• 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.

Clinton lies again

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
In an interview with Brian Williams on NBS Wednesday night former president Bill Clinton claimed "

"The charges that the House sent to the Senate were false,"

Of course in his plea bargain to avoid a felony prosecution he stated

""But I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish that goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false."

And he was held in contempt of court for his lying under oath (aka perjury), and obstructing of justice committed when he told those lies.

He went on to impugn the men appointed by the justice department to investigate his crimes and the news media by saying

"People in your business [liked the Lewinsky investigation] very much," Clinton told Brian Williams. "And they like what Ken Starr did because they thought it made good ink.

"[But] they didn't do a very good job of reporting for years all the innocent people he persecuted and indicted because they wouldn't lie and the assault on the American Constitution that he waged or that I was acquitted."

He wasn't acquitted he copped a plea and was held in contempt.

Going on to say

"And that the charges that the House sent to the Senate were false. So I did a bad thing. I made a bad personal mistake. I paid a big price for it. But I was acquitted because the charges were false."

Nope, the statements of the voting Senators totally bely that statement when senator after senator made it clear that although he committed the acts he was charged with they did not want to remove him from office.

So Clinton continues to try and rewrite history. The quotes are supplied by NewsMax as I unfortunately did not hear the interview but I would bet Williams did not challenge him on any of these bogus assertions he made.
 
Last edited:

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I was at the gym last night and that interview was on. Apparently, he's added more pages to his autobiography and whatever he says is probably going to spur more sales of that book. As the axiom goes, any publicity is good publicity.
 

Rev.

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
530
Reaction score
55
Location
New England
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
:shocked2:

I'm speechless.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
shuamort said:
I was at the gym last night and that interview was on. Apparently, he's added more pages to his autobiography and whatever he says is probably going to spur more sales of that book. As the axiom goes, any publicity is good publicity.
Did Williams even challenge him on his totally bogus assertions? I need to find a full transcript.

Edit (went and found it)

I asked the president a blunt question about his legacy and any regrets he may have that impeachment will always play a prominent role in how his presidency is remembered.

Clinton: It probably would, because — but to be fair, you said you're being blunt with me. People in your business like that very much. And they like what Ken Starr did because they thought it made good ink. And they didn't do a very good job of reporting for years all the innocent people he persecuted and indicted because they wouldn't lie...

Williams: And yet...

Clinton: ...and the assault on the American Constitution that he waged...

Williams: This was...

Clinton: ...or that I was acquitted. And that the charges that the House sent to the Senate were false. So I did a bad thing. I made a bad personal mistake. I paid a big price for it. But I was acquitted because the charges were false.

Williams: Guantanamo Bay, Amnesty International says................

What a wimp Williams is, he just let Clinton say those out right lies and get away with it.
 
Last edited:

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What a wimp Williams is, he just let Clinton say those out right lies and get away with it.
What would you suggest? Call him a liar right to his face? When you interview a pathological liar like Clinton, you have to expect you will get lied to. Williams did the right thing-- let Clinton hang himself.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Squawker said:
What would you suggest? Call him a liar right to his face? When you interview a pathological liar like Clinton, you have to expect you will get lied to. Williams did the right thing-- let Clinton hang himself.
Well gosh, it seems to me he's just modeling after our current president. Bush has hung himself in his lies more than he has approved executions in Texas.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well gosh, it seems to me he's just modeling after our current president. Bush has hung himself in his lies more than he has approved executions in Texas.
All I have seen as proof is partisan rhetoric and slogans. Bush lied, men died type of propaganda. The reality of the situation is if Bush is such a liar, and as evil as the left tries to make him, he would have been charged with a crime by now. No smoking gun, just left wing character assignations they are so good at.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Squawker said:
All I have seen as proof is partisan rhetoric and slogans. Bush lied, men died type of propaganda. The reality of the situation is if Bush is such a liar, and as evil as the left tries to make him, he would have been charged with a crime by now. No smoking gun, just left wing character assignations they are so good at.
Well didn't it seem that he was telling us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And yet we find none. I mean, all partisan aside, does that mean that he simply made a big freaking mistake or was he lying?
 

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
sebastiansdreams said:
Well didn't it seem that he was telling us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And yet we find none. I mean, all partisan aside, does that mean that he simply made a big freaking mistake or was he lying?
***David Kay said the trace residue of mustard gas found in an artillery shell earlier this month was likely a relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-90s.

***Hans Blix said his team found 16 warheads that were tagged as 'used for containing Sarin,' but were empty.

*** Saddam's government had disclosed binary Sarin testing & production after the 1995 defection of Iraqi weapons chief Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel al-Majid, Saddam's son-in-law. But Saddam's government never declared that any Sarin or Sarin-filled shells still remained.

***A dozen chemical shells were also found by UN inspectors before the war; they had been tagged for destruction in the 90s but somehow were not destroyed.

***Iraq acknowledged making 3,859 tons of Sarin, Tabun, mustard and other chemical weapons. Iraq began producing Sarin in 1984 and admitted to possessing 790 tons of it in 1995.

***The mustard gas shell may be one of 550 projectiles Saddam failed to account for when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas.

***Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam's government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War.

Now can you seriously say they didn't find anything?

NOTE: these are excerpts from many articles I read when doing research for a letter to the editor of my local newspaper. All I did at the time was use a simple Yahoo search. This was obviously a while ago so I don't even recall how I searched this info. Probably WMDs or mustard gas, or artillery shell or some combination. Plus the articles would have also been from a variety of sources. Most likely NY Times, Washington Post, maybe even AP, Reuters, etc.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well didn't it seem that he was telling us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And yet we find none. I mean, all partisan aside, does that mean that he simply made a big freaking mistake or was he lying?
That is so old it is getting ridicules, and not worthy of going into again. It is all partisan to say that he should have had ESP and known before the evidence showed different. :doh
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Squawker said:
That is so old it is getting ridicules, and not worthy of going into again. It is all partisan to say that he should have had ESP and known before the evidence showed different. :doh
No, I certainly am not suggesting that he have ESP or anything. But come on man, this was a war. This costs thousands of people their lives. It couldn't have hurt to be "pretty damn sure" on the verge of "certain" that these weapons existed before we went to war. It is one thing to have sent in spies to check this crap out. Or even to assasinate the man for his multiple crimes against the world. But to start a war, you just need to be more certain than that.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
sebastiansdreams said:
No, I certainly am not suggesting that he have ESP or anything. But come on man, this was a war. This costs thousands of people their lives.
And much fewer in year two than any war in our nations history, maybe even history itself.
It couldn't have hurt to be "pretty damn sure" on the verge of "certain" that these weapons existed before we went to war.
Three of the biggest intelligence agencies worldwide said he had them, the previous administration said he had them, the last opponent for the presidency said he had them( and then said he didn't have them, then said he had them but probably hid them, then said he had them but probably got rid of them), and the U.N. was deathly afraid he had them(but we all know how useful those jokers are)
It is one thing to have sent in spies to check this crap out.
That could have been a global political disaster.
Or even to assasinate the man for his multiple crimes against the world. But to start a war, you just need to be more certain than that.
Can't assasinate world leaders according to the Geneva Accords.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

LaMidRighter said:
And much fewer in year two than any war in our nations history, maybe even history itself.
Good point. When you blow up your enemies in the first round, not a whole lot of dying in the second year.
Three of the biggest intelligence agencies worldwide said he had them, the previous administration said he had them, the last opponent for the presidency said he had them( and then said he didn't have them, then said he had them but probably hid them, then said he had them but probably got rid of them), and the U.N. was deathly afraid he had them(but we all know how useful those jokers are)
Bigger is not always better. And in this case they were way wrong. If we had just taken the time to find out if they had these weapons, thousands of lives would have been spared.
That could have been a global political disaster.
Whereas just bombing the hell out of them had no real political repricussions.
Can't assasinate world leaders according to the Geneva Accords.
Saddam is not nor was a "world leader." He was a murderer, and that we have proof of.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
sebastiansdreams said:
Well didn't it seem that he was telling us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And yet we find none. I mean, all partisan aside, does that mean that he simply made a big freaking mistake or was he lying?
Here is an interesting read from October 8, 2004.

Bush, Clinton and Kerry on WMD - Were they all fooled?

An unapologetic George W. Bush conceded yesterday that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, but insisted he was right to invade Iraq because it was "gaming the system" to end UN sanctions so it could develop a new terror arsenal.

Was Bush fooled? Did he have another agenda and purposely misled the public to motivate war? If he did, both Bill Clinton and John Kerry were in on the secret.

A well documented chronology of the Clinton administration's public case against Iraq has been published here. On the Larry King show Clinton stated, "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." In fact, the BBC reported:

Bill Clinton says that no government could have failed to act against Iraq after the 11 September 2001 attacks in view of intelligence provided.
The former US president told the BBC that UK intelligence on the activity of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was more "aggressive" than Washington's.
He added that the world was right to demand weapons inspections in 2002.
But he said war could have been avoided if the UN had passed a resolution threatening military action.

At the time of this statement Clinton apparently did not know that top UN officials and member countries of the UN Security Counsel were recipients of Iraqi bribes. In addition, Saddam managed to keep his abandoned WMD programs secret from virtually everyone, even fooling his top military generals. Consequently, it is hard to blame Clinton for his public statements regarding WMD and Iraq.

Given Saddam's deception and the flawed intelligence reports of Clinton appointee William Tenet, it is understandable why John Kerry claimed Iraq had WMD:

Jan 2003 - For: “If You Don't Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't Vote For Me.” (LA Times, 1/31/03)

Feb 2003 - For: Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein "Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable." (Jill Lawrence, "War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates," USA Today, 2/12/03)

Mar 2003 - For: “I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to …” (“All Things Considered”, 3/19/03)

While it seems clear that Bush, Clinton and Kerry were fooled by Saddam's misinformation and other intelligence failures, what is also clear from the Duelfer Report is that Saddam was acting to re-create his WMD capability [Washington Times].

The press hasn't made much of Saddam's 500 ton uranium stockpile, downplaying the story to such an extent that most Americans aren't even aware of it.... Fortunately for the world, Saddam didn't have the nuclear enrichment technology to convert his 500 ton uranium stockpile into weapons grade bomb making material. Or did he?

So, given the Duelfer Report, was war justified?

Source: http://www.blogicus.com/archives/bush_clinton_and_kerry_on_wmd_were_they_all_fooled.php
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fantasea said:
So, given the Duelfer Report, was war justified?
Wrong, AGAIN! Had our ahole President simply allowed the inspections to continue instead of rushing into a war that is a international disgrace we would not have 1700 dead Americans.

The BS that you try to come up with to justify the killing of these fine Americans is sickening. You'll go to the wall to protect a frozen embryo headed to the garbage but you won't stand up to the dirtbag in the White House killing our soldiers.

You know what I believe? If Bush used a Nuke people like you would find some sick way to rationalize and make it sound like it was good!

Everytime you think the war is good, or justified, think about this:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/gallery.htm

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/

The last link is extremely graphic, and extremely real. Look at these pictures closely. It's time we all look at pictures like these everyday to remind ourselves how horrible war is, and how horrible this war is.

It slays me when morons write that in this war we've had fewer casualties than in other wars! That is one sick statement. Tell that to any of the families of the people in these pictures.

It sickens me to read the posts from the war mongers on this site. Shame on all of you! Some of you pretend to be "God fearing Christians" yet you condone war and violence. Shame on all of you! Show me in the Bible where God says it's OK to preemptively attack another nation?

Do you know what this word spells? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S

To further show how insane you all are, you write crap about how much safer we are in the USA since 9-11! You cite the fact that we've not been attacked since so we must be safer! That is pure genius!

One of my favorite sicko lines of thinking is that we can fight the terrorists "over there" instead of here! More real genius! I'm sure that our terrorists friends aren't plotting to blow us up again over here because they're having so much fun "over there."

The truly sad thing about that line of thinking is that when the day comes that we're attacked again and you're all proven wrong all of us will lose, and we'll lose because the war in Iraq will be one of the great motivators that are enemy will use to enlist terrorists to come here and get us.

Shame on you! Shame on Bush! H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S
:hm
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
sebastiansdreams said:
Good point. When you blow up your enemies in the first round, not a whole lot of dying in the second year.
Most wars have the heaviest casualties during the rebuilding phase, WWI and II, Civil War, and this one is no exception because of the types of insurgencies like we are seeing now, this is the phase where the few who have the most to lose will step up the violence.
Bigger is not always better. And in this case they were way wrong. If we had just taken the time to find out if they had these weapons, thousands of lives would have been spared.
True, but in this case, bigger also means more efficient and more thorough, if they in fact did get this totally wrong and the weapons weren't moved, that is an issue to be dealt with when our troops are safely back home.
Whereas just bombing the hell out of them had no real political repricussions.
Saddam is not nor was a "world leader." He was a murderer, and that we have proof of.
That's what happens when you make tough decisions, the U.N. had 12 years to act and did nothing, we were blamed throughout the ninetees of being heavy handed towards the people of Iraq for backing the sanctions and lost much respect in that region, with that in mind, the U.N. decided to play politics and build consensus rather than act, someone had to do it, and I feel we made the proper decision. And yes, Saddam was a world leader in that he was a head of state, therefore, we are bound to our end of the deal by Geneva standards.
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
Bigger also meaning the most highly-regarded and respected because of the thorough, deliberate work they do.

Back to the original point of this thread . . . .

As popular as he is, Clinton cannot influence the history and legacy writers 50 years from now. All legacies are at the mercy of truth and fact. The only things that will be noted during the Clinton presidency are:

Placing his wife as head of his failed health care task force.

Losing his party's majority in Congress for 4 consecutive terms (if you want to count the 2000 election).

Compromising on his position of welfare reform by signing a Republican-contrived Welfare Reform Bill.

Being the second president to be impeached by the House, censured by the Senate.

Monica Lewinksy, of course.

Quite possibly, in this War on Terror era, historians might add to his legacy the fact that he opted out of a Pakistani effort to detain or kill Usama bin Laden, in spite of the fact the Pakistani government informed Clinton they knew UBL's exact location and was ready to strike.

Ken Starr, Whitewater, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers.

dot-com economy that held the stock market high, then the bubble burst near the end of his 2nd term.

We should all not be surprised at Bubba's attempt to rewrite history. He may have been disbarred, but that doesn't stop him from "making his case." Get it? Hello? :thumbdown
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
sebastiansdreams said:
Good point. When you blow up your enemies in the first round, not a whole lot of dying in the second year.
I might be mistaken, but I don't think he was referring to the casualties in the second year, but rather the fact that after the first two years of war, there have been very few casualties.

Bigger is not always better. And in this case they were way wrong. If we had just taken the time to find out if they had these weapons, thousands of lives would have been spared.
How long should they have taken? They waited 12 years. Looking back and saying "we should have taken more time" is very unfair when at the time, time could have been of the essence. If Iraq had had weapons, and we waited an extra year, allowing them time to disperse them among other terrorist regimes, we would have been kicking ourselves. I personally think we should have launched a suprise attack. Perhaps that would have prevented Iraq from sneaking weapons into Syria on the eve of the war, with the help of the Russians.

This story, which I doubt many have heard about was broken last October, but quickly quashed by the government because of political concerns.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

The Pentagon official who went to the press with the story was immediately fired for "exceeding his authority by releasing this information to the public."

http://www.atsnn.com/story/108347.html

You'd think this would be a bigger story. These were the arms from al-Quaqaa (remember that) that it turned out were missing, which was reported on the eve of the election by the media in an attempt to throw the election toward Kerry. As it turned out, it ended up confirming that Iraq had

a) Secret dealings with Russia, and specifically the Kremlin, with Russian Spetsnaz operating in Iraq
b) Shipped tons and tons of HE to Syria, and could have easily shipped anything else
c) Used the grace period Bush gave Saddam to resign to instead hide their weapons.

You'd think this would be a bigger story, but....

Whereas just bombing the hell out of them had no real political repricussions.
Saddam is not nor was a "world leader." He was a murderer, and that we have proof of.
Whether or not Saddam was a murderer, he was still a head of state, and thus immune to assassination any way you look at it.
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
Squawker said:
That is so old it is getting ridicules, and not worthy of going into again. It is all partisan to say that he should have had ESP and known before the evidence showed different. :doh
I agree with Squawker's sentiments regarding the Bush bashing comments.

Then again, couldn't that same thinking apply to the original topic of this thread?

Maybe 26 X World Champs is right....hypocrites we all are.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
sebastiansdreams said:
Well didn't it seem that he was telling us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And yet we find none. I mean, all partisan aside, does that mean that he simply made a big freaking mistake or was he lying?

From the Kay Report

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi
Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring
and suitable for continuing CBW research.


A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW
agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were
explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.


Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's
home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.


New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean
Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin
were not declared to the UN.


Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have
been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and
electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).


A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility
and an admission that they had tested one of
their declared UAVs out to
a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.


Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only
for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained
at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists
have said they were told to conceal from the UN.


Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges
up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by
the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten
targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu
Dhabi.


Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North
Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably
the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other
prohibited military equipment.

But this is about Clinton and his history so let's do try to stay on topic please :naughty
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Squawker said:
What would you suggest? Call him a liar right to his face? When you interview a pathological liar like Clinton, you have to expect you will get lied to. Williams did the right thing-- let Clinton hang himself.
Any good journalist would not have let such obviously false statements go unchallenged.

"Well Mr. President then why did you state in your plea bargin that you had made such false statements?"

"Well Mr. President then why did you not take the opportunity Judge Wright gave you to contest her ruling of contempt?"

"Well Mr. President what exactly was false in the charges, didn't you in fact not tell the truth before the court and the grand jury and in fact submit a false affidavit to the court?"

There are many people, many who otherwise have some knowledge and awareness of political matters, who haven't a clue as to what actually happened as far as the Clinton impeachment and the Starr investigation. Many of them are right here in this forum. They will take what Clinton said has truthful especially when the reporter who on his own opened the subject with an obviously prepared question and then allowed him to make such false statements. Perhaps I should place a copy of this over in the thread about media bias :lol:
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
sebastiansdreams said:
No, I certainly am not suggesting that he have ESP or anything. But come on man, this was a war. This costs thousands of people their lives. It couldn't have hurt to be "pretty damn sure" on the verge of "certain" that these weapons existed before we went to war.
So absent any stockpiles or bubbling cauldrons or chemical weapons we should not have enforced the cease-fire agreements or UN mandates and left him in power, knowing all we know from the Kay and Duelfer reports?

It is one thing to have sent in spies to check this crap out.
Recall Saddam claimed that some of the UN inspectors were actually spies and he kick them out. Clinton did nothing about it and Saddam became more empowered. The left here decried the US "How dare we put spies into Iraq, how horrible the US is for violating Saddam's rights as a soverign ruler".

Or even to assasinate the man for his multiple crimes against the world. But to start a war, you just need to be more certain than that.
Illegal. But as far as I am concerned knowing what we know we did the right thing, OK we didn't find ready made stockpiles, so what?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
sebastiansdreams said:
And in this case they were way wrong. If we had just taken the time to find out if they had these weapons, thousands of lives would have been spared.

It took 250,000 troops and a couple a carrier battle groups just to get Blix and his keystone cops back in for cursory inspections, inspections which Blix himself stated were not working because Saddam was STILL not cooperating in his last, final, this is it, no more, we won't back down this time, no more warnings, we mean it this time chance to come clean

sebastiansdreams said:
Whereas just bombing the hell out of them had no real political repricussions. Saddam is not nor was a "world leader." He was a murderer, and that we have proof of.
But his great desire was to be the leader of the Mid-East and had we backed down he would have become a very powerful if not the most powerful. He had the UN bribed, he had is connections with Alqaeda working. All he needed was for the sanctions to be lifted and then everything Kay and Dulfer and the 9/11 commission warned about would have come to fruition.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
For the last time....Bush lied! Period.

For the last time...Our very own National Intelligence Estimate stated there were no WMD's in Iraq! ( Congress never got to see the classified version of the NIE's report before voting on whether to give Bush authorization to invade Iraq)

For the last time...the International Atomic Energy Agency, who had inspectors on the ground in Iraq, stated there were no WMD in Iraq!

Bush ignored this intelligence and picked and chose only the intelligence he wanted to use to justify war with Iraq...a war that we now know was in the planning stages long before the events of 9/11.

The aluminum tubes that Condeeleza Rice told us could only be used for nuclear centrigfuges was just one of many lies by the Bush administration to take our nation to war.

My God! Saddam's order for these aluminum tubes was posted on the internet! Do you really believe if this was for nuclear weapon making capability, Saddam would place this order on the internet?

Wake up, you idiots!

Here's what the INR said before we went to war....

"In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgement of technical experts at the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets.
The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapons program."

But after all this, we have Bush on October 7, 2002 in a speech in Cincinnati saying....

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program...Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Then we have that liar, Condeleeza Rice saying on Sept 8th, 2002 on LATE EDITION that "the tubes are really only suited for nuclear weapons programs."

An outright, deliberate lie to the American people, since they knew those tubes could never be used for nuclear weapons!

Those of you who believe this war was just, do not have elevators that go to the top floor....yet you have the nerve to condemn Clinton for lying about a perfectly legal, consensual affair that never should've been investigated in the first place, except for the republicans hatchet job of trying something, anything, to bring down Clinton and regain their lust and orgasmic pursuit of power at any cost to this nation and our constitution!

In conclusion...I voted for Reagan...twice ( I was young and foolish back then)...the Republican party left me...that's why I am now a liberal....I just couldn't take the lies and back-stabbing of the republican party any longer.
 
Top Bottom