Its absurd that liberals can use Clinton, but conservatives can't.
And dont say, Im wrong. Because Ive seen post after post on the board with people using Clinton "policy" to bash Bush.
But when conservatives do it. Liberals just say but Clinton isnt president. Etc etc etc. Im tired of this onesided bullsh!t.
And dont say, Im wrong. Because Ive seen post after post on the board with people using Clinton "policy" to bash Bush.
But when conservatives do it. Liberals just say but Clinton isnt president. Etc etc etc. Im tired of this onesided bullsh!t.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,804
- 6,361
- 126
Your Welcome.Anyway, since this thread is an offshoot of the "Questionaire.." thread, the reason so many voted "No" on "Are/were there any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" question is that it was a leading question. Voting either way would/could be "interpreted" in such a manner to suggest that upto the Iraq War Saddam, those Polled believe, had WMD. It is obvious he did not and many of us have claimed this since before the War. Most of us Naysayers qualified our answers to denote this fact.
IOW, since the other thread is the catalyst for this thread, your whole reason for starting this thread is based upon a Spin. That Spin being that many of us here "don't believe Saddam ever had WMD". That is simply not true.
No my thread is based on did bush lie. Which no one has proven. Anyway
Gaard lets do a riddle
Hypotetically:
Iraq is a person that lies all the time.(lets say everyone agrees UN included)
Iraq has taken money from me and said it didnt have it, it then turned around and used that money(iraq v kuait)
Iraq said they would disarm. NO proof was given
Iraq said it no longar has WMD
Question: Does iraq have WMD? first line says yes.
Gaard lets do a riddle
Hypotetically:
Iraq is a person that lies all the time.(lets say everyone agrees UN included)
Iraq has taken money from me and said it didnt have it, it then turned around and used that money(iraq v kuait)
Iraq said they would disarm. NO proof was given
Iraq said it no longar has WMD
Question: Does iraq have WMD? first line says yes.
Bush meant to deceive us all into thinking he knew FOR A FACT that Iraq had WMD. (ergo...he lied)
Bush said he knew for a FACT Iraq had wmd's. NO proof was given.
.. and iraq was disarming right before the war started
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
"The database does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, the statement is excluded from the database even if it now appears erroneous."
"VI. CONCLUSION
Because of the gravity of the subject and the President?s unique access to
classified information, members of Congress and the public expect the President
and his senior officials to take special care to be balanced and accurate in
describing national security threats. It does not appear, however, that President
Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and
National Security Advisor Rice met this standard in the case of Iraq. To the
contrary, these five officials repeatedly made misleading statements about the
threat posed by Iraq. In 125 separate appearances, they made 11 misleading
statements about the urgency of Iraq?s threat, 81 misleading statements about
Iraq?s nuclear activities, 84 misleading statements about Iraq?s chemical and
biological capabilities, and 61 misleading statements about Iraq?s relationship
with al Qaeda."
I don't know who you're talking about specifically, however I go out of my way not to talk about Clinton. Given that he's not in the news or in politics, it's actually very easy to do. Not for you though, eh?
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Yet another bogus claim that has been refuted here many times before. While it is true that Bush had access to all the same intel Congress saw, the converse is NOT true. Bush had access to things Congress did not have. Bush had customized daily briefings, for example. Rumsfeld formed his own intelligence agency because the CIA intel wasn't supporting their anti-Iraq agenda. Their intel was not generally provided to Congress. Cheney went to Langley several times to shape the raw intel to meet their agenda. Congress only saw the result, not the whole truth.
Congress did not see the same Intel Bush did.
whoever made the comment "you fscking liberals" needs to take a little break here. Democrats are doing nothing the Republicans wouldn't be doing if the tables were turned. When you look at it, both parties are essentially the same in terms of political strategies. Each side does their fair share of mudslinging.
And I distinctly remember Bush telling America of the imminent threat that Iraq posed and of the WMD's that needed to be destroyed. Seeing as how we found no evidence of such WMD's, it's safe to say that Bush lied. This is kind of like the Tobacco Companies (republicans) arguing about how cigarettes are not addictive. Everyone knows the truth.
And I distinctly remember Bush telling America of the imminent threat that Iraq posed and of the WMD's that needed to be destroyed. Seeing as how we found no evidence of such WMD's, it's safe to say that Bush lied. This is kind of like the Tobacco Companies (republicans) arguing about how cigarettes are not addictive. Everyone knows the truth.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Your link above is an advocacy piece, not an objective analysis of the facts. Indeed, I spotted factual errors, not to mention clearly partisan interpretation (a/k/a "spin") of the information presented.
This link examines Americans opinions re. Iraq-related issues. It does not provide facts about Iraq, WMDs, etc.
More opinions.
This was already discussed here, though TheGameIs21 mysteriously neglected to mention he copied it from LiberalScum.com. My response remains the same:
- The first half of your list precedes Clinton's four-day bombing action against Iraq. It nicely demonstrates the use of current, valid intelligence data to launch a focused, limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand. An attack, by the way, that did NOT kill some 10,000 innocent people, cost us $200 billion and counting, and make us a pariah to the rest of the world.
As for the rest of your list, I'd mostly attribute it to a combination of Bush administration deception, especially related to the willful manipulation of intelligence analysis to support a predetermined course of action, and a lack of the leadership and political backbone to stand up to a panicked populace and say, "I don't care if Bush did say you're with us or you're terrorists, we have serious questions that must be answered before we rush to invade another country based on fear and rumors."
For me to think that bush was telling the truth bush would have to take each statment he made about WMD and show the evidences to back up the claim made. There is no other way to convience me that he didn't lie well other then having found the WMD then it wouldn't be a question.
More rationalizations and apologisms from Bush fanbois.
Let us hypothesize that the Bushies honestly believed what they were saying... that Saddam Hussein was an urgent threat, that he had vast stockpiles of chemical weapons, was actively seeking nuclear weapons, was in bed with Al Qaeda, and poised to strike at American interests.
Of course, that would involve fooling themselves, taking hedged reports- "we suspect" "reports indicate possible" "failed to account for" "maybe" "perhaps" "we've been told" and a chorus of other disclaimers and turning them into "we know" "we have proof" and "there is no doubt"-
If that's the case, then they're delusional, even worse than being liars.
Take your pick. Either way, letting them continue to run this great nation would be unbelievably stupid.
Let us hypothesize that the Bushies honestly believed what they were saying... that Saddam Hussein was an urgent threat, that he had vast stockpiles of chemical weapons, was actively seeking nuclear weapons, was in bed with Al Qaeda, and poised to strike at American interests.
Of course, that would involve fooling themselves, taking hedged reports- "we suspect" "reports indicate possible" "failed to account for" "maybe" "perhaps" "we've been told" and a chorus of other disclaimers and turning them into "we know" "we have proof" and "there is no doubt"-
If that's the case, then they're delusional, even worse than being liars.
Take your pick. Either way, letting them continue to run this great nation would be unbelievably stupid.
I dont think there was a doubt, if congress doesnt have access to everyting bush has then how do they know it contains something that proves he was lying. As for the thing by Rep. Henry A. Waxman we know how californian representatives are. I looked at the link provided by it really doesnt show anything. Its like a rape case. He said she said. The supposed "false" statements, ones by condie rice in particular, cant be proven to be false. Thats the problem "no one else in the white house knew about doubt in intell comm" can mean no one she knew. Besides that teh document doesnt list memebrs of the intell community that say they knew.
Thats my problem, there have been 1 maybe two people , that i haev heard of, that say the CIA told bush they may not have them. I doubt anyone would have said iraq doesnt have WMD, because everyone thought they did.
Examples:"He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - We believe not BEYOND A DOUBT
We do know that there have been shipments going . . . into Iraq . . . of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to -- high-quality aluminum tools [sic] that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." -- how is thise false, no one ever said the tubes COULDNT be used for nukes
I mean cmon most people are upset about misldeading statements fine, maybe they were misleading but dont call them liars.
Thats my problem, there have been 1 maybe two people , that i haev heard of, that say the CIA told bush they may not have them. I doubt anyone would have said iraq doesnt have WMD, because everyone thought they did.
Examples:"He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - We believe not BEYOND A DOUBT
We do know that there have been shipments going . . . into Iraq . . . of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to -- high-quality aluminum tools [sic] that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." -- how is thise false, no one ever said the tubes COULDNT be used for nukes
I mean cmon most people are upset about misldeading statements fine, maybe they were misleading but dont call them liars.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Because they were NOT suitable for use in uranium centrifuges. The Bush administration was told this with certainty by the experts at Oak Ridge, with probability by the CIA, yet they continued to make this false claim for months. Please read some of the other threads here. You are not the first to repeat this disinformation.
What's the difference? A lie is any statement or action done with the intent to deceive. Even you admit this is what Bush and his minions did.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
AEB - I bumped some of the key threads for you. Each contains at least one informative article related to Iraq, WMDs, etc. They are all from legitimate sources. Some are non-partisan, others arguably partisan but still near the center. Please read these articles. Once you do, we can have much more productive discussions about what Iraq and the Bush administration did and did not do, did and did not have, etc.
Mean MrMustard
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2001
- 3,144
- 10
- 81
I see nothing wrong with the quote.
I haven't seen anyone disputing the idea that if Saddam had WMD that he would be dangerous.
The small, teenie,weenie problem Bush had was that there was no proof, whatsoever. Now, before you go giving me quote from Wild Bill about WMDs, let's remember who actually coerced a nation and several allied LEADERS of other nations (not the people) into an invasion of a sovereign nation, on the premise of FEAR that Iraq MIGHT be a threat.
That's what a pre-emptive policy is all about, huh? Actions based on fear, right?
I'm not trying to spin this either way. I'm not Democrat. In fact, I voted for the Dub in 2000. I supported him after 9/11 and during the invasion of Afghanistan. However, feeding the people the FEAR OF THREAT to coerce them into supporting an invasion of Iraq I will not stand for.
There's not a day that goes by that I'm not reminded to thank god that the Dub was not in power during the Cold War.
ok ok I must stop you there and tell you to read the bloody news
the aluminum tubes have been for quite some time totaly out of the picture of having anything to do with a nuclear weapons program, in fact their size match exactly to an italian design missile that saddam was making
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KAY_INTERVIEW?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
now stop for a while, put what you want to belive behind you and look at the matter again by not judging everything from what you belive in, dont create the answer before you create the question and so on and so on
I thought i read somewhere where the weapons inspectors are no longer there.
I that is the case and "there surely be weapons there" if no one is looking for them then the WMD's might
fall into the hands of terrorists? We should keep looking for them right ?
I that is the case and "there surely be weapons there" if no one is looking for them then the WMD's might
fall into the hands of terrorists? We should keep looking for them right ?
Lets define lie for the purpose of your thread AEB.
Do you mean Bush only, or do you include the administration?
Condi lied. (something about nobody, except maybe in the bowels of the CIA, knew the Nigeria documents were forged)
Rummy lied. (we know where the WMD are)
There have been many irresponsible statements that, while one cannot prove are lies, are difficult to interpret as anything else.
-Mobile labs that have no other use than to manufacture WMD
-Centerfuge tubes that have no other use than to produce nuclear materials
Basing an argument on what Clinton knew is spin to the nth degree. We did have reason to believe that things were different, just like we have reason to believe that things are different now. I have no idea exactly how different, but Biological and Chemical weapons have shelf lives. Iraq has been bombed. Iraq has destroyed and had destroyed many existing weapons.
Do you mean Bush only, or do you include the administration?
Condi lied. (something about nobody, except maybe in the bowels of the CIA, knew the Nigeria documents were forged)
Rummy lied. (we know where the WMD are)
There have been many irresponsible statements that, while one cannot prove are lies, are difficult to interpret as anything else.
-Mobile labs that have no other use than to manufacture WMD
-Centerfuge tubes that have no other use than to produce nuclear materials
Basing an argument on what Clinton knew is spin to the nth degree. We did have reason to believe that things were different, just like we have reason to believe that things are different now. I have no idea exactly how different, but Biological and Chemical weapons have shelf lives. Iraq has been bombed. Iraq has destroyed and had destroyed many existing weapons.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter