• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If Bush lied, then so did Clinton/ Kerry/ Gore/ Albright

C

Chadder007

Diamond Member
"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998-


"We 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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
-John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-


"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-


"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


"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-

"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
 
Let see bush "I know where the WMD are." Kerry: "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

See the difference?
 
I really think the fear of claims that he was trying to put the Lewinski scandal in the background was one of the factors that kept Clinton from more direct action.

 
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Let see bush "I know where the WMD are." Kerry: "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

See the difference?
Click to expand...

"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - John Kerry

404 Difference not found
 
Lies and distortions.


So, nothing changed in the intelligence community between 1998 and 2003?


This is a BS thread and this crap has been shot down many times before. Go do some searching.
 
I love how you guys take one or two sentences out of Kerry's long ass floor speech to prove your point. Maybe you should post the whole thing and put things in context? Naw, that would be too honest.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Lies and distortions.


So, nothing changed in the intelligence community between 1998 and 2003?


This is a BS thread and this crap has been shot down many times before. Go do some searching.
Click to expand...

LOL at saying actual quotes are lies.:roll:
 
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I really think the fear of claims that he was trying to put the Lewinski scandal in the background was one of the factors that kept Clinton from more direct action.
Click to expand...
Instead of the Lewinski Affair or Lewinski Scandal, I like to refer to it as the Clinton Missile Crisis. 😉

 
so did Clinton/ Kerry/ Gore/ Albright rush into war without an exit strategy, get 1000+ soldiers killed, give $500,000,000 and 700,000lbs of explosives to insurgents?

i think that's the difference
 
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
so did Clinton/ Kerry/ Gore/ Albright rush into war without an exit strategy, get 1000+ soldiers killed, give $500,000,000 and 700,000lbs of explosives to insurgents?

i think that's the difference
Click to expand...

Lets see....they bombed an Asprin factory. Killed many innocents there. Wasted millions on doing so.
 
Originally posted by: Chadder007
I love how you guys can keep ignoring what the Dems have said in the past.....all of the same.
Click to expand...

I love how you cut and paste right wing mass e-mails aimed at misleading weak minded Republicans here in attempt to start a flame war. Politicians say lot of things, and some look like they back your side when they are out of context. Do you think Bush cannot be quoted out of context? Shall we make lame ass threads like you?

"We cannot win it (war on terror)" <--- OMFG Bush said we will lose the War on terror!!!!!!!!!!

Kind of childish huh?
 
LOL....you guys aren't getting it.
EVERYONE must have lied about IRAQ. Dems and Republicans.

Even this socialist website says so....
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2...oct2004/wmde-o08.shtml
"The report released October 6 by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), is an indictment not merely of a president or an administration, but of an entire ruling elite. The report confirms that the claims about Iraq?s supposed weapons of mass destruction, advanced by three US administrations, Democratic and Republican, and parroted uncritically by the American media, were outright lies."

It cannot be BOTH ways.....either Bush AND Everyone else lied. Or they were all fooled by bad intelligence/Saddam. Not ONLY Bush.
 
Originally posted by: Chadder007
Originally posted by: conjur
Lies and distortions.


So, nothing changed in the intelligence community between 1998 and 2003?


This is a BS thread and this crap has been shot down many times before. Go do some searching.
Click to expand...

LOL at saying actual quotes are lies.:roll:
Click to expand...

No, I'm calling your thread title a lie.


Now, answer my question:"

So, nothing changed in the intelligence community between 1998 and 2003?
 
LOL....you guys aren't getting it.
Click to expand...


No, YOU don't get it. The other players you mention were willing to allow sanctions and the combined efforts of the World community a chance to work before pulling the trigger. Bush, OTOH, rushed to war, was determined to attack Iraq before stealing...er..assuming the Presidency.
 
Originally posted by: arsbanned
No, YOU don't get it. The other players you mention were willing to allow sanctions and the combined efforts of the World community a chance to work before pulling the trigger. Bush, OTOH, rushed to war, was determined to attack Iraq before stealing...er..assuming the Presidency.
Click to expand...
Also, the intelligence back then was that Saddam really did have WMDs and a more active program.

Once the inspections were underway in late 2002 and early 2003, we saw that the old intelligence was incorrect and Saddam didn't have WMDs and that Chalabi and his rat-bastard group were supplying Feith and Wolfowitz with fraudulent data and claims.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Chadder007
Originally posted by: conjur
Lies and distortions.


So, nothing changed in the intelligence community between 1998 and 2003?


This is a BS thread and this crap has been shot down many times before. Go do some searching.
Click to expand...

LOL at saying actual quotes are lies.:roll:
Click to expand...

No, I'm calling your thread title a lie.


Now, answer my question:"

So, nothing changed in the intelligence community between 1998 and 2003?
Click to expand...


David Kay has flatly stated that U.S. and other national intelligence agencies with which the U.S. has close ties essentially got it wrong on Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction. Kay traced the main failure to December 1998. Then the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) looking for weapons, toxic stockpiles, and missile delivery systems since 1991 was forced to withdraw because of the U.S.-UK Operation Desert Fox bombing campaign. Suddenly, the on-the-ground eyes and ears on which the U.S. intelligence community had relied since Operation Desert Storm vanished, leaving only easily spoofed optical and communications ?spies in the skies.?
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/ite...id=694&amp;issue_id=35
 
Originally posted by: arsbanned
No, YOU don't get it. The other players you mention were willing to allow sanctions and the combined efforts of the World community a chance to work before pulling the trigger. Bush, OTOH, rushed to war, was determined to attack Iraq before stealing...er..assuming the Presidency.
Click to expand...

Before pulling the trigger??? are you sure you don't want to edit that out? Clinton had strikes ordered on Iraq and essentially pulled the trigger and didn't give the UN a chance.

This is not about pulling the trigger but is of what the Representatives where saying and what intelligence they were given.
 
arsbanned, the question is not "what action is appropriate," but rather "did they exist."

Kerry is saying that even if the weapons existed, he wouldn't use force. Bush would. All these quotes show is that the surrounding details don't make one bit of difference between the candidates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top