Hussein Was Right & Bush Was Wrong

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Let's see...pulling out 5 year-old quote and quotes from people who were not privy to the same intelligence as those in the Bush administration. People that only saw what the Bush regime wanted them to see...hmmm

I see math is not one of your strong points.

Also note that Bush was not president before 2000. I know it's obvious but it seems I have to remind you of that fact.

Those quotes from 1998 and 1999 aren't old quotes? I assume the intelligence hasn't changed since 1998? :roll:

And, I never said Bush was president before 2000. You're just going completely out of left field with that idiotic remark. But, I did notice you managed to avoid the meat of my post. Good job.[/quote]

My dog wouldn't eat the meat you proferred.

There were also quotes from 2003 and 2002. Or did you just ignore those?

And it would seem the intelligence didn't change from '98. The same people made similar remarks years later, even Clinton himself. So are you trying to tell me that Bush and Clinton were in cahoots to pull the wool over everyone's eyes? Or was Bush somehow hiding intel from Clinton while Clinton was president?

C'mon. Guys like you are great with assumptions and conspiratal pies-in-the-sky. Do serve up a slice of explanation.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
In 2001 both Powell and Rice said that Saddam was contained and not a threat even to his immediate neighbours. Let's face it. Everybody knew that Bush had ulterior motives for blowing up Saddam and Iraq as an issue as part of his so called "War on Terror". All those years of complete containment and sanctions and "Saddam is no threat" to Iraq was suddenly going to nuke the US?

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

You find the innuendo in the second sentence of Bush's statement :roll:

Oddly enough, a lot of people disagreed with Powell and Rice both before and after 2001.

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

["Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... 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 ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"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."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[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."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"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."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"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 ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"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 ... 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."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"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."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

The fact remains that Powell and Rice where correct in 2001 and not when they started pimping Dubya's illegal invasion. Maybe you should ask yourself why you didn't believe them when they were telling the truth but instead believed them when they were lying to you.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: GrGr
In 2001 both Powell and Rice said that Saddam was contained and not a threat even to his immediate neighbours. Let's face it. Everybody knew that Bush had ulterior motives for blowing up Saddam and Iraq as an issue as part of his so called "War on Terror". All those years of complete containment and sanctions and "Saddam is no threat" to Iraq was suddenly going to nuke the US?

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

You find the innuendo in the second sentence of Bush's statement :roll:

You're quite right - they are politicians. In the months prior to 9/11 with the main foreign policy bent of the administration geared to isolationism, they said that and more. To the Egyptians, Powell uttered soothing words - don't worry.

To the Senate Appropriations Committee, he said, "There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago." No need to tack on additional funding when a Clintonesque approach to hoping for the best might do.

Rice on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer: "Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly ... But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Were they initially guilty of exactly what conservatives now vilify Pres. Clinton for? Absolutely. However they did, eventually, come around. Keep in mind that at no point did anyone say there were no WMDs in Iraq or that attempts to acquire/manufacture them has ceased, only that the UN has been able to keep arms from filtering into the country. Whoopie. So let's let them sit for another ten years under sanctions and stalemate off the situation forever while only the civilians suffer...

"So let's let them sit for another ten years under sanctions and stalemate off the situation forever while only the civilians suffer..."

So is that the real justification for invading Iraq?

"Keep in mind that at no point did anyone say there were no WMDs in Iraq or that attempts to acquire/manufacture them has ceased, only that the UN has been able to keep arms from filtering into the country"

On December 15, 1998 the IAEA reported that it had eliminated Iraq's nuclear weapons programme 'efficiently and effectively'.

Scott Ritter, who was a senior UNSCOM weapons inspector, says that 'By 1998, the chemical weapons infrastructure had been completely dismantled or destroyed by UNSCOM or by Iraq in compliance with our mandate. The biological weapons program was gone, all the major facilities eliminated. The nuclear weapons program was completely eliminated. If I had to quantify Iraq's threat, I would say it is zero.'

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
Those quotes from 1998 and 1999 aren't old quotes? I assume the intelligence hasn't changed since 1998? :roll:

And, I never said Bush was president before 2000. You're just going completely out of left field with that idiotic remark. But, I did notice you managed to avoid the meat of my post. Good job.

My dog wouldn't eat the meat you proferred.

There were also quotes from 2003 and 2002. Or did you just ignore those?

And it would seem the intelligence didn't change from '98. The same people made similar remarks years later, even Clinton himself. So are you trying to tell me that Bush and Clinton were in cahoots to pull the wool over everyone's eyes? Or was Bush somehow hiding intel from Clinton while Clinton was president?

C'mon. Guys like you are great with assumptions and conspiratal pies-in-the-sky. Do serve up a slice of explanation.

I didn't ignore those. I addressed those. You just happened to ignore it in order to further your embarrassing tirade.

 

[Genx87]

Why don't you tell us what you think is the truth of what happened on 9/11

Terrorists hijacked airplanes and ran them into the WTC and the Pentagon.

Were you sticking your head in the sand that day or something?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Why don't you tell us what you think is the truth of what happened on 9/11

Terrorists hijacked airplanes and ran them into the WTC and the Pentagon.

Were you sticking your head in the sand that day or something?

And how has anyone, liberal or conservative, tried to rewrite that?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GrGr
The fact remains that Powell and Rice where correct in 2001 and not when they started pimping Dubya's illegal invasion. Maybe you should ask yourself why you didn't believe them when they were telling the truth but instead believed them when they were lying to you.

Let me guess. You're basing your statements on Pilger's Breaking the Silence"?

Rice stated that Bush considered Iraq a threat to its neighbors in July 2001:

"Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly."

Powell, in May 2001, claimed that Iraq was still pursuiing WMDs:

"Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago."

Note that all of these statements were made before 9/11 as well.

So what has really changed?

Nothing.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
Those quotes from 1998 and 1999 aren't old quotes? I assume the intelligence hasn't changed since 1998? :roll:

And, I never said Bush was president before 2000. You're just going completely out of left field with that idiotic remark. But, I did notice you managed to avoid the meat of my post. Good job.

My dog wouldn't eat the meat you proferred.

There were also quotes from 2003 and 2002. Or did you just ignore those?

And it would seem the intelligence didn't change from '98. The same people made similar remarks years later, even Clinton himself. So are you trying to tell me that Bush and Clinton were in cahoots to pull the wool over everyone's eyes? Or was Bush somehow hiding intel from Clinton while Clinton was president?

C'mon. Guys like you are great with assumptions and conspiratal pies-in-the-sky. Do serve up a slice of explanation.

I didn't ignore those. I addressed those. You just happened to ignore it in order to further your embarrassing tirade.

::chuckle::

Sure you did. :roll:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
Those quotes from 1998 and 1999 aren't old quotes? I assume the intelligence hasn't changed since 1998? :roll:

And, I never said Bush was president before 2000. You're just going completely out of left field with that idiotic remark. But, I did notice you managed to avoid the meat of my post. Good job.

My dog wouldn't eat the meat you proferred.

There were also quotes from 2003 and 2002. Or did you just ignore those?

And it would seem the intelligence didn't change from '98. The same people made similar remarks years later, even Clinton himself. So are you trying to tell me that Bush and Clinton were in cahoots to pull the wool over everyone's eyes? Or was Bush somehow hiding intel from Clinton while Clinton was president?

C'mon. Guys like you are great with assumptions and conspiratal pies-in-the-sky. Do serve up a slice of explanation.

I didn't ignore those. I addressed those. You just happened to ignore it in order to further your embarrassing tirade.

::chuckle::

Sure you did. :roll:

I did.

Here's my post again:

Let's see...pulling out 5 year-old quote and quotes from people who were not privy to the same intelligence as those in the Bush administration. People that only saw what the Bush regime wanted them to see...hmmm

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: sandorski
Don't know if the article is accurate. It states that the US intercepted then altered the report before it reached the UN. However, it offers no evidence that it was even possible to do so nevermind proved that it happened. Wouldn't surprise me that it happened, but I wouldn't just assume just because some guy in Germany claims to have seen the original Iraqi report.

Well, it does beg for an answer to an important question: If the US "intercepted" this report (how was it transmitted? Mail? Email? Was it the ONLY copy in existence? If so, why?) how did they do so? And if it was the only copy, how did this guy get hold of it? If it WASN'T the only copy, why didn't SOMEONE get a copy of the full report sooner? Surely the person who originally TRANSMITTED the report would have a copy, as would, one would presume, his or her superiors.

It's weird. You so-called "liberals" are jumping at this in just the same way as the "conservatives" would jump at a pro-Bush story, which is to say: Without question, criticism or skepticism.

Maybe this has some truth, maybe it doesn't. I don't have a clue (nor, honestly, a care. Obviously I wish that all elected officials would be 100% honest with the public, but when has EITHER of the two major parties been upfront? Not in the 20th century, that's for sure, and so far...not in the 21st, either.)

Jason

It is definitely true that the U.S. got the report first, and that we gave the U.N. only part of the report. This was reported at the time. IIRC, it is accurate that we held back several thousand pages, but I can't recall a more precise number.

I think the word "intercepted" is accurate in one sense of the word, but often suggests a covert act. I don't believe that is the case, but I honestly don't know the background about how and why we got the report first. Until the OP, I don't remember seeing anything "factual" about what was in the missing pages (although many speculated it documented our past dealings with Hussein). It will be interesting to see if anyone else corroborates the OP's version of the story.

Here's what I would like to see:

1. someone independent of the OP's version of the story confirming it
2. A release of the FULL document
3. An explanation of WHY we would have received the document first, if at all, from Iraq.

Jason

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
Those quotes from 1998 and 1999 aren't old quotes? I assume the intelligence hasn't changed since 1998? :roll:

And, I never said Bush was president before 2000. You're just going completely out of left field with that idiotic remark. But, I did notice you managed to avoid the meat of my post. Good job.

My dog wouldn't eat the meat you proferred.

There were also quotes from 2003 and 2002. Or did you just ignore those?

And it would seem the intelligence didn't change from '98. The same people made similar remarks years later, even Clinton himself. So are you trying to tell me that Bush and Clinton were in cahoots to pull the wool over everyone's eyes? Or was Bush somehow hiding intel from Clinton while Clinton was president?

C'mon. Guys like you are great with assumptions and conspiratal pies-in-the-sky. Do serve up a slice of explanation.

I didn't ignore those. I addressed those. You just happened to ignore it in order to further your embarrassing tirade.

::chuckle::

Sure you did. :roll:

I did.

Here's my post again:

Let's see...pulling out 5 year-old quote and quotes from people who were not privy to the same intelligence as those in the Bush administration. People that only saw what the Bush regime wanted them to see...hmmm

Ah, more conjecture and supposition based on what you think instead of what you know.

5 years ago Bush was just being sworn in. Those people were making comments based on what the Clinton regime was telling them, not Bush. So your poor attempt to blame everything on Bush has just fallen into a deep, dark pit.

So solly. Please come again.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: kage69

Those of you who blame Clinton for not getting bin Laden - are you equally miffed over Bush passing on multiple opportunities to kill Abu Musab Zarqawi?

I guess not. :roll:

Well *I* am. I think that when we get intelligence that Zarqawi or Bin Laden are in any particular spot we should not send in soldiers or ask our "friends" in the ME to help out. Instead we should send a single, high flying bomber with a neutron bomb and drop it right on the general area.

Jason

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
I did.

Here's my post again:

Let's see...pulling out 5 year-old quote and quotes from people who were not privy to the same intelligence as those in the Bush administration. People that only saw what the Bush regime wanted them to see...hmmm

Ah, more conjecture and supposition based on what you think instead of what you know.

5 years ago Bush was just being sworn in. Those people were making comments based on what the Clinton regime was telling them, not Bush. So your poor attempt to blame everything on Bush has just fallen into a deep, dark pit.

So solly. Please come again.

Quotes from 2002 and 2003 are based upon the Clinton "regime"? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!


Oh wait...are you saying that Bush was an ineffectual President and was still working on the same policies and directives as those in the Clinton administration? Hmm...I'll give you Bush is an ineffectual President, at least.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
In 2001 both Powell and Rice said that Saddam was contained and not a threat even to his immediate neighbours. Let's face it. Everybody knew that Bush had ulterior motives for blowing up Saddam and Iraq as an issue as part of his so called "War on Terror". All those years of complete containment and sanctions and "Saddam is no threat" to Iraq was suddenly going to nuke the US?

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

You find the innuendo in the second sentence of Bush's statement :roll:

Oddly enough, a lot of people disagreed with Powell and Rice both before and after 2001.

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

["Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... 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 ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"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."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[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."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"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."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"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 ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"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 ... 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."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"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."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

Let's see...pulling out 5 year-old quote and quotes from people who were not privy to the same intelligence as those in the Bush administration. People that only saw what the Bush regime wanted them to see...hmmm

So Bill Clinto in 1998 was only privy to what Bush wanted him to see? WOW, he is *good*!

Jason

 

[conjur]

We now see Jason's reading comprehension is utterly atrocious.

Wow.


BTW, notice all of that is from a right-wing AM talking head? :roll:

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

You tell us.

Bush and the neocons...what do you think? Remember what happens to anyone that opposes Bush or even dares to criticize his policies.

Rewriting history already it seems. Ask two libs what happened on 9-11 and neither will tell us the truth.

Why don't you tell us what you think is the truth of what happened on 9/11?

Well, let's see. These terrorists got these things called "jets", right? And you know what they did? Those big, nasty terrorists flew those planes smack! right into the world trade center buildings! And then everybody all over the world watched on TV while men and women who had gone to work to earn money to buy their wives and husbands and children nice things and give them food and a place to live, got to make the choice of whether they burned to death or plumeted (that's what happens when you jump off of a high spot!) to the hard, hard pavement below, their bodies becoming like Jell-O when they hit.

So you see, little boy, those big nasty terrorists didn't mean anything by it! They just wanted to tell us they were a little bit mad! Go give 'em a hug!

Jason

 

[Genx87]

And how has anyone, liberal or conservative, tried to rewrite that?

I asked what happened that day and recieved two responses.

On asking what happened, the other going on some juvenile tirade about the Bush administration.

If you come back with an answer like that to a simple question. Then you are trying to rewrite history.

 

[kage69]

Well *I* am. I think that when we get intelligence that Zarqawi or Bin Laden are in any particular spot we should not send in soldiers or ask our "friends" in the ME to help out. Instead we should send a single, high flying bomber with a neutron bomb and drop it right on the general area.

Yeah, that'd do it. It's just funny to see all these neocons ignore that - particulary as it seems Zarqawi was producing ricin and cyanide at that location for use in Europe (and then later ricin was seized in England). So Clinton gets reamed for not forgetting past fubars with missile strikes, and for avoiding the possibility of killing allied royalty, while Bush has 3 chances to kill WMD-producing Zarqawi who is located in a region the US and UK protect yet doesn't act. Can't have a war if you remedy the situation before it can start I suppose. :roll:
Our troops don't deserve this kind of "leadership."

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

And how has anyone, liberal or conservative, tried to rewrite that?

I asked what happened that day and recieved two responses.

On asking what happened, the other going on some juvenile tirade about the Bush administration.

If you come back with an answer like that to a simple question. Then you are trying to rewrite history.

:roll:

 

[Genx87]

Yeah, that'd do it. It's just funny to see all these neocons ignore that

Dropping a neutron bomb in a possible residential area is a viable means to get these guys?

Guess we neo-cons stand corrected.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur:roll:

:disgust:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
I did.

Here's my post again:

Let's see...pulling out 5 year-old quote and quotes from people who were not privy to the same intelligence as those in the Bush administration. People that only saw what the Bush regime wanted them to see...hmmm

Ah, more conjecture and supposition based on what you think instead of what you know.

5 years ago Bush was just being sworn in. Those people were making comments based on what the Clinton regime was telling them, not Bush. So your poor attempt to blame everything on Bush has just fallen into a deep, dark pit.

So solly. Please come again.

Quotes from 2002 and 2003 are based upon the Clinton "regime"? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!


Oh wait...are you saying that Bush was an ineffectual President and was still working on the same policies and directives as those in the Clinton administration? Hmm...I'll give you Bush is an ineffectual President, at least.

I see you realized you lost the argument and are now trying for damage control. How quaint.

 

[Genx87]

I see you realized you lost the argument and are now trying for damage control. How quaint.

keep it up and you will get the roll eyes from him.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I see you realized you lost the argument and are now trying for damage control. How quaint.

keep it up and you will get the roll eyes from him.

Damn. I was shooting for a cookie.

You know those vicious cookies. One of them sure would've showed me what's what.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
The fact remains that Powell and Rice where correct in 2001 and not when they started pimping Dubya's illegal invasion. Maybe you should ask yourself why you didn't believe them when they were telling the truth but instead believed them when they were lying to you.

Let me guess. You're basing your statements on Pilger's Breaking the Silence"?

Rice stated that Bush considered Iraq a threat to its neighbors in July 2001:

"Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly."

Powell, in May 2001, claimed that Iraq was still pursuiing WMDs:

"Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago."

Note that all of these statements were made before 9/11 as well.

So what has really changed?

Nothing.

Yes Powell and Rice were echoing their Master's Voice later that year. They were quite good at it. Powell wasn't good enough at it though.

The fact remains that Saddam was no threat of the magnitude neocon paranoia claimed he was. Paranoia just does not cut it, TLC. You will have to do better. Saddam had no WMD's. Saddam was no threat. When will you accept reality?