The Bush administration: "Misleading us into the future" (1 Viewer)

[::Major_Baker::]

Here is a page with lots of quotes that Bush administration officials have made on Iraq:

http://www.bushoniraq.com/

For those claiming left wing bias on this website, think a second and realize these are direct quotes.
Many people on this site are having trouble admitting that many false or misleading statements have been uttered by our current leaders when it comes to Iraq.

According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Secretary Rumsfeld has said:

"His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas."

"And he is agressively pursuing nuclear weapons. The region knows that."

"And he has biological and chemical weapons."

"His regime has an active program to aquire nuclear weapons."

"[W]e do know they're currently pursuing nuclear weapons, that they have a proven willingness to use those weapons at their disposal."

"We do know that the Iraqi regime currently has chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction."

"His regime has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons."

"He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas."

"He . . . is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons."

"He has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."

"We do know that the Iraqi regime . . . they're pursuing nuclear weapons."

"We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction."

"We have seen . . . intelligence over--over months, over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized . . . ."

"He claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know that he continues to hide biological or chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighborhoods."

"And he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons."

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons."

".....We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat....."

Are these statements misleading, based on the fact that the Defense Intelligence Agency has stated:
]"There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."[/]

You make the call.
comments?

 

[Captain America]

DOH!!!!!!

 

[Sir_Alec]

I agree with you for the most part, but many of Saddam's formal generals say that all traces of chemical weapons were shipped to other countries. Even this doesn't matter because we knew Saddam had chemical weapons for 20 years. He used them against Iran and parts of his own country!

 

[ProudAmerican]

Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

"[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

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

dont look now, but not one of those direct quotes is from Don Rumsfeld, or Bush.

 

[ProudAmerican]

A few more direct quotes that arent from Bush or Rumsfeld

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

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

Iriemon tried to claim that one of my past quotes from Bill Clinton was taken out of context.(he failed misserably I might add) I wonder if he will show his bipartisan nature and try to do the same with some of your direct quotes from Rumsfeld???

fact is, its hard to discredit someone when you have THEIR EXACT WORDS right in front of you, isnt it Major Baker?

 

[vexati0n]

Yeah, but when Kerry is wrong it's easier to assume he's wrong because he was misled. When Bush is wrong, you can tell by the look on his cute little chimp-like face that he's just repeating what somebody smarter than him told him to say. But when Rummy or Cheney are wrong, you just know in your gut that some evil thing lurking inside the skulls of those reptilian bastards is trying to commandeer human history and drive every last one of us off some cosmic cliff into complete and utter chaotic destruction. Unless you're a cabbage or something, or you haven't yet upgraded to one of those cable boxes that plugs into your brain and feeds you emotion along with current events. Tip: don't watch fox news with one of those, that's what this guy did and it didn't end up so good for him.

 

[Hoot]

This is what kills me about your quotes, Proud American...

How many of those quotes concluded by saying....

"Therefore, let's march our young sons and daughters into downtown Baghdad, therefore let's spend one billion dollars a week trying to bring democracy to a region that may reject it."

 

[ProudAmerican]

This is what kills me about your quotes, Proud American...

How many of those quotes concluded by saying....

"Therefore, let's march our young sons and daughters into downtown Baghdad, therefore let's spend one billion dollars a week trying to bring democracy to a region that may reject it."

thanks for helping my debate.

so what you are saying is, Bush is the only man with the conviction to actually follow up his public beliefs with action.

everyone else was just full of **** and saying what they thought the public wanted to hear at the time.

 

[Hoot]

thanks for helping my debate.

so what you are saying is, Bush is the only man with the conviction to actually follow up his public beliefs with action.

everyone else was just full of **** and saying what they thought the public wanted to hear at the time.

Conviction? Bush? Bush picked and chose only the intelligence he wanted to use to justify this war.

No matter how many quotes you post from elected officials, there's a big difference in how to best approach a perceived threat.

Bush ignored advice from those who knew better and embroiled us in a war that was not neccessary. Any threat from Saddam could've been handled, much cheaper, and without boots on the ground, and with far less loss of life.

 

[ProudAmerican]

No matter how many quotes you post from elected officials, there's a big difference in how to best approach a perceived threat.

no doubt.

you can do what Clinton did (nothing) or you can do what Bush did (something)

yep....theres a huge difference in how to best approach a perceived threat.

 

[BigDog]

no doubt.

you can do what Clinton did (nothing) or you can do what Bush did (something)

yep....theres a huge difference in how to best approach a perceived threat.

Are you seriously suggesting there are only two options?

 

[ANAV]

ProudAmerican, you missed so many quotes by Democrats supporting disarming Saddam.

"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." John Kerry May 3, 2003

"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." Senator Edward Kennedy September 27, 2002

These are just a couple of my favorites. And they have the nerve to criticize something they supported. I guess supporting something you don't believe in is just politics.

Check out the rest of these hypocrites.

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

 

[aps]

ProudAmerican, you missed so many quotes by Democrats supporting disarming Saddam.

"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." John Kerry May 3, 2003

"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." Senator Edward Kennedy September 27, 2002

These are just a couple of my favorites. And they have the nerve to criticize something they supported. I guess supporting something you don't believe in is just politics.

Check out the rest of these hypocrites.

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Let's not pretend that none of these people had the intelligence that our president and his cronies had--you konw, that there was a likelihood that there were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! The argument that you all make that democrats were saying the same thing is just ridiculous. It ignores the fact I raised above.

The good thing is that most people see Bush for the lying sack of poop that he is, and I can't stop laughing! :2rofll:

 

[ProudAmerican]

Are you seriously suggesting there are only two options?

No, I am seriously suggesting that BOTH SIDES of the isle SAID THE EXACT SAME THING.

so if you claim one side lied, you must admit the other did as well.

there are many "options" you can make up in your partisan brain....but whatever you claim the republicans did (make a mistake, lie, tap dance, break dance, or whatever) you must claim the dems did the same thing.....for the simple fact that THEY ALL SAID THE SAME THING.

I understand how hard it is to be bi partisan on this issue. its difficult for people to put their party affiliation aside and admit something.....but try. you will feel better if you just be honest about it.

if Bill Clinton said "saddam is a threat"
and then Bush said "saddam is a threat"

how can one be lying, and the other simply be mistaken? also, one said it way back in 1998. so if a lie was started, it was then.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Let's not pretend that none of these people had the intelligence that our president and his cronies had--you konw, that there was a likelihood that there were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! The argument that you all make that democrats were saying the same thing is just ridiculous. It ignores the fact I raised above.

The good thing is that most people see Bush for the lying sack of poop that he is, and I can't stop laughing! :2rofll:

Bill Clinton didnt have the same intelligence Bush had?

 

[massive_attack]

Man, cherry picking abounds !

The fact is for some time no one was really worried about Iraqs supposed WMD. Then all of a sudden it's something we need to take some serious action on even though a decent amount of people said they were almost disarmed or had no WMD.

The pro war crowd quickly called to arms saying, "but oh no, saddam has WMD, here, here, here, here, here, here and over there. VX nerve gas, nuclear, bio weapons and all sorts of nasty stuff. See, you can see it right here on this here map."

Wow, couldn't have been more wrong on that one eh ?

Where did all the certainty go ?

Out the freaking window.

 

[Hoot]

no doubt.

you can do what Clinton did (nothing) or you can do what Bush did (something)

yep....theres a huge difference in how to best approach a perceived threat.

May I suggest you do a simple search on "Clinton and terrorism?"

Read both pro and con and you'll find Clinton did far more to combat terrorism then any president before him.

 

[Captain America]

Bill Clinton didnt have the same intelligence Bush had?

No kidding. Clinton had more intelligence in his pinkie toe than Bush has in his entire body.:mrgreen:

 

[ProudAmerican]

May I suggest you do a simple search on "Clinton and terrorism?"

Read both pro and con and you'll find Clinton did far more to combat terrorism then any president before him.

it only stands to reason that after 8 years of agressively persuing terrorists, and combating muslem extremeists, that on 9-11, only a few months after the new administration took office.....we had the most deadly attack in our history.

 

[Hoot]

it only stands to reason that after 8 years of agressively persuing terrorists, and combating muslem extremeists, that on 9-11, only a few months after the new administration took office.....we had the most deadly attack in our history.

I will not say Clinton is totally blameless as far as 9/11, but perhaps, with the changing of administrations, you should be asking why Bush chose to ignore warnings from the departing Clinton administration about the threat from Al Qaeda until it was too late? Affectionately known as "Operation Ignore."

When Clinton left office, two former Reagan counter-terrorism officials, Robert Oakley and Paul Bremmer, praised Clinton, saying.."Overall I give them (the Clinton administration) very high marks," and Clinton had "correctly focused on Bin Laden."

You might also be interested to known that more Americans were killed by radical Islamic terrorists in the Reagan administration then the Bush Sr., and Clinton administrations combined.

But I don't even blame Bush Jr for 9/11...I blame the terrorists, but the fact that the radical right tries desperately to place this tragedy on Clinton's shoulders is nothing more then lies, distortion and spin.

 

[oldreliable67]

it only stands to reason that after 8 years of agressively persuing terrorists, and combating muslem extremeists, that on 9-11, only a few months after the new administration took office.....we had the most deadly attack in our history.

"8 years of agressively persuing terrorists, and combating muslem extremeists" [sic] is quite an exaggeration of the vigor (or lack thereof) with which we pursued terrorists prior to 9/11. The years prior to 9/11 were characterized for many years by our lack of appreciation of non-state sponsored terrorism: even early into the Clinton administration, we focused on Iran and Libya as the state powers behind most terrorism.

But perhaps a lack of "vigor" isn't the right way to characterize our efforts during that time period. During the Clinton administration, our efforts at countering terrorism were characterized by too many chiefs, not enough Indians, and way too little WH involvement. The CIA pursued its clandestine programs, the NSC became "operational' with its own activities, and the State Dept went its own way. The DoD remained "astonishingly passive", according to one researcher. Coordination of activities was minimal: State and the CIA espoused and pursued separate strategies against bin Laden in Afghanistan, for example.

Even by late 2000, when many members of Clinton's national security cabinet and his Joint Chiefs of Staff at last accepted the need for action against bin Laden, the Clinton cabinet adamantly opposed military action in Afghanistan, despite week after week of secret intelligence cables depicting active, advanced, but unspecified al Qaeda plans to launch mass attacks against American interests.

Even when Clinton authorized the CIA to pursue al Qaeda, he did not fully believe that the agency was up to the job, and he at times withheld from Langley the legal authorities, resources, and active leadership that a president more confident about the agency's abilities might have provided.

The Bush cabinet met at the White House on September 4, 2001. Before them was a draft copy of a new U.S. policy toward al Qaeda. The stated goal of the draft document was to eliminate bin Laden and his organization. I'm not a fan of Richard Clarke, but it must be noted that this draft policy and indeed the inclusion of this policy on the agenda on that day, was partly due to a blistering memo to Condi Rice earlier. "Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future day when CSG has not succeeded in stopping al Qaeda attacks and hundreds of Americans lay dead in several countries, including the U.S.", Clarke wrote. "What would those decision makers wish that they had done earlier?"

The cabinet approved the plan. But it was much, much too late to stop 9/11.

Sources:
Blind Spot: The Secret History of American Counterterrorism.by Timothy Naftali, here.
Ghost Wars: The secret history of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, by Steve Coll, here.

 

[ProudAmerican]

oldreliable....

I was being sarcastic in that post. thanks for that rebuttal though. interesting.

 

[BigDog]

No, I am seriously suggesting that BOTH SIDES of the isle SAID THE EXACT SAME THING.

so if you claim one side lied, you must admit the other did as well.

there are many "options" you can make up in your partisan brain....but whatever you claim the republicans did (make a mistake, lie, tap dance, break dance, or whatever) you must claim the dems did the same thing.....for the simple fact that THEY ALL SAID THE SAME THING.

I understand how hard it is to be bi partisan on this issue. its difficult for people to put their party affiliation aside and admit something.....but try. you will feel better if you just be honest about it.

if Bill Clinton said "saddam is a threat"
and then Bush said "saddam is a threat"

how can one be lying, and the other simply be mistaken? also, one said it way back in 1998. so if a lie was started, it was then.

No, both sides did not say the same thing. Show me where Clinton said Saddam was growing and gathering? That we knew where the wmd was? That we had to invade because we couldn't wait for a mushroom cloud? You see, you can look and find similar words, as you did above, but you continually ignore the words Bush said that no one else said.

And that is why one is lying.

However, even if both lied, it doesn't excuse Bush lying. I would hope grown up adult leaders are above "he said it too!" The kindergarden defense really doesn't hold up.

Also, read your post again. You are speaking as if there are only two options. And that would be wrong.

 

[ProudAmerican]

No, both sides did not say the same thing. Show me where Clinton said Saddam was growing and gathering? That we knew where the wmd was? That we had to invade because we couldn't wait for a mushroom cloud? You see, you can look and find similar words, as you did above, but you continually ignore the words Bush said that no one else said.

And that is why one is lying.

However, even if both lied, it doesn't excuse Bush lying. I would hope grown up adult leaders are above "he said it too!" The kindergarden defense really doesn't hold up.

Also, read your post again. You are speaking as if there are only two options. And that would be wrong.

I have covered the quotes in another thread and refuse to hold your hand on the topic. find the thread and read it.

if you dont see that both sides said the same thing, it damn sure isnt because its not there in black and white.

its simply because your partisan brain wont allow you to.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Bigdog,

you realize you are contending that since both sides didnt say "saddam was growing and gathering" or they "knew where the wmd was" that they couldnt possibly had said the same things on any other topics?

thats just nonsense.

both sides DEFINATELY AND WITH OUT A DOUBT said some statements that were the same.

I never once contended that both sides said EVERYTHING the same.

try to have a shread of intellectual honesty here.