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.

[MaxPower]

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.

[ripdog]

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?

[ 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.

[andyfox]

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]

[andyfox]

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.

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 ]

[twowords]

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.

[andyfox]

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?

[BCPVP]

[ 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.