Bush LIED about WMD
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 1, 2005 02:00
VIEWED: 8269
PAGE 4 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So- where are all the erstwhile defenders of the shrub? My, how quickly they abandon their own pretenses.
Edited to add: Not one of them is smart enough to figure out they were wrong, or honest enough to admit it. Worse, not one is mentally strong enough to contemplate the implications of an Administration of sociopathic liars.
Here- have some ketchup! You know who you are!
SigyM, perhaps the defenders of the current administration aren't charging into the fray because they feel that you won't listen. Based on my observation, you seem to want every rightwinger eating crow with ketchup, not responding to your arguments. I mean, gracious! JCKnife made a go of it, and instead of responding to his arguments, you accused him of wearing a tinfoil hat.
Now, I'm all for the voicing of opinions. And you're entitled to yours, same as everyone. And if you want a thread containing that opinion, I believe Haken will allow you that. But if people won't volunteer to be insulted, don't be surprised. You seem to want to flame people that disagree, rather than have a debate of the issue. And that's OK too! You can do that all you want. But don't make the mistake of assuming that the rightwingers are unable to respond. Perhaps they are simply unwilling to respond.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's that whole notion - that somehow the London Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune (requires subscription) are ALL deficient news carriers and don't count when it comes to carrying the story, and that Faux News is better. That approach, in some strange indefinable way, creates a credibility problem.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Okay Sarge--you play armchair president: how should the N. Korea situation be handled?
Well, I'm not privy to enough information to come up with a sensible answer for that one, which is perhaps your point, but I'd at least say it ought to be 'handled' in some way.
I'm trying to point out that if Bush is really concerned about WMDs, he'd have been applying more attention and resources to resolving the situation with N.Korea and a little less chasing shadows in Iraq. But I think it's clear that the WMD issue was little more than one of many shifting excuses for going into Iraq.
The real reason they've gone into Iraq is to recreate the region in our own image. This isn't conspiracy theory stuff. The neo-cons spelled it all out loud and clear over ten years ago. They were just waiting for an opportunity. 9/11, and the easily fooled American voter, gave it to them.
The basic idea is that once American style democracy is imposed on Iraq, the entire region will forget centuries of cultural and religous conflict and get along - shiny happy people holding hands. Oh, and it will also open ripe new markets for the multi-nationals, but that in no way would influence Bush's decision.
Quote:
In the end, though, the people of Iraq will be better off when this is over. If you deny that, I'd like to know on what basis.
I deny it on the basis that there won't be an 'over' to this. The issues that make the region so unstable and difficult to govern are deeply ingrained and not something 'democracy' and 'rock-and-roll' are going to cure.
The only thing I see coming out of Iraq for many, many years is a constant stream of terrorists. There's a cruel irony behind conning the voters into thinking that invading Iraq would help stem terrorism. The irony is that we've taken a country that (through admittedly brutal means) had managed to put a cap on religious extremism, and turned into a training ground for Al-Queda.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Inevitable- You accuse me of trolling? You know, I have put more facts on this board (relative to just sheer unsupported opinion) than just about anyone else except maybe Rue and Soupcatcher. And really, at this point what is there to debate? It seems self-evident what the truth is.
You're right, I don't want to debate this issue. I want to scream and kick and TRY to make people understand that hugging their blankies of ignorance has important, real consequences. Dead people.... Americans included. Wasted money. Lost opportunities.
It's OK if they don't respond. They know who they are. They can either go on as before- or not. Whatever.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Inevitable- You accuse me of trolling? You know, I have put more facts on this board (relative to just sheer unsupported opinion) than just about anyone else except maybe Rue and Soupcatcher. And really, at this point what is there to debate? It seems self-evident what the truth is.
You're right, I don't want to debate this issue. I want to scream and kick and TRY to make people understand that hugging their blankies of ignorance has important, real consequences. Dead people.... Americans included. Wasted money. Lost opportunities.
It's OK if they don't respond. They know who they are. They can either go on as before- or not. Whatever.
Nope, not accusing you of trolling at all! You are one of the ones on the board that usually state an opinion, back it up, and then respond to arguments. In this case, you have stated your opinion, and backed it up with material that you believe supports you. I was merely pointing out that in this instance you don't seem to want much in the way of discussion.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Byte- What, and leave this great land in YOUR incapable hands??? Huh! Well, believe it or not, I love my country too much.
Ouch, burn. Riiiiiight. So you said you would leave? and you didn't? ok.
I haven't checked this thread in a bit but it definitely took the nose dive all the politi-threads take here. I am glad there are more entertaining(though just as fanciful) parts to this forum to bring me back.
ByteTheBullet (-:
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quotes from Democrats about WMD:
"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
http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/
"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
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
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
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
"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
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US 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 (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D — MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20stat
ements/levin-10-9-98.html
"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
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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 Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
http://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2001/011207/epf510.htm
" We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_12-10.html
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
"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
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
"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
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html
"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
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record
&page=S9874&position=all
"When I vote to give the President
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza, thanks for posting all those quotes.
Here's a fundamental issue I'm having some problems with: Some of you are making the point that Iraq will never be peaceful now because we've imposed this democracy on them. I can agree that their culture is very different from ours and we should not expect them to react the same way we would...but if their culture is based on and guided by their religion, why is that okay for them but not for us?
I really don't have an agenda with this post--just questions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Probably it has to do with the fact that either religious or secular government can be the outcome of democracy.
In the case of the US, our democratically chosen constitution requires secular government. Iraq doesn't have a constitution yet, the choice is still up to them.
The quotes have 'issues'. First you have to delete all the quotes from 2001 forward - they were based on briefings from the Bush admin which were seriously flawed (to put it kindly). Then look at the remaining quotes - they talk about development programs and potential threats, but none (NONE) claimed Hussein had actual quantities of WMD. No quotes said the threat was 'imminent' (a legal requirement for preemptive war) and none made a connection between Hussein and global terrorists. Finally, Clinton didn't enage in a war of aggression against a nation that was in the process of being inspected.
I made claims before the election that 'Bush lied' about WMD and started laying out the evidence from various US government reports (the 'yellowcake" claim was definitively covered), but have been far too busy to get back to it.
But the memo is clear that Bush did plan to and did lie. Instead of trying to live in a fantasy, why not wake up and smell the coffee?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But at the time of these Bush admin briefings, weren't the intelligence agencies really the ones providing the info? And weren't the intelligence agencies still chock full of Clinton appointees?
I'm NOT trying to lay blame on Clinton--I just don't believe that Bush was deliberately deceitful. The only motivation that makes sense for that kind of lie is raw flexing of power for its own sake, and I honestly don't believe he is that sort of man. I realize a lot of you do. We're not going to agree on that point.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME