant seem to find a post where you actually have your facts straight. There were wmds found in iraq. I believe it was the british who found them. before you start screaming and raving that they didnt. the wmds found where chemical weapons and the shells to be used for firing them. They were buried, and estimated to be from the original gulf war and/or earlier. Not a big find or usable as the shells had rusted, but none the less they were wmds. ;)

later,
epic
 
epicstruggle said:
Natoma said:
Give it up John. Vince probably still thinks we'll find WMD in Iraq. He's like Dick Cheney.
Natoma, again with the lies. ;) Cant seem to find a post where you actually have your facts straight. There were wmds found in iraq. I believe it was the british who found them. before you start screaming and raving that they didnt. the wmds found where chemical weapons and the shells to be used for firing them. They were buried, and estimated to be from the original gulf war and/or earlier. Not a big find or usable as the shells had rusted, but none the less they were wmds. ;)

later,
epic

And lord knows Saddam was in the process of digging them up, having rust removal applied, and was preparing to lob them across the Atlantic is his new and improved SKUDs. Such was the clear and immediate danger that man posed to the USA that necessitated our invasion. Thanks for clearing that all up for me. 8)
 
John Reynolds said:
epicstruggle said:
Natoma said:
Give it up John. Vince probably still thinks we'll find WMD in Iraq. He's like Dick Cheney.
Natoma, again with the lies. ;) Cant seem to find a post where you actually have your facts straight. There were wmds found in iraq. I believe it was the british who found them. before you start screaming and raving that they didnt. the wmds found where chemical weapons and the shells to be used for firing them. They were buried, and estimated to be from the original gulf war and/or earlier. Not a big find or usable as the shells had rusted, but none the less they were wmds. ;)

later,
epic

And lord knows Saddam was in the process of digging them up, having rust removal applied, and was preparing to lob them across the Atlantic is his new and improved SKUDs. Such was the clear and immediate danger that man posed to the USA that necessitated our invasion. Thanks for clearing that all up for me. 8)
Except you said he had none, which is clearly not true. He did have them. Just not in condition to use them.

later,
epic
 
epicstruggle said:
Except you said he had none, which is clearly not true. He did have them. Just not in condition to use them.

And Bush/Blair said he had some, wanted more, and they were capable of striking friendly targets. He apparently didn't have any in any working condition.

Joy.
 
PaulS said:
epicstruggle said:
Except you said he had none, which is clearly not true. He did have them. Just not in condition to use them.

And Bush/Blair said he had some, wanted more, and they were capable of striking friendly targets. He apparently didn't have any in any working condition.

Joy.
Lets see
Saddam did have some-- TRUE
Saddam wanted more-- TRUE
Saddam was capable of striking friendly targets-- FALSE, unless you were within stone throwing distance, so they could throw those rusted shells at them. ;)

later,
epic
 
Epic, c'mon, you're playing semantics. The pretext of the war was WMD that posed an immediate threat, not old munitions buried out in the desert that were, in their condition, innocuous as war material. And that's obviously what most Americans are concerned with and why the polls are showing such a sudden 'n sharp turn in Bush's ratings. The BS has worn thin, and even the most hardcore of neocons are going to be hard-pressed to continue defending this president. Some, undoubtably, will.

Anyone see the latest issue of US Weekly in which the chairman of the Republican Party took the actress Gwynneth Paltrow (sp?) to task for criticizing the president, calling her unpatriotic? Since when is it unpatriotic to criticize current political leadership?; here I always thought that was well within our rights as citizens of this country. The GOP must be feeling beleaguered these days if it feels the need to attack pregnant Hollywood actresses.
 
PaulS said:
epicstruggle said:
Lets see
Saddam did have some-- TRUE

He apparently didn't have any in working condition. They may as well not exist if you can't use them.
The pics of the soldiers removing them didnt show them licking the darn things. Infact they were wearing chemical suits and the like. But i guess they were doing that for no reason at all.

later,
epic
 
epicstruggle said:
The pics of the soldiers removing them didnt show them licking the darn things. Infact they were wearing chemical suits and the like. But i guess they were doing that for no reason at all.

...were you expecting them to turn up topless and in shorts? I hardly see how taking precautions about handling unknown compounds is proof of anything in particular, aside from just standard operating procedures.
 
John Reynolds said:
Epic, c'mon, you're playing semantics. The pretext of the war was WMD that posed an immediate threat, not old munitions buried out in the desert that were, in their condition, innocuous as war material.
The point is that there was wmds. And not as you claim that there were none. Yes the administration did infact claim we would find stockpiles and stockpiles of wmds all ready to be fired within minutes/hours of a command. And instead they ended up with pie in the face. HOWEVER, do not claim that no wmds were found. because there were. All that needs to be said.

later,
epic
 
PaulS said:
epicstruggle said:
The pics of the soldiers removing them didnt show them licking the darn things. Infact they were wearing chemical suits and the like. But i guess they were doing that for no reason at all.

...were you expecting them to turn up topless and in shorts? I hardly see how taking precautions about handling unknown compounds is proof of anything in particular, aside from just standard operating procedures.
Point being that they were dangerous. ;) There is no experation date on most chemical weapons. If there is please inform me, im not a chemist.

later
epic
 
epicstruggle said:
Natoma said:
Give it up John. Vince probably still thinks we'll find WMD in Iraq. He's like Dick Cheney.
Natoma, again with the lies. ;) Cant seem to find a post where you actually have your facts straight. There were wmds found in iraq. I believe it was the british who found them. before you start screaming and raving that they didnt. the wmds found where chemical weapons and the shells to be used for firing them. They were buried, and estimated to be from the original gulf war and/or earlier. Not a big find or usable as the shells had rusted, but none the less they were wmds. ;)

It was the Danish who found them and they were later confirmed not to contain any harmful chemical sustances...
 
We must keep an open mind about WMD's.

People are still finding things in Iraq, and we still haven't ruled out the movement of Iraq's weapons into other countries.
 
*cough* *cough*

Thread-Direction.gif
 
Back
Top