http://www.ericblumrich.com/media.html

If you go down to "Very Interesting"

It shows Powell and Rice all saying Saddam does not have weapons and or not a threat. It's all on video...

WOW MAN , i wonder what the defenders will say about this......their stuff is so blatant. and now, that heffer is defending going over there, and i have just lost all respect for powell. and what makes it so bad is that he knows he fucked up

Originally posted by korg
i wonder what the defenders will say about this.....

I wonder as well.

Well, neither of the clips says that Saddam was not a threat, and neither of them said he did not have WMDs.

Assuming that Powell was even talking about Saddam in the clip, he merely says the threats were insignificant.

The Rice clip doesn't even address WMDs or whether or not Saddam poses a terrorism threat. She just says that he hasn't rebuit his military. (Again, we're assuming she's even talking about Saddam)

So, before I made any judgment on the clips, I'd like to hear what questions they were asked, their full answers, and the complete context of the interviews.

Given the other extremist propaganda on the blumrich site, one would have to be pretty naive to believe that the Powell/Rice clips accurately represent the totality of their views on Saddam Hussein, WMDs and the war on terrorism.

These clips are just another example of creative editing which prove nothing.

overdose taking things out of context again and trying to pass it off as concrete evidence.

“He is not involved in weapons programs and he is unable to attack his neighbors”

“We are able to keep arms from him, they cannot be rebuilt”

Is basically what Powell and Rice said.

So he’s not involved in weapons programs, which means he most likely does not have weapons, which is further proved when Powell says he is unable to attack his neighbors.

Rice said we are able to keep arms from him, which would imply we are keeping weapons of mass destruction from him, and she also said that the “arms” (weapons) couldn’t be rebuilt.

Which concludes that he was not a threat and or does not have weapons.

your right. lets let him out of jail and have bush apologize to saddam hussein on TV. seriously, I see the words "Basically" following supposed quotes and teh word "implys", neither of which lend credence to any sort of solid evidence.

“He is not involved in weapons programs and he is unable to attack his neighbors”

What does, "he is not involved in weapons programs" mean to you? He is not making weapons! What does, "he is unable to attack his neighbors" mean to you? He does not have weapons to attack his neighbors, which proves he must not have weapons!

“We are able to keep arms from him, they cannot be rebuilt”

What does, "we are able to keep arms from him?" mean to you? That he cannot get arms, and arms means weapons! And what does, "they cannot be rebuilt" mean? That he cannot rebuild any weapons!

Good job Trav!

"he likes to eat hot dogs" ""he is unable to pee i his neighbors bushs anymore". ya, i was talking about saddam.

Originally posted by Travh20
"he likes to eat hot dogs" ""he is unable to pee i his neighbors bushs anymore". ya, i was talking about saddam.

Good reply!

when you stop with the half quotes, half truths and half reports I will stop being a smart ass to you, until then you bring nothing but propaganda to this board. anyone who bases half their arguments in a movie is going the wrong direction

Try Re-reading:
(It shows clearly what they meant by making those quotes)


Originally posted by Overdose
“He is not involved in weapons programs and he is unable to attack his neighbors”

What does, "he is not involved in weapons programs" mean to you? He is not making weapons! What does, "he is unable to attack his neighbors" mean to you? He does not have weapons to attack his neighbors, which proves he must not have weapons!

“We are able to keep arms from him, they cannot be rebuilt”

What does, "we are able to keep arms from him?" mean to you? That he cannot get arms, and arms means weapons! And what does, "they cannot be rebuilt" mean? That he cannot rebuild any weapons!

Good job Trav!

so yuo were perfectly fine after 9-11 th just let saddam sit in his kingdom free to plot and fund to his hearts content?

Originally posted by Travh20
so yuo were perfectly fine after 9-11 th just let saddam sit in his kingdom free to plot and fund to his hearts content?

When we have Iran and Pakistan funding terrorism more so then Saddam, I would say he is not a top priority in terms of dealing with “terrorism”

Saddam-Osama Tie Weak – 9/11 Panel
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040706_1730.html

Iran and Pakistan closer linked to terrorism
http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=6&aid=D83B3QI00_story

So he hardly have a tie to Osama, and he had no connection to 9/11. Other countries are far more closely related to terrorism, yet we are in Iraq? Give me a break!

again, you were perfectly fin eleaving saddam in place until he dies, them lettin guday take over and so on and so on?

Here are the salient points with these clips:

1) We don't know for sure they were even talking about Saddam. It is just as reasonable to assume they were talking about, say, Muammar Qaddafi.

2) The way the clips were edited, they could've been saying, "Nobody believes that....." (insert clip)

3) Prior to the invasion, everyone, including Johns Kerry and Edwards, Jacques Chirac, Hans Blix, I mean everyone, suspected Saddam Hussein had weapons programs. Saddam had indeed proven himself a threat to his neighbors through his funding of terrorist activity in Israel. I need more evidence than these two clips if I'm to believe Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were the only two people in the world to disagree with this.

4) If these clips accurately represented the views they claim, Nina Totenberg would be playing them on endless loop on NPR and CNN would show them in a "Breaking News" feature every half hour.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
We don't know for sure they were even talking about Saddam. It is just as reasonable to assume they were talking about, say, Muammar Qaddafi.

Of course they were talking about Saddam. It’s clearly shown that they were indeed talking about Saddam. Who was the main concern of building weapons in 2001? Saddam. He was the person we were concerned about on the WMD threat? Saddam. But if you want to think they were talking about Muammar Qaddafi, when during 2001 the focus was on mainly Saddam and Osama, be my guest.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
The way the clips were edited, they could've been saying, "Nobody believes that....." (insert clip)

That’s possible, I’ll give you that. But the fact remains, they said, “We are able to keep arms from him” Yes they could have edited it, but I highly doubt it.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Prior to the invasion, everyone, including Johns Kerry and Edwards, Jacques Chirac, Hans Blix, I mean everyone, suspected Saddam Hussein had weapons programs. Saddam had indeed proven himself a threat to his neighbors through his funding of terrorist activity in Israel. I need more evidence than these two clips if I'm to believe Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were the only two people in the world to disagree with this

Yes, they believed he was a threat. Because George Bush was giving them information that was no true, in reference to the Iraq WMD threat.

If you want to talk about “funding terrorism” go look at Iran or Pakistan, who are far more connected to terrorism. That reason is completely and utterly out.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
If these clips accurately represented the views they claim, Nina Totenberg would be playing them on endless loop on NPR and CNN would show them in a "Breaking News" feature every half hour.

I’ve seen them on CNN, and MSNBC at least twice. I’ve never seen them on Fox News, though

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Here are the salient points with these clips:

1) We don't know for sure they were even talking about Saddam. It is just as reasonable to assume they were talking about, say, Muammar Qaddafi.

2) The way the clips were edited, they could've been saying, "Nobody believes that....." (insert clip)

3) Prior to the invasion, everyone, including Johns Kerry and Edwards, Jacques Chirac, Hans Blix, I mean everyone, suspected Saddam Hussein had weapons programs. Saddam had indeed proven himself a threat to his neighbors through his funding of terrorist activity in Israel. I need more evidence than these two clips if I'm to believe Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were the only two people in the world to disagree with this.

4) If these clips accurately represented the views they claim, Nina Totenberg would be playing them on endless loop on NPR and CNN would show them in a "Breaking News" feature every half hour. wow ! i wanna run for office. if everyone looks at things like you guys, i could rape this country of everything blatantly, and blame the dems and ride off into the sunset........colin powell admitted that this was a big mistake. that this guy never had those capabilities. with politics, you have everyone in the room telling those that are not playing ball.....to play ball. colin powell has already been all but ostrasized for his disagreements. he knew that at one time he was a man of integrity, he will never shake this shit. now how come this all seems so far fetched to you guys if EVERYTHING is coming out now about how much this shit was a lie.....do you actually believe that this one man in the cia, did ALL of this wrong by himself !?.......give me a fuckin break........everyone else had a reason and went to war, BUSH HAD A WAR, AND NEEDED A REASON.......tell me something, when you guys heard after 9-11, that osama bin laden did it, was the first thing that come to your mind that " we oughta get that damn hussein ? i dont understand how you guys relate him to 9-11.....he had NOTHING..to do with it......nothing. the saudi's had more to do with it, than iraq.......open your eyes......8 of those guys were saudi, hell, i dont think one was iraqi

All of the printed and voiced prophecies should be saved in an archive. When these false prophets again appear, they can be reminded of the error of their previous ways and at least be offered an opportunity to recant and repent. Otherwise, they will return to us in another situation where their expertise will be acknowledged, or taken for granted, but their credibility will be lacking.