ProudAmerican said: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.
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.
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"
ProudAmerican said: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.
It doesn't take away Bush's culpability to invade Iraq.
ProudAmerican said: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"
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 said: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.
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
(which intelligence reports were created AFTER Clinton left office).
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.
If that's not dishonest, I don't know what is.
Sorry, but the right's continued assertion that Clinton said X while in office
isn't going to take away the fact that Bush furthered the inaccurate intelligence.
He's the one that did a thorough investigationn and got us into this war.
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?
KCConservative said: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 said: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 said: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.
Yes it was and those reports were giving to the Congress and each member of Congress was free to explore it more.
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?
Because the consensus was overwhelming that Saddam posed a threat.
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.
Those aren't assertions, those are facts along with the statements of Kerry, Hillary , Reid, Levin et al.
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.
President's don't do investigations, they get the same intelligence that the Congress gets and the evidence was overwhelming.
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.
aps said: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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You interpret the hearings to be proof that Bush didn’t lie. I do not agree.
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.
I know, I know. It’s the left-wing media conspiracy that has caused so many Americans to doubt this President.
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.
hipsterdufus said: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.
KCConservative said:At what point will you stop saying he lied and start proving he lied?
Napoleon's Nightingale said: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 said: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
Then humor me, hoot. Treat me like an idiot and show me the proof that Bush lied. Come on, show your evidence.Hoot said: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?
KCConservative said:Then humor me, hoot. Treat me like an idiot and show me the proof that Bush lied. Come on, show your evidence.
Hoot said:Sigh....I hardly see the point since you've already made up your mind, so whatever evidence I present will be dicounted.
Hoot said: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.
ANAV said: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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?