Apparently G.W. really doesn't know the difference between 'absolutely has' and 'could aquire'

[Wheezer]

You guys missed a few:

on the missle attack on Iraq in 98:

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Clinton Dec 16 1998

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. Clinton Dec 16 1998

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.-Clinton Dec 16 1998


Kosovo Justifications:

When I ordered our armed forces into combat we had three clear goals: to enable the Kosovar people, the victims of some of the most vicious atrocities in Europe since the Second World War, to return to their homes with safety and self-government...

This victory brings a new hope that when a people are singled out for destruction because of their heritage and religious faith and we can do something about it, the world will not look the other way

We should remember that the violence we responded to in Kosovo was the culmination of a 10-year campaign by Slobodan Milosevic, the leader of Serbia, to exploit ethnic and religious differences in order to impose his will on the lands of the former Yugoslavia. That's what he tried to do in Croatia and Bosnia, and now in Kosovo

You may find any of these direct quotes by searching the internet.

Funny how no one bitched when we had the balls to lob a few missiles at an asprin factory, or drop bombs on people from miles up ion the air, but when it comes time to do the real dirty work and actually go after the bastard for the EXACT same reasons Bill Clinton gave for his actions well, because it's GB well those reasons are no longer valid.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Shanti
I am so sick of this crap.
.....
Here:
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG

Feel better now?

Damn. I feel for ya man. You admited you were wrong. And people still jumped on ya. Not fair to you. You should'nt have had to post that above crap to get people to believe you lol...

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: charrison
bzzzz, but thanks for playing.

and your point?

Intel came from other countries other than the US, UK, and Isreal.

the bulk of it were from these countries, and according to what I have been reading on the Haaretz for the last few weeks they are very worried about their credibility right now in the world's intel community

 

[NetGuySC]

I really do not care if we ever find WMD's in iraq

He had them .. their destruction is not verifiable ... he had 12 years to prove that the weapons were destroyed.

Twelve years of his games is long enough...

GAME OVER!!

 

[jpeyton]

Funny how no one bitched when we had the balls to lob a few missiles at an asprin factory, or drop bombs on people from miles up ion the air, but when it comes time to do the real dirty work and actually go after the bastard for the EXACT same reasons Bill Clinton gave for his actions well, because it's GB well those reasons are no longer valid.

He made the comments in 1998. Were the weapons still there in 2003? So far, the answer is a resounding NO. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that the latter is willing to start an international multi-billion dollar military campaign on less than solid intelligence.

Call Bush's pre-war intelligence on Iraq "solid". I dare you.

We should demand nothing but solid evidence from our leaders when they intend on starting an international conflict.

 

[Bitdog]

Lieing to start a war using dirty politics isn't the kind of person I want to vote for president.

Selective information, completely disreguarding truths that didn't support his war agenda,
& quoting/claiming the few that did, is what lieing is all about.

Bush was asked about his statements on WMD before the war and he said that
"WMD was the only thing that all could agree on as a valid reason for war."
Doesn't that tell you something about Bush or things to come if he's elected in 2004.

Reality is not faith based, and I can't have faith in a liar.
He won't be able to seperate church & state.
History has proven that "when religions have armys, they kill each other".

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Shanti
Maybe it is my conservatively biased selective hearing that led me not to pay attention to these statements.

Yes, that happens a lot around here. Nice of you to fess up though You'd never see certain other users around here admit they were wrong. You know who you are!

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Wow it's like a parade in here....or maybe a public stoning...I can't decide which.

Yea for the libbies!!!

CkG

Yep, and here is an example.

Those that are right are labled as a Liberal.

It's OK to be wrong as long as you are a NeoCon Bush Loyalist.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: charrison
The numbers that Bush quoted about weapons stocks(size of mustard gas, athrax,..) came from the UN. Germany had firm intel on iraq having small pox. Al Queda camps were found in Iraq.

Those were outdated numbers, not recent. Camps where found in kurdish regions of Iraq, which saddam had little to no control over

They have been dated, but Saddam had offered no proof of their destruction. Was it safe to assume they were destroyed without verification.

While Saddam did not control the air in the north, he still had several army divisions stationed in the north. He denied the camps in the north existed and did not allow anyone to go inspect the camps in the north.

 

[Fencer128]

Moderates said "Give the inspectors more time" because we saw that saddam may or may not have WMDs and there was no real hurry (unlike what Bush wanted you to think).

Now there's an opinion I agree on. Though you can insert Tony Blair alongside Bush in that sentence. Note: "more time" doesn't translate an "without time limit".

Cheers,

Andy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Moderates said "Give the inspectors more time" because we saw that saddam may or may not have WMDs and there was no real hurry (unlike what Bush wanted you to think).

Now there's an opinion I agree on. Though you can insert Tony Blair alongside Bush in that sentence. Note: "more time" doesn't translate an "without time limit".

Cheers,

Andy

THere was a firm deadline on 1441. At that time it should have been obvious that Iraq was not in full compliance with 1441. It was also obvious that UN would have done anything to avoid war.

IF the UN was serious about inspection, they would have used 30,000 to 50,000 inspectors(used military forces) to get the job done in a timely manner.

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Moderates said "Give the inspectors more time" because we saw that saddam may or may not have WMDs and there was no real hurry (unlike what Bush wanted you to think).

Now there's an opinion I agree on. Though you can insert Tony Blair alongside Bush in that sentence. Note: "more time" doesn't translate an "without time limit".

Cheers,

Andy

THere was a firm deadline on 1441. At that time it should have been obvious that Iraq was not in full compliance with 1441. It was also obvious that UN would have done anything to avoid war.

IF the UN was serious about inspection, they would have used 30,000 to 50,000 inspectors(used military forces) to get the job done in a timely manner.

I AM SO SICK OF HEARING STuPID RESOLUTION BS WHEN ISRAEL violates resolution after resolution and NO ONE says SH!T! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

edit: and for shanti - you are an a$$. YOu will be quick to jump on someone and call them idiots...but you made a damn fool of yourself w/ the last parroting you did. YOu must have read one of those stupid threads on these forums where the liberals and conservatives both agreed that "bush never lied" and instead of researching it yourself...you took their word for it. haha...you a$$.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Moderates said "Give the inspectors more time" because we saw that saddam may or may not have WMDs and there was no real hurry (unlike what Bush wanted you to think).

Now there's an opinion I agree on. Though you can insert Tony Blair alongside Bush in that sentence. Note: "more time" doesn't translate an "without time limit".

Cheers,

Andy

THere was a firm deadline on 1441. At that time it should have been obvious that Iraq was not in full compliance with 1441. It was also obvious that UN would have done anything to avoid war.

IF the UN was serious about inspection, they would have used 30,000 to 50,000 inspectors(used military forces) to get the job done in a timely manner.

Without wanting to go into all of this again - at the time it *appeared* Iraq was holding back by virtue of the fact that no new information had been submitted and no evidence (existance or destruction thereof) of WMD had been found. The international community thought was "Saddam's hiding it". This was also the most probable reason and the one I believed at the time. However, there was a slim chance that these WMD did not exist - which is why the weapons inspectors had not yet found them.

On the subject of interviewing scientists and officials - this started badly for the Iraqi's with accusations (most likely true) of intimidation. However, as time went on the Iraqi's were conceding on the demands of the UNWI and "proper" interviews were starting.

Proposals were put by member states to increase the number of weapons inspectors on the ground as well as provide increased surveilance from the air, in keeping with an extended 6 month? timetable (I think it went from 9 to 6 as a suggestion).

Now, none of this should be necessary if we like and trust the man - which we don't. But IMHO, the only thing that mattered was that WMD were accounted for and removed if not already destroyed. Liking the Iraqi tactics had no place in that for me. We either found them or not.

Most likely IMHO it would have reached a stalemate shortly later and military action would be the only available option. But, and so far with hindsight this has proved probable, Saddam had no WMD stockpile of significant manufacturing capability left post '91. If this turns out to be confirmed via forces on the ground nowadays then it means our people have died over there *only* to save Iraqi blood from being spilt. National security wasn't really a player in that case.

I for one applaud those who died to save the downtrodden - but do we want to make a precedent of that? If that is what they died for then I can think of plenty more deserving areas for action.

Basically, I can see what the intelligence pointed to - apart from the "imminent threat" aspect that I don't understand - and so on balance I can see how military action would be most likely, but as all good scientists know - nothing is 100%. How much would it have hurt to have given a little more time in probably the most open inspections the Iraqi's had ever allowed? Would it have saved any US/UK/etc lives?

Phew! Don't mean to ramble but that (point out any distortions of fact I may accidentally be spouting) is how I see and remember it. I think it is also what people label as "the moderate" case?

Cheers ,

Andy

 

[Wheezer]

Funny how no one bitched when we had the balls to lob a few missiles at an asprin factory, or drop bombs on people from miles up ion the air, but when it comes time to do the real dirty work and actually go after the bastard for the EXACT same reasons Bill Clinton gave for his actions well, because it's GB well those reasons are no longer valid.

He made the comments in 1998. Were the weapons still there in 2003? So far, the answer is a resounding NO. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that the latter is willing to start an international multi-billion dollar military campaign on less than solid intelligence.

So what proof did Clinton have in 98? He was using the same CIA, and the same evidence for his justification.

Call Bush's pre-war intelligence on Iraq "solid". I dare you.

and Clintons was solid how?

We should demand nothing but solid evidence from our leaders when they intend on starting an international conflict.

Oh, so lobing missles into Iraq is not an "international conflict?"

Oh so it's ok to lend the UN a few of out planes and bombs to help the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo because that was "just" but if the same mass murder actions are going on in Iraq, well "let them handle in on thier own"...I can see how that's fair.

Face it the truth war is ok as long as there is no dirty work. If we launch missles, or drop bombs from the sky all is fine and good....send in a few troops that is just uncalled for.

to look at it in other terms, as long as we can just launch some missiles and bombs and the only human factor is the people on the recieving of that attack well the justification is OK. However when you throw our troops in the mix then the SAME JUSTIFICATION CLINTON USED no longer applies.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Wow it's like a parade in here....or maybe a public stoning...I can't decide which.

Yea for the libbies!!!

CkG

At least the virtual stones don't hurt as much as the real thing.
But I'm glad I could at least provide a little holdiay fun and joy in the lives of the libs in this "darkest hour" (as put by Moonie).
Hope you guys enjoyed it.

Originally posted by: Pers
edit: and for shanti - you are an a$$. YOu will be quick to jump on someone and call them idiots...but you made a damn fool of yourself w/ the last parroting you did. YOu must have read one of those stupid threads on these forums where the liberals and conservatives both agreed that "bush never lied" and instead of researching it yourself...you took their word for it. haha...you a$$.

Yes I did make a fool of myself. Oh well, life goes on.

I admitted I was wrong.
And I admitted that the other side was correct.
Two things I've never ever seen any of the liberals on this board do no matter what the facts are.

 

[Fencer128]

I admitted I was wrong.
And I admitted that the other side was correct.
Two things I've never ever seen any of the liberals on this board do no matter what the facts are.

That depends on your definition of "liberal". If you mean close-minded bigots with a liberal political agenda, then I agree - along with thos close-minded bigots with a conservative agenda (as well as all of the other "close-minded bigots" who don't label themselves )

Seems to be more a "bigot" thing than specifically a "liberal" trait.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[DT4K]

Yeah, come to think of it, I've seen quite a few conservatives on this board who wouldn't admit to being wrong either.
But since they are on my side, I tend to not get as irritated by it. Conservative bias of mine, I know.
By the way, just so you all know, I voted for Clinton twice and marched in the anti-war protests during the first gulf war.

 

[josphII]

i still dont see how bush lied. firstly, at the very least, we have found a lot of evidence to sugget that he did have WMD. secondly, he used WMD in the past. and finally, he wouldnt let the weapons inspectors look for WMD, which the librals say didnt exist in the first place. you be the judge weather he had/has anything to hide.

and just because a lot of people were quite certain that saddam had WMD and librals say they hadnt been found yet doesnt mean they didnt or dont exist. WMD can be burried or hidden just about anywhere and we may never find them. no styrophoam lid, or breathing holes required to hid these suckers.

and lets just say for the sake of argument that saddam has never ever had any WMD, that still doesnt mean bush lied, that just means he was wrong. big difference there. but regardless, there were numerous reasons to get saddam out of power and just because libral democrats dont think the war was justified doesnt mean it wasnt. the world is a safer and free-er place and ppl around the world (minus libral democrats) are rejoicing.

good job bush/world, gg democrats

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Moderates said "Give the inspectors more time" because we saw that saddam may or may not have WMDs and there was no real hurry (unlike what Bush wanted you to think).

Now there's an opinion I agree on. Though you can insert Tony Blair alongside Bush in that sentence. Note: "more time" doesn't translate an "without time limit".

Cheers,

Andy

THere was a firm deadline on 1441. At that time it should have been obvious that Iraq was not in full compliance with 1441. It was also obvious that UN would have done anything to avoid war.

IF the UN was serious about inspection, they would have used 30,000 to 50,000 inspectors(used military forces) to get the job done in a timely manner.

What do you mean UN wasn't serious about inspection or didn't get the job done? When US had over a thousand of inspector and hundreds thousands of soldiers on the ground for that last 9 month and reached the same conclusion UN inspectors reached:

THERE WAS NO WMD.

 

[calbear2000]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Pepsei

Originally posted by: Shanti
I humbly accept my ownage.
Apparently I missed all of these quotes.
And yes, some of them do indeed imply being certain.
Maybe it is my conservatively biased selective hearing that led me not to pay attention to these statements.
What has stuck in my mind, and what I was thinking about at the time of my obviously ill-advised rant, is the many times I heard Colin Powell state the case for the war without using words like proof.

I remember him repeatedly making the case for war in this way:

1. We know he had wmd's before.
2. He was required to prove their destruction.
3. He has not done so.

To me, regardless of whether they have said in the past that they "knew" he had weapons, the above 3 points alone justify the invasion.

You got guts, and I respect you for accepting your ownage.

I agree. I thought he did a decent job of accepting his mistake. He certainly did better than some of the robo-denials other Bush supporters have attempted when cornered with facts. But I won't mention any names, no Sir. I'd be a total cad if I did that. I'm not that kinda GUY.

LOL...

 

[calbear2000]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Pepsei

Originally posted by: Shanti
I humbly accept my ownage.
Apparently I missed all of these quotes.
And yes, some of them do indeed imply being certain.
Maybe it is my conservatively biased selective hearing that led me not to pay attention to these statements.
What has stuck in my mind, and what I was thinking about at the time of my obviously ill-advised rant, is the many times I heard Colin Powell state the case for the war without using words like proof.

I remember him repeatedly making the case for war in this way:

1. We know he had wmd's before.
2. He was required to prove their destruction.
3. He has not done so.

To me, regardless of whether they have said in the past that they "knew" he had weapons, the above 3 points alone justify the invasion.

You got guts, and I respect you for accepting your ownage.

I agree. I thought he did a decent job of accepting his mistake. He certainly did better than some of the robo-denials other Bush supporters have attempted when cornered with facts. But I won't mention any names, no Sir. I'd be a total cad if I did that. I'm not that kinda GUY.

LOL...

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: josphII
i still dont see how bush lied. firstly, at the very least, we have found a lot of evidence to sugget that he did have WMD. secondly, he used WMD in the past. and finally, he wouldnt let the weapons inspectors look for WMD, which the librals say didnt exist in the first place. you be the judge weather he had/has anything to hide.

and just because a lot of people were quite certain that saddam had WMD and librals say they hadnt been found yet doesnt mean they didnt or dont exist. WMD can be burried or hidden just about anywhere and we may never find them. no styrophoam lid, or breathing holes required to hid these suckers.

and lets just say for the sake of argument that saddam has never ever had any WMD, that still doesnt mean bush lied, that just means he was wrong. big difference there. but regardless, there were numerous reasons to get saddam out of power and just because libral democrats dont think the war was justified doesnt mean it wasnt. the world is a safer and free-er place and ppl around the world (minus libral democrats) are rejoicing.

good job bush/world, gg democrats

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003


do you see that? they KNEW FOR A FACT that he had weapons...but interesting how he says "weapons" instead of "weapons of mass destruction" NO SH!T THEY HAVE WEAPONS YOU A$$HOLE. Obviously they tried to mislead us w/ that statement alone. The second quote gives us numbers, something they couldn't pull out of their a$$....or could they? When you make such statements...you better look to get hammered when no wmd are found. Especially since the ENTIRE FREAKIN world was against this war (people not governments). WHen suggesting the presence of WMD...i'm not talking about a few missiles that go farther than they were allowed to according to stupid UN mandates. When we invest $87 billion into this sh!t...i was expecting to find hussein, some intense unreal nuclear/biological (smallpox?) weapons, and bin laden hidden under hussein's desk giving him oral. So far...we have the most pointless out of the three... Saddam hussein...big fvckin deal.. as long as the alleged weapons are still there...i still don't see why any of the idiots who believe they were there inthe first place feel safe now that saddam is captured. and why didn't saddam command some of his generals to use these weapons during the invasion? He was in a freakin hole....what did he have to lose??

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Pers

Originally posted by: josphII
i still dont see how bush lied. firstly, at the very least, we have found a lot of evidence to sugget that he did have WMD. secondly, he used WMD in the past. and finally, he wouldnt let the weapons inspectors look for WMD, which the librals say didnt exist in the first place. you be the judge weather he had/has anything to hide.

and just because a lot of people were quite certain that saddam had WMD and librals say they hadnt been found yet doesnt mean they didnt or dont exist. WMD can be burried or hidden just about anywhere and we may never find them. no styrophoam lid, or breathing holes required to hid these suckers.

and lets just say for the sake of argument that saddam has never ever had any WMD, that still doesnt mean bush lied, that just means he was wrong. big difference there. but regardless, there were numerous reasons to get saddam out of power and just because libral democrats dont think the war was justified doesnt mean it wasnt. the world is a safer and free-er place and ppl around the world (minus libral democrats) are rejoicing.

good job bush/world, gg democrats

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003


do you see that? they KNEW FOR A FACT that he had weapons...but interesting how he says "weapons" instead of "weapons of mass destruction" NO SH!T THEY HAVE WEAPONS YOU A$$HOLE. Obviously they tried to mislead us w/ that statement alone. The second quote gives us numbers, something they couldn't pull out of their a$$....or could they? When you make such statements...you better look to get hammered when no wmd are found. Especially since the ENTIRE FREAKIN world was against this war (people not governments). WHen suggesting the presence of WMD...i'm not talking about a few missiles that go farther than they were allowed to according to stupid UN mandates. When we invest $87 billion into this sh!t...i was expecting to find hussein, some intense unreal nuclear/biological (smallpox?) weapons, and bin laden hidden under hussein's desk giving him oral. So far...we have the most pointless out of the three... Saddam hussein...big fvckin deal.. as long as the alleged weapons are still there...i still don't see why any of the idiots who believe they were there inthe first place feel safe now that saddam is captured. and why didn't saddam command some of his generals to use these weapons during the invasion? He was in a freakin hole....what did he have to lose??

Ummm, yeah, if you could just link up those polls you have of the "ENTIRE FREAKIN world", that'd be great.

 

[josphII]

Especially since the ENTIRE FREAKIN world was against this war (people not governments)

interesting, as i recall practically every republican was for the war and half the democrats were for it as well. i dont have any numbers but i would venture to guess that close to 90% of Iraqi's supported the war as well. as for the rest of the world? who cares!

gg!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Shanti
Ummm, yeah, if you could just link up those polls you have of the "ENTIRE FREAKIN world", that'd be great.

Seems to me you are nitpicking one intentional and obvious exaggeration just to avoid addressing the issues raised. The simple fact is most of the world opposed our invasion.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: josphII

Especially since the ENTIRE FREAKIN world was against this war (people not governments)

interesting, as i recall practically every republican was for the war and half the democrats were for it as well. i dont have any numbers but i would venture to guess that close to 90% of Iraqi's supported the war as well. as for the rest of the world? who cares!

gg!

(By the way, you pulled the Iraqis number out of your you-know-what. There is nothing to support your claim, and a lot of evidence to refute it.)