Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them

Intel agencies from all over the world and the UN said this as well. They were all wrong. Its not a lie, it was a mistake... a mistake made by dozens of nations.

or had links to al-Qaida or both.

They did. Not an actionable relationship, not a relationship that was leading to attacks, but they did have links to Al Qaeda... its in the 9/11 commission report.

Bush elected not to believe domestic intel reports generated at the time that the WMD situation in Iraq was overblown.

Bush called the game for what it was when he refused to provide UN weapons inspectors with intelligence he said he had that could lead them to Iraqi WMD, something they repeatedly asked for.

Bush called the game once again when he gave UN weapons inspectors a few hours to leave their unfinihsed jobs Iraq so he could attack the place.

Bush called the game a third time when he repeatedly lied it was Saddam Hussein that forced these inspectors out.

Bush is a liar of the worst sort, a liar because he is a cynical and empty man. A liar because he knows that lying is the best way he can get others to give their money and sons for his perosnal ambitions.

I'd like you to stipulate that each and every American that's died in Iraq is a better man than he is.

Bush is a liar of the worst sort

Says this liberal study funded by George Soros...

Says events as they have were observed. I just listed major lies told by George Bush that got other people killed.

You want to state the Americans that fought in Iraq are better men than he is, or would you just like that to slide?

Things like this are always going to happen when you have an obsessed inept little child for a President hell bent on getting his way like his mommy and daddy gave him his whole life.

"I did it all for you Daddy !!!... I did what you wouldn't do...and I'm such a tough guy "

Put this another way---If Bush stated he was a better man than anyone he sent to Iraq, would that be a lie?

I just listed major lies told by George Bush that got other people killed

No... you really didn't.

If there were any actual lies told, I'm pretty sure Congress, especially the DNC congress would take issue with it.

You need to stop listening to Soros funded studies like this one... they're leading you down the crazy path.

If Bush stated he was a better man than anyone he sent to Iraq, would that be a lie?

It would be an opinion...

If there were any actual lies told, I'm pretty sure Congress, especially the DNC congress would take issue with it.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Not to mention those countries that were our allies.

Is this the same group that does the groundbreaking studies like "Study: People like sex"?

OK, Rob---Play it your way---If Bush stated that would it be his stupid and infantile opinion? If you stated it would it be yours?

In my opinion, even that seventeen year old Puerot Rican infantryman with an IQ of 78 Bush might not even let cut his brush is a better man than George because he went and experienced risks Bush never in his life had ambiiton to experience.

You disagree with me. That's fine. Go ahead and have George at your back in a bar fight. I'll come visit you in hospital.

"If there were any actual lies told...."

When Bush repeatedly told the world it was Saddam that kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq in advance of the war, and not Bush himself, were those lies or not? In your opinion, I mean.

This is amazing. People all around the world were laughing---LAUGHING---At Bush for that one. Except Rob, apparently.

Intel agencies from all over the world and the UN said this as well. They were all wrong. Its not a lie, it was a mistake... a mistake made by dozens of nations.

or had links to al-Qaida or both.

They did. Not an actionable relationship, not a relationship that was leading to attacks, but they did have links to Al Qaeda... its in the 9/11 commission report.

POSTED BY ROB_THE_A_HOLE

You are a lyer.
Germany and France did everything they could to stop Bush. The UN inspectors were in Iraq already for some monthes and had access to everything, they begged for 4 weeks more to close the inspection with a final result, saying that *NOTHING* was found up to that time what supports the US agression. After the infamous speech (also a mistake , you asshole ?) of Powell the inspectors immediately dismissed everything what Powell presented as proof.

Anyone with even reasonable intelligence knows that 99% of the people in this world really only want one thing in life...To live and let live with some reasonable degree of quality to their lives.

For Bush and Cheney to sell to the citizens of this country that the Muslim World is out to destroy all of who are not Muslims is and has always been only one thing.... A MOTHER FUCKING LIE.

These bastards are after only one thing. World domination of Oil which is the lifeblood of the US Economy. You don't build the largest Embassy in the recorded history of planet earth in Iraq permanently employing 3000 US State department workers there if you're going to step down as soon as the Iraqis can stand up.

The 9-11 attacks when all said and done were pulled off by 28 Radical Muslims most of which came from the country Bush just visited and sucked off begging them to pump more Oil. We should be pursuing idiots like these instead of attacking entire nations. And now Bush and Cheney sell us the same shit about Iran all over again.

To attack a sovereign nation and shove the Bullshit lies Bush and Cheney have shoved up the American Peoples ass thru hype and fear mongering deserves only one thing.

"IMPEACHMENT"

Been to any funerals for Iraqi KIA, Rob? I was at one. A local boy in a small town. The police saluted his casket as it passed. Everyone wept.

If there were any actual lies told, I'm pretty sure Congress, especially the DNC congress would take issue with it.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Yes, any criminals that have not been arrested are innocent.

It's a lie to claim that the Iraqis had an active WMD program when you knew that they did not. It's a false statement to believe that they did and say so, when they did not.

Posters come on here and make false statements all the time; should I assume they're all lying? Take this one, just posted above:

"Bush called the game a third time when he repeatedly lied it was Saddam Hussein that forced these inspectors out."--in fact, Saddam repeatedly forced inspectors out; ordered them from this area or to that one. Kicked them out of the country entirely numerous times. So is Zed lying? Or just wrong? How about when CalifChris and countless others guarantees a US attack on Iran before the 2006 elections? Then, immediately after? Liars? Or just wrong?

Two can play this game, see. If everyone who made "false statements" vis a vis the Middle East is a liar, that would include almost everyone on planet earth.

They did. Not an actionable relationship, not a relationship that was leading to attacks, but they did have links to Al Qaeda... its in the 9/11 commission report.

POSTED BY ROB_THE_A_HOLE

You are a lyer.
Germany and France did everything they could to stop Bush. The UN inspectors were in Iraq already for some monthes and had access to everything, they begged for 4 weeks more to close the inspection with a final result, saying that *NOTHING* was found up to that time what supports the US agression. After the infamous speech (also a mistake , you asshole ?) of Powell the inspectors immediately dismissed everything what Powell presented as proof.



Posted by fribo at 2008-01-23 09:53 AM

Are you calling Rob a liar as well? Maybe you should take a gander at the Senate Report if you don't like what the 9-11 Commision determined. Did they all lie as well? How about the Senators and Congressional leaders who gave interviews and echoed word for word what the Administration claimed? Not to mention the Intel report given to every voting memeber. Were they liars or just fucking inept?

When Bush repeatedly told the world it was Saddam that kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq in advance of the war, and not Bush himself, were those lies or not? In your opinion, I mean.

Posted by Zed


the opinion comment was about you trying to get me to say bush is a better or lesser man then someone else, and saying whether that is true or false, when it is an opinion.

All you've done is say that Bush said the above... how about the exact quote and date that he said it big guy.

Please don't link to a Soros site like this one either...

Bush is a liar of the worst sort

Says this liberal study funded by George Soros...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


Even ad hominem attacks are beginning to lose their force, Rob. Only the real die-hards will believe Bush now.

It's not a "game". When Bush stated it wasn't he that kicked the UN inspectors out just before the war, was he a liar or just butt-fuck crazy?

The vet we buried? He was twenty-four-years-old when he met the IED that killed him. The issue of Bush's honesty and sanity is more than of passing interest to his widow.

Funny how the rabid dogs of the Majority party have done hundreds of interviews, investigations, committee hearings and yet they can't find anything actionable aginst Bush and Company. I guess they must also be liars or inept.

Well Rob sure was fooled by all the lies.

It appears that his head is STILL up his ASS in this regard. Just read his stupid fucking posts.

Look at yourself Rob. Over 900 proven lies and you still do not get it.

Seek help Rob. There is no reason for you to be the gullible little pussy that you are.

You can change, but only if you want to man.

Been to any funerals for Iraqi KIA, Rob? I was at one. A local boy in a small town. The police saluted his casket as it passed. Everyone wept.


Posted by Zed

I wasn't able to make it to his funeral, but a guy a knew in high school was killed there. We weren't really friends, but if we happened to be at the same party we would hang out and at other events... Unfortunately I was in San Diego when he was brought home.

You said you've been to one... did you actually know the kid, or were you just being some douchebag liberal trying to act like it was your duty to go to it, you pretentious little man...

I really want an answer... did you know the kid?

Well, then, the list of liars goes far beyond only president Bush:

"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

Look at yourself Rob. Over 900 proven lies and you still do not get it.

By a Soros and barbara streisand funded group...

Yeah... nice try douchebag.

"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

A cursory search of the Net reveals that Bush was LYING about who forced the UN Inspectors out of Iraq in 2003 as recently as 11/17/07, in a news conference with the new president of France.

Need any more help with that one?

Hey Zed, did you vote for John Kerry? Because he lied you into a war too:

"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

How about Nancy Pelosi? Are you a big fan of hers?

"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

Actually it was 11/07/07. Bush was LYING as he stood next to Sarkozy during a news conference at Mt. Vernon.

A cursory search of the Net reveals that Bush was LYING about who forced the UN Inspectors out of Iraq in 2003 as recently as 11/17/07, in a news conference with the new president of France.

Need any more help with that one?

Posted by Zed

The quote please? Bush's actual words, not your summation of them.

And of course if you actually knew the kid whose funeral you went to.

And didn't Bill Clinton send some inspectors over? And weren't they thrown out too? Let's see:

"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

So there was a lot of rhetoric. Remind me...which President made the ultimate decision to invade and occupy?

Everyone knew him, Rob. Small town means small town. He graduated the same high school my wife did. Getting pretty close to smarmy, are we?

Proven? 500 lbs or was it 500 tons, either way that would make a lot of dirty bombs. Hmm, sounds like weapons of mass destruction, doesn't it.

So there was a lot of rhetoric. Remind me...which President made the ultimate decision to invade and occupy?

Posted by Danforth at 2008-01-23 10:23 AM

The one who had the backing from both Houses of Congress.

By a Soros and barbara streisand funded group...

Yeah... nice try douchebag.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

ROB BELIEVES THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!!

That is fucking funny man.

Funny for us, but pathetic from your shoes.

Way to be a gullible fuckwad Rob. I got a bridge for sale that you need to look at that is just FULL of WMD's.

Bring me an Iraqi warhead or Shut The Fuck Up!!!!

You're such a tool. Give up already.

Zed, you're wrong about Commander Bush; he's been to war, he said so himself.

"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I
had a choice, I'd rather go to war."
Houston Chronicle, January 2002

That wasn't a lie, either. It was an honest mistake.

After Hitler was defeated people warned the same thing that happend in Germany before WW2 could happen in the USA.

People said IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN HERE!

Looks like people were wrong.

Everyone knew him, Rob. Small town means small town. He graduated the same high school my wife did. Getting pretty close to smarmy, are we?


Posted by Zed


Did YOU know him?

I'm from a small town too... don't give me that everyone knows everyone 1950s bullshit... you're caught now and you're trying to wriggle out of it. You didn't know him did you?

"The one who had the backing from both Houses of Congress."

So...that would be Bush? It was Bush who ultimately decided to invade and occupy a country that didn't attack us? It was Bush who announced to the world it'd be okay to invade and occupy a country if you thought (pretended?) they had WMD, and you were afraid they might someday use them against you?

Don't look now, but the Chinese are listening. God help us if they ever buy into the Bush Doctrine.

Proven? Lets not forget those mobile Ice cream trucks either.

"You pretentious little man...."

The hearse passed in front of my place of work, within one block of my church, to the funeral home one hundred feet further down the street.

Yep, smarmy. I'd say you made it.

It was Bush who ultimately decided to invade and occupy a country that didn't attack us?

Of course it was... he's the president.

But he wouldn't have been able to without the backing from congress and also without the coalition nations supporting us. All of whom agreed with the attack.

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"The regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons, and is seeking the materials needed to do so."
Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).


------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------
Explanation This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Democrats believed the same bullshit, therefore it's OK.

- a-hole school of conservative logic

Manypaths believed the democrats he helped elect, that wont do a damn thing they said they would. Hahahhahahhahhaa!!!!!!!!

So...that would be Bush? It was Bush who ultimately decided to invade and occupy a country that didn't attack us? It was Bush who announced to the world it'd be okay to invade and occupy a country if you thought (pretended?) they had WMD, and you were afraid they might someday use them against you?

Posted by Danforth at 2008-01-23 10:29 AM

I must have missed your post claiming Bush went it alone and without the backing of Congress. Regarding the WMD and being afraid... Why did your party vote yes to the authorization?

The hearse passed in front of my place of work, within one block of my church, to the funeral home one hundred feet further down the street.


So that means you need to go to his funeral?

Funerals are for family and friends to say goodbye to a loved one, not so liberal shitbags can later use it to try to have a gotcha moment on a political blog. You had no business being at his funeral, and you fucking know it.

But he wouldn't have been able to without the backing from congress and also without the coalition nations supporting us. All of whom agreed with the attack.

When will you stop being an idiot Rob?

Because he filled Americans and Congress with hundreds of lies:

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."
Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).

Oh REALLY............

Quite a roll call of liars on Iraq. Let's see: an iconic former Dem president; his Vice President and presidential candidate; three of his cabinet heads; the current Speaker of the House of Representatives; two Democratic candidates for the nomination THIS year; four current Democratic Senators, including a former Vice Presidential candidate.

Liars, all. Apparently. Please, libs, be consistent, and let's hear your drumbeats of "liar, liar" with respect to the Clintons, Edwards, Lieberman, Albright, Cohen, Kennedy, and Pelosi. Among others.

All of whom agreed with the attack.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at


And that, sir, is false. I'm sorry for you if you can't see the difference between the authorization to go to war and the actual support of an invasion (I'm authorized to borrow $30,000 on my credit card, but I don't support doing it).

That's your deficit, not mine.

Perhaps you'd like to question whether the cops saluted or people cried? What an ill-governed man.

Now if I have to list every lie, this is going to take awhile....


President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
Source: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).

Oh REALLY........

Because he filled Americans and Congress with hundreds of lies

And the English, and the Ukranians, and the austrailians and the japanese and the polish, and spanish and the italians, etc...

and yet, after all those lies that lead all us to war... nobody cares? Nobody wants to do anything about it?

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).


------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------
Explanation This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

Perhaps you'd like to question whether the cops saluted or people cried?

No... cops at a soldiers funeral is not out of the ordinary... nor is family and friends crying.

the only thing that is out of the ordinary is the liberal assbag who showed up so that he could attach himself to that brave soldiers sacrifice.

"You had no business going to his funeral....."

This "liberal shit-bag" is tired of dirtying himself with you, Rob. I'm going to take a bath, to see if I can get clean. Perhaps you will state I'm lying about having in-door plumbing

"But he wouldn't have been able to without the backing from congress"

Strange...that's not what they've told us regarding Iran....

"Why did your party vote yes to the authorization?"

When did the Independents vote yes to the authorization?

This "liberal shit-bag" is tired of dirtying himself with you, Rob.

Then run away you little bitch....

Hey maybe there is a soldiers funeral in the next town over you could run and make yourself apart of then come here and tell us all about it and how great you are.

and yet, after all those lies that lead all us to war... nobody cares? Nobody wants to do anything about it?

And yet you still believe and defend the lies.

We can start by educating the masses that they were all lies but the dumb fucks among us that will always believe these lies really fuck it up for the rest of us.

Back to our regularly scheduled program......

President George W. Bush on Chemical and Biological Weapons:

"All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicals with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland."
Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).

------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------
Explanation This statement was misleading because it claimed that Iraq's UAVs were intended and able to spread biological weapons, including over the United States, but failed to mention that the U.S. government agency most knowledgeable about UAVs and their potential applications, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center, had the following view: the "U.S. Air Force does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents."

And that, sir, is false. I'm sorry for you if you can't see the difference between the authorization to go to war and the actual support of an invasion

That's your deficit, not mine.

Posted by midiman at 2008-01-23 10:36 AM

What exactly were they authorizing? Since it wasn't to invade.

Wow, Hillary still supports the war and Corky still supports her. Loser. Didnt the dems you elected say the troops would be home by Christmas, oh wait that was Clinton.

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).


------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------
Explanation This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government's most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.

Strange...that's not what they've told us regarding Iran....

Oh you're one of those crazy bastards who thinks we're going to war with Iran... oh, okay... that explains a lot now.

When did the Independents vote yes to the authorization?

Posted by Danforth


Nobody ever admits to being a lib...

Poorly suited? The Tata Nano is poorly suited as a vehicle, but its still a car, isn't it?

And that, sir, is false. I'm sorry for you if you can't see the difference between the authorization to go to war and the actual support of an invasion (I'm authorized to borrow $30,000 on my credit card, but I don't support doing it).

That's your deficit, not mine.

Posted by midiman
* * * *

Fair enough. How about defining "actual support of an invasion" as voting to spend the money for the invasion? You know, pull out da credit card and start spendin da money?

Seems to me that, your rhetorical blusters aside, the Dems are actually supporting the invasion, if their spending votes are anything to go by.

Bush's lies were OK because Zed went to a kid's funeral whom he didn't really know that well.

- a-hole school of conservative logic

Bush Lied Us Into a War

Where does the fucking buck stop with you fuckers?

Pass the buck, pass the blame. You fuckers can't except ANY responsibility.

Bush Lied Us Into a War

Congress did not sell this war to us.

Democrats did not sell this war to us.

The Bush Administration lied, manipulated data, reports and evidence.

The Bush administration sold the American people, Congress and the World community this war.

If you didn't buy into it rememeber, YOU WERE WITH THE TERRORISTS.

How quickly the fools forget.

But today, look at the pathetic display of finger pointing. Read Rob's posts. None of this was Bush's fault

Pathetic.

And that, sir, is false. I'm sorry for you if you can't see the difference between the authorization to go to war and the actual support of an invasion

Uh huh... and then how many times since this invasion that they didn't support have they voted to authorize BILLIONS of dollars to spend on it.

Because if you don't support something... clearly you fund the fuck out of it.

If you thinking that the DNC back in 2003 didn't support this war helps you sleep at night when you vote for them, that's all well and good, but your thoughts aren't the truth...

Liars, all. Apparently. Please, libs, be consistent, and let's hear your drumbeats of "liar, liar" with respect to the Clintons, Edwards, Lieberman, Albright, Cohen, Kennedy, and Pelosi. Among others.

Posted by rightisright

I can live with that. I would also add that they were all afraid to oppose Bush because they were worried about their own political futures.
Pathetic, if you ask me.

Bush's lies were OK because Zed went to a kid's funeral whom he didn't really know that well.

Zed was asked repeatedly to give me the quote where Bush lied, but he didn't.

As to the funeral, if you scroll up, he brought that up as a way to try to show himself as this great man who is just so against this war... tried to paint me as some rich white conservative who hasn't been affected by this war. It got slammed back in his face and he left because of it...

If you thinking that the DNC back in 2003 didn't support this war

Show me where they lied to us about it.

Outside of repeating a lie told to them by the Bush administration.

You asked for lies from Bush and I gave them to you.

I notice how you have since shut the fuck up about them.

Democrats did not sell this war to us.

Not at all... they're so against it they've voted to fund it over and over again...

"And the English, and the Ukranians, and the austrailians and the japanese and the polish, and spanish and the italians, etc..."
Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-01-23 10:38 AM

YEAH!

As if they are the ones "responsible" for what is done in America's name!?

Like I have said repeatedly ---- these are one Sad Bunch of "conservatives" we now have! They are incapable of abiding by the most basic of Conservative principles!

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

"Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them . . . . And not only that, [he would] like nothing more than to hook up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action."
Source: Iraq Must Disarm Says President in South Dakota Speech, White House (11/3/2002).

"Oh you're one of those crazy bastards who thinks we're going to war with Iran"

No, dumbshit, I'm merely repeating what the administration has said, that it didn't need Congressional approval to attack Iran. There's a huge distinction, even if you're too dense to differentiate.

"Nobody ever admits to being a lib..."

Registered Independent my entire life. Voted for more Rs than Ds. My first moniker here, before we had to all have a set handle, was DanforthRepublican. Besides, I believe in fiscal sanity, a strong military, and the Constitution. But I also believe in using the military wisely, so I guess that makes me a "lib".

As if they are the ones "responsible" for what is done in America's name!?

the invasion of Iraq would not have been possible without the coalition nations and the support from Congress...

So yeah, they are just as responsible as we are...

Registered Independent my entire life. Voted for more Rs than Ds. My first moniker here, before we had to all have a set handle, was DanforthRepublican.

Does anyone else see the contradiction here?

We can start another thread that discusses the Democrats falling for the lies of the Bush Administration, but I suggest that we discuss this topic:

Bush Lied Us Into a War

I'll start the other thread for Rob to avoid the topic at hand in this thread.

Bush Lied Us Into a War

Discuss......

Probably only you, Rob.

As an Independent, I felt Jack Danforth best represented my views overall. I'm sure you'll agree, he's hardly the model for the current Republican party.

Seems to me that, your rhetorical blusters aside, the Dems are actually supporting the invasion, if their spending votes are anything to go by.

Posted by rightisright


After the fact, perhaps. If I had charged the $30,000, I'd HAVE to pay for it, wouldn't I?

The vote to authorize was a mistake, 'tis true, since the man should never have been trusted in the first place.

What exactly were they authorizing? Since it wasn't to invade.

Posted by crispee_oc

Typical Liberal policy to have it both ways.

The vote to authorize was a mistake, 'tis true, since the man should never have been trusted in the first place.

Posted by midiman at 2008-01-23 11:06 AM


You mean Saddam right?

the invasion of Iraq would not have been possible without the coalition nations and the support from Congress...

So yeah, they are just as responsible as we are...
Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-01-23 10:59 AM


YEAH!

Except the invasion of Iraq was a unilateral action --- as defined by Bush himself and all those countries you throw out there!

Oops!

Probably only you, Rob

You claim to be and seem very proud of the fact that you have been a registered independent your whole life, but the name you chose for yourself was DanforthRepublican... interesting...

They authorized Boy Wonder to use force IF NECESSARY.

Is that too complicated?

Is that too complicated?

For Rob? Absolutely...

Bush lied? Wow - that's a new one.

Many of these posters remind me of the poor saps who signed up for sub-prime loans, then defaulted and got foreclosed on when the rate changed. Then they want to blame or sue the lenders. Never mind that they themselves READ (presumably) the terms and SIGNED on the line and COMMITTED to the contract. No, it's the lender's fault that the thing went sour even though it progressed exactly as agreed by the parties.

And you can bet your ass that many of these same posters on the Left were among the 70%-plus majority that was supporting GWB right up to the time they turned on him. How else can you get a 70%-plus approval rating?

They authorized Boy Wonder to use force IF NECESSARY.

Is that too complicated?

Posted by RastaCyborg


Clearly they agree it was necessary since they support it time and time again with more funding.

Except the invasion of Iraq was a unilateral action

Wouldn't unilateral just mean one nation?

So if I could name one other nation that supported and participated in the invasion, then clearly it wouldn't be unilateral... let's try...

I'll pick the United Kingdom... no wait... Spain... no wait... Italy... no wait.. Poland... No wait Australia... no wait... the Ukraine...

yeah... the Ukraine, I'll go with them this time...

You were saying something about unilateral RedCoCoSamVilleIConservative..
.

Did anyone read the report that the Bush administration made over 900 false statements to get us involved in a war with Iraq?

Yeah! Really!

You claim to be and seem very proud of the fact that you have been a registered independent your whole life, but the name you chose for yourself was DanforthRepublican... interesting...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

He used that name because he was a fan of the politics of John Danforth, a republican.
Try to keep up, a-hole.

Bush Lied Us Into a War

Discuss......

Posted by Manypaths


Okay, the group that came up with this study that says Bush lied us into war is a Left wing biased organization funded by George Soros and Barbara Striesand...

discuss.

What exactly were they authorizing? Since it wasn't to invade.

Posted by crispee_oc

Typical Liberal policy to have it both ways.

Posted by wisgod


That's dumb. Back to credit cards: if a person maxed out his limit, is it the credit card company's fault for authorizing it, or do we have to put the blame on the person who actually made the choice to spend the money. If we criticize the company, we would say they never should have authorized it in the first place, which is what we are indeed saying. Stop playing dumb.

Did anyone read the report that the Bush administration made over 900 false statements to get us involved in a war with Iraq?


No, once I went to the donor page and the wiki page of the two groups who made it up, and saw that they are left wing groups funded by extremist liberals like Striesand and Soros, I knew it was a hunk of shit. then I decided to just have some fun on the thread...

A careful review of the facts clears the picture up quite a bit. It's obvious to any impartial observer that:

(1) The Demoncrats have occupied the White House since January 2001.

(2) During the Demoncrat occpation of the White House the US suffered the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil - It's their fault, the dirty bastards.

(3) The Demoncrats lied us into war with Iraq

Q.E.D.

Yrs,
Ignorami on the Right

The only people who were against this war the entire time and didn't buy the bullshit were the true liberals in congress (Kucinich, Sanders etc.). Those democrats that Flush Limbaugh pretends are liberals are far from it in reality.

Clearly they agree it was necessary since they support it time and time again with more funding.

Stupis argument.

It is the only one he has so he keeps repeating himself.

We all know that Congress has always funded the troops. It does not equate to supporting the war no matter how many times a pea-sized brain like Rob's tries to tell you it does.

Weak man. I hope you don't try to win any legal cases on such weak arguments.

Oh wait, you aren't a fucking lawyer. No lawyer could spend 18 hours each and every day blogging.

What color is the sky in your world there Robbie Boy?

This pretty well sums it up:

www.washingtonpost.com

Posted by Danforth


Yes, I get it you like Jack Danforth, but why would a proud Independent label himself a Republican?

Stupis argument.

Fantastic...

No, once I went to the donor page and the wiki page of the two groups who made it up, and saw that they are left wing groups funded by extremist liberals like Striesand and Soros, I knew it was a hunk of shit. then I decided to just have some fun on the thread...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

a-hole spouting off comments about something he didn't even read? I don't believe it!!!

Okay, the group that came up with this study that says Bush lied us into war is a Left wing biased organization funded by George Soros and Barbara Striesand...

discuss.

Discuss the lies that you asked be provided which have been.

Soros or not, they lied. Admit it!

Okay, the group that came up with this study that says Bush lied us into war is a Left wing biased organization funded by George Soros and Barbara Striesand...

discuss.

Discuss the lies that you asked be provided which have been.

Soros or not, they lied. Admit it!

Leave it to the likes of Rob to shoot the messenger when our President lies us into a war.

Class act there Rob!

Discuss the lies that you asked be provided which have been.

the "lie" I asked to be provided was the one about Zed saying Bush claimed Hussein threw out the investigators... if you posted that one repost it.

As to the others that you posted... from what I saw they weren't lies. That doesn't mean they were correct but it also doesn't mean they were lies.

Surprise! Surprise!
- Gomer Pyle

And he resorts to being the spelling police.

GAME

SET

MATCH!

You're at a new low Robbie!!!!

Run along now. You probably have some studying to do for that Bar Exam........

Lauging My Fucking Ass Off!!!!

Rob has never understood nuance of any kind. Nor does he seem to understand Independents sometimes vote for Democrats, and sometimes vote for Republicans. Overall, in my life, I've voted for more Rs than Ds. I'll still be able to say that after the next election.

And he resorts to being the spelling police.

NO... no spelling police... I'm the shittiest poster here...

But that doesn't mean I can't see humor in the occasional post like that...

hahahahahahaha...

I'm the shittiest poster here...

That should have said speller... oh well... LMAO...

Rob has never understood nuance of any kind.

Hey, I hear he can tell the color of his ass plug by feel alone.

(I'll always correct people on your behalf there Rob!)

Rob is merely parrotting the Rove-spin that Bush didn't want to attack Iraq but the nasty Democrats forced him to. From "The Buck Stops Here" to "Not my Fault" Truman to Bart Simpson.

And Rob, as for funding the war, isn't it you that constantly whines that not funding Bush's Excellent Iraqi Adventure means starving and disarming the troops? Seems the last time the Dems tried to defund the war, it got vetoed by Bush and the GOPpers, so what's your point?

When you verify the yellowcake and aluminum tubes for us, let us know.

Or read the Downing Street Memo to see how you were suckered into this war. You can also check Rove's comments back in 2002 when he said they would start selling the war after labor day, then start looking at Bush's comments. Rob, you were played.

Nor does he seem to understand Independents sometimes vote for Democrats, and sometimes vote for Republicans.

But do they call themselves Republicans? Wouldn't that contradict calling themselves Independents?

And Rob, as for funding the war, isn't it you that constantly whines that not funding Bush's Excellent Iraqi Adventure means starving and disarming the troops?

Guess those Dems never should have authorized war then huh?

From 20 to 114 posts in about an hour. What else can be said that we do not already know.

We were lied to and now we are in a war without end.

Congratulations to all who supported this administration. I can only hope that you are losing loved ones in the sand.

Unlike Rob, I actually have some work to get done. (ever notice that he is ALWAYS here?)

I can only hope that you are losing loved ones in the sand.

I love it when I bring liberals down to my level...

Real classy there ManyPaths... hoping for dead soldiers... wow...

Unlike Rob, I actually have some work to get done

I released several new enhancements to our website from my couch while this whole convo has been going on... learn to multitask... or get a job with no real deadlines... either works

ever notice that he is ALWAYS here?

What else is there to do while you're supposed to be working? Work? Fuck that shit...

I think I'm gonna pull a Hans here and hold onto that post ManyPaths... I don't think I've EVER seen a poster left or right wishing for dead American soldiers as you just did... that's pretty horrific...

I can only hope that you are losing loved ones in the sand.

again... wow...

"Wouldn't that contradict calling themselves Independents?"

Gee, Semantics Boy, I guess you're right: a more accurate moniker would have been DanforthIndependent. But back then, I had more of an affinity to the (classical) Republican stances than the (classical) Democratic stances.

But, not to worry, people like you have changed all that. Now, I don't so much vote FOR Democrats as I vote AGAINST Republicans.

Gee, Semantics Boy, I guess you're right

Don't guess... know

But, not to worry, people like you have changed all that. Now, I don't so much vote FOR Democrats as I vote AGAINST Republicans.

Posted by Danforth


The Log Cabin Republicans are always looking to up their ranks... have you thought of joining them?

I can only hope that you are losing loved ones in the sand.
Posted by Manypaths

Did you mean Republicans only, or are you insulting the entire Country?

*** The Log Cabin Republicans are always looking to up their ranks... have you thought of joining them?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole ***

......why....are they not giving you enough action up the A_Hole.?....

You are the one that supports the war. I don't, so as you say, again... wow...

Again, I can only hope that the ones dying for the war that you support are your loved ones.

......why....are they not giving you enough action up the A_Hole.?....

Posted by skizziks


Not as clever as you thought it was when you were clicking publish...

Are any liberals here going to condemn Manypaths HOPING for dead American soldiers? Anyone?

Did you mean Republicans only, or are you insulting the entire Country?

Anyone who supports this was. I can only hope that you are losing loved ones because a lot of people who do not support this war are losing them.

You can twist my words all that you want.

Again, I can only hope that the ones dying for the war that you support are your loved ones.

Posted by Manypaths


Twice... twice you come here and HOPE for dead American soldiers...

WOW!!! Any liberals here have an opinion on this?

Lose an argument, shift the debate.

Classic tactic.

Loser!

"The Log Cabin Republicans...have you thought of joining them?"

Rob doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word against.

**** When Bush stated it wasn't he that kicked the UN inspectors out just before the war, was he a liar or just butt-fuck crazy? ZED ****

..........both..........

You can twist my words all that you want.

Posted by Manypaths

I'm not twisting anything. You've made yourself perfectly clear. Congrats.

Lose an argument, shift the debate.

Classic tactic.


Find someone who supports the war, wish for dead soldiers...

Very new tactic... only used by manypaths...

Well, you can't say that the Dems were all parroting the lies from the Bush Administration, since most of the Dems' quotes predated the Bush Administration. Just as easy to say that the Bush people parrotted the lies the Clintonites told them.

Thousands of officials from both parties believed Iraq had an active WMD program. In fact, thousands of Iraqi officials believed it. Even Saddam did, IMO. And if funding the war isn't the same as supporting the invasion, why are so many hard lefties so furious with this Congress, which continues to fund Iraqi operations, despite campaigning on ending it?

If you want to blame anyone, you can blame me, and millions of Americans just like me. I believed, then as now, that Saddam needed to be removed, by force if necessary. That also was the position of most Dems at the time, including 2 out of the 3 candidates for their nomination.

And if Bush was lying, so were they.

......its is clear to anyone with an I.Q. over "retard" that we were lied into an unjust war.......

.......a war which has damaged not just Iraq, but us as well........

.......only liars and fools still support this criminal administration.......

I believed, then as now, that Saddam needed to be removed, by force if necessary.

Uh oh, don't let ManyPaths see that... He'll hope any soldiers you know die in the sand...

Still no comment from Libs about that... do they support that? Do they hope for dead soldiers too?

Still no comment from Libs about that... do they support that?

That is because you and PissGod are the only ones who think that way.

Nice crowd!

At least I do not support the lies and liars that are getting these troops killed.

It is YOU that should be ashamed. YOUR positon is getting them killed, NOT mine buddy.

And the fact is, your loved ones aren't dying, and you don't care who is! As long as you can try to blame the Dems, you are alright with that.

But please, excuse the President's actions and contiue to attack me you shallow, pathetic sheep.

Uh oh, don't let ManyPaths see that... He'll hope any soldiers you know die in the sand...
* * *

I know. I have dozens of friends over there right now. Most of whom believe strongly in what they're doing.

I think it's funny to watch Edwards on the issue: "Yes, I was wrong to vote for the war. And I'm going to insist that Senator Clinton admit that she was duped too. Or lied. Or was too stupid to know the difference, just like I was. Come clean, Senator!!" Or something.

R positon is getting them killed, NOT mine buddy

I'm hoping we can get them home as soon as possible with a successful mission...

You're hoping they die.

And the fact is, your loved ones aren't dying, and you don't care who is

I have two cousins there now and a fraternity brother on the way... And you're hoping that all three are killed...

Classy.

What Bullshit. Articles like this being printed by the AP confirm my belief in the left wing leanings, anti Bush leanings and anti American leanings by the Press.

Read the Article. There is no proof or even an assertion that Bush or anyone knew the intelligence reports were wrong (false) until after the invasion. This is a play on words : "false" information does not mean "Lie".

This is a pure propaganda piece put out in an election year to allow the America haters show that they are propagandists who will read into anything exactly what they want to believe. Of course thought is a luxury they can not afford.

I think it's funny to watch Edwards on the issue

I used to love how before the Primary season started up, whenever he wanted to get in the news he would apologize, or admit he was wrong for his vote...

Clearly it worked, lol...

What Bullshit. Articles like this being printed by the AP confirm my belief in the left wing leanings, anti Bush leanings and anti American leanings by the Press.


Check out the wiki page and the donor page I posted in the 2nd and 3rd posts on this thread.

This "study" was put together by two groups... both funded by left wing extemists like Soros and Striesand, and the Center has been accused of bias towards left-wing political causes because it has accepted money from organizations and individuals that favor liberal policies and/or actively oppose right-wing political causes.


Its leftist propoganda... don't take it serioulsy...

WOW..How many 'Journalist" were involved in this study...Journalists?, and of course no one really takes credit for it, And how come they "lied" maybe they were misled, maybe they were privy to info that these pillars of objectiveness were not.. How come everyone has an agenda and none of them are "let's do what is good for America"

The US went before the UN and said, "we must enter Iraq because of WMD's. We must go in for national security's sake. We must go in to end the, how many years of sanctions and such?"

The rest of the big nations responded, "No, we don't believe Iraq is really bad. That's why we had years and years of sanctions. It'll solve itself. Stop worrying. No war. We don't support you."

Many nations did and the war went on and the Iraq gov't was toppled.

We didn't find everything the public was told.
But, that isn't why we went in.

Let's try this...

The US goes before the UN, "We know you twits are breaking the sanctions by trading illegally with Iraq. We are going to go in there and find out the truth and catch you."

The big countries responded, "Why don't you just say WMD's as an excuse. This way we can say no, you can go in, and you'll still get the cut of the money."

Problem is, why did we really go in there?

Why don't we just ditch the UN all together, tell the UN we're leaving Iraq, and if you want the place safe, go in yourselves. Heck, maybe Iraq's neighbors would like to lend a hand to their fellows - kinda like Egypt and the Palestinians. Such love must exist between neighbors.

The rest of the big nations responded,

Big nations?

England, Australia, Spain, Italy, Japan, Poland...

tell the UN we're leaving Iraq, and if you want the place safe, go in yourselves.

Is that the honorable thing to do?

what the majority of the world believed at that ntime was what bush acted on---it is very convenient
in hindsight to say bush lied ---but he only stated what most believed -it seemed sadaam was holdin his finger in his pocket playin like it was a gun and bush called him on it-if he(bush) was lyin why didn't the congress(both houses) dispute it at that time--politics in america has become let the president take the blame for what the congress should be doin or not doin-cause the pres will begone in 4-8 yrs-but if the sens and reps can tiptoe along they can last forever
jasman

Who is the money man for this "organization"..Oh that is right it is George Soros...No wonder it has all the "truth"..what a joke. will the American people ever get the truth form anyone

YEAH!

In a supreme display of WingDing Irony, today Neil Boortz had an episode of where he railed against how "liberals" wish to insulate themselves from failure by relying on "G o v e r n m e n t" to bail them out of the "Decisions they have made" and "The Results from those Decisions"!

He made no mention of how some "Decisions they have made" may have been made by relying on bad information or how he applies this philosophy to the Bush Administration in light of this study!

Of course, listening to the Retorts very own apologists, it's a given that this Administration and the "Decisions they have made" and "The Results from those Decisions" don't adhere to this logic, even though they claim to have sole ownership of this mantra -------- it doesn't apply because "Big Nations" like "England, Australia, Spain, Italy, Japan, Poland" provided the Information and therefore Bush and Co are excused from the "Decisions they have made" and "The Results from those Decisions"!

You people can't walk ten steps without tripping over your own "principle" can you!

Fucking Love It!

IMPEACH THE SUMMABYATCHS!

funded by extremist liberals like Striesand and Soros, I knew it was a hunk of shit. then I decided to just have some fun on the thread...


Rob judges the news by who tells it, not on its factual basis. This tacniqu of attacking the messenger instead of the message is, of course, ad hominem, and is considered an amateurish debate technique, as well as a logical fallacy.

Yet he doesn't apply the same test to Bush or to those who tell him the things he wishes to hear.

I wonder why?

Well, you can't say that the Dems were all parroting the lies from the Bush Administration, since most of the Dems' quotes predated the Bush Administration. Just as easy to say that the Bush people parrotted the lies the Clintonites told them.

Thank you Right! But I wonder why there has been no response to your post? Hmmm.... Maybe because its indisputable. They sure counted up all the times Bush and Cheney mentioned wmd's.... wheres the count on the Clintons? Not to mention all members of congress for 15 years prior to our going in. Study? More like propaganda 101. What a joke.

Rob judges the news by who tells it, not on its factual basis.

So you would be fine with a study coming out talking of the improvements in Iraq, even though it had been frequently accused of Right Wing bias and was heavily supported by Hannity and Limbaugh?

That wouldn't make you question the results of the study?

Another question... is it possible that some of these 900 or 500 or whatever "lies" that Bush told are open to interpretation... for example did he lie about WMD or was he given faulty information... and since this group is liberal, isn't it more likely that they would lead towards saying Bush is lying rather then the evidence was faulty?

Midi, do you find it odd that this "study" only quotes Bush and his administration officials? Why not the members of congress who were selling it just as hard...

Hell i have a quote from Hillary talking about how Hussein gave Aid and sheltered Al Qaeda... why isn't that in there...

The fact that its a liberal soros group has nothing to do with it right?

Wow... bring up the Clintons stand on the subject and it gets awfully quiet over there on the left.

Wow... bring up the Clintons stand on the subject and it gets awfully quiet over there on the left.


Precisely.


It speaks to Rob's point about the source of this study:

It's not so much that what's in the study that's a problem, it's what is ommitted.


None of this is new. No new information has surfaced recently that changes the perspective of how this all went down.

All this study does is re-ignite a worn-out debate.

tell the UN we're leaving Iraq, and if you want the place safe, go in yourselves.

Is that the honorable thing to do?

Posted by 726

The UN is dishonorable themselves. Offer them redemption. They can go in. That would be honorable.

Remaining a member of the UN. That is dishonorable.

Show me where they lied to us about it.

Outside of repeating a lie told to them by the Bush administration.

Posted by Manypaths at 2008-01-23 10:55 AM

In what alternative universe is the Bush Administration telling these people to make false statements up to two years before his inauguration:

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"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

"[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, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"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

"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

All golden RightOCenter...

My favorite is the one I posted above from the front runner for the DNC presidential nomination... ladies and gentlemen and liberals, I give you the twat that you are voting for:

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

As for John Kerry, this is one of my favorite quotes of his from 2003

Second, without question, we 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. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. 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.

Righto,


You're such a cock.


It is unfair to point out statements from the Clinton administration.


Bush lied and that's all you need to know.



PS - thanks for the props in yesterday's Hussein war.


PPS - I bailed because I had somewhere else I had to be. I really wanted to carry that little spat to its rightful conclusion, but I had to go.

will the American people ever get the truth form anyone

Posted by HillBillyJihad at 2008-01-23 01:12 PM

not from Bushco that is for sure.

The only reason we haven't attacked Iran yet is We the PEOPLE are more cynical of his claims this time...as born out by the latest NIE.

Bush lied again...Iran had shut down their nuclear program years ago. Yet, just weeks before the report came out (after Bush had read it) he claimed the program was active and was trying to LIE us into WW III.

you Bush die hards believe this liar because you HAVE to believe.. you are backing your horse no matter what...the alternative is too much for your feeble Bushwhacked minds to accept.

You cannot handle the TRUTH.

The man deserves to be Impeached...If Clinton can be impeached over lying about his sexual relations then surely Bush can be impeached for misleading us all into war....will he be? Not likely...there is not enough time and his Dark Master, Cheney, has played his political cards too well. But, all that Political Capital is spent now and I cannot wait to see what happens to him after he leaves power. No punishment would be too great or too severe. He has left a path of death and destruction in his wake that will take decades to clean up after. You think he will escape the judgment of the American People because he is no longer President? I doubt it. You think he will just fade into the background and slip away quietly?

I doubt it. Bush will pay dearly the rest of his life for his abuse of the sacred trust of the Office of the Presidency.

His crimes will not go unpunished.

I can hardly imagine a world where what Bush says means nothing but I cannot wait to see it. Maybe then I can finally breathe again.

The world holds it's collective breath until Bush finally leaves that sacred office. NO MORE HOLLOW LIES!


It ain't over till it's over...and it ain't over yet.

Come on Jan 20, 2009!!!

Righto,

You're such a cock.

It is unfair to point out statements from the Clinton administration.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-01-23 03:04 PM

Okay, how about statements from Henry Waxman in 2003:

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.

And now, time has run out. It has been four long years since the last UN weapons inspectors were effectively ejected from Iraq because of Saddam's willful noncompliance with an effective inspection regime.

YEAH!

I thought that Clinton was the "Worst President Ever"

Funny how what's been touted as the "worst" is now compared to their best as if it makes everything OK!

Yup, it's a wash! That is until you realize that by crying "Clinton" in Bush's defense it only diminishes what standing the "right" had claimed as Bush being superior to Clinton!

So with that said I will go along with your premise!

Bush is as sorry as Clinton! Now your turn!

Did Hillary lie when she said Hussein was giving aid, comfort and sanctuary to Al Qaeda?

Rob and Righto...

Liars of a feather flock together....The CIA SECRETLY told Bush there were no WMD. Hard for anyone else to make a sound judgment when the White House holds all the cards and doesn't share. The deck was stacked for War and you know it...

But go ahead support your little fantasy world while your can... your main man Bush will be gone from power and will have not have a wall of secrecy to hide behind soon and whatever will you and he do then?

Will you be able to handle the Truth? I doubt it.


On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

Liars of a feather flock together

Like how Hillary and Edwards are now both running for pres?

Oh and its birds of a feather... stooooooopeeeeeeeeed

Maybe John D. Rockefeller IV should be thrown in jail as well for saying this:

When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints he feels will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America's homeland, as well as to America's allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become irrelevant.

...

The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. 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.

And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.

We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability. Rebuilding that capability has been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people -- and he has ill-will toward America.

I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk.

BTW- Clinton had Saddam fully contained and WAS using force to do so.

Maybe John D. Rockefeller IV should be thrown in jail as well for saying this:

When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints he feels will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America's homeland, as well as to America's allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become irrelevant.

...

The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. 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.

And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.

We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability. Rebuilding that capability has been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people -- and he has ill-will toward America.

I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk.

"Okay, how about statements from Henry Waxman in 2003:"

YEAH!

How about Henry Waxman?

Oh wait --- when was he elected the "Decider"?

Clinton had Saddam fully contained and WAS using force to do so.


Posted by donnerboy


Right... and for some reason still thought it necessary to sign the Iraqi Liberation Act...

Sorry about the double post.

"Oh wait --- when was he elected the "Decider"?"

Give it up, Redneckville. You'll never get any of them to admit there's a difference between rhetoric and invasion. I'm sure if Bush invades Cuba, they'll find and use quotes all the way back to JFK.

YEAH!

Threads like this are so entertaining!

Note the speed at which the Bush Cult differs to others!

But as I said earlier, all this abdication of responsibility to what "democrats" said only undermines any notion that Republicans, and specifically their vaulted Fuhrer Bush, are any better than democrats in the end!


Their "Best" turns out to be on par with what they exclaim was the "worst"!

Nice Job racing the party to the bottom of the heap folks!

Any person of sound mind can easily see Bush lied us into a war.

Those that argue he did not are either incredibly naive, incredibly stupid, or incredibly partisan

NO EVIDENCE

NO EVIDENCE

NO EVIDENCE

NO EVIDENCE

those words will go down in history PROVING the lie that Iraq had WMD

"either incredibly naive, incredibly stupid, or incredibly partisan"

Let's not rule out all three at once.

the way I look at it is how was the intellegence being handled? hhmm.. it was going from the cia, to the "office of special plans", remember that??? then filtered by cheney's hand picked neo-cons. and then a subset of that was passed onto congress....

so maybe it wasn't bush that lied, but cheney shaping the intel and bush too oblivious to realise what was happening....

the intel that congress was looking at was filtered through cheney's office before they got to see it..

hhmmm....

discuss.

Funny how the rabid dogs of the Majority party have done hundreds of interviews, investigations, committee hearings and yet they can't find anything actionable aginst Bush and Company. I guess they must also be liars or inept.

Posted by crispee_oc



or bush is one slick willy

January 27, 2003 El Baradei: "we have to date found no evidence of nuclear or nuclear related activities in Iraq,"

Hans Blix February 14, 2003: "so far UNMOVIC has not found any [weapons of mass destruction],..."

"On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.


Posted by donnerboy at 2008-01-23 03:28 PM"

Hullo? Rob? RightO? (*crickets*)

I believe that the biggest single error made by George W. Bush will historically be acknowledged as his incredibly stupid and lazy acquiesence to Dick Cheney's appointment of himself as his running mate.

Unless, of course, that was not his decision, which is possibly even more likely.

We are saving those rooms at the Hague for the gang of five: Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and (Libby or Rove or Ari or Wolfie or Gonezolas or Powell etc.)

Truly a pack of liars

Bush said alot of things that were completely false while ramping up for war. Can't prove he was lying. He could have just been wrong. But he had the resources and the advisors available to get things right and he chose to ignore them.

So even if he's technically not a liar, he was extremely negligent while deciding a matter that risked and now has cost us thousands of Americans lives. He has a complete lack of morality either way you look at it.

Dasherboy,


Do you realize how much conficting information exists in the world of intelligence.

In this world the intel seekers are attempting to glean information from people who are hell-bent on deceiving them.


In regards to Saddam's WMD's, a vast majority of source information available indicated he had existing stockpiles. A small group of source information indicated he didn't. Intel is never perfect and never will be.

Based on ALL of the information available, it was very reasonable to believe he had them - see Righto's quotes for proof of this.


Even with a Democratic super-majority you'd never get to the level of impeachment on this issue (Bush's claims regarding Saddam's WMD capacity).



Righto,


I have noticed that when AU feels trapped in his arguments, his partisan outrage comes to the fore. Otherwise, he is fairly level headed.

I've made the same observation.

the way I look at it is how was the intellegence being handled? hhmm.. it was going from the cia, to the "office of special plans", remember that??? then filtered by cheney's hand picked neo-cons. and then a subset of that was passed onto congress....

so maybe it wasn't bush that lied, but cheney shaping the intel and bush too oblivious to realise what was happening....

the intel that congress was looking at was filtered through cheney's office before they got to see it..

hhmmm....

discuss.

Posted by tanelorn
* * * *

Amazing. And this was going on during the Clinton Administration too? The "shaping of intel"? And Clinton and Albright and Cohen and Gore were "too oblivious to realize what was happening?"

Man. That Cheney knows no bounds. What an evil genius he is!

You liberals are absolutely hilarious. Never mind that Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people. Never mind that he gassed dozens of villages. Never mind the dozens of mass graves. Never mind the repeated snubs to the United Nations, the oil-for-food program frauds, or the fact that the Clintonites' rhetoric with respect to the Iraqi regime was no less militant than Bush's, and ALSO led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths from the economic embargo. Bush acted, so he must have lied. Everyone else is just lily-white lambs, duped by the evil Cheney, Bush's puppetmaster.

No wonder the Congressional Dems don't take you guys seriously. You keep moving the goalposts, demanding perfection from everyone except your own, and they know--they KNOW--that no matter WHAT they do in Iraq, you're going to vote for them anyway.

You're tools.

so this has all the substance of a "Bush Lied People Died" bumper sticker?

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-01-23 04:28 PM


Hello....Monte....Hello....

*crickets*

Clinton had nothing to do with the office of special plans. or the stove-piping of "strategic intel" through cheney's office..

saddam did all of those things agreed. But those werent't the reason we were given, and not reasons to go to war.

And some people are just figuring this out??

It's called P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A for a Reason...

some people are just stupid enough to buy it the
first time round is all...

JeffJ -

I don't agree with your assertion:

"In regards to Saddam's WMD's, a vast majority of source information available indicated he had existing stockpiles. A small group of source information indicated he didn't.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-01-23 04:28 PM"

Actually, I think it's rather amusing that you seem to think that you know the quantum of evidence on both sides of this issue that was being given to the Bush Admin in secret. You must have quite a mole at the highest levels. Ha.

Monte,

Actually, I think it's rather amusing that you seem to think that you know the quantum of evidence on both sides of this issue that was being given to the Bush Admin in secret. You must have quite a mole at the highest levels. Ha.


No, just throwing partisanship aside and applying some basic common sense.


16 UN resolutions, for openers. If the "quantam" of evidence available was tilted toward no WMD's, what in the fuck were the resolutions for?

All of the quotes that Righto was so kind to provide - and then take those quotes and apply RiR's sarcastic analysis of what was said.


Taking a look at the big picture and applying common sense, it is very reasonable to believe that Saddam had WMD stockpiles.

"If the "quantam" of evidence available was tilted toward no WMD's, what in the fuck were the resolutions for?

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-01-23 05:12 PM"

Oh, gee, why didn't I think of that? Of course the CIA would be briefing the members of the UN with information it didn't even share with the U.S. Congress? How could I be so slow? Your innocence and naivite is touching, Jeff.

"If the "quantam" of evidence available was tilted toward no WMD's, what in the fuck were the resolutions for?

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-01-23 05:12 PM"

Oh, gee, why didn't I think of that? Of course the CIA would be briefing the members of the UN with information it didn't even share with the U.S. Congress! How could I be so slow? Your innocence and naivite is touching, Jeff.

You'll never get any of them to admit there's a difference between rhetoric and invasion.

Posted by Danforth at 2008-01-23 03:40 PM

How's this: There is a difference between rhetoric and invasion.

The issue here is whether statements made by Bush were lies, and what we are saying is that everyone on both sides of the aisle were saying the same thing. Were they all lying, or just relying on the same intelligence?

The inescapable problem that the left has is the disconnect between it being true before Bush's Inauguration, but lies afterward.

As Jeff and RiR point out, Intel is never perfect and must be vetted, which was a problem for both the Clinton and Bush Administrations.

All of the quotes that Righto was so kind to provide - and then take those quotes and apply RiR's sarcastic analysis of what was said.

* * *

I prefer "piquant". Sarcastic'll do, though.

"Were they all lying, or just relying on the same intelligence?

Posted by Rightocenter at 2008-01-23 05:18 PM"

RightO - would you admit that it is at least possible that the Bush Admin had intel that undermined their public statements about WMD, and that they purposely buried it from Congress and the American public? Whether you think that's a likely scenario or not, would you at least admit that it is a possibility?

Look, let's just cut to the chase:

Why do you assume that Bush and Cheney and Powell and Rice were lying, but that Clinton and Hillary and Gore and Albright and Cohen and Kennedy and Kerry and Lieberman were merely mistaken? Is it because the former are more intelligent, but also mendacious? Is that it? That the Dems aren't as bright when it comes to these things, but at least they're honest?

Just help us out, here. All we're trying to do is reconcile your views on Republicans, versus your views of Democrats WHO WERE SAYING EXACTLY THE SAME THING!!!!

It's about time we stopped talking about Al Qaeda with respect to the "war".

I don't know the current "justification" of the "war". I do know it started with the accusation of WMD's and has morphed every few months since then. This administration would have you believe that the intelligence led them astray. With each passing day it is becoming evident that we used all that smoke screen to purely bogart/gangsta their oil, plain and simple and the Muslims don't like it. Surprise, surprise!!!

We have invaded a sovereign country and hanged their leaders in the interest of preserving "our way of life."

It is also becoming evident that we will be there for some time to harvest our bounty. Everyone seems to have forgotten why Sadamn invaded Kuwait. SLANT DRILLING (drilling horizontally instead of vertically).

While the Nazi's were bent on world domination (so we are told), what do you call a country that invades for purely economic reasons?

We are truly american gangsters.

Monte,


Don't be an idiot.


The CIA was the US's primary source of intel to use as a determining factor to vote in favor of those 16 resolutions.

Do you think France relied solely on US-supplied intel? Or do you think perhaps, just maybe, they relied on their own intelligence services? If yes, don't you find it curious that they felt strongly enough about their intel to support each and every one of those resolutions?


Your desire to be obtuse and play gotcha is making you temporarily stupid.


I've gotta run - I'll check back tomorrow.

RightIs - has the Iraq war been very profitable for corporations with strong ties to Cheney, Bush, and Rice?

"Just help us out, here"
RIR

Again: there's a difference between rhetoric and invasion. It's possible a President Gore would have read the same intel and, lacking buddies in the oil business, continued the Clinton policy of containment.

"The issue here is whether statements made by Bush were lies"
ROC

No, it's since morphed into Dems using the same rhetoric as Bush and the neo-cons. The difference being, one talked a lot, one invaded.

If Bush invades Cuba, will it be because of the Democrats' rhetoric? Or will "the party of responsibility" just frame it that way?

""On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD."

You know, I've read this several times, I can't see the part where it says Tenet briefed this info to "Clinton and Hillary and Gore and Albright and Cohen and Kennedy and Kerry and Lieberman" or to other country's UN delegations.

Perhaps JeffJ and/or RightIs could just point out where he did, because as JeffJ says, I'm just an idiot.

One other thing: if the Bush Administration were really lying about the WMD program all along, wouldn't it have been fairly simple to have 'found' them anyway? Just leave a couple of tactical nukes out of our inventory somewhere, 'lose' the paperwork, then claim to have found them? After all, this board is populated by dozens of people who believe that the Bush people rigged the World Trade Center with controlled demolitions, then crashed planes into it right where the explosives were placed, then sent a missile into the Pentagon, somehow making another flight disappear completely. So given all THAT, how hard would it have been to "find" a chemical weapon or two?

Bush relied on information that was wrong. Just like Clinton before him. It comes as no surprise to anyone who has ever worked in the intelligence business that there is plenty of evidence to prove any thesis you want. It's an old joke that the CIA should be renamed the CYA--because so many of the reports are written so cryptically that they don't really stand up and say, categorically, anything that could make the analysts look bad by future events.

Simple as that. Bureaucrats screwed up. Just like always. 9/11 was the most comprehensive intelligence failure in the history of the United States, followed up by another: Iraq.

They did. Not an actionable relationship, not a relationship that was leading to attacks, but they did have links to Al Qaeda... its in the 9/11 commission report.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-01-23 09:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Using Rube logic, we all have 'links' to Al Qaeda.

Bush is the president.
The president does business with the Bin Laden family.
Part of the Bin Laden family is Osama Bin Laden.
Osama Bin Laden is the head of Al Qaeda.

That was easy. Shall we see how many links Rube has to Kevin bacon?

We invaded Iraq after almost 12 years of failed sanctions. The sanctions were in place because Saddam did not allow the weapons inspectors access to many of the places they wanted to go, nor would Saddam present any documentation about their own destruction/elimination of the WMD's. The sanctions didnt work because our so called allies were making billions by doing "under the table" deals under the guise of the oil for food program. That is also why those same so called allies, voted against going to war with Iraq at the UN. They new if we went in, their gig would be up.

If Bush lied, what about Clinton? You can find numerous articles in which Billy Baby during his presidency said that Iraq/Saddam has WMD's and they must be dealt with before they share those WMD's with our enemies. I suppose Bush went in and tampered with those reports before they got the Bill?

I also find it interesting that both Charles Lewis and Mark Reading, both of the Fund of Ind. of Journalism use the term "meaningful ties to Al Qaida". So are they admitting that Iraq had ties to Al Qaida but they just werent meaningful ties?

Interesting...

TRUE OR FALSE?
W was the driving force behind the invassion in Iraq.

True or False?
When told that there was no connection between 9/11 and Sadam, W poked his intel officer in the chest and told him 'Thats not the right answer. Go back and find the right answer'.

T or F
Cheney still maintains that there was an actionable relationship between Sadam and Alqaeda.

T or F?
If not for W's insistance, we would not be stuck as an occupying force in a forign land for decades to come.

We all know that W and the neocon republicans are the parents of this wrong headed, catostrophically fucked up war and Vern and his Rovian semantic spin does not change anything.

Did Bush lie about the war? Hell yes he did.
Did he lie about the Plame investigation?
Damn right he did.
Did he lie about...oh WTF...this is too easy.

He lies about most everything, most all the time.

Brilliant! Watson! What was your first clue?

"what do you call a country that invades"

Germany

France

Rome

"what do you call a country that invades"

Stupid.

He lies about most everything, most all the time.
Posted by oldwhiskeysour


OWS - gettin a little sour - better go and freshen up.

It comes as no surprise to anyone who has ever worked in the intelligence business that there is plenty of evidence to prove any thesis you want.
Posted by rightisright

Exactly, which is why Bush needed to be 100% sure before he took us to war.

Sounds to me that you are willing to admit that they at least picked through the intelligence to get the the answer they wanted to hear.

And on the authorization vs. invading issue, the cops have the authorization to shoot people, does that mean they should just shoot anyone they perceive as a threat, but are not sure? Don't we expect them to be pretty darn positive before they put that force into use?

Folks, you are barking up the wrong tree. I won't tell you where I stand or which reasons I agree with but there were 8 major reasons for invading Iraq. WMD's were just one.

And about this study: Bush lied? Wow, new one. Who sponsored the study? An impartial group right?

but there were 8 major reasons for invading Iraq.

Posted by MrFair at 2008-01-24 09:05 AM |



Oh, go ahead and give us the other seven while you're at it.

And were they all at once or kinda spread out a bit as the previous one's spin didn't capture our imagination?

Is it considered lying if for instance, I have 10 pieces of information, and I only like 3 of them. I then give those 3 peices of information to other people to make decisions on.

I think that's why the oath you have to take in court is "the truth, the WHOLE TRUTH, and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH"

I think the lie is a lie of omission. The administration didn't like some of the information they had, so they didn't tell anyone about it...

plus its easy to cover up when you have your buddies as the heads of the pertinent departments.

Is it considered lying if for instance, I have 10 pieces of information, and I only like 3 of them. I then give those 3 peices of information to other people to make decisions on.
* * * *

Not quite. That's not the way the intelligence business works. Suppose you have three top analysts who say that there is an 80% chance that Iraq will have a nuclear device within 5 years. Two other analysts say, no, it's more likely 50% in 10 years, and three more say there's no program whatsoever. Another guy over there says there is no WMD program, but that Saddam is looking to buy a device on the black market from Russia or Pakistan. Two cabinet ministers say there is a cache of weapons in the desert, but two others say they were told there are none. Three defectors say they were told by others that the weapons exist now, but four others say there were no weapons, but really weren't in a position to know one way or the other. The French and German intelligence services say, definitively, that there is an active program, whereas the Swiss disagree. Six former UN inspectors say--testify under oath, even--that Iraq's weapons program is nearly fully developed, whereas some others say there's no evidence of that.

So, let me ask you--which information do you "like"? Which reports do you choose to ignore, aand thereby be accused of "a lie of omission"?

This is a silly debate. Did he lie or did he have bad information or did he only pick the information that supported his position?

The reality is that we all do this. The people who think global warming is man made, pick their information and ignore other information. The same for those who do not believe that global warming is man made. Does that make one side or the other liars?

For people to waste time and money on all this is just pathetic. Let it go. Move on to something you can change.

Get as worked up about woman's rights in Islamic cultures. Or securing our borders. How about fixing Social Security or Medicade/care, etc. This is the past you cannot change it. Move on.

LMAO. None of the above, huh? You mean there weren't Iraqi generals who were interviewed by our intelligence agencies, who gave conflicting stories? There weren't high-ranking civilian officials, foreign intelligence agencies, defectors--all of whom offered mutually exclusive testimony?

You're guilty of the same thing you're accusing Bush of. You pick a snippet or two from someone who was later discredited, then claim that our entire strategy was based on that one guy.

I remember when the Soviet pilot defected to Japan with the Foxbat fighter-interceptor, and it embarrassed the CIA officials who were so dead wrong about everything about the aircraft--the wings and engine parts didn't even fit together properly, and the engine was completely wrecked by a relatively short flight. But they were relying on the testimony and manuals of Soviet technicians and military officers who defected, who claimed it was the greatest aircraft ever built. And all they were doing was regurgitating what they thought they knew.

That's the way the business works. You hope the people you're talking to aren't lying or wrong, or pretending to be more important than they really are by offering knowledge on a firsthand basis that they're not really privy to.

Get as worked up about woman's rights in Islamic cultures. Or securing our borders. How about fixing Social Security or Medicade/care, etc. This is the past you cannot change it. Move on.

Posted by sawdust
* * * *

Good point. And I'll confess I'm as guilty as the UnableToMoveOn.Org crowd when it comes to the things I'm passionate about.

Since we're preparing a wish list, put me down for a massive, and very expensive, overhaul of America's infrastructure. We need to double America's interstate highway system, increase our airport capacity by 50%, overhaul the Air Traffic Control system, and triple the number of nuclear power plants in the United States, all by 2020.

would you admit that it is at least possible that the Bush Admin had intel that undermined their public statements about WMD, and that they purposely buried it from Congress and the American public? Whether you think that's a likely scenario or not, would you at least admit that it is a possibility?

Posted by mOntecOre at 2008-01-23 05:21 PM

Monte-

Sorry about the delay in responding, but I was too busy breaking the back of the working man yesterday afternoon.

Sure, anything is possible, but don't forget that the CIA is a bureaucracy, and bureaucrats don't do anything without covering their ass...couple that with the fact that the CIA is required, by law, to brief the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on everything that they brief the President on, and the likelihood of that scenario becomes slim to none.

"Sorry about the delay in responding, but I was too busy breaking the back of the working man yesterday afternoon....

Posted by Rightocenter at 2008-01-24 12:32 PM"

Lol. The fry cooks overdoing the McNuggets again? You gotta keep on 'em, Asst. to the Asst. Night Manager RightO!

"There were eight major reasons to invade iraq...."

There were also eight major reasons not to. Starting with the fact Bush hadn't the personal talent to pull it off. As-Has-Been-Shown-In-Spades.

You know, I've read this several times, I can't see the part where it says Tenet briefed this info to "Clinton and Hillary and Gore and Albright and Cohen and Kennedy and Kerry and Lieberman" or to other country's UN delegations.

Perhaps JeffJ and/or RightIs could just point out where he did, because as JeffJ says, I'm just an idiot.

Posted by mOntecOre at 2008-01-23 05:31 PM

Seriously, do you think that a Career Bureaucrat like George Tenet would ignore his responsibilities and not brief the Senate Intelligence Committee? If that is, in fact, what happened, then I'm sure that one of the following Senators would have complained about being out of the loop:

2003-2004 Members of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

Pat Roberts, Kansas, Chairman
John D. Rockefeller IV, W.Virginia Vice Chairman
Orrin G. Hatch, Utah
Carl Levin, Michigan
Mike DeWine, Ohio
Dianne Feinstein, California
Christopher S. Bond, Missouri
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Trent Lott, Mississippi
Richard Durbin, Illinois
Olympia J. Snowe, Maine
Evan Bayh, Indiana
Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
John Edwards, North Carolina
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland
John Warner, Virginia
Bill Frist, Tennessee, Ex Officio
Thomas A. Daschle, South Dakota, Ex Officio

BTW, you ARE an idiot. But run along now - your boyfriend finally caught the dog, and they're ready for you.

Lol. The fry cooks overdoing the McNuggets again? You gotta keep on 'em, Asst. to the Asst. Night Manager RightO!

Posted by mOntecOre at 2008-01-24 12:36 PM

There's a lot of room to move as a fry cook...heck, I could be manager in 6 months!

Seriously, quit pretending to know what the CIA did or didn't do, and whether they always follow the letter of the law. It makes you look ridiculous.

NIGHT manager. Hector ain't giving up his day job, so quit dreaming about it.

BTW, you ARE an idiot. But run along now - your boyfriend finally caught the dog, and they're ready for you.

Posted by mOntecOre at 2008-01-24 01:09 PM

Easy, gas-pumper, it was a joke.

By the reference, it is readily apparent that you have been hanging out in the basement with Larry again...

AP Reports 'Bush Lied' Study Funded by Ultra-leftist George Soros
By Warner Todd Huston
Created 2008-01-23 10:57
Video update posted below.

Well, the AP has done it again. They have given us leftist propaganda and painted it as news. This time they have published the results of a "study" that claims that "Bush lied" [1] in the run-up to Iraq and somehow the AP forgot to mention that the organization that released this study was funded by extreme leftist George Soros, who has spent billions funding the Democrat Party and many far left think tank and advocacy organizations. Yeah, THAT study is going to be legitimate!

This one may as well have been just a reprint of the press release of the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity, but the AP dressed it up as an actual story written by reporter Douglass K. Daniel. Headlined "Study: False statements preceded war," the AP reveals how, "A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks."

What the AP forgets to mention is that the "two nonprofit journalism organizations" can hardly be imagined to be impartial. The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) is funded by well-known leftist, George Soros, as well as the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Los Angeles Times Foundation -- all of which are exclusively leftist in political philosophy. Even more ridiculously, the second of these "non-profit journalism organizations" shares most of its board members with the first. So, the Fund for Independence in Journalism can hardly be considered a separate entity from the CPI.

The AP merely spews the claims form this study as if they are real news, but much of the APs story is disingenuous as is the "study.":

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Two things here. First, few people now think Saddam had WMDs, of course. But nearly everyone thought he had them before we went into Iraq -- including the leadership of every nation on the planet as well as Saddam's own generals. So, it was not a "lie" if it was commonly thought to be true by nearly every head of state in the world. That Saddam had WMDs may have been a mistaken notion, but it was not a lie before it was known for sure!

Oh, my bad RightO. I see now that you said I'm NOT an idiot. I feel like such an idiot.

And actually the reference is to one of our Appalachian Americans on this site who "has a friend" whose girlfriend likes licking his sack while she gets licked by a Dobie. You righties are fucked up, I tell you.

Seriously, quit pretending to know what the CIA did or didn't do, and whether they always follow the letter of the law. It makes you look ridiculous.

Posted by mOntecOre at 2008-01-24 01:10 PM

I don't know what happened, and neither do you, DBoy, Danforth, RiR, JeffJ, etc.

The point is, that if this alleged "secret" breifing happened as the author of the book "On the Brink" alleged, on 60 Minutes while he was promoting the release of this book, my guess, based on what I know about the workings inside the Beltway, is that there would be massive hearings in both the House and the Senate regarding this obvious breach of the law by the Director of the CIA and the Bush WH.

Can't seem to find any scheduled, however.

And actually the reference is to one of our Appalachian Americans on this site who "has a friend" whose girlfriend likes licking his sack while she gets licked by a Dobie. You righties are fucked up, I tell you.

Posted by mOntecOre at 2008-01-24 01:23 PM

Yikes, cue the banjos.

And actually the reference is to one of our Appalachian Americans on this site who "has a friend" whose girlfriend likes licking his sack while she gets licked by a Dobie. You righties are fucked up, I tell you.
Posted by mOntecOre

Just to be fair, representing the Left: Elton John, Rosie O'Donnell.

And actually the reference is to one of our Appalachian Americans on this site who "has a friend" whose girlfriend likes licking his sack while she gets licked by a Dobie. You righties are fucked up, I tell you.

Posted by mOntecOre at 2008-01-24 01:23 PM |

Since when is Redneckville a "rightie"????

Since when is Redneckville a "rightie"????
Posted by crispee_oc


"YEAH!

I don't need to be a rightie to lick a sac!"
- Redneckville

YEAH!


I don't need to be a rightie to lick a sac!"
- Redneckville

Posted by MrFair at 2008-01-24 01:41 PM

"Reverend"
Sincerely,
Gabby Johnson

Monte,


As to your question regarding whether or not it's possible Bush down-played or buried those bits of intel that contradicted his claims.....

I believe that he did.

As RiR pointed out:

Intel is never 100% certain and likely never will be. The best any leader can do is view the entirety of information available (after it's been vetted by experts who are hopefully competent) and make a reasonable determination. For reasons already stated earlier in the thread, the big picture showed Saddam to have an active weapons program. Given that, Bush chose to dispense with the dissenting intel.


Given the stakes.....

To say he should have been more cautious is fair. To say he should have been more skeptical of the intel pointing toward WMD's is fair. To say he should have given more credence to the dissenting intel is fair. Numerous other criticisms regarding his conduct of the war is fair. To suggest ulterior motives were the ultimate driving force for his decision is possibly fair.

To say he 'lied' when so many different parties (non-coalition countries, coalition countries, the UN as a monolithic body, US intel services, prominent congressmen in both parties, the prior admistration, etc) were saying the EXACT SAME THING, is pure partisan hackery.

In one of his best speeches on Iraq, Bubba in 1998 spoke at the Pentagon and said the following:

So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.

...

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century.

...

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

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.

Bill continues to describe the threat of Iraqi WMD's:

As a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

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.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

I know I'm late to the game here, and I apologize to all the OCD sufferers, but - this is news?

But wait, there's more:

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.

By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

I know I'm late to the game here, and I apologize to all the OCD sufferers, but - this is news?
Posted by Jomama


Jo - we'll forward your thoughts to Soros & Streisand. Hey sounds like a shyster law firm.

Finally, President Clinton had this to say:

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country.

...

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

...

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.

...

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. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

...

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.

"Compare that to Bush"

One invaded, one didn't.

Compare that to Bush's much reviled speech to the UN and you will be amazed to see that both he and Clinton were saying exactly the same things about Iraq, WMD's and the threat Saddam posed to the world...


Don't forget this little tidbit RiR.


In October 1998, U.S. policy began to shift away from containment and towards "regime change," as the U.S. Congress passed and President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act." Signed in response to Iraq's termination of its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August, the act provided $97 million for Iraqi "democratic opposition organizations" to "establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq."[14] This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687,which focused on weapons and weapons programs and made no mention of regime change.[15] One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power

This is just a rehash of prior lies - Bush though the intelligence was there, the CIA thought it was a "Slam Dunk", Clinton (both of them) railed about Saddam and how we need to take him out.

Bush is not running.

If you vote for either Hillary or Obama you are voting for Socialism ...if that is what you want that is what you will get....but remember that capitalism is the system that results from a free people making free decisions....and that is what has made us great throughout the centuries...if you want to turn your back on that - then vote for either one of them.

Following this thread to the present, I have to say the argument that 'Bush lied' has pretty much been thrown in the trash heap.


If the Dems had a super-majority+ they would not attempt an impeachment over this issue.


Most Dems are pretty careful NOT to say he 'lied'.

"Mislead"
"Used false information"
"Etc"

THOSE are the words that most Dems use on this subject in lieu of he 'lied', and for good reason.

BUSH LIED!

Our sons DIED!!

For no good reason.

Go to hell you stupid chimp-in-chief...

You WILL be gone soon. And your political party WITH you!!!

dont forget these little tidbits of information:


January 27, 2003 El Baradei: "we have to date found no evidence of nuclear or nuclear related activities in Iraq,"

Hans Blix February 14, 2003: "so far UNMOVIC has not found any [weapons of mass destruction],..."



what part of NO EVIDENCE or NOT FOUND ANY.. does not compute with you.

SH posed NO continuing threat.

Therefore invasion was illegal.

he HAD NO WMD

BUSH KNEW HE HAD NO WMD.

Period, end of story.

Following this thread to the present, I have to say the argument that 'Bush lied' has pretty much been thrown in the trash heap.


If the Dems had a super-majority+ they would not attempt an impeachment over this issue.


Most Dems are pretty careful NOT to say he 'lied'.

"Mislead"
"Used false information"
"Etc"

THOSE are the words that most Dems use on this subject in lieu of he 'lied', and for good reason.

Posted by JeffJ



blah blah blah blah

at this point nothing to gain from impeaching the fuckass in chief. other then tearing apart our country again. I mean it is not like he got a blowjob or something.

everyone knows he lied. He fixed the intelligence to make his case for war. He wanted to invade and created a story to justify that decision. it is obvious at the shit eating smirk on the scumbags face.

only problem is that the lie once shows that there was NO justification of invading iraq.

that makes bush's war a war of agression.

but who cares only 4,000 dead americans and counting, hundreds of thousands of brown people and counting (and hey alot of the americans were only brown people) so who gives a fuck and so what money is only money and we got ours so fuck our children...

Troofy,


You can say it over and over until you are blue in the face. Doesn't change reality.


What you can't do, is say it and even remotely address the points made by myself, RoC and RiR.


You take the snippets that you choose and completely ignore the substantially larger body of intel that said otherwise.

It's called cherry-picking and what you are trying to do has been absolutely abliterated over the course of this thread.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you haven't read through the entire thread and just posted based almost solely on the headline.

Troofy,

Your arguements are purely emotive at this point which makes discussing this issue with you futile.


Take a step back and a deep breath and then address the points made my myself, RiR and RoC - on topic!

Note - "Nuh uh!" doesn't suffice as an argument.

One invaded, one didn't.

Posted by Danforth at 2008-01-24 02:39 PM

Thanks, Moto, got any more zingers?

This is about whether Bush lied. It is readily apparent, if you bother to read any number of speeches made during the late 90's, that the Dems were saying the same things that Bush is accused of lying about. Which creates a huge credibility problem for the people who are trying to advance this agenda, since if Bush lied, then most of the Democratic leadership did as well.

"Note - "Nuh uh!" doesn't suffice as an argument."
--JEFFJ

But the racial undertones do. (see "brown people")

i guess you have a problem with understanding NO EVIDENCE

no evidence means that there was NO EVIDENCE.

presumably el baradei would be aware of all the bullshit you speak of.

gee 1998 comments apropos in 2003 when al baradei had been in country.

nah, you still dont get it.

you accept the fact that no evidence means that there actually was evidence.



remember the NYTimes published an article 1 week before the invasion demonstrating how the nuclear story was a lie

but who cares no evidence means there was evidence.

BTW starting a war based on an error is almost as bad as intentionaly lying but who cares.

"Note - "Nuh uh!" doesn't suffice as an argument."
--JEFFJ

But the racial undertones do. (see "brown people")

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE



gee your dumb, I was insulting the rights attitudes towards the deaths of iraqis, you dumbass.

Righto,


I've seen one counter to the Clinton's comments and Bush's....

4 years elapsed and thus the intel was better.


I bring this up so I can pre-emptively de-bunk it.


What this argument essentially says is:

Saddam HAD WMD's and was bucking inspections. The inspectors were pulled out and we bombed. ONCE the inspectors were removed Saddam decided: "Well, now that those pesky inspectors are gone, I guess we can destroy all of our WMD stockpiles. It's what we want anyways because I am a kind, beneavolent soul."


Or, stated another way, the intel sucked (Clinton was truly acting on mis-information) when inspectors were combing around, but once they were removed, the window truly opened and it became plainly visible that he in fact didn't have WMD's.


Either argument defies logic, which is precisely why a lefty would employ it.

"Which creates a huge credibility problem for the people who are trying to advance this agenda, since if Bush lied, then most of the Democratic leadership did as well."

Don't seem to remember when "most of the Democratic leadership" ordered the invasion of Iraq.

When was that?

Hans

"gee your dumb, I was insulting the rights attitudes towards the deaths of iraqis, you dumbass."
--TRUTHHURTS

And suggesting that they don't care about the "brown" Americans that died.

Call me dumb all you want. You're a fucking idiot.

Troofy-

everyone knows he lied.

Then everyone knows that Clinton, Albright, Waxman, Biden, Rockefeller, Pelosi, Kerry, etc. lied as well.

He fixed the intelligence to make his case for war.

Then he must have been in cahoots with all of the Dems on the Senate Select Committee on Intellegence-Rockefeller, Levin, Feinstein, Wyden, Durbin, Bayh, Edwards, Mikulski and Daschle. Wonder how he pulled that off?

He wanted to invade and created a story to justify that decision.

He must have gotten that story right out of Bubba's February 1998 speech to the Pentagon.

Jeff-

Asking Troofy to actually read and respond to the prior posts is usually a waste of time, since he can only put his fingers in his ears and yell talking points that have been eviscerated time and again by those pesky things called facts.

Troofy,


You are providing one source that (at the time) said "no evidence No evidence."

Yet, you conveniently ignore the littany of other sources that (at the time) said otherwise.

You are still cherry-picking and you are also conflating a whole score of other issues (Brown people dying) when the topic of discussion is limited to whether or not Bush lied.

but wait there's more

2003 was NOT 1998.

2003 we had inspectors in country saying

NO EVIDENCE

what part of that can you not grok?

no evidence does not mean there was evidence

no evidence means that there was no evidence.

no evidence that SH had started his nuke program

no evidence.

hmmm al baradei was aware of all the information from 1991 to 2003? probably.

nothing emotional, nothing irrational.

Bush decided to invade another country and fixed the intelligence to make a case justifying that decision.

that is illegal.

1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

what continuing threat did Iraq pose

the inspectors said NO EVIDENCE.

so Iraq was going to attack us with WMD how?

i get it you cannot accept the fact that you support the invasion of another country and must justify that action to sleep at night i get it.

but NO EVIDENCE means NO EVIDENCE

"Then everyone knows that Clinton, Albright, Waxman, Biden, Rockefeller, Pelosi, Kerry, etc. lied as well."

Don't seem to remember when Clinton, Albright, Waxman, Biden, Rockefeller, Pelosi, Kerry, etc. ordered the invasion of Iraq.

When was that?

Hans

"Compare that to Bush"
One invaded, one didn't.
Posted by Danforth

One was pre-9/11, the other was post-9/11.

Asking Troofy to actually read and respond to the prior posts is usually a waste of time, since he can only put his fingers in his ears and yell talking points that have been eviscerated time and again by those pesky things called facts.


I know.

Neverheless, he IS capable of having a rational, on-point discussion WHEN he checks his emotions at the door; which admittedly isn't very often in regards to this particular subject.

Don't seem to remember when Clinton, Albright, Waxman, Biden, Rockefeller, Pelosi, Kerry, etc. ordered the invasion of Iraq.


Which is completely irrelevant to the point of whether or not Bush lied.

"One was pre-9/11, the other was post-9/11."

Don't seem to remember Iraq attacking the USA ("post-9/11").

When was that?

Hans

jefweee

perhaps clintons actions were wrong too.

perhaps clinton wagged the dog in 1998.

evidence shows that sh gave up his wmd in 1991 and did not restart them.

bush decided in 2001 he was going to take out SH and made an argument to justify an invasion.

that is simple fact.

oh and BTW those dems that didnt stand up and try to stop bush in 2002 are culpable too.

but this is bush's war, his folly, his crime.

Troofy,


No evidence No evidence No evidence....



I'll just re-print my response to that:


You are providing one source that (at the time) said "no evidence No evidence."

Yet, you conveniently ignore the littany of other sources that (at the time) said otherwise.

You are still cherry-picking and you are also conflating a whole score of other issues (Brown people dying) when the topic of discussion is limited to whether or not Bush lied.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-01-24 03:32 PM | Reply

"gee your dumb, I was insulting the rights attitudes towards the deaths of iraqis, you dumbass."
--TRUTHHURTS

And suggesting that they don't care about the "brown" Americans that died.

Call me dumb all you want. You're a fucking idiot.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at


whatever douchebag, your leader invaded a country illegally resulting in the deaths of 100's of thousands of people.

clearly you dont mourn their loss or you would put morality above politics and slam Bush, scream for him to be held accountable for his actions. YOu put politics over the dead Iraqis for your tax cuts and to keep the gays from marrying, congrats.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations"


Looks like the entire UN lied as well. Unless of course Bush made the UN draft the resolution. You know because he knew there were no WMDs

"Which is completely irrelevant to the point of whether or not Bush lied."

I disagree.

One person may lie and claim they make $250,000.00 a year when they only make $25,000.00.

Another person can say the same lie, only they do so on a mortgage application.

In the former case it is a case of braggadocio; in the latter, fraud.

What's done with the lie makes it relevant.

Hans

perhaps clintons actions were wrong too.

perhaps clinton wagged the dog in 1998.


Oh.

So you are now willing to say that your beloved Democrats (all of them) lied too.

Cool.


Care to address the following:

Non-coalition countries that stated he had them
Coalition countries that stated he had them
The UN


Different intel services and different leaders. They were all saying exactly what Bush, and Clinton before him, was saying.

Are you going to suggest that they were lying too?

clearly you dont mourn their loss or you would put morality above politics and slam Bush, scream for him to be held accountable for his actions. YOu put politics over the dead Iraqis for your tax cuts and to keep the gays from marrying, congrats.

Posted by truthhurts at 2008-01-24 03:40 PM

Wow I never knew the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with tax cuts and gay marriage. Way to stay on topic.

Yet, you conveniently ignore the littany of other sources that (at the time) said otherwise.



that source just happens to be the chief inspector for nukes in Iraq, so I trust his statement.

I also trust the articles that appeared before bush invaded touting the lies about the yellow cake.

I also trust the chem and Bio chief inspector blix who found nothing.

all the evidence that has come to light both before and after the invasion any 3rd grader could poke holes in, whether it be connections with al queda derived from eygptian torture rooms to chalabai blowing cheney to ex scientists looking for an easy gig in europe.

politicians playing politics be it bush clinton etal doesnt take away that simple fact.

NO EVIDENCE of restarting a nuke program.

and if you were not aware of the fact Nuke programs are not small little garage operations they take highly sophisticated infrastructures that leave a detailed trail whether it is factories, raw material or equipment,

NO EVIDENCE.

"Saddam HAD WMD's and was bucking inspections. The inspectors were pulled out and we bombed.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-01-24 03:29 PM"

Bullshit. The inspections were ongoing. Inspectors had access anywhere - they even searched Saddam's residences, mansions, etc. The inspectors said that the inspections were going fine, and asked for more time to complete them. Bush said no, ordered them out, and invaded.

"So you are now willing to say that your beloved Democrats (all of them) lied too.

Non-coalition countries that stated he had them
Coalition countries that stated he had them
The UN

Different intel services and different leaders"

All for tax cuts and dead brown Americans!
--TH

What's done with the lie makes it relevant.


Well, Clinton (and the UN) approved economic sanctions that indirectly resulted in an awful lot of deaths based upon 'braggadocio'. Clinton ordered bombs to be dropped based on 'braggadocio'.


Regardless, the point you are making states that Clinton did, in fact, lie.

The actions he took based upon this lie weren't as dramatic as Bush's, but they weren't insignificant either.

Wow I never knew the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with tax cuts and gay marriage. Way to stay on topic.

Posted by crispee_oc



nother knuckledragger needs the facts of life explained to him.

republicans support the war despite all the bullshit that has happened because of politics.

if it were a democrat who started this little invasion they would have drawn and quartered him.

instead they are the perfect little lemmings cause it is politics over morality for them. politics being demoonstrated by tax cuts and keeping gays from marrying.

understand now?

"One was pre-9/11, the other was post-9/11."
Don't seem to remember Iraq attacking the USA ("post-9/11").
When was that?
Hans
Posted by Hans


I just gave you a chronology - I didn't say Iraq attacked us. Whatever you believe to be the reason for us invading Iraq, the fact is that 9/11 seems to be the difference between the 2 presidents. Everything else seems the same, including the apparent pre-justification for taking action.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations"



hahahahaha dumbass

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

" [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.[2] "

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

" We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3] "

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

" Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[4]


look at what france, Britain, China and Russia said about triggering.

it required another resolution.

one bush KNEW he needed,

one he drafted

one he said NO MATTER WHAT he would call a vote on.

one that he flip flopped on and did not call a vote on.

speaking of bush and lies and iraq and 1441

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the vote?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I don't think -- it basically says that he's in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says. And it's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441, because 1441 said he must disarm. And, yes, we'll call for a vote.

Q No matter what?

THE PRESIDENT: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam



see those lips moving, that means bush was lying.

NO MATTER WHAT.

so if bush didnt lie what was the count?

Bullshit. The inspections were ongoing. Inspectors had access anywhere


The inspectors were removed in '98 and were brought back in 4 years later.

Those inspectors were NOT allowed to interview Saddam's scientists. They had to give notice, before inspecting a given site. In short, it was the same game of cat and mouse that resulted in 16 UN resolutions.

Also, with 4 years of no inspections, is it even remotely possible that Saddam might have used that time to hide what we thought he had? Or was Saddam above such things.


Again, for the umpteenth time:


Yet, you conveniently ignore the littany of other sources that (at the time) said otherwise.

You are still cherry-picking


You accuse Bush of cherry-picking but in the process do the exact same thing.

"if it were a democrat who started this little invasion they would have drawn and quartered him.

instead they are the perfect little lemmings cause it is politics over morality for them. politics being demoonstrated by tax cuts and keeping gays from marrying."
--TRUTHHURTS

because it was a republican who started this little invasion the democrats want to hang him high.

because they are the perfect little lemmings cause it is politics over morality for them. politics being demoonstrated by winning the next election and pay back for stealing 2000.

"Again, for the umpteenth time:"

Jeff?

What number does "umpteenth" come after?

Just curious. : )

All for tax cuts and dead brown Americans!
--TH

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE


actually dumbass it was for profits to the oil companies or havent you noticed the price of gas since 2002?

someone is making a shitload of money but you are too dumb to see that.

and again I am the one who mourns the loss of those people you seem not to care.

"Regardless, the point you are making states that Clinton did, in fact, lie."

Actually, the point I'm making is that the action (or actions) taken, based on whatever intelligence is at hand, is the relevant point.

The fact is that Clinton (and all the other Democrats listed), armed with the intelligence at hand, didn't order the invasion of Iraq.

Bush did.

"The actions he took based upon this lie weren't as dramatic as Bush's, but they weren't insignificant either."

Clinton's actions did not cause the loss (so far) of almost 4,000 Americans dead (and over 20,000 wounded). His actions also did not cost the American taxpayers (well, actually, American creditors) hundreds of billions of dollars (so far).

Bush's actions did.

Hans

Troofy,

Whether or not resolution 1441 was sufficient justification for war is not the topic of discussion.

Whether or not Bush lied is the topic.


You are all over the place.

I can literally see your eyeballs and veins popping out of your red-face as you type.


Again, you are cherry-picking to suit your agenda.

because it was a republican who started this little invasion the democrats want to hang him high.



no I actually could care less about his politics. I want to hang him high cause he is a war criminal. it just so happens that he is a republican.

"What number does "umpteenth" come after?"

Umpteen minus one.

"Regardless, the point you are making states that Clinton did, in fact, lie."

Ultimately, seeing as how all the intelligence at hand ended up being mostly wrong, Clinton (and all the Democrats listed) end up looking, well, wrong.

Bush, with his ordering the invasion of Iraq, ends up looking wrong and foolish.

Too bad the "foolish" part has been at the expense of of almost 4,000 Americans dead (and over 20,000 wounded) and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Hans

nother rightie who needs things explained to him.

1441 is ANOTHER example of the bush lie

(BTW Crispee brought it up).

bush lied saying he would call the vote on a second resolution.

or is there another explanation for his own words?

"no I actually could care less about his politics."
--TRUTHHURTS

Says the one conflating the issue of whether or not Bush lied with tax cuts and gay marriage.

Please just change your name to bullshithurts.

bears repeating.

if bush isnt lying please explaing this quote.



Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the vote?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I don't think -- it basically says that he's in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says. And it's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441, because 1441 said he must disarm. And, yes, we'll call for a vote.

Q No matter what?

THE PRESIDENT: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam



see those lips moving, that means bush was lying.

NO MATTER WHAT.

so if bush didnt lie what was the count?

Hans,

Monte,


As to your question regarding whether or not it's possible Bush down-played or buried those bits of intel that contradicted his claims.....

I believe that he did.


As RiR pointed out:

Intel is never 100% certain and likely never will be. The best any leader can do is view the entirety of information available (after it's been vetted by experts who are hopefully competent) and make a reasonable determination. For reasons already stated earlier in the thread, the big picture showed Saddam to have an active weapons program. Given that, Bush chose to dispense with the dissenting intel.


Given the stakes.....

To say he should have been more cautious is fair. To say he should have been more skeptical of the intel pointing toward WMD's is fair. To say he should have given more credence to the dissenting intel is fair. Numerous other criticisms regarding his conduct of the war is fair. To suggest ulterior motives were the ultimate driving force for his decision is possibly fair.

To say he 'lied' when so many different parties (non-coalition countries, coalition countries, the UN as a monolithic body, US intel services, prominent congressmen in both parties, the prior admistration, etc) were saying the EXACT SAME THING, is pure partisan hackery.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-01-24 01:51 PM

Your point is a solid one, however it takes the discussion beyond whether or not Bush lied.

"and again I am the one who mourns the loss of those people you seem not to care."
--TRUTHHURTS

selfrighteousnesshurts could be another option.

"What number does "umpteenth" come after?"

Chumpteenth.

Troofy,


nother rightie who needs things explained to him.

1441 is ANOTHER example of the bush lie

(BTW Crispee brought it up).

bush lied saying he would call the vote on a second resolution.

or is there another explanation for his own words?


Again, you stray from topic.

The topic is whether or not Bush lied about WMD's.



LoD,

You are absolutely cracking me up!



Hans,

See my re-printed post - you and I are actually pretty close on this one.

Study: Bush Lied Us Into a War


see the title

the subject is whether bush lied us into a war

and bush glaringly, blatantly, obviosly lied

see 1441 required that they come back to the UN

Bush KNEW he needed a second resolution

he drafted a second resolution (proof that he was aware of the need for the second resolution).

bush said NO MATTER WHAT he would call for the vote on that second resolution.

he flip flopped and did not call for that vote cause he knew he would not get it passed.

see that is a lie and it is a lie that lead us into war.

perhaps if bush cared about the process cared about the truth he would have hesitated and not invaded.

see it is on topic.

I will graciouisly accept your apology.

Study: Bush Lied Us Into a War


see the title

the subject is whether bush lied us into a war


Fair enough, Troofy.



The debate had been whittled down to the WMD issue, nevertheless, your point is taken, which takes the discussion in a different direction.


Righto can tackle this one much better than I can, but go ahead and get yourself started:


Google 'Supremacy Clause'.


Bush operated within the framework of the use of force resolution drafted by Congress.

In regards to that he did not lie, nor did he violate US law.

"...however it takes the discussion beyond whether or not Bush lied."

There's a line of thought which goes that if events had unfolded in the same way just prior to October 14, 1962, with the only difference being a different result in the presidential election two years prior, the USA (and the former Soviet Union) might not have survived.

The mindset, experience, prejudices and intelligence (the "smarts," not the "intel") of the national command authority are the most important qualities of the most important part of this country's executive, with the "mindset" listed first for a reason.

When you had a new administration in 2001, which had behind it the "PNAC mentality," the mindset was obvious. And all of the "should have been more cautious" and "should have been more skeptical" comments give way to the most obvious conclusion:

The Bush administration wanted a war with Iraq. The Bush administration got a war with Iraq.

Fortunately, for millions and millions of souls, we had an administration in 1962 which did not want a war with Cuba.

Hans

see 1441 required that they come back to the UN

Posted by truthhurts at 2008-01-24 04:13 PM

Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.
That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations".

Hans, food for thought.

Bush operated within the framework of the use of force resolution drafted by Congress.


actually no he didnt. The resolution says to confront the CONTINUING THREAT POSED BY IRAQ.

Given the utter and complete lack of findings by the inspectors and their succesful inspection program and the stories in the media about the intelligence, then it is clear that IRaq posed no threat in March 2003.

thus the importance of NO EVIDENCE.

what threat did Iraq pose in March 2003 and remember a desire to attack the US is not justification for an invasion.

he had no wmd, no evidence that he had restarted his nuke program.

mustard gas shells? how could they have threatened the US?

quick prove a negative I DO NOT HAVE WMD.

here is language from 1441
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

read the interpretations from GB, France, Russia, China, The US etc.

NO AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS>

bush drafted a second resolution cause he KNEW he needed a second resolution.

he said he would call for a vote on the matter

NO MATTER WHAT.

he chose not to.

Hans,


Nice post - very well stated.

That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.
That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations".

ok so we went to war cause iraq didnt pay Kuwait its money.

and as has been demonstrated since the invasion iraq was forthcoming as they had no WMD.

shame it only took a couple hundred thousand lives to figure out that iraq had no WMD, perhaps we should have listend to the people who knew.

Thank you MrFair and JeffJ.

Hans

Troofy,


I have to run - I've gotta go to the grocery store, then make dinner, then paint and then drink a beer.


As for the direction you've taken the discussion......it's been argued ad nauseum on the DR.

I don't have the time (for stated reasons) to spell out why your analysis is faulty, plus this one is Righto's specialty - hopefully he can tackle it for you.


Later and good day.

Fortunately, for millions and millions of souls, we had an administration in 1962 which did not want a war with Cuba.

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2008-01-24 04:21 PM

Good post, Hans, but crispee beat me to a response to this. Actually, the Kennedy Administration did want a war with Cuba, it just didn't want to fight it using American troops.

Jeff-

Troofy and I have been over the supremacy clause argument (although not as extensively as Larry and I have) and I don't have the time to rehash it.

Don't seem to remember when Clinton, Albright, Waxman, Biden, Rockefeller, Pelosi, Kerry, etc. ordered the invasion of Iraq.

When was that?

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2008-01-24 03:33 PM

You know as well as I that they couldn't order it, but they certainly handed Bush the authority under the AUMF. And before you go down Troofy's path and argue that it wasn't an authorization for the President to go to war with Iraq, consider this quote from Henry Waxman during debate on the AUMF:

Eleven years ago, in other words, we in Congress were voting to endorse the consensus reached in the United Nations over what the world should do to repel Saddam's aggression in the region and provide the basis for an Iraq that could not threaten its neighbors via war or weapons of mass destruction.

Today, the order is reversed and it is the Congress that is voting first on a resolution of war.

Hans-

It should also be noted that H. Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Rockefeller and Waxman voted Yes, and only Pelosi voted No.

"You know as well as I that they couldn't order it, but they certainly handed Bush the authority under the AUMF."

Authorization to use military force is not the same thing as YMUMF (You must use military force).

Authorization to use military force also presupposes a certain amount of competence in exercising that force, if chosen.

Hans

www.historyofcuba.com

The Bay of Pigs (April, 1961) is not the same thing as the Cuban Missile Crisis (October, 1962). It can even be argued that the failure at the Bay of Pigs helped lead to a tempered response to the events 18 months later.

"Not sure that is completely accurate. Kennedy was hell bent on overthrowing Castro. Both Kennedys for that matter."

JFK and RFK might have been "hell bent on overthrowing Castro," but that is not the same thing as an invasion/war with Cuba.

Contrast that with the Bush administration "hell bent on overthrowing Hussein." That, unfortunately, did lead to an invasion of Iraq.

Hans

"The Bay of Pigs"

Texas Women's University

Bush Lied us into a War: Ain't this common knowledge?

"Thanks, Moto, got any more zingers? "

Why...do you need a bigger distinction? Or are you another one of those who doesn't know the difference between invasion and rhetoric?

"This is about whether Bush lied. It is readily apparent, if you bother to read any number of speeches made during the late 90's, that the Dems were saying the same things that Bush is accused of lying about. Which creates a huge credibility problem for the people who are trying to advance this agenda, since if Bush lied, then most of the Democratic leadership did as well."
RIGHTOCENTER

ROC,
Why do you post speeches and snippets of what the Dems were saying in the late 90's? Surely you know that the speeches and snippets were given in support for sanctions again Iraq and not invasion.
Right?

ROC,
Why do you post speeches and snippets of what the Dems were saying in the late 90's? Surely you know that the speeches and snippets were given in support for sanctions again Iraq and not invasion.
Right?
Posted by cjk85


cjk - given that the late-90's Dems' anti-Saddam rhetoric was the same as GWB's, what do you think Clinton would have done, if 9/11 had happened on his watch?

Surely you know that the speeches and snippets were given in support for sanctions again Iraq and not invasion.
Right?

Why call for sanctions if they didnt believe he was a threat? The intel was widely accepted is the point here I think.

Hi. My name is rob_the_a-Hole and half of the 300+ comments on this thread are mine.

"My name is rob_the_a-Hole and half of the 300+ comments on this thread are mine."

No wonder traffic is down on Drudge. Who in the hell wants to read his inane posts all the time?