Saddam's Uranium Stockpile

[aps]

the point is NO ONE LIED.

if 1998 isnt good enough....what about these.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
---------------------------------------

there sure is, its called a biased media with an agenda.

I don't care. Bush is the one that instigated our invading Iraq.

ask yourself this question.......if Bill Clinton were president today, would you feel the EXACT SAME WAY ABOUT IRAQ as you do right now? if you can answer yes....then you arent a partisan hack.

the lefts credibility on this issue is absolute ***** and anyone that isnt a blind partisan knows it.

Yes, I would be just as angry if Bill Clinton brought us into this war based upon the same intelligence that the Bushies had. I am not a democrat who won't reprimand my own party. I was disgusted with Clinton's behavior regarding Monica Lewinsky.

I am appalled that the democrats did not hold out on supporting this war until they thoroughly looked at the evidence. Levin had the balls to vote "no." Were they worried about being called un-American like Max Clelland was? Sorry, but there is a point in time when your integrity should not be affected by your wanting to be re-elected or not wanting to be labeled by the republicans, particularly when that label is just name-calling.

Regardless, it was THIS president who wanted to take us into war, and by golly, he deserves all the negative publicity he is currently getting. Pointing the finger at others, while not accepting any blame, is indicative of a man with NO integrity.

the president had all this info and congress was just oblivious. LMAO. you had DEMOCRATS ON THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITY THAT VOTED FOR THIS WAR.

explain that one away with "Bush Lies"

See above. Just because you have democrats back up your fake assertions doesn't make your assertions any more truthful.

 

[ProudAmerican]

dont let facts get in the way of a good argument....it was all simply a "Bush Lie"

-----------------------------------------
"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

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

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
-----------------------------------------------

:mrgreen:

 

[aps]

dont let facts get in the way of a good argument....it was all simply a "Bush Lie"

-----------------------------------------
"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

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

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
-----------------------------------------------

:mrgreen:

I DON'T CARE. You could show me quotes by every member of Congress. It doesn't take away Bush's culpability to invade Iraq. Bush was personally put on notice that there were doubts about intelligence, yet he continued to assert that there was no doubt in the intelligence being provided that Iraq had WMDs and had a connection to Iraq. At least those members of Congress who did not thoroughly review the evidence were not making statements while knowing that there were doubts in those statements. There is a difference.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I DON'T CARE.

I never thought for a second you would. its not like a blind partisan to care about actual facts, when they can make a blanket statement with no basis of proof like "Bush Lied"

It doesn't take away Bush's culpability to invade Iraq.

for this to matter to me, I would have to concede to invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do in the first place....and I dont.

sorry, but I have to put you on the spot here. my question was listed before but I didnt exactly address you directly.

"If Bill Clinton were president today, would you feel THE SAME WAY ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ as you do now that Bush is president?"

I can honestly answer yes.....I would have backed Bill Clinton all the way, not that he would ever have the backbone to actually do something.

would you be condemning him like you are Bush?

answer honestly.

 

[aps]

I never thought for a second you would. its not like a blind partisan to care about actual facts, when they can make a blanket statement with no basis of proof like "Bush Lied"

Excuse me, but if you read my posts, you will see that I am backing up my assertions with facts. I don't see why what democrats said after Bush sought permission to invade Iraq has a bearing on what Bush initially asserted. Technically, the democrats who supported the war have some blame in not thoroughly reviewing the evidence, but who started this whole thing, ProudAmerican? Bill Clinton? LMAO Get real.

At least I am willing to admit that the democrats have some culpability. You, however, had made no admissions on behalf of your own party, which gives your arguments no credibility whatsoever.

for this to matter to me, I would have to concede to invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do in the first place....and I dont.

sorry, but I have to put you on the spot here. my question was listed before but I didnt exactly address you directly.

"If Bill Clinton were president today, would you feel THE SAME WAY ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ as you do now that Bush is president?"

I can honestly answer yes.....I would have backed Bill Clinton all the way, not that he would ever have the backbone to actually do something.

would you be condemning him like you are Bush?

answer honestly.

I answered this question in post #26. Look above.

 

[Stinger]

So if I lie, then it's okay for you to lie? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I don't give a rat's a$$ what Clinton said in 1998.

Why? Because if you do it blows your attempts to paint Bush as a liar? Sorry but what the previous administration and the Congress and the CIA and DIA and all the othres involved believed is quite salient.

Tell me what changed between Clinton leaving office and Bush coming into office.

What was presented to us by the White House in 2002 and 2003 was not an accurate reflection of what was shown in intelligence reports

Yes it was and those reports were giving to the Congress and each member of Congress was free to explore it more.

(which intelligence reports were created AFTER Clinton left office).

And contained information which came from those years. But what was different. What evidence had been accumulated AFTER Clinton left office which disporved everything the Clinton administration had said previously?

The Bushies were put on notice as to doubts about intelligence provided to the United States and they failed to relay those doubts to the American people.

Because the consensus was overwhelming that Saddam posed a threat.

If that's not dishonest, I don't know what is.

Well it's your admittenc. The fact is what is dishonest is this conspiricy by the Democrats to rewrite history, they voted to go to war and now that going got tough want to pretend otherwise.

Sorry, but the right's continued assertion that Clinton said X while in office

Those aren't assertions, those are facts along with the statements of Kerry, Hillary , Reid, Levin et al.

isn't going to take away the fact that Bush furthered the inaccurate intelligence.

And that's a lie. Both the Silberman/Robb and Senate Intelligence hearings prove you otherwise. He used the same intelligence that Clinton use to make Saddams removal the OFFICIAL policy of the United States.

He's the one that did a thorough investigationn and got us into this war.

President's don't do investigations, they get the same intelligence that the Congress gets and the evidence was overwhelming.

There is a reason that the majority of Americans think Bush misled us into this war and that question the President's integrity. Restore integrity to the White House?

Yes there is a reason, the propaganda campaign of the Democrats helped along by the mainstream media. And it is irresponsible and endangers us. If you can't see that I don't think you can see the light of day.

 

[KCConservative]

Remember stinger, according to aps, Clinton and Gore and Kerry and Kennedy and Pelosi and Boxer.....these people were just mistaken but Bush is a liar.:roll:

 

[aps]

Remember stinger, according to aps, Clinton and Gore and Kerry and Kennedy and Pelosi and Boxer.....these people were just mistaken but Bush is a liar.:roll:

LOL You asked me if I thought Bush lied. I said I thought he exaggerated the intelligence, yet you continue to state that I said he lied. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

 

[Stinger]

LOL You asked me if I thought Bush lied. I said I thought he exaggerated the intelligence, yet you continue to state that I said he lied. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Please list the statments he was given that he then exaggerated. He was stating no more than what the briefings told him and no more than what the Democrats and previous administration had said regarding Saddam, so what was he exaggerating and be specific. And let's not forget and exaggeration has truth inbedded in it so what was the exaggeration?

 

[aps]

Why? Because if you do it blows your attempts to paint Bush as a liar? Sorry but what the previous administration and the Congress and the CIA and DIA and all the othres involved believed is quite salient.

Tell me what changed between Clinton leaving office and Bush coming into office.

So when Clinton supports your cause, you accord his statements high probative value. Interesting. Stinger, don’t pretend that Clinton did a thorough investigation on this issue. Sure everyone thought that Saddam had WMDs. However, Bush is the one that decided to delve into this issue and subsequently, asked Congress if he could go to war. I doubt that Clinton knew what he was saying was inaccurate; however, Bush had evidence in front of him that showed that there were serious doubts about Saddam’s capabilities. Thus, he was put on notice that what he was saying was not accurate, and he chose to make statements that would indicate that there was no evidence against a claim that Saddam had WMDs and had connections with Al Qaeda.

Yes it was and those reports were giving to the Congress and each member of Congress was free to explore it more.

Right. And I am not saying that the democrats are totally in the right here. They had an opportunity to thoroughly investigate it. Although, if you really think about it, if your president is telling you that the intelligence is there with the assurance that Bush used, would you really question whether what the president was saying was true? Yes, the majority of people thought that Saddam had WMDs. Regardless, even if the democrats were irresponsible, Bush knew that there were doubts about what Saddam had and what his relationship with Al Qaeda was, and he continued to state facts as though there was no negative evidence.

And contained information which came from those years. But what was different. What evidence had been accumulated AFTER Clinton left office which disporved everything the Clinton administration had said previously?

The memos that informed the President that what Chalabi was saying about nuclear weapons was doubtful, that what the Al Qaeda guy was saying was dubious, and that documents attempting to show that Saddam had sought Uranium were most likely forged.

Because the consensus was overwhelming that Saddam posed a threat.

If Saddam had had the capabilities to attack us in 1998 (to include the presumption that he had had WMDs since the early 1990's), what would make him attack us now?

Well it's your admittenc. The fact is what is dishonest is this conspiricy by the Democrats to rewrite history, they voted to go to war and now that going got tough want to pretend otherwise.

Levin did not vote to go to war. He has every right to want to find out the facts. I believe that any member of Congress who wants to know the facts should be entitled to an investigation. Just because they voted for the war doesn’t make it wrong for them to question the decision to go to war.

Those aren't assertions, those are facts along with the statements of Kerry, Hillary , Reid, Levin et al.

Okay, they are facts.

And that's a lie. Both the Silberman/Robb and Senate Intelligence hearings prove you otherwise. He used the same intelligence that Clinton use to make Saddams removal the OFFICIAL policy of the United States.

You interpret the hearings to be proof that Bush didn’t lie. I do not agree.

President's don't do investigations, they get the same intelligence that the Congress gets and the evidence was overwhelming.

Really? They get the same intelligence? So why when the Senate asked for documents related to John Roberts and Harriet Miers did the White House claim executive privilege? So you see, not everything that the White House sees is available for members of Congress to see.

Yes there is a reason, the propaganda campaign of the Democrats helped along by the mainstream media. And it is irresponsible and endangers us. If you can't see that I don't think you can see the light of day.

I know, I know. It’s the left-wing media conspiracy that has caused so many Americans to doubt this President. Never mind that there are facts that substantiate such conclusions. It is a matter of interpretation, Stinger. Your interpretation isn’t the only one, just so you know. This is America, and we don’t have to agree with everything our President does. You want to talk about endangering us, why don’t we talk about the over 2000 deaths that have occurred and how the number of terrorists have increased since we invaded Iraq.

 

[Stinger]

So when Clinton supports your cause,

Blah blah blah blah blah..........................

you accord his statements high probative value.

I accord the evidence he had and the congress had with the same probative value of that Bush had.

Interesting. Stinger, don’t pretend that Clinton did a thorough investigation on this issue.

I don't, Presidents don't do "investigations" the "investigations" are ongoing by our intelligence community.

Sure everyone thought that Saddam had WMDs.

So you admit Bush didn't lie.

However, Bush is the one that decided to delve into this issue and subsequently, asked Congress if he could go to war.

And they vote yes.

I doubt that Clinton knew what he was saying was inaccurate;

Well since it wasn't except for the possible stockpiles.

however, Bush had evidence in front of him that showed that there were serious doubts about Saddam’s capabilities.

The same doubts that Clinton was presented with. You seem to be operating under this falicy that the intelligence agency's always agree 100% and that everyone over at the CIA either must agree or it is not true. The last intelligence summary Bush got gave a 90% certainty.

Thus, he was put on notice that what he was saying was not accurate, and he chose to make statements that would indicate that there was no evidence against a claim that Saddam had WMDs and had connections with Al Qaeda.

No he was given notice that this is what the intelligence groups believed and believed with a very high probabity. The same as when Clinton was in office.

Right. And I am not saying that the democrats are totally in the right here. They had an opportunity to thoroughly investigate it.

So you are saying Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence committed didn't? Shouldn't he be run out of office if he was so derelic in duty same with Kerry and Robers?

Although, if you really think about it, if your president is telling you that the intelligence is there with the assurance that Bush used, would you really question whether what the president was saying was true?

If it was my job of course I would.

Yes, the majority of people thought that Saddam had WMDs.

And France and Germany and Russia and England and all his neighbors and all his commanders and the CIA and the DIA but you claim Bush was the only one who knew different therfore when he said Saddam did it was a lie.

Regardless, even if the democrats were irresponsible, Bush knew that there were doubts about what Saddam had and what his relationship with Al Qaeda was, and he continued to state facts as though there was no negative evidence.

And he knew that the perponderence of the evidence was that he did. There were plenty of people trying to say otherwise and the evidence was overwhelming against them and in fact we do know how dangerous Saddam was and that he did have ties with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and had full intentions of rebuilding his WMD arsenal.

The memos that informed the President that what Chalabi was saying about nuclear weapons was doubtful, that what the Al Qaeda guy was saying was dubious, and that documents attempting to show that Saddam had sought Uranium were most likely forged.

And he wasn't the only evidence and Duelfer and Kay have fully documented that Saddam was rebuiding his nuclear labs and had already restarted experiments. So Bush was right.

If Saddam had had the capabilities to attack us in 1998 (to include the presumption that he had had WMDs since the early 1990's), what would make him attack us now?

What would stop him from supplying them to terrorist groups? What would stop him from using them on his neighbors?

Levin did not vote to go to war.

He was one of the few. But he clearly stated that Saddam and Alqaeda had ties and the Saddam was a threat vis-a-vis WMD. The issue is whether Bush lied, so if Bush lied then Levin lied.

He has every right to want to find out the facts.

He did and he voted not to go to war and now he tries to spin.

I believe that any member of Congress who wants to know the facts should be entitled to an investigation.

They are.

Just because they voted for the war doesn’t make it wrong for them to question the decision to go to war.

Of course not, and the time to do that was before they voted.

My Quote:
And that's a lie. Both the Silberman/Robb and Senate Intelligence hearings prove you otherwise. He used the same intelligence that Clinton use to make Saddams removal the OFFICIAL policy of the United States.

You interpret the hearings to be proof that Bush didn’t lie. I do not agree.

That's not an interpretation. But prove your claim, where in either do they state Bush lied or manipulated intelligence?

Really? They get the same intelligence? So why when the Senate asked for documents related to John Roberts and Harriet Miers did the White House claim executive privilege?

Those were not matters of intelligence were they. You make no sense.

So you see, not everything that the White House sees is available for members of Congress to see.

Which is clearly not what I said and deliberate attempt to distort the matter, quite like the Democrats do.

I know, I know. It’s the left-wing media conspiracy that has caused so many Americans to doubt this President.

Certainly has a lot to do with, the mainstream media quite regularly misstates what Bush said and ignores the previous declarations the Democrats made.

It is a matter of interpretation, Stinger. Your interpretation isn’t the only one, just so you know.

No it's a matter of the left declaring that Bush lied, not misinterpreted LIED. That is a lie in itself.

This is America, and we don’t have to agree with everything our President does.

That's fine with me. If you want to argue that with the facts as we knew them, as Bush stated them, Saddam should have been left in power then make that case. If you opposed the OFFICIAL policy of the Unites States that Saddam had to be removed then make that case. But this continued lie about Bush lied is harmful to the country, to the military and to the world.

You want to talk about endangering us, why don’t we talk about the over 2000 deaths that have occurred

Versus the 5000 the terrorist had killed and the millions Saddam had killed?

and how the number of terrorists have increased since we invaded Iraq.

When was that census taken? And why do you believe that had we not removed Saddam there would be fewer?

 

[Deegan]

Deegan,

That's a great example of mission creep. If Bush sold that line of reasoning to the Congress, we NEVER would have went to war in Iraq.

No, we were warned about the inevitable mushroom clouds, and the Saddam - Bin Laden links ad nauseum. Bush cherry picked the intel to give the Senate leaders, minus the PDBs amongst other items. The Downing Street memo confirms that the facts were manipulated in the run up to war. On 9/12 Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq - Richard Clarke thought he was joking, but was asked by Bush to look for evidence of a 9/11 = Saddam connection that just wasn't there.

The investigation by the Senate on this has been a sham up to this point. But do you know what. Through all of this garbage the public is finally starting to realize what a moral and political debacle the president got us in to.

I realize that they picked the worst case scenario when they explained the intelligence, or lack there of. I am o.k with this, especially where Saddam is concerned, as we know what he's done in the past. We were wrong, that is the sad reality we must face, but I take solice in the fact that we have liberated an entire nation, and put a brutal dictator, and his regime in prison, or on the run. We also gave the natural resources back to the people of Iraq, no longer will Saddam use the countries wealth to build himself palaces and billion dollar bunkers. He will also no longer use this wealth to make war with his neighbors, and the weapons of war that he has even used on his own people, especially the Kurds, people for whom he would like to have seen eradicated.

 

[Hoot]

At what point will you stop saying he lied and start proving he lied?

Sorry, KC, but you're relatively new here...it's been proven over and over again in these forums...do some reading and then decide whether you think Bush was being honest with us?

If you insist on one lie...how about Bush's Veteran's Day speech, where he once again said something along the lines of Congress seeing the same intelligence.

I call that a lie. You might call it politicking? Ya know...trying to get the poll numbers back out of the gutter? Hey...even a poll on today's right wing NewsMax shows Clinton is considered more honest and trustworthy then Bush.

Of course, I put no stock in anything on the pages of NewsMax...just posting that since NewsMax is such a yellow journalism right wing rag, it's kind of strange to see even them, admitting that Bush is considered less honest then Clinton.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Stinger - Unfortunatley Congress has limited it's own powers by 1) Allowing the use of so called "executive privelege" which has absolutley NO constitutional basis. and 2) Being lazy by accepting tid-bit information and intelligence from the President instead of demanding all of the intelligence and all of the facts before making such decisions. The administration did lie and mislead this nation on numerous occasions. Of course, when people like Dick Cheney are called out on it they respond "I mis-spoke." Some examples:

1. Dick Cheney said that Iraqi and Al Qaeda officials had a secret meeting in Stockholm. - LIE. There was never any intelligence to even suggest any such meeting took place in Stockholm. Of course, once that came out his excuse was that he "mis-spoke"
2. Dick Cheney stating that there was undeniable proof of a meeting between Iraqi and Al Qaeda officials in Prague. - LIE. It was still being investigated at the time and was based on ambiguous information. Of course, once it came out that there was no such meeting his excuse was that he "mis-spoke"
3. Bush - Iraq was attempting to buy enriched uranium from Niger - MISLEADING. Bush had been told several minutes before that address that that particular claim was not a certainty and probably didn't happen at all so he was advised to leave it out. He didn't.
4. Colin Powell - His UN address was based on intelligence from the "Curveball" source..a source which the German government told the CIA and this administration was lying and was not to be trusted. By passing the information from "Curveball" off as fact after being told he was lying, Colin Powell lied.
5. Also misleading was all of the talk about the alluminum tubes specifically for Saddams supposed nuclear weapons production. This is in reference to the centrifuges..the tubes which the CIA had no idea what they were for because they were clearly not suitable for nuclear weapons production. The president also failed to mention the fact that Saddam's nuclear facilities had been destroyed in 91 and there was no attempt to rebuild them. He also failed to mention the fact that there were no qualified scientists in Iraq to run such a program. Yet he had Rice and Cheney running around talking about mushroom clouds and nuclear centrifuges.

P.S. The Uranium was not weapons grade and was carted up, sealed, and locked away by the IAEA more than a decade ago.

 

[Deegan]

Stinger - Unfortunatley Congress has limited it's own powers by 1) Allowing the use of so called "executive privelege" which has absolutley NO constitutional basis. and 2) Being lazy by accepting tid-bit information and intelligence from the President instead of demanding all of the intelligence and all of the facts before making such decisions. The administration did lie and mislead this nation on numerous occasions. Of course, when people like Dick Cheney are called out on it they respond "I mis-spoke." Some examples:

1. Dick Cheney said that Iraqi and Al Qaeda officials had a secret meeting in Stockholm. - LIE. There was never any intelligence to even suggest any such meeting took place in Stockholm. Of course, once that came out his excuse was that he "mis-spoke"
2. Dick Cheney stating that there was undeniable proof of a meeting between Iraqi and Al Qaeda officials in Prague. - LIE. It was still being investigated at the time and was based on ambiguous information. Of course, once it came out that there was no such meeting his excuse was that he "mis-spoke"
3. Bush - Iraq was attempting to buy enriched uranium from Niger - MISLEADING. Bush had been told several minutes before that address that that particular claim was not a certainty and probably didn't happen at all so he was advised to leave it out. He didn't.
4. Colin Powell - His UN address was based on intelligence from the "Curveball" source..a source which the German government told the CIA and this administration was lying and was not to be trusted. By passing the information from "Curveball" off as fact after being told he was lying, Colin Powell lied.
5. Also misleading was all of the talk about the alluminum tubes specifically for Saddams supposed nuclear weapons production. This is in reference to the centrifuges..the tubes which the CIA had no idea what they were for because they were clearly not suitable for nuclear weapons production. The president also failed to mention the fact that Saddam's nuclear facilities had been destroyed in 91 and there was no attempt to rebuild them. He also failed to mention the fact that there were no qualified scientists in Iraq to run such a program. Yet he had Rice and Cheney running around talking about mushroom clouds and nuclear centrifuges.

P.S. The Uranium was not weapons grade and was carted up, sealed, and locked away by the IAEA more than a decade ago.

WHEN SENATOR CARL LEVIN REQUESTED the partial declassification of a Defense Intelligence Agency report in mid-October, the response was swift: He had it in his hands in eight days, reports the New York Times.

If only I were a senator.

For two years, I have been working to obtain copies of unclassified documents discovered in postwar Iraq. My reasoning is simple: If we understand what the Iraqi regime was doing in the months and years before the war, we will be better able to assess the nature of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and, perhaps, to better understand the insurgency. It's not a light subject, to be sure.

But the quest for the documents, while frustrating, has also been highly amusing. It is a story of bureaucratic incompetence and strategic incoherence. It is also a story--this one not funny at all--about the failure to explain the Iraq war. Two years after I started my pursuit, I'm not much closer to my goal.

Why? I have been told countless times by officials of the executive branch that there is no need to reargue the case for war, that what matters now is winning on the ground, that our intelligence professionals don't have time to review history, so occupied are they with current intelligence about current threats. I'm sympathetic to at least part of that thinking; it's hard to insist in the face of new and evolving threats that intelligence analysts should spend their precious time evaluating the past."

Maybe it is time that all of the Pentagons papers be declassified, and let's review the possibility of a real connection. One senator was able to do just that, why are other senators not asking the same be done with these other apparent connections?

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/345qrbbj.asp

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Maybe it is time that all of the Pentagons papers be declassified, and let's review the possibility of a real connection. One senator was able to do just that, why are other senators not asking the same be done with these other apparent connections?

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/345qrbbj.asp

Didn't you finish the article?

"Because I'd been told that these documents are all unclassified, I requested copies from the Pentagon press office. For reasons I still do not entirely understand, the Pentagon would not provide them. Captain Roxie Merritt, the director of Pentagon press operations, suggested I file a Freedom of Information Act request. I did so on June 19, 2005. Two weeks later I received a letter from the Pentagon's Office of Freedom of Information and Security Review.

The information you requested is under the cognizance of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). We have referred your request to them at the address provided below requesting they respond directly to you.

Defense Intelligence Agency
Attn: SVI-1, Room E4-234
Washington, DC 20340-5100

On July 22, 2005, I emailed Captain Merritt in the Pentagon public affairs office. Captain Merritt was then--and remained throughout the process--gracious and professional. I got the feeling she was being as helpful as the bureaucracy would allow her to be.

She wrote:

DIA FOIA has confirmed they have your request. Here is the challenge as they described it to me.

"This is not a simple request. . . . There are multiple agencies/ organizations involved. It isn't as though the documents are laying around in a neat pile waiting for someone to ask for them. The most logical place for the requested documents to be is in a database known as HARMONY. INSCOM (NGIC) is the program manager (owner) of HARMONY, but as they are quick to point out, "anyone" can enter items into the database, so they do not consider themselves the "owner" of the information in the database. Whoever input the information into HARMONY is the release authority of that information and you can't determine who that is until you find the requested documents. For the 44 requested documents, you're talking mega-hours of searching. Of course, the documents may not even be in HARMONY, which would require searching elsewhere (our FOIA folks are looking into that as well). Our FOIA monitor is talking with INSCOM to determine the most efficient way of retrieving the requested documents."

I didn't understand it either.

For weeks I heard nothing. So on August 23, 2005, I emailed Captain Merritt again. She responded quickly.

Steve,
Had my folks check. . . . DIA referred the request to Army's INSCOM which does FOIA on behalf of NGIC . . . the owner of HARMONY. I asked if they had advised you of the referral . . . they had not, but will do so.

In early September I received a letter from the DIA.

This responds to your request under the Freedom of Information Act dated 19 June 2005. Therein you requested from the Department of Defense 43 documents. Your request was referred to the Defense Intelligence Agency on 1 July 2005 and assigned case number 0622-05.

The thrill of having been assigned a DIA case number was short-lived. I learned in the next paragraph that the DIA was no longer handling the request.

These documents are under the purview of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command and your request has been forwarded to that organization for processing and direct response to you.

On September 14, 2005, I emailed Captain Merritt and asked for a contact name at INSCOM. She tasked a subordinate to get back to me. That never happened.

Then, two weeks later, I received a letter dated September 20, 2005. It came from the FOIA office of the Army's Intelligence and Security Command at Fort Meade, Maryland. Once again, I had gotten a case number. And once again the case number was meaningless.

Since additional time is needed to search for records at another element of our command, we are unable to comply with the statutory 20-day time limit in processing your request. Therefore, you may consider this an administrative denial of your request . . .

And so I did."

These shinaigans are what make the administration lose credibility and makes people doubt his claims. First of all, most of the buildings containing such doccuments were bombed out during the Shock and Awe operation. Why? Now the administration is refusing to release the unclassified doccuments that survived. Why? In my opinion, the administration knew that their claims were false so they deliberatley targeted Saddam's reccords during Shock and Awe. Those that survived are being hidden from the american people. They'll probably end up like Bush's national guard payroll reccords...the pentagon will "accidently" destroy them.

 

[Deegan]

That is a whole lot of assumption, but what ever makes you happy. I just want all the records that were not burned by Bush(LOL) to be declassified, and shared with the world.

 

[KCConservative]

Sorry, KC, but you're relatively new here...it's been proven over and over again in these forums...do some reading and then decide whether you think Bush was being honest with us?

Then humor me, hoot. Treat me like an idiot and show me the proof that Bush lied. Come on, show your evidence.

 

[Hoot]

Then humor me, hoot. Treat me like an idiot and show me the proof that Bush lied. Come on, show your evidence.

Sigh....I hardly see the point since you've already made up your mind, so whatever evidence I present will be dicounted.

However, I suggest you start by going back and reading my post #38 in this exact same thread.

Then do some searches, reading both pro and con on subjects like...

Al queda's ties to Iraq.

The Bushies charge that the aluminum tubes were meant for nuclear centrifuges.

Yellow cake.

Saddam's nuclear capacity.

Saddam's chem/bio capacity.

The war will be a "cakewalk."

I could go on all day.

 

[ProudAmerican]

if it was a proven fact that Bush intentionally lied, impeachment proceedings would have already began.

fact is, the left is reaching. the left supported this war for one reason.....IT WAS ELECTION TIME AND THEY WANTED TO LOOK HAWKISH.

now that the election is over, its time to change their stance.

pretty pathetic.

 

[KCConservative]

Sigh....I hardly see the point since you've already made up your mind, so whatever evidence I present will be dicounted.

It's okay, hoot. I understand. You have evidence but you just don't "see the point" in providing it (which, of course, would prove your assertion). Yeah, got it.

You're really making your party look good. :2razz:

 

[Stinger]

Sigh....I hardly see the point since you've already made up your mind, so whatever evidence I present will be dicounted.

However, I suggest you start by going back and reading my post #38 in this exact same thread.

Then do some searches, reading both pro and con on subjects like...

Al queda's ties to Iraq.

The Bushies charge that the aluminum tubes were meant for nuclear centrifuges.

Yellow cake.

Saddam's nuclear capacity.

Saddam's chem/bio capacity.

The war will be a "cakewalk."

I could go on all day.

You might want to follow Stephen Hayes reporting in the Weekly Standard where he is writing about the new documents the Iraqi Survey Group is unturning as we go through Saddam's stash of documents. Some of the titles are

• Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)
• Formulas and information about Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents
• Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)
• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs
• Ricin research and improvement

• Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam • Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)
• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team
• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment
• Correspondence from [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to [the Military Industrial Commission] regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002) • Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals
• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)
Still other reports suggest that Iraq's ties to al Qaida were far deeper than previously known, featuring headlines like:
• Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)
• Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity
• Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq
• Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals
• Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda - reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak
• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims
• Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan

 

[MSgt]

"Saddam's Uranium Stockpile"

Does it really matter?

Does Syria have nukes?
Does Saudi?
Does Iran?
Does the Muslim population in France?
Does the Islamic extremists in Indonesia?
Does the Islamic extremists in Africa?
Does the Islamic extremists in the Province of Xinjiang in China?
Does the Islamic extremists in Checnya?
Does the Islamic extremists in Britain?
Does the Islamic extremists in Spain?

...I'll just stop listing.

I realize this thread is about Saddam and his uranium stockpile, but by many of the free and "less than free" world's populations focusing solely on WMD and uranium as a necessity to defend oneself, the decay underneath terrorism goes uncontested as it spreads.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

OK, it's a fact that Saddam had a 500 ton stockpile of uranium. Some of it may or may not of been enriched, depending upon who you listen to. Whether or not it was or was not enriched, while important, is not the most important question. A more important question is why the UN inspectors did not know about it. Why was Saddam keeping it a secret if he had no plans to create a weapon?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/220331.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/12/103450.shtml

You are RIGHT on the money with this!! Not to forget the fact that Israel bombed Sadaam's NUCLEAR facility in 1981 that France had built for him!

Oh...but how the media will not want to go back in time & mention that; ..& that is ALSO another example of the democratic party's self administered AMNESIA!

Democrats think people forget those things; & the media is so arrogant "they" assume they must interpret things for all of us!

I remember 1981 very well....as well as the fact that it WAS the democratic party, & the lying media that were the very FIRST organizations that blasted, & CONDEMNED Israel for bombing the crap out of that nuclear facility plant in Iraq!

Israel had very good reason to risk world ostracism, & condemnation & even war with Iraq for doing so.

If that nuclear facility was not proof enough, ..NOTHING will ever be acceptable to the democratic party as they will always continue to keep their heads "buried in the sand" about the real threat that Sadaam was if he was left unmolested!

Of course the democratic party is about as sharp as a marble, ..& would preferably believe "anything" Sadaam would tell them, ..even in a country awash in oil, ..as to WHY Sadaam wanted a nuclear facility built, ..but it sure as hell was not for peaceful purposes!

 

[libertarian_knight]

(Don't know if this has been said, didn't care to read the whole thread yet) That Uranium, as I understood, was pre-gulf war, or nearly after. It was known of by both the UN and US, and declared by the Iraq Regime. He was not required to dispose of it. Also, it was Unenriched. If you recall the administration never metioned this stockpile as a violation, even though they have know he has it for years, because it was not deemed by the UN or US as a violation of the ceasefire and disarmament protocols. This is not "news"