Liks JD said. Cant you understand the difference between being flat out wrong and lying? Of course I wont admit that. You have no proff Bush lied, only that he was wrong.
And thats actually a legitimate argument. But calling Bush a liar when he had bad intelligence and decided to listen to it when others advised him not to, does not make him a liar like some here suggest.
Yes, we should. I always add it when Harvey sees fit to spam his quote macro.
So here, let us see what ranking, leading Democrats and left-wingers had to say about Iraq...
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." -- 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
"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
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Bosnia also didn't really gain us anything whereas Iraq has the potential to foment big changes in the ME in the long run. It's beginning to appear now that Iraq is headed towards becoming a viable, stable, Arab Muslim democracy. Iraq will also demonstrate the we had no imperialistic intent, that we had no intentions to make an oil grab, and that it was not any sort of neo-Crusade either. It's already demonstrating that al Qaeda has far more ill will towards Muslims than the US so we are marginalizing the entire fundamentalist Muslim movement in the process. We have stripped away al Qaeda's fig leaf and exposed them for the brutal thugs they actually are.
So regardless of, or in spite of, the mistakes made by the bumbling, stumbling Bush admin they are are somehow managing to bumble and stumble their way to success in Iraq as well. Likely though the historical revisionists on the left will do their very best to minimize or completely eliminate the Bush admin's role in that success. We already see it with those insisting that the recent changes in Iraq are completely unrelated to the surge or US actions, which is one of more idiotic and ignorant assertions I've yet seen in this forum.
As far as Curveball, and to demonstrate reviisonist history, someone already claimed in here that "German intelligence laughed their arses off about this guy."
Erm, no they didn't. They were somewhat skeptical but still took his claims seriously. The Germans were so concerned that what he was saying was the truth they wouldn't even give the CIA access to the guy for interviews until 2004. What they were most concerned about is that the facilities that Curveball claimed were producing chemical agents were using equipment that was German in origin. They were trying to save themselves from any potential embarrassment so instead of being thorough in checking out his claims by openly sharing the intel they carefully controlled the infomation he provided. If the Germans had provided access to the CIA early on we probably could have uncovered his story being BS. They didn't provide that access until it was way too late.
fleshconsumed
Diamond Member
- Feb 21, 2002
- 6,486
- 2,363
- 136
Curious, assuming he did not flat out lied, have you even considered that Bush deliberately chose to believe a lie?
When people really want to believe something, they often fail to hear both sides of the arguments rationally and only listen to the ones that support whatever it is they want to believe, they will cite the evidence that supports their claim, but chose to ignore the other. HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray who are at each other throats is a good example of this, each side claims statistics that support their victory while putting down anything other side comes up with.
Even if Bush administration did not deliberately lie, which is hard to prove or disprove, but simply chose to believe bad intelligence because they wanted to support their claim so badly, wouldn't it be just as bad as flat out lying? Wouldn't it be just as bad because instead of saying "stop, and think it over objectively" to themselves they rushed over the supporting evidence and ignored everything that said otherwise? In my opinion the only difference here is that instead of lying to the general public while knowing the truth, they lied to both themselves and general public. The difference is close to nil, however results are catastrophic.
If figures that a lying Bushwhacko sycophant would rather support the TRAITORS and MURDERERS that have hijacked our nation and shredded our Constitution than be angry about it. Poor baby would have no place to keep your nose if their asses were properly hung for their crimes.
As of 11/3/07 6:14 pm EDT, your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal have squandered the lives of 3,849 American troops in their of LIES.
My age is a state of being, and as long as I'm healthy, getting older beats the alternative. Your posts suggest you haven't spent enough time on this earth to overcome your own pathetic ignorance and immaturity, let alone learn jack shit about ethics, morals and basic humanity.
QFL (Quoted For LIES) :thumbsdown:
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Are you hard headed? Have you forgotten the Senate approved these actions not based on some confrence Bush had that recommended it based on his knowledge, but on THEIR perception of intel. WTF is wrong with people like you that absolve the Senate of responsibility? Seriously man wake up.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
QFT Pabster. What short and limited memories people have. Those that think Bush cooerced everyone forget he was governenr of Texas long before the senate and the world decided Iraq needed a change. Jesus it gets old telling people this.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
President Bush is the one who made the case along with his handlers and the Senate cowardly went along with it. They aren't absolved at all but without the incompetent Bush pressing the issue we wouldn't have gotten stuck there and be in such a horrible situation.
The world actually opposed the invasion of Iraq, even the majority of the populace in the coalition of the bribed opposed the invasion.
Pleading ignorance was not a valid defence for the war criminals at the Nüremberg trials. Nor is it good enough for Bush. Bush is responsible for his actions.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,918
- 2,883
- 136
I'll pretty much agree with you here. Although, I do think that congress should be taking a lot more of the blame. I think congress did what they did because they were to afraid to vote no, thats why they didn't even bother reading the bill. Yes, Bush is the one that actually pulled the trigger, but thats the whole reason for the checks and balances of congress. It is their fault for so easily signing that authority away.
If you're (not you specifically) gonna go all nutso on Bush about all of this, it is incredibly hypocritical to give congress a pass, and even worse to continue voting for those same congressmen that voted for this.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Hey I am as guilty as some of those congressmen/women. After 9/11 I was caught up in the paranoia and was suckered by this Administration into thinking that Iraq with it's alleged vast supplies of WMD's was an actual threat, not even considering that it was a bunch of bullshit to work on our anguish and fear after the 9/11 attacks.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
World opinion does not determine policy for the US.
As far as trying to draw a parallel between the Nazis and the Bush admin, the only ignorance being displayed is by those who make that moronic comparison in the first place.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
snipped to save space
OK. So you ARE hard headed. The bill the Senate signed, but admittedly did not read, contained the info needed to make the choice.
OK. So you ARE hard headed. The bill the Senate signed, but admittedly did not read, contained the info needed to make the choice.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
uh...it was the support from Senate and the American people the Senate signed the bill authorizing force. Try again.
Karl Rove is the embodiment of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propoganda minister, who is often credited with stating and using the principles "the Big Lie." Specifically, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. That was his tactic against Max Cleland, John Kerry and evey John McCain.
Since the Bushwhackos seized power, they have lied continually, they have abused our formerly great Constitution to assume dictatorial powers under Presidential dicta and "signing statements," they have shredded the rights guaranteed to all American citizens by that once great standard of democratic institutions to justify spying on our own citizens, to imprison anyone who opposes, including American citizens, for as long as they choose and to deny them their basic Constitutional rights to legal representation and to have the charges against them presented in open court by simple declaratioins of "state secrecy" or labling them as "enemy combatants."
Get over it! Your fucking TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal are LIARS, MURDERERS and TRAITORS!
There are far too many valid comparisons of what the Bushwhackos have done and what Hitler and the nazis did in Germany. The only morons are brainless pissant sycophant Bushwhacko apologists who deny it.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
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
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter