Bush LIED about WMD
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 1, 2005 02:00
VIEWED: 8269
PAGE 5 of 5
The quotes raise a really good point. I, for one, think the Democrats are equally responsible for the fiasco. If for no other reason than the fact that they've just put in a really weak showing as an opposition party. And, as the quotes point out, many of them were banging the war drums nearly as hard as Bush.
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
Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
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.
I don't really think it is 'okay', but it's none of my business. I'm certainly not going to tell the voters there that they can't disagree with me. And I'm sure as hell not going to send my sons over there to impose truth, justice, and the American Way on people that apparently don't appreciate it much.
I just don't think we need to be monkeying with another culture. If they are seriously threatening us, or attack us, then bomb the fuck out of them (Afghanistan for example). But as long as they leave us alone, even if they don't like us, I think we ought to return the favor.
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
Byte- Did I ever say I was going to leave? Check thru all my old posts first. You really DO seem to have a hard time distinguishing reality from fantasy. But, hell, I knew THAT already! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The intelligence was being fixed AROUND the policy. What does that tell you? The CIA is in reciept of tens of thousands of reports. Some of them contradict each other, some of them bolster each other. In order to create a "credible" threat you trim a bit here, pad some there, and pretty soon the developing picture no longer looks like the original totality. And you don't even have to make anything up!
Rue's little saying about being able to see anything if you use the right filters is not just a quip. Anyone who knows anything about electronics will understand that you can extract a Mozart sonata from white noise. That applies to EVERYTHING... even our vision, which we are accustomed to thinking is straightforward and unbiased and real ("seeing is believing") can't show us what the honeybee sees, and so for years the flowers' landing patterns and bee behavior was a mystery. Why? Because our eyes filter out huge swaths of the electromagnetic spectrum.
So, in terms of selction- why AREN'T we hearing anything about the secret memo in USA media? Why aren't we hearing anything about the letter that 88 Congressman signed, asking Bush about that memo? Why has the Valerie Plame case just sort of ... vanished? it's not like these things aren't happening.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"And weren't the intelligence agencies still chock full of Clinton appointees?" Low level analysts were still in place, but upper level appointees for the agencies (as I recall, Tenet was the only holdover from the Clinton Admin) and the entire DIA (composed of neocons) were skewing the conclusions to give Bush what he wanted.
No, it wasn't merely a mistake by Bush. The inteligence analysts got the facts right, but couldn't get (political) traction to get the story out. For example, Bush's SOTUs have to be vetted by all intelligence agencies. For #1, he submitted the yellowcake claim twice for review, and was informed repeatedly - in fact, at one point the cmte that harmonizes intelligence anlaysis telegraphed Bush twice in the same day re the same speech - and in strong terms said that the intelligence didn't support his language. So rather than say Niger Bush said Africa, instead of yellowcake he substituted uranium, and instead of referencing US intelligence, he referenced one skewed British report.
And so on in like manner for nearly all of the WMD claims. It was NOT a mistake.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Byte- Did I ever say I was going to leave? Check thru all my old posts first. You really DO seem to have a hard time distinguishing reality from fantasy. But, hell, I knew THAT already!
I guess you saying you weren't leaving led me to believe you may have said you were leaving, hence the question marks(?) in my post. And twice now you have inferred 'knowing' me and I am certain that you do not. As for my reality and fantasy distinction, that is a place no sane person would like to go.
Oh, yeah, as for my capable hands, I made my vote and it looks like I(we) won.
ByteTheBullet (-:
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I've lost all faith in the 51% of our nation that supported him anyway. . The only problem is, the other 49% will have to suffer along with them. Ain't democracy grand?
ok so i'm late to the table on this (and a brit and most of us were against this war before it started) but as far as i remember half of america didn't vote in the election so only a quarter of the electorate actually voted for bush - someone else said somewhere the election is over get over it and wait for the next one
hmmm .. if we live in democracies and we don't like what they are doing in our name surely its completly acceptable to deomonstrate that you do not agree and not just what to put your cross on a paper once every few years
its clear our leaders lied to take us to war that has cost us dear - 20% of the families of british soldiers killed in iraq have formed military families against the war - i think that says quite a bit about how things are turning out
'forgive my rudeness. i cannot abide useless people'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I'll play this game. If Bush lied about WMDs and wasn't just mis-informed by bad intel, or the possibility that Saddam had more than enough notice prior to the war to destroy or move the evidence, then so did others! Clinton (both Bill and Hillary), John Kerry, Al Gore, and many others made similar comments about Iraq, Saddam and WMDs long before Bush became president. At the time, UN sanctions seemed to be the status quo for dealing with the problem, but after 9/11 that attitude seemed to change.
Did Bush use this as an excuse to remove Saddam? Possibly, even probably, but it was a decsion to go to war that both parties voted for, and they all had the same intel he was using. Intel that had been around since the Clinton administration. Everyone saw Saddam as a threat, and it wasn't until the last election that some candidates tried to re-write history, and point fingers at Bush.
Here's a large sample of quotes on record dealing with Saddam and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Read on:
If you really believe that President BUSH lied - - THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES -- then read this.
"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 [the USA], 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 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
"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 fo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pre-war, the intel was "vetted" through a conduit that Bush/ Cheney/ Rumsfeld expressly created to avoid CIA review- the Office of Special Plans. This was detailed by Karen Kwiatkowski, who in the OSP. Experienced CIA, Foreign Service and military personnel had voiced numerous caveats and doubts about the data that they were receiving before, during, and after the run-up to the war. One of the main WMD informers- Adnan Ihsan Saeed al Haideri, a friend of Ahmed Chalabi- had already been deemed unreliable by the CA and failed a polygraph test. "The White House used Saeed's claims in a background paper nine months after CIA and DIA officers had dismissed him as unreliable" www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0518-12.htm Saeed then shifted his sales pitch to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith, who welcomed him with open arms.
So while Clinton may have been "misled", Bush certainly knew better. As a results of CIA and Foreign Service staffers trying to flag the Administration on erroneous or overblown statements, Bush punished the messengers, outing Valerie Plame (treason) and dumping all of the blame on the CIA for "bad intelligence". As a result, morale at the CIA is extrmely low, and many effective, experienced staffers are leaving the agency.
I realize that I did not link to these items. You prolly wouldn't believe me even if I did. But I will add links later- I'm busy right now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME