The Bush Administrations Lies (Documented)

[The_Tracker]

In Their Own Words

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002



Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
- George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002



No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002



The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.
- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002



If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002



We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003



What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.
- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003



Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
- George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003



We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
- Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003



We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
- George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003



If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since [UN Resolution] 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us.
- Colin Powell, interview with Radio France International, Feb. 28, 2003



So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?….I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
- Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, March 7, 2003



Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003



The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
- George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003



Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly…..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003



There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And….as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
- Gen. Tommy Franks, press conference, March 22, 2003



I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
- Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, The Washington Post, March 23, 2003



One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clark, press briefing, March 22, 2003



We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003



Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find - and there will be plenty.
- Robert Kagan, The Washington Post, April 9, 2003



But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003



We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
- George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003



There are people who in large measure have information that we need….so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
- Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003



We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003



I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
- Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003



I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons
program of Saddam Hussein – because he had a weapons program.
- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003



We said what we said because we meant it…..We continue to have confidence that WMD will be found.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003



Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
- Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps, interview with reporters, May 21, 2003



Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
- Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, NBC Today Show interview, May 26, 2003



Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."
- Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency, press conference, May 30, 2003



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 [the labs were later judged to not contain any such weapons, that they most likely were used for weather balloons]. 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.
- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003


And the backpeddling begins


We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
- Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003



U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
- Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003



I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago - I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago - whether they were destroyed right before the war [or] whether they're still hidden.
- Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne, press briefing, May 13, 2003



I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons [SEE NEXT QUOTE].
- Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003



We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
- Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003



They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
- Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003



It was a surprise to me then - it remains a surprise to me now - that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
- Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, press interview, May 30, 2003



I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.’ Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat [SEE NEXT QUOTE].
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004



This is about an imminent threat.
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003



After being asked whether Hussein was an “imminent” threat: Well, of course he is
- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003



After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein’s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: Absolutely.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

How Do You Respond To This GWB?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

How Do You Respond To This GWB?

[/ QUOTE ]

People don't give a traditional response to something like this. They just shake their head, wonder what's wrong with you, and hope you don't hurt anybody.

[superleeds]

Are you saying that it is perfectly acceptable for the US president and his administration to lie to the American people.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that it is perfectly acceptable for the US president to lie to the American people.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I'm saying. This is what I'm saying:

People don't give a traditional response to something like this. They just shake their head, wonder what's wrong with you, and hope you don't hurt anybody.

[GWB]

lie
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.


None of the many statements you listed meet the definition. Please try again.

[superleeds]

and the shaking of the head, the look of sympathy and the condesceding hope get reported on Fox as determined forthright leadership I guess. No wonder you don't mind.

[The_Tracker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How Do You Respond To This GWB?

[/ QUOTE ]

People don't give a traditional response to something like this. They just shake their head, wonder what's wrong with you, and hope you don't hurt anybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you ARE saying is that there is "something wrong with me" for pointing out the MANY inconsistencies in our leaders speech to justify the invasion of another nation.

People don't give a traditional response to ironclad proof in front of their face that their leaders are lying to manipulate the public into complacency?

I don't know about all people, but you are obviously one of those.

Get back to the herd.

[vulturesrow]

I cant believe people are still trying to say the bush administration lied about WMD. Its been shown over and over that a)everything Bush said was based on intel was given to the administration and b) many other countries had similar intel and passed it on to Bush.

[MMMMMM]

A few others who also stated that Saddam had WMD:


Jacques Chirac (he just wanted to give U.N. inspections "time to work")

Vladimir Putin (who warned the USA about them)

CIA

Mossad

German Intelligence (which less than 6 years ago said Saddam Hussein would have nuclear weapons "by 2005 at the latest")

Bill Clinton (whose official U.S. policy was "Regime change in Iraq")

Hillary Clinton, shortly prior to the Iraq war

John Kerry?

Tony Blair

and a long list of others



So either:

1) they're ALL liars

OR

2) they believed it to be true, but were wrong

OR

3) they were right and most of the weapons just haven't been found yet, or were smuggled to Syria prior to the war


Take your pick.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

So what you ARE saying is that there is "something wrong with me" for pointing out the MANY inconsistencies in our leaders speech to justify the invasion of another nation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I'm saying. This is what I'm saying:

People don't give a traditional response to something like this. They just shake their head, wonder what's wrong with you, and hope you don't hurt anybody.

[andyfox]

"They just shake their head, wonder what's wrong with you, and hope you don't hurt anybody."

I don't worry about a poster expressing his political views here hurting anybody. Not even the Great Dynasty. I do worry about somebody worrying about a poster here instead of the President of the United States.

[riverflush]

There's only one problem with all the "lied" stuff:

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

[The_Tracker]

[ QUOTE ]
There's only one problem with all the "lied" stuff:

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmm,

Well I did watch the whole thing because I try to keep an open mind. Unlike some.
I will say that some of that was suprising to hear. I also would have stated before I watched it that John Kerry is not the perfect candidate for president.

I have my doubts that John Kerry can turn things around but I have little doubt that GWB will continue to run the country into the ground.

[The_Tracker]

And while I am thinking of it, since I seem to have touched a nerve with a few Bush supporters here let me ask you this.

We all spend alot of time bashing Bush and talking about all the things he has f'ed up and such, so please if you will, give me your "opinion" as to what GOOD GWB has done for this country in 4 years.

Now lets be realistic about this stuff. We know he went from the largest surplus to running up the largest debt in how long? And the jobs lost, and scandals and so on and so forth.

What has GWB done that has made life better for normal everyday Americans in his four years in office?

This is a serious question and goes out to anyone. I am interested in your thoughts.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
We all spend alot of time bashing Bush and talking about all the things he has f'ed up and such, so please if you will, give me your "opinion" as to what GOOD GWB has done for this country in 4 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Off the top of my head.

1)He cut my taxes(I am definately not wealthy).
2)Made medication more affordable for my parents through a new prescription drug benefit for medicare.
3)Convinced Lybia to give up weapons of mass destruction.
4)Is trying to solve the problems of the middle east instead of trying to manage them.
5)His economic policies kept what should have been a devestating Clinton Depression into an only mild recession.
6)Is implementing ballistic missle defense(could save millions of lives)
7)He cut my taxes again.


What I don't like about Bush.

1)the budget deficets
2)His handling of post war Iraq. (i.e. guys like Al Saydr should have died a year ago, The miltias should have all been disarmed a long time ago

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I also would have stated before I watched it that John Kerry is not the perfect candidate for president.


[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry's problem is that for so long he has tried to be the perfect candidate, that it now impossible to even know if the man shares the same views as you on a particular issue.

The only legitamate reason I have seen for people to want to vote for Kerry is that he is not Bush. In my case I just don't think Bush has done a horrible enough job for me to take a gamble on Kerry. Consider what this nation has been through in the last few years(i.e. the bursting of the technology bubble, the accounting scandals, an absolutely huge terror attack that was specifically designed to cripple our economy) its amazes me that we are in such good shape.

Stu

[The_Tracker]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider what this nation has been through in the last few years(i.e. the bursting of the technology bubble, the accounting scandals, an absolutely huge terror attack that was specifically designed to cripple our economy) its amazes me that we are in such good shape.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you could have a point here, but it could also go both ways. Maybe we could have played our hand diffrently after some of these events. Particularly the 9/11 attack. Thinking back in those days and months after, we seemed to have the entire world coming to our side. The world was looking to us to step up and lead. And then Bush gets hell bent on invading Iraq for some reason that still yet to be determined. And then there was the whole Abu Graib (sp?) fiasco. That has damage US credibility far more than anyone is admitting.

It's been said before, and it still rings true. The Iraq invasion was the wrong war at the wrong time.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
What has GWB done that has made life better for normal everyday Americans in his four years in office?


[/ QUOTE ]

He turned the economy around from the Clinton/911 recession. The positive growth numbers we are now seeing may have come to late too help him politically.

He took on terrorism seriously, not just demogogically. Of course the demogogue gets more appreciation worldwide while accomplishing less.

I get the feeling that he cares about his policies on many fronts (he's not just pandering).

Bottom line, I trust him to do what he thinks is right (not just what is best for him politically). He may make mistakes, but they are honest mistakes.

When he leaves office, I expect we will miss a man who was basically for the improvement of life in the USA, not out for his own legacy building.

He has a fundamental honesty of personhood and governance that people in the moment do not appreciate. But we will miss it. I predict 20 years from now he will be regarded in a similar manner as Truman is today (who was also unappreciated while in office).

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
It's been said before, and it still rings true. The Iraq invasion was the wrong war at the wrong time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was it?

First, we were in a quasi war with Iraq since 1991. Clinton established a policy of regime change in Iraq and its safe to say that the quasi-war wasn't going to end until Saddam was out of power. GWB did not start this war, he just escalated it.

Second, Iraq is all part of the war on terror. This terror war is different than any other war we have ever fought, nevertheless it still has similarities to previous conventional wars. One of those similarities is that the competeing sides are both vieing for control of the oil. We went into Iraq to secure the oil for us. The terrorist our hellbound to deprive us of that oil. The terrorist our working very hard right now to try and topple the Suadi royal family. There is a very good chance they will succeed. It will be easier for us to prop that regime up with 100k troops in the theater. If the terrorist did succeed in toppling the royal family, what do you think is going to happen to the flow of oil? Ever wonder why Bush will not release oil from the strategic oil reserves when it would surely benefit him politically to do so? Ever stop and think about why the US is filling those reserves up faster than it has at any other time in our history?

Also Iraq happens to be geographically centered between two other terrorist nations, Iran and Syria. Notice how we have surrounded Iran? Do you think that is just a coincedence or by design?

Third, Iraq has a terrorist history. In 1991 they tried to attack the US embassy in Indonesia. In 1993 Iraq attempted to assinate former president Bush. Sometime after Sept. 11, 2001, officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States at least according to Valdamir Putin.

Iraq is not a war, its only a campaign. The war that we are now engaged in is bigger than Iraq.

Stu

p.s. One reason I like Bush over Kerry is that I believe Kerry would release oil from the strategic oil reserves to reduce the price of gas if he felt it would benefit him politically. Weather or not it would make strategic sense to do so wouldn't even cross his mind.

[MMMMMM]

Great points, Stu.

What do we have now in the strategic oil reserve--45 days worth of oil or so? I am inclined to think we should slowly stockpile it until we have at least 6 months' worth, and a year's worth would be even better. Heck, if things really go bad at some point we could need even more than that.

[Wayfare]

None of the above quotes indicate Bush was lying when he said he was sure Iraq had WMD. He, along with most of the world's intelligence services and governments, made a gigantic mistake.

I don't think he is a good president, and I did not (and do not) support the war, but lying and making (even an egregious) mistake are too different to be equated so casually.

[The_Tracker]

[ QUOTE ]
None of the above quotes indicate Bush was lying when he said he was sure Iraq had WMD. He, along with most of the world's intelligence services and governments, made a gigantic mistake.

I don't think he is a good president, and I did not (and do not) support the war, but lying and making (even an egregious) mistake are too different to be equated so casually.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a diffrence between lying and being wrong. However, if you continue to tell the same story over and over again even when faced with evidence that your story may not be true, then you cross over into the lie category.
Furthermore, if you are telling a story that you believe to be true, but strech and bend possible facts to make your story more immpressive we again cross into the lie category.

I personally believe both of these situations have occured.

And when we are streching the truth to justify dropping bombs on a country of 20 million people, it SHOULD be a real problem.

[cardcounter0]

This tactic repeated many times on many different subjects.

1) Say something false. (Either a lie, or by mistake).
2) When confronted that your statement may be wrong, repeat the false statement. Have as many associates as possible repeat the statment in a variety of different ways.
3) When finally confronted with impossible to refute facts that your statement is wrong --- Deny ever having said the original statement, or claim it is out of context.
4) Short while later, have associate repeat the original lie.
5) If again confronted with facts that you are wrong, again deny having said it, repeat original statement, deny, then claim the whole matter is 'irrelevent' and it is time to move on.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
This tactic repeated many times on many different subjects.

1) Say something false. (Either a lie, or by mistake).
2) When confronted that your statement may be wrong, repeat the false statement. Have as many associates as possible repeat the statment in a variety of different ways.
3) When finally confronted with impossible to refute facts that your statement is wrong --- Deny ever having said the original statement, or claim it is out of context.
4) Short while later, have associate repeat the original lie.
5) If again confronted with facts that you are wrong, again deny having said it, repeat original statement, deny, then claim the whole matter is 'irrelevent' and it is time to move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Copied and pasted right out of the DNC handbook.

Stu

[Chris Alger]

Characteristic right-wing Orwellianism: those (like Chirac, Putin, Kerry and the Clintons) who opposed the war must have actually believed in a war-justifying WMD threat because they favored the peaceful alternative. That alternative, of course, had already gutted every assessment of extant WMD and were well on their way to exposing U.S. scaremongers as liars, as was eventually done, although only after Bush arranged for the slaughter of more than 10,000 people.

That leaves the CIA, Mossad and Bliar. Yes, they were all lying. Here, for example, is what former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahoo shared from his Mossad contacts in the WSJ (9/20/02): "This is a dictator who is rapidly expanding his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons ... and who is feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons. ... Saddam's nuclear program has changed. He no longer needs one large reactor to produce the deadly material necessary for atomic bombs. He can produce it in centrifuges the size of washing machines that can be hidden throughout the country--and Iraq is a very big country. ... if action is not taken now, we will all be threatened by a much greater peril."

Iraq is about to be covered with washing-machine sized atom bomb factories so of course we have to invade ASAP.

If we could predict when and where the killing will stop, it might be funny.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Characteristic right-wing Orwellianism: those (like Chirac, Putin, Kerry and the Clintons) who opposed the war must have actually believed in a war-justifying WMD threat because they favored the peaceful alternative

[/ QUOTE ]

Um no. They (and their intel services) has said they belived that Saddam had WMD. You can try to dodge or wordsmith that but it is a simple truth.

[ QUOTE ]
If we could predict when and where the killing will stop, it might be funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can predict when a great deal of it will stop. Once we put down these terrorist fanatics.

[riverflush]

Hey Chris Alger:

Kerry was against the war? Was for peaceful means?


"I think we need to put the pressue on Iraq no matter what the evidence is about September 11." (12/11//01 - O'Reilly Factor)

"I completely agree with the Administration's goal of regime change in Iraq..." (7/29/02 speech to DNC)

"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order , then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."
(9/6/02 - Keryy Op-ed NY TIMES)

"The President always reserves the right to act unilaterally to protect the interests of our country." (Kerry on Harball with Chris Matthews 9/17/02)

Was (is) Kerry a "scaremongerer"?

Kerry and election year politics, it's a beautiful thing.

[Chris Alger]

You have it backwards. When a country invokes "self-defense" to invade another country that has neither attacked nor threatened to attack it, one doesn't presume some basis for the claim until positive proof emerges to the contrary.

Since virtually every act of foreign aggression is undertaken in the name of self-defense, Bush administration claims of Iraqi WMD, by themselves, meant nothing. The issue was whether the White House had ample facts to justify their statements not merely about the existence of WMD but the imminence of their risk and the lack of viable alternative to war. Obviously, they did not. The quotes about their being "no doubt" and vast existing "stockpiles" and "reconstituted nuclear weapons" (or even nuclear weapons "programs") had no substance in any intelligence report. In fact, they were contradicted by even the most alarmist (now discredited as shoddy) intelligence, which in turn seems likely to have been cobbled together under White House pressure to manufacture a pretext for war. If anything, the intelligence shows that every statement by White House officials that implied positive knowledge of Iraqi WMD was an utter lie. This fact was fairly obvious at the time, given the absence of any serious concern about Iraq "ties" to al Qaeda and WMD prior to 9/11, and the efforts immediately afterward, when the public was hysterical about "Arab" threats.

Saying that Bush made a "gigantic mistake" through some good faith belief in an Iraqi WMD threat is like saying that Hitler made a "gigantic mistake" in his good faith belief that the Jews were out to wreck Germany. It doesn't mitigate a thing, except in the eyes of those who refuse to discern any difference between right and wrong.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
They (and their intel services) has said they belived that Saddam had WMD.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're a liar too. Figures. Neither ever said that Iraqi "had WMD" during the only time that mattered, which is after the inspections turned up negative in prior to the war. Even prior to inspections, neither said that Iraq had WMD in any form that constituted an immediate war-justifying threat to anyone, which is what the White House claimed.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry was against the war? Was for peaceful means?


[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. I was taking him at his word that he would not have invaded under the same circumstances, but his vote for the war resolution and his recent failure to recant his decision for that vote makes this doubtful. Kerry seems to be trying to exploit the antiwar sentiment while reassuring the imperialist elites that dominate both parties that we would have figured out some better way of taking over Iraq, just as he's arguing now that he could do a better job of continuing the fight.

That foreign policy is bipartisan (e.g., effectively one-party), and bipartisanly murderous, deceitful, etc., however, hardly lets those most responsible for making it off the hook. To defend Bush by saying that his political opponents would be just as bad is no defense at all, merely evidence of a different and more serious problem.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither ever said that Iraqi "had WMD" during the only time that mattered, which is after the inspections turned up negative in prior to the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ill post quotes later. This is quite untrue.

[ QUOTE ]
Even prior to inspections, neither said that Iraq had WMD in any form that constituted an immediate war-justifying threat to anyone, which is what the White House claimed.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was pre-emptive. Saddam has been hostile to the US for a long time. I mean he tried to have one of our presidents assassinated. There is no reason to believe that he wouldnt have his WMD employed against the US in some form or another.

[ QUOTE ]
So you're a liar too. Figures

[/ QUOTE ]

You are pathetic. I responded to your post quite politely and rationally with what I believe to be a true verifiable statement and you respond with that. Why dont you try something new and carry on a civil discussion with people.

[riverflush]

I'm not defending Bush so much as I'm saying Kerry is a mess created by years of politics.

[sameoldsht]

I wonder why you left these "lies" off of your list?


"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

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

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

"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 Sens. 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.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

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

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

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

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"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"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean he tried to have one of our presidents assassinated. There is no reason to believe that he wouldnt have his WMD employed against the US in some form or another.

[/ QUOTE ]
The assination evidence falls in the same category as the WMD evidence: it's horseshit. Or do you think that the U.S. would just shrug its shoulders and let it go?

As for "no reason" to believe that wouldn't have deployed his [non-existent] WMD" against the U.S., this is classic paranoid fantasy. Saddam had WMD for a decade without showing the slightest inclination to use them outside his borders or give them to terrorists. One other reason: it would have been suicide, as U.S. officials made it clear that any use of WMD in defense agaisnt the invasion would invite a massive (i.e. nuclear) response.

[ QUOTE ]
I responded to your post quite politely and rationally with what I believe to be a true verifiable statement

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, I apologize for calling you a liar. Some propaganda mouthpiece told you that Chirac and Putin et al. bought into the White House's WMD fantasy, despite their fervent opposiiton to the invasion, and you decided to believe it in the same sense that some people believe in "creationist science." Your problem, however, is more severe.

[ThaSaltCracka]

http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/indecision2004/download/desktops/republican_sex_800x600.jpg

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
The assination evidence falls in the same category as the WMD evidence: it's horseshit. Or do you think that the U.S. would just shrug its shoulders and let it go?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again. 17 people were arrested and all but 1 convicted in said plot. Additionally the US shot 23 cruise missiles at the Iraqi Intelligence HQ. Madeline Albright presented the evidence to the UN Security Council.

[ QUOTE ]
As for "no reason" to believe that wouldn't have deployed his [non-existent] WMD" against the U.S., this is classic paranoid fantasy. Saddam had WMD for a decade without showing the slightest inclination to use them outside his borders or give them to terrorists. One other reason: it would have been suicide, as U.S. officials made it clear that any use of WMD in defense agaisnt the invasion would invite a massive (i.e. nuclear) response.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok there are no doubts about Saddam's antipathy towards the United States and their has been clear evidence that were some sort of ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. You are right, maybe Iraq wouldnt have used the WMD in the invasion (although there is evidence that suggests they were willing to do so). But I think the fantasy lies in the fact that people are willing to delude themselves into thinking Saddam was no threat to the US.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I apologize for calling you a liar. Some propaganda mouthpiece told you that Chirac and Putin et al. bought into the White House's WMD fantasy, despite their fervent opposiiton to the invasion, and you decided to believe it in the same sense that some people believe in "creationist science." Your problem, however, is more severe

[/ QUOTE ]

I never make an argument for or against something without researching it first. You on the other hand seem to have no such compunctions.

PS There is a lot of scientific evidence that supports the theory of intelligent creator, but I will leave that for another discussion, where no doubt you will tell me that I am a religious fanatic who believes whatever Jerry Falwell tells me.

[nicky g]

"Ok there are no doubts about Saddam's antipathy towards the United States and their has been clear evidence that were some sort of ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. "

Investigation after investigation and intelligence agency after intelligence agency have concluded there were no collaborative links between al-Qaeda and Saddam.

[nicky g]

"Wrong again. 17 people were arrested and all but 1 convicted in said plot."

By the Kuwaitis, who have a scrupulously fair justice system and are famously objective when it come to all matter Iraqi.

"Additionally the US shot 23 cruise missiles at the Iraqi Intelligence HQ."

That proves a lot.

"Madeline Albright presented the evidence to the UN Security Council."
Like Colin Powell presented his evidence on WMDs to the UN? The stuff that presented ice cream trucks as mobile anthrax labs?

The plot is pretty far from a slam dunk case. For instance, a CIA report obtained by the Boston Globe found that it was unlikley Saddam had been involved in a plot to assassinate Bush.

"Someone gave a Boston Globe reporter access to a classified C.I.A. study that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims of an Iraqi assassination attempt. The study, prepared by the C.I.A.'s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have "cooked the books" on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the "continuing Iraqi threat" to Western interests in the Persian Gulf."

More on some of the holes in teh plot here, in an article by Seymour Hersh: A Case Not Closed (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02)

[West]

I have some swampland in Florida I think you might be interested in.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
By the Kuwaitis, who have a scrupulously fair justice system and are famously objective when it come to all matter Iraqi.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken. However, there was enough to evidence that it would at least suggest the Kuwaitis didnt just make this one up.

[ QUOTE ]
"Additionally the US shot 23 cruise missiles at the Iraqi Intelligence HQ."

That proves a lot.


[/ QUOTE ]

That was in response to Chris's suggestion that the administration just sat back and didnt do anything. There was an official US response (poor as it was in my opinion) by the government.

[ QUOTE ]
"Madeline Albright presented the evidence to the UN Security Council."
Like Colin Powell presented his evidence on WMDs to the UN? The stuff that presented ice cream trucks as mobile anthrax labs?

[/ QUOTE ]

It must have been fairly convincing as I dont believe the UN Security Council condemned the US actions.

[ QUOTE ]
More on some of the holes in teh plot here, in an article by Seymour Hersh: A Case Not Closed

[/ QUOTE ]

Good article but the author up front says his case is mostly circumstantial but says he is his "at least as compelling as the US's case", which is a bit of a contradiction.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Investigation after investigation and intelligence agency after intelligence agency have concluded there were no collaborative links between al-Qaeda and Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to read the 9/11 commission report.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Investigation after investigation and intelligence agency after intelligence agency have concluded there were no collaborative links between al-Qaeda and Saddam.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You might want to read the 9/11 commission report.

[/ QUOTE ]

Might I.

From the 9/11 commission report:
[ QUOTE ]
we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship.

[/ QUOTE ]

[nicky g]

"That was in response to Chris's suggestion that the administration just sat back and didnt do anything. There was an official US response (poor as it was in my opinion) by the government. "

Apologies, I missed your point.

[vulturesrow]

Notice the emphasis on the word operational. The commission however did believe there was some sort of collaborative relationship. The word operational is a key distinction.

[nicky g]

Yes it is key, because without it the accusation of collaboration becomes completely meaningless. if they weren't collaborating on terrorist operations, where was the threat? How do you give someone WMDs, the alleged threat posed, without a collaborative operational relationship? All it found evidence for were some contacts.

[vulturesrow]

I disagree. The argument for a long time was that in fact, there were no ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda. In fact there are. The only doubt lies as to involvement in the actual planning of operations or not. I would argue _that_ is the irrelevant point. Giving material aid, refuge, etc. to terrorists makes you part of the problem and certainly doesnt suggest Saddam wouldnt have provided them with NBC materials.

[nicky g]

I'm sorry but what the commission wrote clearly is meant to imply no sort of a relationship that would involve collaborating on a WMD attack. I like your posts generally despite disagreeing with most of them, but on this one you are seriously deluding yourself if you think when they wrote "no collaborative operational relationship" they meant there might be a relationship under which Saddam would give them WMDs.

[vulturesrow]

I think that this statement in the report is worded very fuzzily on purpose and our differing interpretations seem to support that. I also have a sneaking suspicion that you and I may even agree as to why it is worded like that. That being said, I dont necessarily believe that statement means that they were collaborating on a WMD attack. However, I dont think it is that far of a stretch for several reasons. First off, Saddam supported terrorism in general, e.g., subsidizing the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Secondly, there is evidence that suggests that Iraq trained foreign insurgents (not just al-Qaeda) in employing chemical and biological weapons. I just dont see how it wouldnt be logical to assume that the next step would be to supply those various groups (to include al-Qaeda) with those types of material.
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[MMMMMM]

Nicky,

In matters such as you are discussing (whether Saddam at some future point might actually have given weapons to al-Qaeda), wisdom lies not in giving your enemies the benefit of the doubt, but rather in not giving your enemies the benefit of the doubt.

[TomCollins]

lie
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Show me deliberateness or meant to decieve, and you have a case. Otherwise, you would be much better off saying Bush had no clue what was going on with intelligence.

[riverflush]

I'm just re-posting this here for discussion purposes:

Saddam, Bin Laden, terrorism...no clear answers (http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram) ABC News 1999 Real Video

My stance is that the Saddam/Bin Laden connection is not clear . The parsing of words in the 9/11 lends credibility to this - it covers their ass. I don't think they really know.

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
[5)His economic policies kept what should have been a devestating Clinton Depression into an only mild recession.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL, hahaha, Just what cave have you been hiding in?

[vulturesrow]

What an incredibly insightful post.

[warlockjd]

[ QUOTE ]
Poster: paland
Subject: Re: The Bush Administrations Lies (Documented)


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[5)His economic policies kept what should have been a devestating Clinton Depression into an only mild recession.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LOL, hahaha, Just what cave have you been hiding in?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think he was joking with this one. Simply not believable