Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

"The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high and the national interest is too important for the politicians to throw out false charges," Bush said. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."

But not too important for Secretary of State Powell to give misleading information to the U.N. Not too important to claim that if we didn't act we'd see a mushroom cloud over America. Not too important to refuse to plan for post-war Iraq.

Apparently the president doesn't consider himself one of "the politicians." It's only those who disagree with him. Their "false charges" are sending the wrong signals to our enemy and our troops.

But it was his own false charges that are responsible for the deaths of over 2,000 Americans. Shame on him.

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

Shame on you for distorting and rewriting history. But then, I realize you are just following the lead of the media and the Democrat talking points.

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

"But then, I realize you are just following the lead of the media and the Democrat talking points."

Yup, I'm constantly defending CBS, the NYT, Bill Clinton, and Harry Reid on this forum.

Where have I distorted and/or rewritten history?

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

I always find it amusing when a politician, of whatever party or ideology, talks disparagingly aboutg "the politicians".

Bush is still trying to push the idea that anybody who opposes is ill-conceived occupation of Iraq, or any other aspect of his "war on terror" is an enemy of the state. Fortunately, I think more people, even some of the more sane Republicans, are starting to see through it. I think we will likely have a Democrat cotroolled congress after the 2006 elections. I'm not totally happy about that, but I think one or two sound electoral defeats is the only way that the Republican party can be purged of the neo-con and religious right nutcases, and become, once again, the party of limited government, free-market economics, and fiscal responsibility.

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

[ QUOTE ]
Shame on you for distorting and rewriting history. But then, I realize you are just following the lead of the media and the Democrat talking points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. Gorgeous.

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

Another depressing thing about this speech is the pattern of routinely making these historical comparisons that are just patently false. This is nothing new for him of course.

[ QUOTE ]
"the terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we've ever faced"

[/ QUOTE ]

What? We fought the goddamn Nazis, and faced off agains the Soviets in the Cold War. How is this rag-tag bunch of terrorists as brutal as them?

[ QUOTE ]
"By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress - from tyranny to liberation to national elections to the ratification of a constitution in the space of two and a half years,"

[/ QUOTE ]

In what sense is this progress "incredible?" The pace of democratization in Iraq is considerably slower than most comparable historical examples, where electoral regimes were much more quickly implemented after the fall of authoritarianism, and also considerably less extensive. Iraq may be marked by extenuating circumstances. But it is ridiculous to claim that the progress there, in comparative perspective with other cases of countries attempting to transition to democracy, has been substantial at all.

There is the irony. In a speech about defending himself from the charge of lying in the lead up to the war, he gets up and blows smoke about the aftermath of the war.

Disgusting Comments by OP
 

Where have I distorted and/or rewritten history?
************************************************** ********
Where? By this quote:
"But it was his own false charges that are responsible for the deaths of over 2,000 Americans. Shame on him."

Here are the facts:
1. Both the US Senate and US Congress have intelligence committees.
2. The members of these intelligence committees are given access to SAME intelligence that the PRESIDENT OF THE USA HAS.
3. The when the polls showed public support for the war in Iraq was high, Kerry, Kennedy, and other prominent Democrats stated Iraq had WMD and must be stopped. They voted to give the president authorization to invade Iraq.
4. NOW....that the polls show flagging support for the war in Iraq these same democrats who previously claimed Iraq had WMD are claiming Bush tricked them.
5. Inquiries into the pre-war intelligence show that there was no political pressure to alter intelligence.
6. Bill Clinton is on record stating SEVERAL times Iraq had WMD.

QUESTIONS:
1. How can the Dems claim that Bush lied when the Democrats had the ***SAME*** intelligence that Bush43 had to make the assertion that Iraq still had WMD? Were the Dems also lying about the intelligence?
2. Was Clinton lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
3. Was Kerry lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
4. Were other Democrats lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
5. Why do you assert Bush43 is a liar while failing to call Kerry, Clinton, and other Democrats liars?

I would love to see you answer these questions. If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, you will answer these questions.

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation here Andy. I'm not going to defend any failures of intelligence or planning that Bush may or may not have committed. Go ahead and damn him for those. Go ahead and blast him for any shortcomings you see in his current policy. Nothing like some insightful and incisive Andyfox commentary to help revitalize political discourse.

That being said, there's a great deal of anti-war sentiment that is indeed baseless. Part of the problem is a structural bias in the media towards car bombings over reconstruction efforts. Part of it, arguably, is a political bias on the editorial boards of a lot of major newspapers. Part of it is people's visceral animosity towards Bush and the right that makes them reflexively opposed to anything he says.

Normally, that wouldn't be a big deal. But in a situation like this, all the insipid Vietnam comparisons and the pessimistic view of the situation on the ground presented in the media can have serious consequences. Especially if they convince the terrorists that they're only a few suicide bombings away from getting the coalition out of the way so they can topple Iraq's democratic government. Or if Iraqis decide that the US isn't going to be in Iraq for the long haul, and they'd better start hedging their bets.

I'm sure there's a base political attempt to immunize himself from criticism here too. But the fundamental point remains that some responsibility is needed before speaking out.

Re: Disgusting Comments by OP
 

Let's not forget when Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice said that Iraq did not have WMD programs. Were they lying?

Re: Disgusting Comments by OP
 

Let's not forget when Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice said that Iraq did not have WMD programs. Were they lying?
************************************************** *********
I think you are mistaken. I don't think they ever said this. Every major intelligence agency concluded Iraq STILL had stockpiles of WMD. Including the USA, France, Britain, etc...
+++FEEL FREE TO POST A LINK+++ I don't think you can back this up. Did you mistakenly type "not" when you did not mean to?

I would love for any Bush43 hater to answer my questions. And please don't duck these questions by asking a counter question. It is a transparent tactic and shows me you are afraid to answer the questions that I asked.

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

There are plenty of legitimate things to debate about regarding the war in Iraq.

Should we have attacked? Should we have continued to use inspectors and UN pressure? How are we currently prosecuting the war? What's the exit strategy? Is it worth the costs (in dollars and lives)? What's going right in the war?

What's sad is that those that oppose the war rarely debate these issues. Rather, they want to focus on baseless charges of lying, Halliburton, imperialism, etc.

I will debate, talk, discuss, etc. about any of the former issues. But the latter ones are just garbage and just impugn the integrity and intelligence of those that make them.

Quite sad.

Re: Disgusting Comments by OP
 

They said words to those effects sometime before 9/11. I cannot prove it to you right now.

I am just pointing out that this argument of mine is just as stupid as your listing of irrelevant vague statements.

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

I read his statements on MSN and had to smile. This is such blatant [censored], same old same old from this clown. How deep does the [censored] have to get before his apologists admit that--where have I heard this before?--these guys are the most crooked, lying group of people they've ever seen?

Re: Disgusting Comments by OP
 

[ QUOTE ]
Where have I distorted and/or rewritten history?
************************************************** ********
Where? By this quote:
"But it was his own false charges that are responsible for the deaths of over 2,000 Americans. Shame on him."

Here are the facts:
1. Both the US Senate and US Congress have intelligence committees.
2. The members of these intelligence committees are given access to SAME intelligence that the PRESIDENT OF THE USA HAS.
3. The when the polls showed public support for the war in Iraq was high, Kerry, Kennedy, and other prominent Democrats stated Iraq had WMD and must be stopped. They voted to give the president authorization to invade Iraq.
4. NOW....that the polls show flagging support for the war in Iraq these same democrats who previously claimed Iraq had WMD are claiming Bush tricked them.
5. Inquiries into the pre-war intelligence show that there was no political pressure to alter intelligence.
6. Bill Clinton is on record stating SEVERAL times Iraq had WMD.

QUESTIONS:
1. How can the Dems claim that Bush lied when the Democrats had the ***SAME*** intelligence that Bush43 had to make the assertion that Iraq still had WMD? Were the Dems also lying about the intelligence?
2. Was Clinton lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
3. Was Kerry lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
4. Were other Democrats lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
5. Why do you assert Bush43 is a liar while failing to call Kerry, Clinton, and other Democrats liars?

I would love to see you answer these questions. If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, you will answer these questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I think the issue whether Bush distorted and cherry picked the intelligence, and that the House and Senate relied on this intelligence. When Bush says things like "We've found the weapons of mass destruction" and Cheney on Meet the Press says things like "There is no doubt they have weapons of mass destruction" there is good reason to believe they are lying. This is because they didn't find the WMD, and there was considerable doubt. There's also using discredited evidence, 10 year old research papers, etc. There is more than ample evidence pointing towards Bush misleading the US into a war; at the very least it can be debated.

2. I don't give a [censored] about Clinton. I don't like him all that much, and he may have been lying. Wouldn't be the first time. I don't understand why you included this here, as Clinton's opinion on anything (and ironically enough, on terror) is not/has never been seriously considered in any of Bush's policies. I guess you are just banking on everyone that hates Bush loving Clinton and thinking him a paragon of honesty. Also, Clinton didn't invade Iraq.

3. Who knows. He got the same cherry picked and distorted (in my opinion it was, although I guess you can haggle over the definitions of 'cherry picked' and 'distorted' and 'lying on Meet the Press' if you want) intelligence as everyone else. He may have been playing flip flop all along. His stance is that he received distorted/cherry picked intelligence. He also says if he'd known the extent to which Bush was doing this he wouldn't have voted for the war. We'll never know. I don't particularly care either. I was protesting the war when the drums were beating.

4. See numbers 1 and 3.

5. See numbers 1, 3 and 4.

It's not as if Bush shared every single bit of information and intelligence in a completely disinterested manner. Quit making it seem like every bit of information was disclosed to all parties in a completely honest fashion, because it just wasn't.

Powell and Rice
 

At a press conference on 24 February 2001 during his visit to Cairo, Egypt, Powell was answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq. He said:

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. [emphasis added] So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

On 15 May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Here's the relevant extract:

Senator Bennett: Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We've had bombs dropped, we've had threats made, we've had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we're coming to the end. What's our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs?

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

So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful. We have not been able to get the inspectors back in, though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the inspectors in to pull up anything that might be left there. So we have to continue to view this regime with the greatest suspicion, attribute to them the most negative motives, which is quite well-deserved with this particular regime, and roll the sanctions over, and roll them over in a way where the arms control sanctions really go after their intended targets -- weapons of mass destruction -- and not go after civilian goods or civilian commodities that we really shouldn't be going after, just let that go to the Iraqi people. That wasn't the purpose of the oil-for-food program. And by reconfiguring them in that way, I think we can gain support for this regime once again. When we came into office on the 20th of January, the whole sanctions regime was collapsing in front of our eyes. Nations were bailing out on it. We lost the consensus for this kind of regime because the Iraqi regime had successfully painted us as the ones causing the suffering of the Iraqi people, when it was the regime that was causing the suffering. They had more than enough money; they just weren't spending it in the proper way. And we were getting the blame for it. So reconfiguring the sanctions, I think, helps us and continues to contain the Iraqi regime. [emphasis added]


On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer. Guest host John King asked Rice about the sanctions against Iraq. She replieds:

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. [emphasis added]

Questions and Answers
 

1. How can the Dems claim that Bush lied when the Democrats had the ***SAME*** intelligence that Bush43 had to make the assertion that Iraq still had WMD? Were the Dems also lying about the intelligence?

Because Bush said that if we don't act, we'd see a mushroom cloud. Because Bush said we found the WMDs. Because Bush told an adviser to look for evidence of Hussein's complicity in 9/11. Because Bush administration officials were prepared to use 9/11 as a pretext for invasion regardless of what the evidence showed as to who was actually responsible for 9/11. And because Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with a briefcase full of misinformation. The Dems never said or did any of this.

2. Was Clinton lying when he said Iraq had WMD?

Bill Clinton is a pathological liar. I have been consistent, in the years since I have been posting on 2+2 in both my distaste for Mr. Clinton and in my pointing to incidences of his dishonesty.

3. Was Kerry lying when he said Iraq had WMD?

I don't know. Mr. Kerry's vote authorizing the use of force without doing his homework was reprehensible. Certainly the current finger-pointing of those who so voted should remind us of that there is plenty of blame to go around.

4. Were other Democrats lying when he said Iraq had WMD?

See answer 3.

5. Why do you assert Bush43 is a liar while failing to call Kerry, Clinton, and other Democrats liars?

See answers 2, 3 and 4, especially 2.

Re: Questions and Answers
 

What do you mean Kerry and others didn't do their homework??

[ QUOTE ]
John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Al Gore > September 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."


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
John Kerry > January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn't vote for me."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"[i]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

This administration utilized 9/11 sentitment to topple a dictator many of them (the top 3 DoD guys especially) had wanted to take out for years. The facts on the ground had not changed, Saddam was the same threat he was before 9/11. If he was allowed to rebuild a weapons program, he could have been a serious potential threat to his neighbors but probably not the US. He was certainly not an imminent threat to the US.

There was no proof he was sponsoring terror or harbored terrorists, only some unconfirmed and uncorraborated potential ties.

The Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq, which certainly existed before 9/11, led them to label uncertain intelliegence as certain. They did not present a balanced picture of the intelliegence to Congress or to the American people since this would have resulted in a weaker case for war. They chose not to acknowledge plans (State Dept) for post-war Iraq or consider worse case scenarios since this would have weakened the case for war. They chose not to bomb a Zarcowi camp in North Iraq (not under Saddam's control) since this would have weakened the case for war. They apparently decided to undermine Joe Wilson, since his article on his mission to Niger weakened the case for war.

To Felix, no the senate does not get the same intelligence as the president as many conservatives have reported. Many senators themselves deny this and the administration alone got certain intelligence for the war from alternate channels. here

And remember, the vote was to give the prez authority for war, regarded by some as an essential barganing leverage to avoid a war. An amendement to the motion which would force the president to use force as a last resort will voted down narrowly. It appears a literal vote to declare war would ceratinly have been much closer.

However, I do believe that many Dems matched the Bush intelligence hype step for step because of the typical Dem fear of looking weak on defense.

Re: Questions and Answers
 

They were wrong. There was evidence to indicate they were wrong; Powell and Rice pointed out this evidence. They didn't do their homework. I'd be especially curious to know on what evidence and research Ms. Pelosi based her assessment. And why, if, as Mr. Gore asserted, Hussein had no hesitancy to use his weaponry, he didn't when the life of his regime, and his own life, were at stake?

Re: Disgusting Comments by OP
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. I think the issue whether Bush distorted and cherry picked the intelligence, and that the House and Senate relied on this intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe there have been several reports that have exonerated the Bush administration of pressuring the intelligence people to distort the intelligence. Either way, I don't think the executive branch has a choice in what intelligence they present to the respective committees in Congress.

[ QUOTE ]
2. I don't give a [censored] about Clinton. I don't like him all that much, and he may have been lying. Wouldn't be the first time. I don't understand why you included this here, as Clinton's opinion on anything (and ironically enough, on terror) is not/has never been seriously considered in any of Bush's policies. I guess you are just banking on everyone that hates Bush loving Clinton and thinking him a paragon of honesty. Also, Clinton didn't invade Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
When deciding to got to war with another country that's been attacked by the previous two administrations, would it really be wise to totally dismiss everything the last president has said about Iraq? There was even a bill passed by Congress and signed by Clinton that said that regime change in Iraq is the official policy of the U.S.(Iraq Liberation Act). Surely these actions shouldn't all be thrown out the window because a new guy is in the Oval Office...

[ QUOTE ]
It's not as if Bush shared every single bit of information and intelligence in a completely disinterested manner.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously there was an interest as he was making the case for war, but I don't believe Bush has a choice of whether to share info with Congress.

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

I don't want to get into a whole long argument about whether or not we were justified into going to war in Iraq (I don't think we were, and that the Bush administration did intentionally mislead the US as well as Congress), but this type of rhetoric from Bush is highly typical of the American right. The argument that "If you question us, you hate America and are costing Americans their lives" is bogus and simply another way for them to attempt to cover up their misdeeds both at home and abroad by avoiding and type of descent.

Re: Questions and Answers
 

A) Most of these statements (the post-9/11 statements) were based on the misleading, if not outright falsified intelligence supplied by the Bush administration, so they would naturally be incorrect.

B) If you could read, you would see that the two statements made before 9/11 say absolutely nothing about Saddam Hussein actually havin any WMD.

Re: Questions and Answers
 

In all fairness to Sen. Kerry, given the climate at the time, he really had absolutely no choice but to vote for military action in Iraq. I agree that it was wrong of him not to do his own check of the intelligence which lead to the vote for military action in Iraq, but even if he had, he really had no choice but to vote in favor of it.

Re: Powell and Rice
 

"And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago."
-Colin Powell-
************************************************** *
So Powell admits Iraq is still pursuing WMD, still has WMD.....BUT....it's WMD program is WEAKER than it was before the sanctions. This is a MUCH different from the claim that Rice and Powell said Iraq did not have WMD.

Re: Powell and Rice
 

Ugh, I had a much lengthier response written, but I accidentally deleted it, so I'll paraphrase.

In that statement, Powell says that Iraq was pursuing a program had some kinds of WMD, but no way to deliver any kind of attack with them. Granted, that's a step up from saying that they didn't have any at all, but it's still a far cry from considering them an imminent threat as he did on Sept. 12.

Delusional
 

In all fairness to Sen. Kerry, given the climate at the time, he really had absolutely no choice but to vote for military action in Iraq.
************************************************** *******
Yes, the polls told him to do so. Like most Democrat politicians, Kerry is a slave to the polls rather than his principles. When the polls supported the war, Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards and Pelosi became warhawks in their words and their VOTES. Now, the polls say the war is becoming unpopular so Bush43 sticks to his principles while Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, etc... have done a 180.


I agree that it was wrong of him not to do his own check of the intelligence which lead to the vote for military action in Iraq, but even if he had, he really had no choice but to vote in favor of it.
************************************************** ********
Huh!? Is not Kerry on the intelligence committee? and yet you CLAIM he did not check the intelligence? WRONG. The CIA checks the intelligence. The CIA processess the raw data, devlopes their conclusions, and these conclusions are given to the intelligence committees and the president. Are you claiming that the intellgence said there is no WMD in Iraq?????? To claim this you have to believe that:
1. All the Repubs read the intelligence reports.
2. All the Repubs lied to the American public about what the intelligence really said.
3. All the democrats on the intelligence committees skip these briefings while asking the Repubs to "take notes for them" and then stated that Iraq had WMD while INNOCENTLY spreading untruths not knowing their intelligence notes from the Repubs trick them into thinking Iraq had WMD. LOL!!! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
You are very entertaining. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Sorry buddy but you are delusional. There are volumes of quotes on record of Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, Pelosi, etc... stating that Iraq illegally possessed WMD. But in your world of make believe Bush was lying but Kerry and the rest of the Democrats were not lying. <shaking my head> How can you reason with the delusional?

Re: Disgusting Comments by OP
 

There once was a little Jedster with too much work to do. What to do, Jedster asked, gazing at the ceiling. Ah, let's look and see if our buddy Felix has said something funny today. And Jedster was satisfied. But Jedster had not much time, so he only decided to pick apart two of Felix's funny jokes, jokes he is wont to call arguments or even sometimes "facts".

[ QUOTE ]

1. Both the US Senate and US Congress have intelligence committees.
2. The members of these intelligence committees are given access to SAME intelligence that the PRESIDENT OF THE USA HAS.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um, apparently when Planet Reality called Felix he didn't pick up the phone, because the intelligence committees didn't have the same information as the President had. Sure, the October 2002 NIE was delivered to the intelligence committees, but there was literally tons of behind the scenes information going on within the administration that was not given to Congress. For example, the intelligence community failed to adequately address the quality of the intelligence in the NIE despite debate within the IC. Also take the example of Colin Powell, who along with his Chief of Staff had major misgivings about his speech to the United Nations, none of which was conveyed to Congress until much later.

[ QUOTE ]

6. Bill Clinton is on record stating SEVERAL times Iraq had WMD.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now you start believing him? Bill Clinton was a great politician. A wonderful politician. Catch my drift? In case you don't, what I'm trying to say is that just because Bill Clinton says something doesn't mean it's true.

But that's irrelevant. Because Bill Clinton was not President when Bush decided to go to war. In fact, dare I say it, Bill was probably making love while the drunk cocaine abuser was making war.

Re: Questions and Answers
 

[ QUOTE ]
B) If you could read, you would see that the two statements made before 9/11 say absolutely nothing about Saddam Hussein actually havin any WMD.


[/ QUOTE ]

Im sorry bunkie, did you want some of them?

[ QUOTE ]
Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"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

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Questions and Answers
 

1. How can the Dems claim that Bush lied when the Democrats had the ***SAME*** intelligence that Bush43 had to make the assertion that Iraq still had WMD? Were the Dems also lying about the intelligence?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++
Because Bush said that if we don't act, we'd see a mushroom cloud.
************************************************** ***
Iraq had Uranium stockpiles that US Troops removed. The UN weapons inspectors knew and inventoried these stockpiles. Since the intelligence stated Iraq was still pursuing WMD, then this is not an unreasonable conclusion. After all, North Korea which is much poorer and much less educated than Iraq, has succeeded in developing nukes.

Because Bush said we found the WMDs.
*************************************************
I'd rather see an exact quote. Based on the intelligence given to Bush and the Democrats this was not a big stretch.

Because Bush told an adviser to look for evidence of Hussein's complicity in 9/11.
************************************************** *******
In a standard police investigation you start with a list of suspects, and then you start ruling out suspects to narrow your search. Bush would have been incompetent not to investigate whether Hussein was involved.

And because Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with a briefcase full of misinformation.
************************************************** ***
Based on information from CIA intelligence. So what.... I think we need to fire a lot of CIA officials. They send an Ambassador with no experience to investigate uranium shipments from Niger, they don't require him to sign a confidentiality agreement, AND...........they let him write a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed. Why not send his wife who is a supposed WMD expert. Ask yourself this: If you have a covert agent and you want her to remain covert are you going to employ her husband, not require him to sign a confidentiality agreement, and let him write an Op-Ed in a major newspaper? Do you think there might be some partisan Bush haters in the CIA who are using their position to attack Bush?


2. Was Clinton lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
Bill Clinton is a pathological liar. I have been consistent, in the years since I have been posting on 2+2 in both my distaste for Mr. Clinton and in my pointing to incidences of his dishonesty.
************************************************** *****
We agree on something. At least you’re more consistent than some of the mindless Bush bashers on this forum.


3. Was Kerry lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
I don't know. Mr. Kerry's vote authorizing the use of force without doing his homework was reprehensible.
************************************************** ******
Did not do his homework???!!!! He was on the intelligence committee! He received the most advance intelligence the CIA could provide. There was no homework to do. He just had to attend the committee meetings and listen to their conclusions.

Certainly the current finger-pointing of those who so voted should remind us of that there is plenty of blame to go around.
************************************************** *******
Oh really! I have heard you bash Bush but I have not heard you Bash Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Pelosi, etc.... Do think your partisanship in blinding you somewhat?


I hear many Dems claim Bush is an idiot yet they are trying to claim Bush43 outsmarted them into thinking Iraq really had WMD. So I guess Bush43 is an EVIL GENIUS who trick the lilly-white-innocent-Democrats into voting for a war in Iraq.

Re: Questions and Answers
 

Yes, where by saying "The polls told him to do so," I'm sure you mean "The climate after 9/11 was such that any Senator who voted against the war had no chance of reelection, and, let's be honest, anyone's first priority in a job is to keep it." It wasn't a matter like tax reform or transporation where he had some room to wiggle, he had to choose between voting for the war which was going to be approved anyway and losing his job. Also, isn't a politicians job to represent the interests of his constituents, so would it really be the worst thing in the world if he DID make decisions based on polls? Granted, I think it's great that Bush is a man of principle, but he would do well to reevaluate those principles when it has lead to nothing but failure after failure.

As for your second assertion that I claim Kerry didn't read the reports, I was simply responding to another poster in this thread (I thought it was you, I guess I was wrong) who claimed that Kerry hadn't read the reports. Of course I think he read the reports, my point was that it certainly seems as though those reports were fabricated/exaggerated either by or at the behest of members of the Bush administration, which were passed onto Congress, and used to mislead both legislators and the American people. Evidence has since come to light that corroborates that and Democratic politicians are trying to take the administration to task for what they see as a concentrated effort to mislead both them and the American people.

Also, fabrication of intelligence reports would certainly not take such a large conspiracy. One order from a high ranking administration official would have been more than sufficient to fabricate reports.

Re: Questions and Answers
 

Bill Richardson's statement seems like it must have been taken out of context, because not even Republicans have said that Saddam had nukes.

The other statements still don't say anything about him actually having any WMD, only that he was trying to develop them, something which I don't believe anyone refutes.

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

[ QUOTE ]
Shame on you for distorting and rewriting history. But then, I realize you are just following the lead of the media and the Democrat talking points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rule #1 of Republican Attack Politics :

When you haven't got an answer,
attack the person posing the question.


q/q

Re: Questions and Answers
 

Let's assume you're correct about the uranium stockpiles and that they could have been used for weapons production. Still, we knew their nuclear weapons development program was moribund. From this, Bush conjures a mushroom cloud over America. Quite a stretch.

Bush on finding the WMDS: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, 2003-05-29:

Q: But, still, those countries who didn't support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

THE PRESIDENT: 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.

The "mobile labs" didn't exist. Two truck trailers were indeed found. Neither had biological agents in them. The equipment in them was used to make hydrogen for weather balloons. The information that there were mobile weapons labs was given to the U.S. by the agent named "curveball," who had already been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar.

As for the "good police work," In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one. As early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. When Rumsfeld was told we needed to bomb Afghanistan, he responded that there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq.

According to Richard Clarke: "The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

On September 15, Wolfowitz presented the argument, at Camp David, that the U.S. should attack not Afghanistan, but rather Saddam Hussein. James Woolsey said Iraq should be the target, ""no matter who should be responsible" for 9/11. This wasn't police work.

Really, I'm astounded that people still deny that the administration oversold their case. All administrations do this when going to war. Powell's UN presentation was an embarrassment, but no more so than, say, the State Department White Paper on Vietnam issued in 1964 when Johnson was planning to go to war.

Bush is the president who took us to war. The buck stops with him. The Dems who gave him the go-ahead are also disgusting. I'm not a Democratic partisan, I haven't supported or voted for one in quite some time. I've posted here about Kennedy's Chappaquidick lies, Kerry's horrible campaign, what a poor choice Edwards was for VP because he's an empty suit, what a horrible leader Harry Reid is, what disgusting peoples John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were, on Bill Clinton's pathological lies, etc.

Re: Questions and Answers
 

[ QUOTE ]
In all fairness to Sen. Kerry, given the climate at the time, he really had absolutely no choice but to vote for military action in Iraq. I agree that it was wrong of him not to do his own check of the intelligence which lead to the vote for military action in Iraq, but even if he had, he really had no choice but to vote in favor of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Choice??? Seriously, you must not have seen that a few people actually did vote against it. He had the choice, and chose yes. If you say it was politically advantageous for him to vote for it, you have a point. And you showed why most people voted against him, because he has no spine, will do whatever it takes to get elected, even if it sacrafices his principles.

Re: Powell and Rice
 

Powell did indeed say Iraq had "some stockpiles of some sorts of these weapons still under their control." But, as you correctly point out, it's much weaker than it was before the sanctions, and Powell further states that they have no capacity to deliver the weapons, that they have not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq is not a threat to its neighbors.

But when we wanted to go to war against him, that all changed.

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

[ QUOTE ]
But it was his own false charges that are responsible for the deaths of over 2,000 Americans. Shame on him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus causing a rate of dead Iraqi's that puts Saddam's tenure to shame.

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

Plus causing a rate of dead Iraqi's that puts Saddam's tenure to shame.
************************************************** *****
Care to back this up or do you want to concede your dislike of Bush has clouded your judgement. I believe Saddam's number is at 800,000 (this may include Iranians that were killed in the 1980s).

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

In sheer numbers, Bush hasn't reached Saddam's numbers yet (although the number I've heard thrown around is 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed, but don't ask me to quote it, I've been drinking and getting ready to go out), but of course, Saddam had almost 10x the amount of time.

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

100k lol.

Re: Disgusting Comment by President Bush
 

[ QUOTE ]
although the number I've heard thrown around is 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed, but don't ask me to quote it

[/ QUOTE ]
Well that's good, because it's absurd.