• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Lied: The Evidence

Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Okay, liberals. In the spirit of the White House finally firing back at it's critics, this thread asks you to support your claim that the president lied in taking us to war against terror in Iraq. We hear it over and over, day after day. But when we ask for your evidence, you never bring it. It's time to put up or shut up. It is not enough to make the claim without your proof. Once and for all, make your argument here....with evidence.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Your thread, your rules. So I ask, may conservatives participate as well?
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
Your thread, your rules. So I ask, may conservatives participate as well?
Of course. It's a free country and a free forum. For once, I want someone to do something other than say he lied and actually make a logical case for it. Until then, it's the normal Bush bashing hate rhetoric.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Four hours later......nothing. I thought, for certain, that the lefties would post a few hate editorials and call it proof. But, not even that! :mrgreen:
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It has been "contended" that Team Bush "acted according to the best information available" at the time.
This contention must be made w/o regard to the organizations created to gather supporting evidence that varied widely in quality to tie a threat of terrorism against the US to, "sweep it all up, things related and not," as Rumsfeld put it. These organizations, (specifically the OSP, Office of Special Plans, and the PCTEG, Policy Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group), are sure to have lent credence in the eyes of some, to the view of Mohammed Atta, and undoubtedly other members of al Qaida, that "Saddam Hussein was an American stooge set up to give Washington an excuse to intervene in the Middle East"[alt link]
So we have the creation of these extra groups that function outside of the normal operations of the US intelligence system to find the raw materials necessary for Team Bush to cruft a sales pitch for the idea of a threat from Iraq to the US to the American electorate.

Despite the litany of reasons cited for going to war with Iraq, according to one senior official, the threat to the US was recognized within Team Bush as the only one that could justify putting "American kids' lives at risk...on the scale we did..." So this idea of an Iraqi threat was absolutely necessary for the war effort to prevail.

Team Bush's threat spiel was dependent on three main elements: Hussein's non-conventional weapons; Hussein's "operational relationship" with terrorists who would attack the US, (al Qaida being the most well branded candidate); and the idea that Hussein was undeterrable and thus a madman. Without any of these three, the case for a threat to the US from Iraq would be weakened significantly. And thuis the case for invading Iraq would likewise be crippled.

The second most important of these three items were the strong, meaningful and significant ties to a terrorist group likely to attack the US, specifically al Qaida. To further this end, iffy and/or previously debunked reports were stripped of contexts, professional analysis and descriptions of their relative accuracy and presented to the electorate as reliable information. Even classified national security intel was leaked to Bush friendly press outlets to further this idea. Team Bush purposefully used information that was not "the best available" to sell this idea.
As merely a single example, Cheney took up the Atta/Iraq connection as a cause celebre (occasionally to darkly comedic effect):
CHENEY: CLEAR LINKS BETWEEN SADDAM, AL-QAEDA; CALLS NY TIMES ARTICLE 'OUTRAGEOUS'
Thu Jun 17 2004 19:00:33 ET

"...responding to a report from the 9-11 Commission saying it had found no evidence of 'collaboration' between Iraq and Al Qaeda" "Vice President **** Cheney... called the New York Times coverage of the story 'outrageous'."
Vice Pres. CHENEY: I disagree with the way their findings have been portrayed.
<snip>
There's clearly been a relationship.
There's a separate question. The separate question is: Was Iraq involved with al-Qaida in the attack on 9/11?
<snip>
What The New York Times did today was outrageous. ... The press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said. Jim Thompson is a member of the commission who's since been on the air. I saw him with my own eyes. And there's no conflict. What they were addressing was whether or not they were involved in 9/11. And there they found no evidence to support that proposition. They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida in other areas, in other ways.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: But that is a separate question from what the press has gotten all in a dither about, The New York Times especially, on this other question [of whether or not there was a general relationship between UbL and Hussein]. What they've done is, I think, distorted what the commission actually reported, certainly according to Governor Thompson, who's a member of the commission.
BORGER: But you say you disagree with the commission...
Vice Pres. CHENEY: On this question of whether or not there was a general relationship.
BORGER: Yes.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Yeah.
BORGER: And they say that there was not one forged and you were saying yes, that there was. Do you know things that the commission does not know?
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Probably.
BORGER: And do you think the commission needs to know them?
Vice Pres. CHENEY: I don't have any--I don't know what they know. I do know they didn't talk with any original sources on this subject that say that in their report.
BORGER: They did talk with people who had interrogated sources.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Right.
BORGER: So they do have good sources.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Gloria, the notion that there is no relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida just simply is not true.

[Since there actually is a disagreement between "what the president said and what the commission said," and if it is outrageous that the NYT would say that 'there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said,' this means that the VPotUSA is just outraged that the NYT would say it?]​
BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."
Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.
BORGER: OK.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.
BORGER: I think that is...
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down.


The Vice President Appears on NBC's Meet the Press
December 9, 2001
RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.
Cheney continued to cite the supposed meeting without regard to the dearth of reliable evidence that it had occurred and despite the US intel community analysis that the story was most likely hokum. Obviously, this is an instance where Team Bush was insufficiently concerned with what was the best information available.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
part II

The most essential element that was necessary was the suspension of disbelief in the undeterrability of Hussein, that he was a 'madman'. Despite the analysis of Dr. Rice ("national obliteration") and the historical incidences (James Baker- "resounding silence" in the Iraqi desert) in which Hussein had been shown to be well deterred from attacking the US w/ non-conventional weapons, and despite the best information available at the time from the US intelligence community, ( the probability of Hussein initiating an attack in the foreseeable future is low ), Team Bush repeatedly sold the idea that an attack from Hussein was something that would happen sooner than later. They said that we could not wait lest there be a mushroom cloud over major metropolitan area (despite the fact that the best information available said that Hussein did not have this capacity ). According to Team Bush Hussein was mongongo monkey nuts with hatred for the US and was willing to sacrifice his own life, livelihood and nation to initiate an attack in the immediate future.
None of this was supported by the best information available at the time.

Without even having to address the issues of Hussein's biological and chemical weapons, it can be seen the idea that Hussein represented a threat to the US were not supported by the best information available at the time.
Without a threat to the US, there was not reason enough to risk American lives on the scale that we have. According to one senior official, Hussein's "criminal treatment of the Iraqi people" was not enough to warrant the major invasion of Iraq.

These are just few examples of how the case for the invasion of Iraq depended on malinfo as opposed to the "best information available at the time."


Then there's the whole issue of how could so many people in the world who had only Google to go by come up with more accurate answers than Team Bush?
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There're more instances, but this should hold you for a moment.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: part II

Simon W. Moon said:
The most essential element that was necessary was the suspension of disbelief in the undeterrability of Hussein, that he was a 'madman'. Despite the analysis of Dr. Rice ("national obliteration") and the historical incidences (James Baker- "resounding silence" in the Iraqi desert) in which Hussein had been shown to be well deterred from attacking the US w/ non-conventional weapons, and despite the best information available at the time from the US intelligence community, ( the probability of Hussein initiating an attack in the foreseeable future is low ), Team Bush repeatedly sold the idea that an attack from Hussein was something that would happen sooner than later. They said that we could not wait lest there be a mushroom cloud over major metropolitan area (despite the fact that the best information available said that Hussein did not have this capacity ). According to Team Bush Hussein was mongongo monkey nuts with hatred for the US and was willing to sacrifice his own life, livelihood and nation to initiate an attack in the immediate future.
None of this was supported by the best information available at the time.

Without even having to address the issues of Hussein's biological and chemical weapons, it can be seen the idea that Hussein represented a threat to the US were not supported by the best information available at the time.
Without a threat to the US, there was not reason enough to risk American lives on the scale that we have. According to one senior official, Hussein's "criminal treatment of the Iraqi people" was not enough to warrant the major invasion of Iraq.

These are just few examples of how the case for the invasion of Iraq depended on malinfo as opposed to the "best information available at the time."


Then there's the whole issue of how could so many people in the world who had only Google to go by come up with more accurate answers than Team Bush?
Simon, your evidence is impressive. :bravo:
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
There are a few conservatives on this forum who will say, and I paraphrase, "No duh they lied, you gullible fool. They had to. If you fell for it then you're just stupid."

This is where I tend to agree with them.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The joke is:

"Did the govt mislead you?"
"No. I knew they were lying the whole time."
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just a few:

"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities." Bush Jan 28 2003 SOU address.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” Cheney, Speech at VFW 103rd Natl. Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world." Bush message to the Iraqi people, April 10, 2003 (Multiple lies in this one)

We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.... [W]e’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them." Bush in remarks on Polish television, May 30, 2003 as quoted by the Associated Press the following day.

T]he area … that coalition forces control … happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, on ABC’s "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on March 30, 2003, when coalition forces had occupied much of, but not all of, Iraq.

“On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions.”
Powell —Remarks to the United Nations, Feb. 5, 2003

“We know that he has an active program for the development of nuclear weapons.”
Rumsfeld Interview with Infinity-CBS Radio, Nov. 14, 2002

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Dick Cheney, Vice President, Meet The Press, 3/16/2003http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Iriemon,
I'm sorry to break the mood here, but I have been puzzled, peering closely at your avatar every time I see it and I just have to ask. What the hell is that thing?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
mixedmedia said:
Iriemon,
I'm sorry to break the mood here, but I have been puzzled, peering closely at your avatar every time I see it and I just have to ask. What the hell is that thing?
It's his portrayal of what he believes the country's military should be...

a harmless little kitten that can hardly defend itself...
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
It's his portrayal of what he believes the country's military should be...

a harmless little kitten that can hardly defend itself...
A kitten. Okay now I see it.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
GOD I HATE FUQING LIERS!!!:


One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Bill Clinton, February 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, February 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, February 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, February 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, October 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), December 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, November 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), September 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, September 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, September 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), September 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), October 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), October 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), October 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), December 8, 2002

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” -Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) September 4, 2002

“If we wait for the [Iraq] danger to become clear, it could be too late.” -Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del) September 4, 2002

“Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.” -Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) February 5, 2003

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), January 23. 2003

:mrgreen:
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
GOD I HATE FUQING LIERS!!!:


One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Bill Clinton, February 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, February 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, February 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, February 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, October 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), December 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, November 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), September 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, September 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, September 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), September 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), October 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), October 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), October 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), December 8, 2002

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” -Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) September 4, 2002

“If we wait for the [Iraq] danger to become clear, it could be too late.” -Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del) September 4, 2002

“Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.” -Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) February 5, 2003

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), January 23. 2003

:mrgreen:
Trajan, what I find rather sad is that you don't seem to understand this issue. No one is saying that others did NOT believe that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. The point is that the Bushies knew there were caveats about whether he had WMDs and/or whether he was reconstituting WMDs and whether there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Iraq and failed to provide us with that intelligence (or failed to even recognize that there were caveats).

So provide 10 to 20 more quotes saying that everyone believed that Saddam had WMDs if that makes you feel better. LOL
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
Trajan, what I find rather sad is that you don't seem to understand this issue. No one is saying that others did NOT believe that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. The point is that the Bushies knew there were caveats about whether he had WMDs and/or whether he was reconstituting WMDs and whether there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Iraq and failed to provide us with that intelligence (or failed to even recognize that there were caveats).

So provide 10 to 20 more quotes saying that everyone believed that Saddam had WMDs if that makes you feel better. LOL
So umm Clinton didn't have access to this same intel when he was president?
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
mixedmedia said:
Iriemon,
I'm sorry to break the mood here, but I have been puzzled, peering closely at your avatar every time I see it and I just have to ask. What the hell is that thing?
Little kitty that passed out in his food bowl. I don't know why I like it; it just says something to me.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
It's his portrayal of what he believes the country's military should be...

a harmless little kitten that can hardly defend itself...
Ha ha.

Maybe it would be better if I used an avatar with some tough guy and guns or something, and sit at my computer bitching about people not supporting the Iraq war while sitting on my ass typing posts instead of joining the army to help fight the war I support.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The war on Iraq is simply "OPERATION DESERT STORM THE SEQUEL" end of story!
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Iriemon said:
Ha ha.

Maybe it would be better if I used an avatar with some tough guy and guns or something, and sit at my computer bitching about people not supporting the Iraq war while sitting on my ass typing posts instead of joining the army to help fight the war I support.
What are you doing?
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alphieb said:
The war on Iraq is simply "OPERATION DESERT STORM THE SEQUEL" end of story!
From what I have read here, most Bush apologists claim it is simply "WORLD WAR II THE SEQUEL".
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alphieb said:
What are you doing?
Sitting on my ass writing posts bitching about the Iraq war. :)
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Iriemon said:
From what I have read here, most Bush apologists claim it is simply "WORLD WAR II THE SEQUEL".
'WORLD WAR' No other country is stupid enough to back us save for England and I bet they regret it.
 
Top Bottom