Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

The proof is in the pudding - and there is no proof......no WMDs....nm

Posted By: sm on 2009-02-12
In Reply to: And I think you are wrong, Truthseeker.. - Kendra

x


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

All very good points. But the proof is in the pudding....
it is up to HIM to change our minds and prove us wrong, and for the good of the country, I hope he is able to. Sincerely.

Take heart tho...they did not get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate like they hoped, so if the Republicans will grow a backbone and stand up to them...he will be limited somewhat in what he can do. Especially in the case of SUpreme Court justices. I hope they step up (the Republicans). They have to earn my respect TOO.
Proof, my dear, proof. s/m
Give me one shred of evidence that Obama is planning to "steal" from one hand to give to another.  If you have heard HIM say that, then tell me where I can find it.  If not, may I suggest a hearing check-up?
Proof

 I have seen pictures on all the cable news stations of the women in their Birkas and the Taliban striding by with their AK47s. The stories go The Taliban is back, stronger and more organized than ever. The president of Afghanistan is resigning one term was enough. The opium trade has done better this year than any year previously.  I pick this stuff up everywhere, TV, radio, magazines...


As for Lamont, do I think his win means everything will change? Of course not. What it meant and what it emphasized was the presence and strength  of grassroots organizations, blogs. For some of us this is the only power we have.  For some people they can vote in every election and their vote will never count. If you are in a definite, forever and ever amen red or blue state, if you are the opposite color your vote will not count ever. Your states votes will go to the same party it has always gone to.  The Lamont win gives us some hope that we the people can vote again and have it count, not to mention just be counted...but that is another story. Secondly it put the spotlight on the fact that people are really sick of this war and the incompetent way it has been handled.  The war will be a big issue in 2008.


Rabid hatred of Bush...I feel nothing towards Bush at all. He is a benign, hapless puppet. He pretty much does what he is told by his handlers. Now, Rove, Cheney...there are 2 fat bald guys I really dislike.


But where is the proof? sm
Where is the proof that a Republican president raped anyone?  The fact is, I never heard those stories.  The burden of proof is on the person making he accusations.
Once again...proof that no one
wishes to make an actual list just to see how very little experience Obama has.  So just keep spatting about Palin and ignoring the fact that Obama has less experience.  Such denial.
Here is the proof...........sm
Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan for America will:

* Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
* Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
* Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
* Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.
http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

"I think we're going to need a second stimulus. Part of my commitment is to make sure that the stimulus includes a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans. It may be the first bill I introduce."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/31/obama.blitzer/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

the Tax Foundation estimates that there will be 47 million tax returns with zero income tax liability in 2009 under current law. That's one-third of all tax returns, and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23631.html

So here we have roughly 1/3 of all tax returns with zero tax liability and Obama's own words saying that he will give 95% of working Americans a tax cut. Sounds to me like folks paying no income tax will get a tax refund. Satisfied?
you can look up the proof yourself - its there
you just don't want to because you agree with them.

Facts are facts.

And yes, I am too busy to do your research.
WHAT proof do you have, that this what you are
saying is REALLY the truth and that it will really be like that?

HOW do you REALLY know that YOUR religion is the ONLY right one?

Please explain to me!

WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE !



I believe he's a dem, but have no proof. SM
He's always played his politics pretty close to his chest. Heck, even when he ran for Prez he tried to get onto both tickets. Of course, it may be own stereotyping of industry type folks, but he just seems a democrat to me.
I believe he's a dem, but have no proof. SM
He's always played his politics pretty close to his chest. Heck, even when he ran for Prez he tried to get onto both tickets. Of course, it may be own stereotyping of industry type folks, but he just seems a democrat to me.
And you don't have any proof he isn't
x
And you don't have any proof otherwise
x
You have no proof that this is a rumor!
Hoping something is not true doesn't make it so! Did you see the pictures? Her daughter looked much more pregnant that Palin did!
Please cite your proof........
x
i saw that too. she is living proof
that a fetus is more than a glob of cells.
Petition as FBI and CIA still does not have proof.

http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis/


 


Proof that FM/FM regulation was

tried as far back as 2001.


Sorry if this is old news, but my cousin just emailed me this link.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related


Then I took it further:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYz1rbB5V1s&NR=1


Ok, so do you have proof that it is not true?
NM
What proof do you have that YOUR religion, whatever
it is, is THE TRUE ONE?
Of course I don't have any proof. I'm not peeping in his windows..sm
trying to see if he's going to drink or not. You have no proof that he doesn't drink. This is all speculation.

This is a bunch of bunk. If you think discussing the wrong doing of one person holds no water because other people are doing or have done it too, then I'll just have to agree to disagree. That's like saying, it's OK because the Clinton's and Kennedy's did it. Again, whatever gets you through.

I think the discussion we need to be having is that the media needs to get out of these people's personal lives.


With liberals it's not the proof behind the accusation
it's the seriousness of the charge....
I'd like to see proof that more impoverished people are fat...sm
than middle and upper classes. Though I wouldn't count it out. It's not a secret that the most unhealthy foods are definitely the cheapest foods to buy.


This coment is living proof - nm
.
Proof? Or is that not important to Dems?
Palin has never said word ONE about 'witchcraft.'

What you bitterly cling to is a YouTube video of Palin standing before her church's congregation for a blessing. (We whacky Christians do that stuff all the time, kuz, y'know, it works and stuff.) A VISITING minister from Africa (y'know, where Obama's father is from?) has CULTURAL beliefs which differ from western culture and in asking for God's blessing and protection he incorporated that word from his CULTURE.

Are you condemning Palin for what some visiting minister from Africa said? Or are you just condemning his CULTURE? Is that what you're using to try and whip up a frenzy about your cause celeb? So, so sad.

Can we say "Deliver us from evil?" (Lord's prayer since you probably aren't aware of that quote.) Would THAT be okay with you?

I say again, I worry about your fanatical obsession with the already disproven subject. Maybe there's a Salem 12-Step program or something. :)

Let's count how many more times you can throw out your 'lookie-lookie-guys-WITCHCRAFT' post before election day. Maybe you'll sway one person into voting for your candidate. Probably not, but there's no law against beating a dead horse I suppose.
There is no proof. Birth certificate has been
The only proof you have is that you have no legitimate campaign strategy and your candidate's campaign is going down in flames over this relentless stupidity.
You have all the truth there is. Needing proof
Obsessing over an internet myth....fanatic. Bankrolling lawsuits to nowhere....fanatic. Believing in fairy-tale usurpaton of unwanted election results....fanatic.
I guess you have absolute proof.......sm
of all these accusations?

Laying that aside, conservatives have just as much right to voice their opinions without being referred to as "certifiable loons" as do liberals. Come back in a couple of years and let's talk about how your paycheck is looking and how hard it is to make ends meet in the Obama economy. I have a feeling there will be a lot of disillusioned folks.
your statement/sarcasm is proof women have NOT
x
Just proof that Obama really isn't out for the middle class.

He just wants our vote and he figured this would be the way to get it.  To promise to not tax us middle class folks.  I don't believe he intends to keep his promise.  He may at first but the bottom line is that all the government spending of his and the 3 trillion dollars he plans to spend....where he is going to get that money?  He is going to get it from us and that includes the middle class. 


All the companies who get tax hikes will pass that tax onto us as well by jacking up prices of products and services so we the consumers pay for that tax hike.  Then Obama will have to raise taxes on the middle class as well to cover his government spending.  It is common sense people.  Look at his record.  He has consistently wanted to raise taxes and that includes on us middle class folks he is all of sudden so interested in helping out since he is up for election.  Give me a break.  I see through the lies and false promises.  That isn't change.  That is Washington elitists at their norm.


Ah no, burden of proof is on Obama to prove his
is supposed to be with any immigrant wanting to come into this country. What part of that do you not understand? Of course, I realize most "illegals" aren't proving anything now days and BTW, I can understand their love for him, seeing how O wants to give all "illegals" a drivers license.

Like I said, what a sellout he is.
Proof it...just empty words by frustrated MTs..nm
nm
I don't tihnk a BC proof of citizenship is stupid.

Let the "stupid crap" go on until it is cleared up. I'm sick of hearing it, too, but I'll be dang if I want someone who is not a citizen  to run our country. I want to know the truth and, so far, that truth isn't there. Too much secrecy (sp?) to warm my toes.  It opens a whole 'nother can of worms if he is not a citizen, yet becomes president anyway.


It would mean a constitutional rule struck down and, (I shudder to think of this) even terrorists could run our country if they so desire and could pay off people who's vote count. Gee, do you want Chevez or Putnin to run our country? How about Ayers or Wright?


I'm just pointing out a few things here. There's too many question as why this was not resolved and why, all of a sudden, his records in Hawaii were sealed or whatever, after he went to "visit his sick grandmother."


Truth is all I want and I don't have it yet. But I will let the SC decide (if they weren't bribed) and then, I will embrace the O as a president until he screws up which, eventually, he will. He's coming off as "too perfect". There is no one "perfect" in my eyes.


 


Show me proof that it didn't work......
Maybe you just got your history lesson from Faux Noise. The New Deal DID work until the Republicans pressured FDR into instituting tax cuts - then we went into a recession - after that World War II pulled us out of that. It sure doesn't look like Ws wars have helped our financial situation.......perhaps that's because he told us all to SHOP till we DROP instead of asking Americans to sacrifice like FDR did.........but. WWII wasn't based on lies, either......
Asked for proof, suddenly she's too busy. LOL. Figures. nm
nm
Uhhh. BTDT. What part of burden of proof is on the prosecution
Give it up. Ain't happenin'.
Well gee, let's see...do we believe there were WMDs in Iraq?
Do we believe Bush was actually elected by the American public in 2000 or 2004? Do we believe terrorists lurk in every street here in America? Do we believe our troops have been given the best equipment with which to do their jobs? Do we believe Repubs want to fix Social Security? Do we believe Jeff Gannon was an accredited reporter?

Well, looks like you're going to have to find another explanation for yourself - we're obviously not believing everything we hear and apparently aren't half as gullible as you.
WMDs were found in Iraq...



WMDs Were Found In Iraq


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarti...x?id=15918

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...01837.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006...414-3312r/

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/...60123.aspx

Saddam was a threat to his own people and people of the world. Here is a list of what he did.

Location Weapon Used Date Casualties
Haij Umran Mustard August 1983 fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish

Panjwin Mustard October-November 1983 3,001 Iranian/Kurdish

Majnoon Island Mustard February-March 1984 2,500 Iranians

al-Basrah Tabun March 1984 50-100 Iranians

Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun March 1985 3,000 Iranians

al-Faw Mustard & Tabun February 1986 8,000 to 10,000 Iranians

Um ar-Rasas Mustard December 1986 1,000s Iranians

al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun April 1987 5,000 Iranians

Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent October 1987 3,000 Iranians

Halabjah Mustard & nerve agent March 1988 7,000s Kurdish/Iranian

al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent April 1988 1,000s Iranians

Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent May 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians

Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent June 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians

South-central border Mustard & nerve agent July 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians

an-Najaf -
Karbala area Nerve agent & CS March 1991 Shi’a casualties not known


The truth about WMDs in Iraq...

http://www.discovery.org/blogs/discoveryblog/2008/01/truth_about_wmd_in_iraq_uncove_1.php


CBS' Sixty Minutes devoted most of its Sunday program to one revealing story, an account of the remarkably productive seven month long interrogation of Saddam Hussein by FBI agent George Piro, an Arabic speaking American of Lebanese descent. According to the way the story was handled on the air and in the CBS online account of it, as well as the way the international press picked it up, the big news was that Saddam got rid of his WMD in the 1990s, but refused to prove it--even when threatened by U.S. attack. The reasons, he said, were that he feared revealing Iraq's weakness to its real enemy, Iran, and that he needed the perception of WMD to maintain his prestige at home. He also believed that the worst that President George W. Bush would do to him was to drop some bombs, the way President Clinton had done in 1998.


But that story, interesting as it might be, is not altogether new. Moreover, it does not compare to the golden news nugget lodged deep within the Sixty Minutes segment; namely, that Saddam expressly told Piro that he had planned to restart the WMD program in all phases--"chemical, biological and nuclear"--within a year after the lifting of U.N. sanctions. The 9/11 attacks and the reactions to them set back his plan, but didn't eliminate it.


This stated intention of Saddam constitutes fresh justification for the American-led invasion in 2003. Had the United States accepted the view that Iraq lacked WMD and no longer posed a threat, it would have been only a matter of time before new WMD efforts by Iraq were undertaken. And, once the West had stood down in 2003, the second round of WMD development would have been far harder to stop. By now--in 2008--Saddam could well have had the WMD he wanted all along. Iran, meanwhile, would have been given urgent incentive to move forward more quickly on its own WMD program. The Bush Administration knew all this, but now we have a report of Saddam himself confirming it.


There is little reason in this case to doubt either the veracity of Piro or the candor of Saddam. Certainly in its Sixty Minutes program, CBS and reporter Scott Pelley, demonstrate complete faith in Piro and the FBI reports. The FBI, says the CBS story, rates the Piro interrogation as one of the top achievements of the Bureau's past 100 years of existence. If, then, the Piro interrogation can be trusted, Saddam's plain statement that he had planned to construct WMD again also must be credited. In fact, it is credited in the Sixty Minutes program. However, it also is completely played down there, both in the program itself and in the CBS news account derived from it. The press stories that covered the program followed CBS' lead and lede. Most press stories that I found online omitted altogether Saddam's statements that he had always planned to restart his WMD program.


How could CBS News step on its own big story, and produce a minor story instead? Perhaps the answer is that for over five years now CBS and most Western media have followed the liberal party line has discounted President Bush's concerns about WMD, judging them either a deceit or a delusion. The American president was either malign ("Bush Lied, People DIed") or a dunce. As a third option, charitable interpreters on the left (and some on the right) have described Bush as sadly misinformed by his intelligence services and led to make the tragic mistake of invading Iraq. It took a long time, with day after day of news twists, but variations on these views finally suffused public opinion and persuaded a majority of Americans against the wisdom of the Iraq War. Who can doubt that those views are largely responsible for Bush's relatively low public approval ratings and his difficulty mobilizing public and Congressional support for prosecuting the war?


To showcase its program properly, Sixty Minutes would have led with something like this: "Revelations from a six month long FBI interrogation of Saddam Hussein conducted before his trial indicate that while the Iraqi dictator lacked weapons of mass destruction at the time of the American and Coalition attack in 2003, he fully intended to restart his WMD projects as soon as U.N. sanctions against Iraq were lifted. After months of elaborate interrogation by an Arabic speaking FBI agent, Saddam candidly acknowledged his plans. It would seem now that the US may well have had ample reason to attack Iraq, after all, though not for the exact reasons emphasized at the time."


Instead of that kind of news story, Scott Pelley leads Piro--an appealing, intelligent FBI agent of the kind that brings great credit to the bureau--on a somewhat rambling review of the extensive mental and emotional seduction of Saddam. Piro is presented as the FBI agent operationally in charge of Saddam's interrogation, but he clearly was part of a large team. The saga told on TV ruminates on such matters as Saddam's distrust of Osama bin Laden, the problems the FBI has finding Arabic speakers, and the terrible poetry Saddam wrote in prison and the way Piro flattered him about it. Then it turns finally to the gassing of the Kurds in 1998, a genocidal act for which Saddam told Piro he took personal responsibility and pronounced "necessary".


Only then does CBS have Pelley drop in this little handgrenade: "In fact, says Piro, Saddam intended to use weapons of mass destruction again someday.


"'Saddam had the engineers. The folks he needed to reconstruct his program were still there,'" FBI agent Piro reports.


"'That was his intention?'" asks Pelley.


"'Yes.'


"'What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?'


Answers Piro, "'He wanted pursue all of W.M.D. (sic)'


"'He wanted to reconstitute all of his W.M.D program--chemical, biological, even nuclear?'


"'Yes.'


And that is all there is of that!


As a matter of news judgment, I submit that if Saddam had told Piro that he really had no plans to start a new WMD program after the old one was dismantled, that would have been played up big by CBS and the mainstream media. But the fact that he said the opposite has been all but buried. The whole Piro interrogation of Saddam cries out for much more extensive coverage and maybe a Congressional hearing. Eventually, the whole story would make a fine documentary showing how the Iraq War, bad as it has been, probably spared Iraq and the world a much worse fate.


Meanwhile, even the conservative media seem to be missing the significance of this story. Most are simply ignoring the Piro interrogations altogether. The conservative online news service, NewsMax.com, does write about the CBS program, but mainly to take credit for having had it before CBS, citing an article from a new book by Ronald Kessler (The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack, Crown Forum books). NewsMax relegates Saddam's stated intention to reconstruct his WMD program to a minor theme in its story, the major theme of which is the fascinating interrogation project itself.


Am I alone in recalling the weight put on the WMD issue when we invaded Iraq? I remember, in fact, thinking that the WMD threat should not have been forced to carry so much of the argument, since it was only one of several reasons to remove Saddam (e.g., his continued threats to his neighbors, his provocative attempted assassination of former President George H. W. Bush, his financial support of terrorism against Israel, his succor for assorted terrorists-on-the-lamb, and especially his many violations of the Gulf War truce terms). Most of these reasons, alone, would have constituted a justifiable casus belli. But, largely for diplomatic reasons at the United Nations, the threat of WMD was emphasized. Later, after the investigation, that threat seemed to be discredited and with in, in many eyes, the whole justification for the war.


I'll bet the FBI and its agent George Piro have very good knowledge and memories on the subject. So, undoubtedly, does George W. Bush.


Oh, please read this, Evil Clinton and WMDs, what?..........sm
NAFTA was built upon a 1989 trade agreement between the United States and Canada that eliminated or reduced many tariffs between the two countries. NAFTA called for immediately eliminating duties on half of all U.S. goods shipped to Mexico and gradually phasing out other tariffs over a period of about 14 years. Restrictions were to be removed from many categories, including motor vehicles and automotive parts, computers, textiles, and agriculture. The treaty also protected intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, and trademarks) and outlined the removal of restrictions on investment among the three countries. Provisions regarding worker and environmental protection were added later as a result of supplemental agreements signed in 1993.

In 1989 Gearge H.W. Bush was president, right???

The Congress of the United States narrowly approved NAFTA in November 1993, during the term of President Bill Clinton.

The most innovative yet controversial aspects of NAFTA are its environmental provisions, which are included in the agreement itself as well as in a separate Supplementary Agreement on the Environment. These provisions make NAFTA the most environmentally conscious trade agreement ever negotiated. The Supplementary Agreement established a Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), composed of senior environmental officials from each North American country. All three countries are prohibited from relaxing their environmental regulations in order to attract additional investment, and both citizens and governments are permitted to file complaints with the commission if they believe that a country is not enforcing

Is that not a good thing? Was it perfect, no, we wanted to open free trade four our countries; unfortunately, the GREEDY CEOs took advantage by moving production facilities overseas. The same GREEDY guys with the Golden parachutes that have flourished over the past two terms (and yes, even before that, but banking deregulation had so much more to do with this).

As for the WMDs, we brought in NATO, we went in with bipartisan group, we search with a multi-national group, and found none. Okay, you can hyposthesize all you want about HIDING THEM in other countries, anyone get any proof of this at all over the past eight years????? They are not too easy to hide, by the way, and Iraq has many enemies. I think that was the biggest RED HERRING in history to get over there, give Halliburton Billions in contracts without bids, and preserve our oil interests. There are horrible dictators in other countries, N. Korea has been threatening, taunting, and postulating, even testing weapons,,,,are we going there next for more trillions????
Do you honestly believe that a evil tyrant like Sadam Hussein would NOT have WMDs?
He used chemical warefare on the Kurds in the 1980s. They exist.  They were well hidden and are probably now well hidden just across the border into Iraq or Syria.  Stop kidding yourselves! 
They couldn't get WMDs straight - what makes you so sure the exterminated were "terrorists?

Everything they did is suspect - all under layers upon layers of secrecy. If it was correct, legal and moral - WHY DID THEY HIDE IT?


Rick Santorum's claim of finding WMDs is just more false propaganda.

(I can't understand why they must keep lying.)


Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq


Thursday, June 22, 2006; A10


Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.


We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons, Santorum said.


The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.


The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.


Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.



-- Dafna Linzer


© 2006 The Washington Post Company