PDA

View Full Version : Democrats knowingly making false statements



jimnyc
01-24-2008, 05:16 PM
And yes, this was after Bush took office and during the lead up to the current war in Iraq. Why would these Democrats knowingly lie to all of us?

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

Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, I'm certain about that - Nancy Pelosi in 2002

Unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons - Jay Rockefeller 2002

We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability - Joe Biden 2002

The president is approaching this in the right fashion - Harry Reid 2002

I can support the president, I can support action against Saddam Hussein - Hillary Clinton 2002

Seeing day after day and week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans to use those weapons - John Edwards 2003 (serving on intelligence committee)

I support the presidents efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein - Evan Bayh (serving on intelligence committee)

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 - Carl Levin 2002

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country - Al Gore 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 2002

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction - Ted Kennedy 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 - Henry Waxman 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. - Hillary Clinton Oct 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 - Bob Graham 2002

Without 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 continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real - John Kerry Jan 2003

darin
01-24-2008, 05:20 PM
They should all be impeached today!

Little-Acorn
01-24-2008, 05:31 PM
Kerry, Clinton, Waxman, Clinton, Bayh, Graham, Gore, Edwards, Pelosi, Biden, and Rockefeller lied, and people died!

Gonna be tough to fit that one on a bumper sticker. I'm sure that's the only reason the leftists haven't done it yet. :lol:

Abbey Marie
01-24-2008, 05:54 PM
Geez, Jim, you're gonna rock some people's world with this thread. Get out the board smelling salts.

hjmick
01-24-2008, 05:56 PM
Let's take them all out back and beat the shit out of them!

Abbey Marie
01-24-2008, 06:00 PM
Let's take them all out back and beat the shit out of them!

Gitmo em! :laugh2:

jimnyc
01-24-2008, 08:26 PM
In find it disgusting that the very top leaders of the Democrat party knowingly and willingly lied to the American public. They were inept in their duties on the intelligence committees and then turned around and lied to the American people. I wonder how much money Pelosi, Kennedy, Edwards, Reid, Kerry and the others are making off of the deaths of our soldiers?

Abbey Marie
01-24-2008, 08:29 PM
In find it disgusting that the very top leaders of the Democrat party knowingly and willingly lied to the American public. They were inept in their duties on the intelligence committees and then turned around and lied to the American people. I wonder how much money Pelosi, Kennedy, Edwards, Reid, Kerry and the others are making off of the deaths of our soldiers?

Through their lies, they've knowingly and willingly ruined the country I used to love.

jimnyc
01-24-2008, 08:36 PM
Through their lies, they've knowingly and willingly ruined the country I used to love.

Yes, I wish the Democrats would go back to the days of old and what they used to stand for. But todays Dems are all about lies, profits and political gain. And to think, all this time I thought it was only the Republicans who lied. So many people had me convinced. Now I find out that the Democrats lied just as much to us, and then have the audacity to take a different stance later for political gain and act like they never lied to us. And from their top party leaders who speak out against Bush and Co. so loudly! I guess the hypocritical bastards cannot even remember their own lies!

retiredman
01-24-2008, 08:48 PM
Now I find out that the Democrats lied just as much to us.

just as much? I dunno. Cough up with another 920 quotes from democrats and you might have a valid point.

manu1959
01-24-2008, 09:18 PM
just as much? I dunno. Cough up with another 920 quotes from democrats and you might have a valid point.

too funny ... now it is the number of lies......

Dilloduck
01-24-2008, 09:22 PM
too funny ... now it is the number of lies......

How could they just piss on the Constitution and what our founding fathers stood for ???????:fu:

Sir Evil
01-24-2008, 09:26 PM
just as much? I dunno. Cough up with another 920 quotes from democrats and you might have a valid point.

Cough up the jizz ya been swallowing, and then maybe you will realize that liars are just as much part of the democratic side of the aisle. :rolleyes:

BoogyMan
01-24-2008, 09:27 PM
too funny ... now it is the number of lies......

Not only that, anything that the left WANTS to call a lie is being shouted from the rooftops as being one. The left has never proven intent nor have they proven lies, yet the claim anything that we were wrong about was a lie. Here we are, standing in the eerie green glow of their scorn and find out, all of a sudden that the left is a big bunch of lying hypocritical methane breathers.

hehehe

manu1959
01-24-2008, 09:27 PM
How could they just piss on the Constitution and what our founding fathers stood for ???????:fu:

the lied to illegally invade a soverign nation......the bastards.....they lied to the president of the united states for aetheist sake....

BoogyMan
01-24-2008, 09:33 PM
the lied to illegally invade a soverign nation......the bastards.....they lied to the president of the united states for aetheist sake....

Lets not forget the Democrats comments BEFORE president Bush took office!


"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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

Dilloduck
01-24-2008, 09:33 PM
the lied to illegally invade a soverign nation......the bastards.....they lied to the president of the united states for aetheist sake....

Sure as hell did----then leave him and our troops out there hanging AFTER the invasion showed signs of not being the dramatic success that we were promised. Sand bagging assholes.

manu1959
01-24-2008, 09:52 PM
Sure as hell did----then leave him and our troops out there hanging AFTER the invasion showed signs of not being the dramatic success that we were promised. Sand bagging assholes.

sounds like most of the people i know in california....:laugh2:

SpidermanTUba
01-25-2008, 01:06 AM
And yes, this was after Bush took office and during the lead up to the current war in Iraq. Why would these Democrats knowingly lie to all of us?

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


How do you know that they knew it was a lie? And where is Obama's name in that list?

Psychoblues
01-25-2008, 01:31 AM
How about the very well documented 935 (and growing) lies of the current CIC to the American people? Are you keeping track of all that as well?

jimnyc
01-25-2008, 06:56 AM
How do you know that they knew it was a lie? And where is Obama's name in that list?

Because I've listened and learned over the years. Originally, I thought the Bush administration spoke what they truly believed, just like the rest of the world, and the Democrats, based on the intelligence they received. But the many Democrats I've listened to over the years have shown me that the Bush administration read the intel, then lied and misrepresented this intel to the American people. So if I'm to believe that this is true, then I must look at it the same way for the Democrats that saw the intel and made the very same/similar statements regarding Iraq and their WMD's.

I've got no beef with Obama making any false or hypocritical statements. From what I've read over the past couple of years he appears to have remained consistent.


How about the very well documented 935 (and growing) lies of the current CIC to the American people? Are you keeping track of all that as well?

I believe we have a rather lengthy thread discussing that, so yes, I do believe we have been "keeping track" of that. But, those statements in no way change or make the lies of the Democrats any less damaging.

Joe Steel
01-25-2008, 07:04 AM
Their statement weren't lies if they didn't know they weren't true.

That's the difference. Bush, Cheney et al new their statements weren't true.

jimnyc
01-25-2008, 07:43 AM
Their statement weren't lies if they didn't know they weren't true.

That's the difference. Bush, Cheney et al new their statements weren't true.

Gotta love when the Dem supporters give a different set of leniency and rules when looking at the statements of their politicians!

There were plenty of Democrats on the senate and house intelligence committees. Now they are either outright incapable of doing their jobs, they spoke what they believed to be the truth based on the intelligence, or they lied to us.

There's no doubt in my mind that they outright lied and knew their statements weren't true when they spoke them. And I have about as much to prove that irrefutably as you do about the others you accuse.

jimnyc
01-25-2008, 07:47 AM
Anyone else find it humorous that when these guys get a taste of their own medicine they resort to pretty much the same lines that they scoffed at over the years? "it's not a lie if they didn't know the information was false". How many times was that line laughed at over the past 4 or so years? Now it's suddenly an acceptable excuse!

The hypocrisy from the left is amusing. This thread and those who defend the LIES of the democrats ought to keep me giggling for a few days to come.

MFM is thus far excused as he has been able to extend the same gauge to both sides. But we'll still have plenty of loonies popping into here with their humorous little quips to defend their lying heroes! LOL

Joe Steel
01-25-2008, 08:02 AM
...they spoke what they believed to be the truth based on the intelligence, or they lied to us.

Right.

They believed what the Bush regime told them. The Regime lied and the Democrats bought it.

They're stupid but not dishonest.

Joe Steel
01-25-2008, 08:10 AM
Anyone else find it humorous that when these guys get a taste of their own medicine they resort to pretty much the same lines that they scoffed at over the years? "it's not a lie if they didn't know the information was false". How many times was that line laughed at over the past 4 or so years? Now it's suddenly an acceptable excuse!

Are you saying the Bush regime didn't know their statements weren't true?

That's absurd.

The Regime can't say it believed Iraq had WMD, was cooperating with al Qaeda and was responsible for the World Trade Center because the CIA and all the others told it so. The Regime had control of the intelligence apparatus. CIA et al said what it was told to say.

The neocons planned the menu, the CIA cooked the intelligence and the Bush regime served it.

retiredman
01-25-2008, 08:12 AM
Anyone else find it humorous that when these guys get a taste of their own medicine they resort to pretty much the same lines that they scoffed at over the years? "it's not a lie if they didn't know the information was false". How many times was that line laughed at over the past 4 or so years? Now it's suddenly an acceptable excuse!

The hypocrisy from the left is amusing. This thread and those who defend the LIES of the democrats ought to keep me giggling for a few days to come.

MFM is thus far excused as he has been able to extend the same gauge to both sides. But we'll still have plenty of loonies popping into here with their humorous little quips to defend their lying heroes! LOL


again (and again) if one reads the democrat's statements closely, one is hardpressed to find assertions of absolute certainty. I know you have cigarette butts in your ashtray versus I am absolutely certain you have cigarettes in your ashtray. There is a difference, but I will admit that such a difference is easy to ignore if that is one's intention.

jimnyc
01-25-2008, 08:29 AM
Right.

They believed what the Bush regime told them. The Regime lied and the Democrats bought it.

They're stupid but not dishonest.

Sorry, wrong as usual. What about the Democrats that were on the intelligence committees that spoke out after the fact about Iraq and their WMD's? So you're saying they were just stupid men and women from the Dems on the committees?

jimnyc
01-25-2008, 08:30 AM
again (and again) if one reads the democrat's statements closely, one is hardpressed to find assertions of absolute certainty. I know you have cigarette butts in your ashtray versus I am absolutely certain you have cigarettes in your ashtray. There is a difference, but I will admit that such a difference is easy to ignore if that is one's intention.

Not hard pressed at all, I suggest you re-read their quotes, and I have many, many more I can place up here later. There statements leave little doubt to the listener/reader as to what they say Iraq had/possessed.

Joe Steel
01-25-2008, 08:47 AM
Sorry, wrong as usual. What about the Democrats that were on the intelligence committees that spoke out after the fact about Iraq and their WMD's? So you're saying they were just stupid men and women from the Dems on the committees?

They either believed the Regime or distrusted them but didn't have the courage to oppose them and find the truth.

In either case, the Democrats did not lie in the same sense the Regime did.

jimnyc
01-25-2008, 08:49 AM
They either believed the Regime or distrusted them but didn't have the courage to oppose them and find the truth.

In either case, the Democrats did not lie in the same sense the Regime did.

The "regime" was not the one supplying the committees with the intelligence, it was mostly the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA...

Nice try though!

Sir Evil
01-25-2008, 08:51 AM
They either believed the Regime or distrusted them but didn't have the courage to oppose them and find the truth.

In either case, the Democrats did not lie in the same sense the Regime did.

Read the response one more time about those on the intelligence committee idiot stick! :rolleyes:

BoogyMan
01-25-2008, 08:52 AM
They either believed the Regime or distrusted them but didn't have the courage to oppose them and find the truth.

In either case, the Democrats did not lie in the same sense the Regime did.

I guess these Democrats that spoke BEFORE president Bush was in office are not liars eh Joe?


"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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

Nor these AFTER president Bush was in office?

"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: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), 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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e 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

"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

"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 Rockefeller (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 weapons 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

"Without 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 continued 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

Egads man.......

Joe Steel
01-25-2008, 08:55 AM
The "regime" was not the one supplying the committees with the intelligence, it was mostly the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA...

Nice try though!

The intelligence apparatus was controlled by Regime plants and operatives. It was, and probably still is, like the Third Reich. Party members were placed throughout the government. They kept in under control. Here's an example:

How Cheney Cooked the Intelligence on Iran (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7302)

jimnyc
01-25-2008, 09:00 AM
Let me add a few more in here, and some include the "certainty" that MFM refers to:

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons program. 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 Senator Bob Graham and others - December 2001 (Graham was on Senate intelligence committee)

"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 mandate of the UN and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Carl Levin, September 2002 (also on intelligence committee)

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

I'll add more as we go along!

Joe Steel
01-25-2008, 09:01 AM
I guess these Democrats that spoke BEFORE president Bush was in office are not liars eh Joe?

The Clinton regime, indeed, did make false statements on Iraq. They weren't, however, lies narrowly focused to start a war. Frankly, I think Clinton's false statements were more from his lack of integrity than criminality. Clinton was trying to earn political capital by saying what the neocons wanted rather than to start a war.

jimnyc
01-25-2008, 09:02 AM
The intelligence apparatus was controlled by Regime plants and operatives. It was, and probably still is, like the Third Reich. Party members were placed throughout the government. They kept in under control. Here's an example:

How Cheney Cooked the Intelligence on Iran (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7302)

Sure, Gareth Porter is who I want giving me solid information! LOL

And you'll have to do better than innuendo and rhetoric to convince us that the Bush administration controlled all those intelligence agencies mentioned, not to mention the agencies from foreign countries who returned with the same intelligence.

jimnyc
01-25-2008, 09:20 AM
Ahhh, what the hell, let's add a few more lies by the Democrats to the list!

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

"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

"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

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.
-- Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina) Speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
October 7, 2002

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Bill Clinton During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."
-- Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
-- Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California) During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it."
-- Howard Dean, Democratic Presidential Candidate During an interview on "Face The Nation"
September 29, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002

WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.

MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?

WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.

MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings. Where are all these weapons?

WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.
-- Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate During an interview on CNN
January 18, 2003

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina) During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."
-- Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."
-- Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina) US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
-- Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)Speech at Georgetown University
January 23, 2003

BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent: And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the right thing to do?

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate: I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?

GEPHARDT: I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.
-- Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana) Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"
November 2, 2003

"We have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al Qaeda operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq.Having reached the conclusion I have about the clear and present danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I want to give the president a limited but strong mandate to act against Saddam."
-- Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut) In a Wall Street Journal editorial Lieberman authored titled: "Why Democrats Should Support the President on Iraq"
October 7, 2002

"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late. But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."
-- Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia) Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

"Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. Now there are suggestions he is working with al Qaeda, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons."
-- James P. Rubin, President Clinton's State Department spokesman
In a PBS documentary titled "Saddam's Ultimate Solution"
July 11, 2002

Joe Steel
01-25-2008, 09:25 AM
Sure, Gareth Porter is who I want giving me solid information! LOL

You know the internet is full of documentation of Cheney's determined effort to manipulate intelligence. Demanding and casually dismissing references are devices to shore-up a shaky argument.


And you'll have to do better than innuendo and rhetoric to convince us that the Bush administration controlled all those intelligence agencies mentioned, not to mention the agencies from foreign countries who returned with the same intelligence.

The foreign agencies were nowhere near as convinced of Iraq's WMD, etc. as the Regime insisted they were. In fact, the yellowcake letter had to forged because no credible foreign intelligence would support the idea.

jimnyc
01-25-2008, 09:32 AM
You know the internet is full of documentation of Cheney's determined effort to manipulate intelligence. Demanding and casually dismissing references are devices to shore-up a shaky argument.

Agreed, there is a lot of rhetoric out there, too bad it's all lacking any solid proof, you know, the stuff you guys rarely deal in.


The foreign agencies were nowhere near as convinced of Iraq's WMD, etc. as the Regime insisted they were. In fact, the yellowcake letter had to forged because no credible foreign intelligence would support the idea.

I suggest you then read the official reports from the British government, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan and even Iran! They ALL believed Iraq possessed WMD's. Try a little research for a change!

Nukeman
01-25-2008, 10:18 AM
The intelligence apparatus was controlled by Regime plants and operatives. It was, and probably still is, like the Third Reich. Party members were placed throughout the government. They kept in under control. Here's an example:

How Cheney Cooked the Intelligence on Iran (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7302)Try a couple of these on for size will yaa..


:tinfoil::tinfoil::tinfoil::cuckoo:

Abbey Marie
01-25-2008, 10:39 AM
Regarding there being no statement from Obama about WMD in Iraq, he wasn't in national office in 2002/2003 when it was being reviewed and discussed. He wasn't elected to the Senate until November, 2004. Any lack of statements on his part is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Joe Steel
01-25-2008, 10:52 AM
I suggest you then read the official reports from the British government, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan and even Iran! They ALL believed Iraq possessed WMD's. Try a little research for a change!

Here's your research.


"...Typical of the Republican-led rebuttal are statements made by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who noted that "every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russian, French, including the Israeli, all had reached the same conclusion, and that was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

"But this is disingenuous. The intelligence services of everyone else were not proclaiming Iraq to be in possession of WMD. Rather, the intelligence services of France, Russia, Germany, Great Britain and Israel were noting that Iraq had failed to properly account for the totality of its past proscribed weapons programs, and in doing so left open the possibility that Iraq might retain an undetermined amount of WMD. There is a huge difference in substance and nuance between such assessments and the hyped-up assertions by the Bush administration concerning active programs dedicated to the reconstitution of WMD, as well as the existence of massive stockpiles of forbidden weaponry.

What Happened to Iraq's WMD (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9271)

jimnyc
01-25-2008, 11:19 AM
Here's your research.

Let's look at actual quotes and reality?


MYTH: The Bush Administration exaggerated the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to justify the war.
QUOTE: “In his march to war, President Bush exaggerated the threat to the American people.” — Senator Edward Kennedy (D–MA), quoted in U.S. Fed News, November 10, 2005.
REALITY: The Bush Administration acted on the basis of intelligence conclusions that were widely shared by previous Administrations and for*eign governments. President Bush was not the first American President to emphasize the long-term threat posed by Iraq. President Bill Clinton justified Operation Desert Fox, a three-day U.S. air offensive against Iraq, by invoking the threat posed by Iraqi WMD on December 16, 1998:

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Clinton’s National Security Council adviser Sandy Berger warned of Saddam’s threat in 1998, “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Former Vice President Al Gore said in 2002, “We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” CIA Director George Tenet, a holdover from the Clinton Administration, declared that the presence of Iraqi WMD was a “slam dunk.”[1]
The intelligence services of Britain, France, Rus*sia, Germany, and Israel, among many others, held the same opinion. French Foreign Minister Domin*ique de Villepin told the U.N. Security Council on February 5, 2003:

Right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is there that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant. Regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of its capacity to produce VX and Yperite. In the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly a production capability.
The German Ambassador to the United States, Wolfgang Ischinger, said on NBC’s “Today” on Feb*ruary 26, 2003, “I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they still have—that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction.”
The Bush Administration may have been wrong about Iraqi WMD, but so were many other govern*ments, few of which have been accused of lying. Moreover, three independent commissions have found that there is no evidence that the Bush Administration exaggerated the intelligence about Iraqi WMD.
In July 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report with the following conclusions:

Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.…
Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.[2]
In March 2005, the bipartisan Robb–Silverman commission reached the same conclusion:

The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.[3]
The July 2004 Butler Report, issued by a special panel set up by the British Parliament, found that the famous “16 words” in President Bush’s January 28, 2003, State of the Union address were based on fact, contrary to the claims of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who has alleged that Bush’s asser*tion was a lie. Bush said, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The Butler Report called Bush’s 16 words “well founded.” The report also made clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intel*ligence that Bush cited or the CIA’s conclusion that Iraq was seeking to obtain uranium.



http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/bg1904.cfm

retiredman
01-25-2008, 06:59 PM
Not hard pressed at all, I suggest you re-read their quotes, and I have many, many more I can place up here later. There statements leave little doubt to the listener/reader as to what they say Iraq had/possessed.

little doubt is still different than NO doubt.

sorry.

jimnyc
01-25-2008, 07:04 PM
little doubt is still different than NO doubt.

sorry.

Then I suggest you again re-read the quotes I posted on this last page, where quite a few of the statements are made with certainty.

Both sides reviewed the intelligence. Both sides made statements about WMD with certainty. Both sides had members on the various intelligence committees. Either they both lied, or they both believed the intel reports. Anyone trying to blame one while absolving the other is either very naive or just refuses to see reality.

Sorry to you too.

retiredman
01-25-2008, 07:06 PM
Let's look at actual quotes and reality?

Jim... can you not see the difference here?

From our allies:

"presumptions" "evidence suggests" "possible possession" "possible production capability" "assume they still have"


and AGAIN... Intelligence was never altered...it was only elevated in degree of certainty to an absolute level.

"I would have to assume that your ashtray has cigarette butts in it."

"There is absolutely no doubt that your ashtray has cigarettes butts in it."

Which one is the lie?

retiredman
01-25-2008, 07:08 PM
Then I suggest you again re-read the quotes I posted on this last page, where quite a few of the statements are made with certainty.

Both sides reviewed the intelligence. Both sides made statements about WMD with certainty. Both sides had members on the various intelligence committees. Either they both lied, or they both believed the intel reports. Anyone trying to blame one while absolving the other is either very naive or just refuses to see reality.

Sorry to you too.


but only one side took us to war on the basis of that intelligence. sorry back atcha.

the republicans in congress who voted for the use of force were nearly unanimous. a majority of congressional democrats voted against it. fact.

and I have said over and over again...that any democrat who voted for it and is unrepentant for that vote remains on my shitlist.

actsnoblemartin
01-25-2008, 07:09 PM
this is getting really lame, what happened before the war (outside of learning honest lessons from it for future wars) is irrelevant to now.

what do we do now is whats important

jimnyc
01-25-2008, 07:11 PM
Jim... can you not see the difference here?

From our allies:

"presumptions" "evidence suggests" "possible possession" "possible production capability" "assume they still have"


and AGAIN... Intelligence was never altered...it was only elevated in degree of certainty to an absolute level.

"I would have to assume that your ashtray has cigarette butts in it."

"There is absolutely no doubt that your ashtray has cigarettes butts in it."

Which one is the lie?

I'm not going to trivialize years of reviewed intelligence by both parties down to a corny question about cigarette butts. It's a stupid analogy that eliminates years of intelligence from the equation. The Democrats had quite a few members on the intelligence committees and quite a few of them spoke with absolute certainty about Iraq and WMD - this is 100% irrefutable.

But I'll stop supporting what statements came from this administration and just state flat out like you guys then that many Democrats lied to the American public, and the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Graham, Rockefeller, John Edwards, Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Durbin, Evan Bayh and a few others I may have missed deserve to be removed from office for the concerted efforts to lie to the American people.

jimnyc
01-25-2008, 07:12 PM
but only one side took us to war on the basis of that intelligence. sorry back atcha.

the republicans in congress who voted for the use of force were nearly unanimous. a majority of congressional democrats voted against it. fact.

and I have said over and over again...that any democrat who voted for it and is unrepentant for that vote remains on my shitlist.

That's truly lame. Without the support of Democrats, and the lies stated by those I have already pointed out, the initiative never would have passed and there would have been no war. Both took us to war.

retiredman
01-25-2008, 07:13 PM
this is getting really lame, what happened before the war (outside of learning honest lessons from it for future wars) is irrelevant to now.

what do we do now is whats important

but who we place in a position to do something now and in the future depends, in large part, on what level of confidence we have about their ability to make wise decisions...and past performance is a good indicator of that. IMHO, the republican party has taken the ship of state and driven it up on the rocks... their conduct of foreign policy, in my opinion, has given the American people ample reasons to take the keys away.

retiredman
01-25-2008, 07:15 PM
That's truly lame. Without the support of Democrats, and the lies stated by those I have already pointed out, the initiative never would have passed and there would have been no war. Both took us to war.

it only needed a handful of democrats.... a majority of congressional democrats voted against it. that is a fact that I am quite sure you WISH was lame and irrelevant, but it is not.

actsnoblemartin
01-25-2008, 07:16 PM
I agree with your analysis, but if you go on www.glenbeck.com and all over the internet, u can find democrats saying similar and nearly the same things.

Im not against holding bush accountable, but democrats dont deserve a free pass either.

Yeah, vote your conchence and who you think is best.

I have no issue with your analysis.


but who we place in a position to do something now and in the future depends, in large part, on what level of confidence we have about their ability to make wise decisions...and past performance is a good indicator of that. IMHO, the republican party has taken the ship of state and driven it up on the rocks... their conduct of foreign policy, in my opinion, has given the American people ample reasons to take the keys away.

retiredman
01-25-2008, 07:19 PM
I agree with your analysis, but if you go on www.glenbeck.com and all over the internet, u can find democrats saying similar and nearly the same things.

Im not against holding bush accountable, but democrats dont deserve a free pass either.

Yeah, vote your conchence and who you think is best.

I have no issue with your analysis.

I have said over and over again...democrats who voted for the use of force and have not repented for that sin, are on my shitlist. period.

jimnyc
01-25-2008, 07:20 PM
I've said what needed to be said in this thread. The liberal loonies can reply and come up with excuses from now until the year 3008 and nothing will change the factual quotes that have been posted here, and the outright hypocrisy that followed.

Say whatever you want as much as you want, no skin off my back. So long as now everyone sees the truth about the LEADERS of the Democrat party and just how filled with lies and hypocrisy they are. The same bungholes who are now voicing their displeasure the most are those that lied in the past. It's sickening to think that those that I have quoted are the leaders that hold the majority in our congress.

Ta Ta for now everyone, my job of reporting to everyone the true facts about who said what and when in the run up to the war is now complete.

:coffee:

SpidermanTUba
07-07-2008, 04:47 PM
Because I've listened and learned over the years. Originally, I thought the Bush administration spoke what they truly believed, just like the rest of the world, and the Democrats, based on the intelligence they received. But the many Democrats I've listened to over the years have shown me that the Bush administration read the intel, then lied and misrepresented this intel to the American people. So if I'm to believe that this is true, then I must look at it the same way for the Democrats that saw the intel and made the very same/similar statements regarding Iraq and their WMD's.


But no Democrat has access to the same intelligence information as the President.

5stringJeff
07-07-2008, 06:03 PM
But no Democrat has access to the same intelligence information as the President.

That's not true. The House has the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Senate has the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, both of which hear of classified national security matters. And both Dems and Republicans sit on that committee.

retiredman
07-07-2008, 06:53 PM
That's not true. The House has the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Senate has the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, both of which hear of classified national security matters. And both Dems and Republicans sit on that committee.


that is not the same thing as saying that they have the same sort of access that the President has.

5stringJeff
07-07-2008, 07:02 PM
that is not the same thing as saying that they have the same sort of access that the President has.

On important and/or relevant national security matters, I would think these committees have much the same information that the President does. Not to mention, some of the Democrats quoted above include then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright, then-National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, and, of course, former President Clinton, all of whom served on Clinton's National Security Council and would have had access to all relevant data.

Yurt
07-07-2008, 07:56 PM
the vast majority of the world, including his own generals, thought saddam had WMDs...saddam himself allowed people to believe that, thinking it made him look strong.

saddam lied, and his bluff worked against him.

retiredman
07-07-2008, 09:14 PM
the vast majority of the world, including his own generals, thought saddam had WMDs...saddam himself allowed people to believe that, thinking it made him look strong.

saddam lied, and his bluff worked against him.

I would suggest that calling his bluff has worked against US.

Yurt
07-07-2008, 09:27 PM
of course YOU would

retiredman
07-07-2008, 09:38 PM
of course YOU would

can you explain how calling his "bluff" has worked in our favor? Have we established an alliance between AQ and Saddam? Have we made AQ noticeably weaker by our actions in Iraq? Have we improved our reputation on the arab street?

Yurt
07-07-2008, 09:50 PM
can you explain how calling his "bluff" has worked in our favor? Have we established an alliance between AQ and Saddam? Have we made AQ noticeably weaker by our actions in Iraq? Have we improved our reputation on the arab street?

you're off topic, my point stands and you have not said my point is wrong...thus, bush did not lie, it was saddam who lied

retiredman
07-07-2008, 09:57 PM
you're off topic, my point stands and you have not said my point is wrong...thus, bush did not lie, it was saddam who lied

bush lied when he claimed there was absolute certainty about Saddam's cache of WMD's. that's an undeniable fact. now answer my question.

mundame
07-07-2008, 09:58 PM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Yurt http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=268165#post268165)
the vast majority of the world, including his own generals, thought saddam had WMDs...saddam himself allowed people to believe that, thinking it made him look strong.

saddam lied, and his bluff worked against him.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>I quote=manfrommaine;268189]I would suggest that calling his bluff has worked against US.[/quote]

You are both right, I think.

Saddam was a fool in denial: he actually didn't believe the war would happen even after we were massing troops on his border! Darn, even the old Geneva philosophy of the "Just War" considers troops on the border a definite buildup for a war. And he did think, apparently, that the only thing we were afraid of was WMD, so he said he had some. We had him killed, so all that was a bad mistake by Saddam.

I think Bush knew that he didn't have any WMD and lied us into war, however, and then got well and truly bogged down for five years, so that part worked against us.

Gaffer
07-07-2008, 10:01 PM
can you explain how calling his "bluff" has worked in our favor? Have we established an alliance between AQ and Saddam? Have we made AQ noticeably weaker by our actions in Iraq? Have we improved our reputation on the arab street?

We have established that he had numerous meetings with AQ. We have defeated AQ in iraq. The iraqi's are starting to run things for themselves and are talking a withdrawal time table.

Our reputation with the arab street will never change. We are their great satan. iraq will simply give them pause about taking us on.

Silver
07-07-2008, 10:51 PM
just as much? I dunno. Cough up with another 920 quotes from democrats and you might have a valid point.

What do you want, links to all the quotes...?

YOU an I lived through it....I HEARD the fuckin' Democrats with my own ears, on TV and radio, warn us about Saddam and WMD ......, hundreds of times during the years BEFORE the war and on back into the Clinton administration....demanding something be done about this clear and present danger.....

did you have your head up your ass and missed all that stuff?

Or are you a koolade sodden hack that conveniently don't recall the last 15 years....

Its either one of those two or your just an ordinary liar.....

Yurt
07-07-2008, 11:00 PM
bush lied when he claimed there was absolute certainty about Saddam's cache of WMD's. that's an undeniable fact. now answer my question.

nah, he changed his mind...

SpidermanTUba
07-07-2008, 11:19 PM
That's not true. The House has the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Senate has the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, both of which hear of classified national security matters. And both Dems and Republicans sit on that committee.



They hear of classified national security matters. But they don't have access to all the intelligence that the President has access to.

Psychoblues
07-08-2008, 01:41 AM
jimnyc, I must’ve missed this one!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe I was on one of my many managerial imposed vacations!!!!!!!!!

I have a few concerns or comments.

First off, I note with interest that you provide no links or context for the statements that you consider so damning to the people that you now quote. On many boards this would be considered trolling but I know that you did not intend such a thing. But, I digress.

Secondly, I note that you posted this in the “Current Events” forum on January 24, 2008 even though all these supposed statements were made in 2002 and one in 2003. In the cases of most posters here the thread would have certainly been moved and in my particular case it would probably have been deleted altogether. But, again, I digress.

jimnyc, certainly you of all here are aware that none of us are exempt from being misquoted, taken out of context and otherwise maligned for things that we have said or not said and certainly so when we have said things without all the information that we needed before we made the statement. Not you, not me, not anyone is exempt from that particular circumstance. Right or wrong, that’s life.

Even me. I have certainly said things right here in DP that in retrospect just pisses me off to no end!!!!! I could whine about it, but that doesn’t change things at all.

There are certainly things that I have said that taken out of context and without due consideration would have the more ignorant here think that I was some kind of a monster!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who? Lil’ ol’ me? Why,,,,,,,,,,I wouldn’t harm a fly.

:)

namvet
07-08-2008, 08:45 AM
and now the liberals are after the dems. love it :laugh2:


http://www.zombietime.com/sympathy_for_pelosi/IMG_2043.JPG

the new DNC !!!!!!!!!

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/05/18/ba_monkeys_012_mac.jpg

jimnyc
07-08-2008, 10:28 AM
They hear of classified national security matters. But they don't have access to all the intelligence that the President has access to.

The Senate intelligence committees are updated directly from the various agencies. Can you provide proof that information was held back? Proof from a prominent democrat who complained back in '02-'03 that information was withheld from them? Anything at all to show that the intel agencies purposely give different information to the president than they do the SIC?


First off, I note with interest that you provide no links or context for the statements that you consider so damning to the people that you now quote. On many boards this would be considered trolling but I know that you did not intend such a thing. But, I digress.

Secondly, I note that you posted this in the “Current Events” forum on January 24, 2008 even though all these supposed statements were made in 2002 and one in 2003.

The claims by the liberals are that GW lied prior to the Iraq invasion, and is still being stated to this day, so I think the quotes from the Dems are quite relevant and timely. If I took the time to link to each and every quote, would you then admit that the Dems either lied or were mistaken just as the administration?

namvet
07-08-2008, 10:42 AM
They hear of classified national security matters. But they don't have access to all the intelligence that the President has access to.

yes unfortunatly for the county they do. but they sell it to the media.

SpidermanTUba
07-08-2008, 12:57 PM
The Senate intelligence committees are updated directly from the various agencies.

The various agencies do not provide the same reports to the Senate Intelligence Committee that they provide to the President.

SpidermanTUba
07-08-2008, 12:57 PM
yes unfortunatly for the county they do. but they sell it to the media.

No, they don't.

jimnyc
07-08-2008, 01:26 PM
The various agencies do not provide the same reports to the Senate Intelligence Committee that they provide to the President.

Proof?

And answers to my other questions that you snipped out?

jimnyc
07-08-2008, 02:50 PM
Allow me to go a little further to those who would still call Bush a liar and absolve the Dems at the same time...

What PROOF is there that Bush was given different information? Any proof that this is info damaging to the extent that Dems would have voted, or spoken to the American public differently?

And what about the Dems that spoke with absolute certainty about Iraq having WMD's and working towards nukes? Do they get a free pass, or were they derelict in their duties on the various committees? What about the leader of the SIC, who was a Dem at the time? Specifically, what WASN'T he told that the president was?

Gaffer
07-08-2008, 07:14 PM
The various agencies do not provide the same reports to the Senate Intelligence Committee that they provide to the President.

Yes they do. They supply the exact same info to the SIC that the president sees.

retiredman
07-08-2008, 07:25 PM
Yes they do. They supply the exact same info to the SIC that the president sees.

:link:

jimnyc
07-08-2008, 07:40 PM
:link:

I'm too tired to dig up links/quotes right now - but I recall reading several articles and interviews where the SIC stated they were "fully" updated by ALL the intelligence agencies on an ongoing basis. I've also always been under the belief that this was one of the reasons for the bi-partisan committee to begin with, so everyone was privy to the intel before decisions were made.

Nonetheless, I'll await a link from SMT where it states the President gets additional information that those on the intelligence committees don't.

Abbey Marie
07-08-2008, 07:46 PM
For starters:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/rules.pdf (esp. Appendix A).

retiredman
07-08-2008, 08:08 PM
For starters:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/rules.pdf (esp. Appendix A).

why post shit like that? nothing in there indicates that the SIC will receive all intelligence provided to the white house. it's just spam

Kathianne
07-08-2008, 08:08 PM
For starters:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/rules.pdf (esp. Appendix A).

and Section 9

Good stuff, Abbey.

Gaffer
07-08-2008, 08:11 PM
:link:

You don't believe links and don't read them, remember. I won't be bothered.

retiredman
07-08-2008, 08:13 PM
You don't believe links and don't read them, remember. I won't be bothered.

if you have a link from a non-partisan objective site, I would be happy to read it. Methinks you won't be "bothered" because you can't produce the documentation.

Yurt
07-08-2008, 08:18 PM
You don't believe links and don't read them, remember. I won't be bothered.

how true. he didn't even bother to follow abbey's link.

retiredman
07-08-2008, 08:20 PM
how true. he didn't even bother to follow abbey's link.

liar. I followed it and read it. and commented upon it.

you should be disbarred

Yurt
07-08-2008, 08:40 PM
if bush lied, how is it these people believed the same thing before bush??

"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." S
- 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

Yurt
07-08-2008, 08:43 PM
liar. I followed it and read it. and commented upon it.

you should be disbarred

your opinion is worthless and so is your deep seated obsession and hate for me...it says in appendex A what she backed up... try reading subsections

and do not ever discuss whether or not i should be a licensed attorney again, you are coming close to breaking the law, you have been warned.

retiredman
07-08-2008, 09:07 PM
your opinion is worthless and so is your deep seated obsession and hate for me...it says in appendex A what she backed up... try reading subsections

and do not ever discuss whether or not i should be a licensed attorney again, you are coming close to breaking the law, you have been warned.

I have been "warned"?

:lol:

quit calling me a liar and quit denigrating my current profession and I'll give you the same professional courtesy. not until.

Appendix A does NOT state that the SIC will get everything that the white house gets.

nice try.

shyster loser.

Yurt
07-08-2008, 10:10 PM
I have been "warned"?

:lol:

quit calling me a liar and quit denigrating my current profession and I'll give you the same professional courtesy. not until.

Appendix A does NOT state that the SIC will get everything that the white house gets.

nice try.

shyster loser.

i read section A to state that the SIC has access to what the president gets. it has access to all of the intelligence agencies. are you saying that is not true?

are you saying that no member of the senate had access to what bush had acces to?

Abbey Marie
07-08-2008, 10:22 PM
why post shit like that? nothing in there indicates that the SIC will receive all intelligence provided to the white house. it's just spam

You are obviously incapable of reading anything that goes against your tightly held beliefs.

And as usual, your language is atrocious. This "sh*", as you so charmingly call it, is a simple recitation of the rules. Can't exactly call it a partisan source, can you?

You have damaged your own credibility.

Thank you to those who bothered to read and comprehend the link.

retiredman
07-09-2008, 06:10 AM
You are obviously incapable of reading anything that goes against your tightly held beliefs.

And as usual, your language is atrocious. This "sh*", as you so charmingly call it, is a simple recitation of the rules. Can't exactly call it a partisan source, can you?

You have damaged your own credibility.

Thank you to those who bothered to read and comprehend the link.

if you would cut and paste that portion of appendix A which proves your point, I would greatly appreciate it. Perhaps I just missed it.

Abbey Marie
07-09-2008, 11:32 AM
if you would cut and paste that portion of appendix A which proves your point, I would greatly appreciate it. Perhaps I just missed it.

Naaah.

Since you have already pronounced the whole source to be "sh*t",
there's no point.

Others have read and understood it, perhaps you can reference their posts.

Oh, and keep in mind that when I cited the source material, I said it was "for starters".

red states rule
07-09-2008, 11:36 AM
Naaah.

Since you have already pronounced the whole source to be "sh*t",
there's no point.

Others have read and understood it, perhaps you can reference their posts.

Maybe this wil help

snip

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,7766785.story

midcan5
07-09-2008, 11:39 AM
"When deeds speak, words are nothing." African Proverb

mundame
07-09-2008, 11:47 AM
the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.


Yer darn tootin. Bush lied us into war. Bush lied, people died.

red states rule
07-09-2008, 11:50 AM
Yer darn tootin. Bush lied us into war. Bush lied, people died.

Did the Clinton administration lie as well?

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”—Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983”—National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”—Bill Clinton in 1998


Or Democrats?

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.”—Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.”—Robert Byrd, October 2002

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.”—Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

http://johnwlillpop.wordpress.com/2006/12/08/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-so-did-these-democrats/

DragonStryk72
07-09-2008, 11:55 AM
This pretty much backs up my point that both sides are screwing us over equally, because they know that, come election, most people will choose either a Dem or Rep based solely on them being the big two, on not "wasting" their vote on a 3rd party who might actually change things. How's that been working out the past 10 years? And do y'all think that'll work out for the next 8 if it continues?

We been lied too so often, and had so many governmental fuck-ups, we don't even get indignant about it anymore. I mean, really, was anyone actually SHOCKED, or just pissed that they said this stuff? We have, one and all, developed battered spouse syndrome with our government.

red states rule
07-09-2008, 11:59 AM
This pretty much backs up my point that both sides are screwing us over equally, because they know that, come election, most people will choose either a Dem or Rep based solely on them being the big two, on not "wasting" their vote on a 3rd party who might actually change things. How's that been working out the past 10 years? And do y'all think that'll work out for the next 8 if it continues?

We been lied too so often, and had so many governmental fuck-ups, we don't even get indignant about it anymore. I mean, really, was anyone actually SHOCKED, or just pissed that they said this stuff? We have, one and all, developed battered spouse syndrome with our government.

The point is, Pres Bush did not lie. Period

Dems are, and are doing a poor job of it

Yurt
07-09-2008, 12:00 PM
"When deeds speak, words are nothing." African Proverb

all this was said before Bush:

"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." S
- 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

red states rule
07-09-2008, 12:17 PM
and we have these statement from more Dems

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.”—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.”—Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002.

And from our favorite Frenchman, this:

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.”—Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

http://johnwlillpop.wordpress.com/2006/12/08/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-so-did-these-democrats/

mundame
07-09-2008, 01:31 PM
This pretty much backs up my point that both sides are screwing us over equally, because they know that, come election, most people will choose either a Dem or Rep based solely on them being the big two, on not "wasting" their vote on a 3rd party who might actually change things. How's that been working out the past 10 years? And do y'all think that'll work out for the next 8 if it continues?

We been lied too so often, and had so many governmental fuck-ups, we don't even get indignant about it anymore. I mean, really, was anyone actually SHOCKED, or just pissed that they said this stuff? We have, one and all, developed battered spouse syndrome with our government.


Yeah, what DragonStryk said. Darn, this post casts a whole new light on the issue of "wasting" my vote.

Wasting my vote is what I've BEEN doing for too many years!!

Voting for some party that is not these two useless piles of liars is finally a step away from wasting my vote.

red states rule
07-09-2008, 01:33 PM
Yeah, what DragonStryk said. Darn, this post casts a whole new light on the issue of "wasting" my vote.

Wasting my vote is what I've BEEN doing for too many years!!

Voting for some party that is not these two useless piles of liars is finally a step away from wasting my vote.

So did your gal Hillary lie?

To narrow the question (she has lied so many times) did she lie when she said the same thing about Saddam and WMD's as pres Bush did?

mundame
07-09-2008, 01:47 PM
To narrow the question (she has lied so many times) did she lie when she said the same thing about Saddam and WMD's as pres Bush did?

The reason everyone ignores those long lists of pontificating speeches Dems made that you all post, RSR, is because they simply don't matter.

The Clintons didn't take us into war. At least, not with bin Laden. It begins to look as though they SHOULD have, but the only war Clinton fought, he won in record time.

That certainly can't be said for poor ol' Bush.

So pols make stupid speeches. Well, they just do. The point is, not a one of that lot you all like to list insisted we go lose wars with all sorts of Muslim countries for years and years.

That was Bush.

mundame
07-09-2008, 01:49 PM
The rule is, it's not what pols SAY, it's what they DO.

The Dem pols pontificated. That doesn't matter; Washington is used to hot air.

Bush insisted on wars plural and got bogged down in them. That's real, and it's bad.

red states rule
07-09-2008, 01:49 PM
The reason everyone ignores those long lists of pontificating speeches Dems made that you all post, RSR, is because they simply don't matter.

The Clintons didn't take us into war. At least, not with bin Laden. It begins to look as though they SHOULD have, but the only war Clinton fought, he won in record time.

That certainly can't be said for poor ol' Bush.

So pols make stupid speeches. Well, they just do. The point is, not a one of that lot you all like to list insisted we go lose wars with all sorts of Muslim countries for years and years.

That was Bush.

In the world of Dems and Bush haters, they will never admit they are the ones lying when they say Bush lied

They have to ignore everything Dems said over the years or else they will have to admit the truth

BTW, here is what the smartest women in world sais

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”—Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

mundame
07-09-2008, 01:57 PM
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”—Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


Well, we all thought it was a good idea at the time; that's why all the pols went along. Because we all thought we would WIN, and the idea of the war was very popular!! So the Dem pols wanted to get in on all that.

You KNOW that, RSR. I know you supported the war too.

There were actually a lot of good reasons for trying the war. Regime replacement as a different solution to problem dictators living forever under sanctions while their people starve --- it was a good idea to try something new! And that actually did work, after all: we killed him.

Should have spirited Saddam out in December 2003 just like we did with Noriega, and left by two weeks later; in hindsight, that was how to win this war.



The real problem was not going into the war, IMO ------- it was Bush falling asleep and not bothering to win it. For YEARS of neglect! Total denial of reality, helped by far, far, far too many conservatives who just sang "Everything's WONDERFUL" and helped Bush lose the war.

And that is why our country is falling apart now. I blame the conservatives who helped Bush promote his lies, and never insisted on him actually WINNING when he could have won, if he'd gotten rid of Rumsfeld and all those useless generals like Sanchez and all the other terrible errors that were made. Migod, what a cluster this thing has been.

red states rule
07-09-2008, 02:04 PM
Mundame, I feel sorry for you. Despite all the sources, you stil have this mental block that we are losing

Even the Dems are are starting to back peddle on their quest to surrender to the terrorists and leave Iraq

The liberal media is slowly reporting the good news

But you still walk around with your blinders on, and your fingers stuck in your ears - ignoring the facts

So be it

DragonStryk72
07-09-2008, 02:17 PM
The point is, Pres Bush did not lie. Period

Dems are, and are doing a poor job of it

No Bush lied too, not just the Dems. I mean, he was up there alot plugging away at the WMDs in Iraq button.

red states rule
07-09-2008, 02:18 PM
No Bush lied too, not just the Dems. I mean, he was up there alot plugging away at the WMDs in Iraq button.

Like Mundame, no matter how much proof is provided, some will never get off their Bush lied rants

retiredman
07-09-2008, 02:39 PM
Like Mundame, no matter how much proof is provided, some will never get off their Bush lied rants


is Jim correct in his opening post and in the title of this thread?

Yurt
07-09-2008, 02:46 PM
No Bush lied too, not just the Dems. I mean, he was up there alot plugging away at the WMDs in Iraq button.

so all the dems lied whom i quoted? is that what you are saying? their lies were before bush and after bush...could it be that everyone simply had bad intel, thanks to saddam who apparently knowingly lied about his wmds? even france, who did not support the war, thought he had wmds. are you saying that france simply took bush at his word? come on....

retiredman
07-09-2008, 02:48 PM
so all the dems lied whom i quoted? is that what you are saying? their lies were before bush and after bush...could it be that everyone simply had bad intel, thanks to saddam who apparently knowingly lied about his wmds? even france, who did not support the war, thought he had wmds. are you saying that france simply took bush at his word? come on....

anyone from either party who said there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's was lying... because NO intelligence reports ever stated that there was that level of certainty.

mundame
07-09-2008, 02:58 PM
could it be that everyone simply had bad intel, thanks to saddam who apparently knowingly lied about his wmds?

No. Who believed that nonsense about WMD? I never believed it! I was for the war, but I knew all that was just propaganda at the time. The Europeans certainly knew it ----- all those MARCHES protesting!! They knew.

I suppose there were stupid people here who wallowed in every holy world Bush emitted, but it was well known that the WMD stuff was just propaganda.

There were good reasons for the war --- ALWAYS ASSUMING WE WON IT, WHICH WE DID ASSUME more fool us --- but WMD was always for the consumption of the stupids.

The pols just made those speeches so they could get some of Bush's reflected glory. Remember, EVERYone thought we'd win. Dems, GOPers, me, you. How could we NOT win? It was a cakewalk. $22 per barrel oil. Take a few weeks, catch and kill Saddam, clean up Iraq, make piles of dead Arabs, teach them not to bomb New York. What's not to like?

Darn, Bush would have to fall asleep and Rumsfeld would have to turn out to be crazy for us to lose that war!!

If the Dem pols had known we were anywhere NEAR likely to lose, do you suppose they would have made those silly speeches? Of course not. They'd have opposed the war, of course.

As they say they do now, not that they lift a finger to do anything about it.

Yurt
07-09-2008, 03:04 PM
No. Who believed that nonsense about WMD? I never believed it! I was for the war, but I knew all that was just propaganda at the time. The Europeans certainly knew it ----- all those MARCHES protesting!! They knew.

I suppose there were stupid people here who wallowed in every holy world Bush emitted, but it was well known that the WMD stuff was just propaganda.

There were good reasons for the war --- ALWAYS ASSUMING WE WON IT, WHICH WE DID ASSUME more fool us --- but WMD was always for the consumption of the stupids.

The pols just made those speeches so they could get some of Bush's reflected glory. Remember, EVERYone thought we'd win. Dems, GOPers, me, you. How could we NOT win? It was a cakewalk. $22 per barrel oil. Take a few weeks, catch and kill Saddam, clean up Iraq, make piles of dead Arabs, teach them not to bomb New York. What's not to like?

Darn, Bush would have to fall asleep and Rumsfeld would have to turn out to be crazy for us to lose that war!!

If the Dem pols had known we were anywhere NEAR likely to lose, do you suppose they would have made those silly speeches? Of course not. They'd have opposed the war, of course.

As they say they do now, not that they lift a finger to do anything about it.

try reading what is posted in this thread, i posted this twice and others also posted information similar:

all this was said before Bush:

"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." S
- 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

5stringJeff
07-09-2008, 03:07 PM
why post shit like that? nothing in there indicates that the SIC will receive all intelligence provided to the white house. it's just spam

It's not spam, it's Senate Committee rules.

And how's this one:
(Rule) 9.4. Each member of the Committee shall at all times have access to all papers and other material received from any source.

So all members of the committee will have access to all classified material received. So if the GOP knows about it, the Dems would know about it, and vice versa.

mundame
07-09-2008, 03:13 PM
try reading what is posted in this thread, i posted this twice and others also posted information similar:
all this was said before Bush:

I see it, Yurt. Everyone sees it everytime GOPers post the same, same list.

You are not getting the point:

Going to war matters.

Talking hot air does not matter.

All the people you list simply talked hot air. None of them took us to war.

Bush, on the other hand, used this same type of words-words-words to go to war and get bogged down. And that's a problem.

Talking doesn't matter.

War does matter, especially if you bog down.

mundame
07-09-2008, 03:15 PM
All those Dems just indulged in some political cheerleading. They wanted to take their chance to look like warriors, since Bush was going to war anyway.

I bet they all feel pretty silly now.

Yurt
07-09-2008, 03:15 PM
I see it, Yurt. Everyone sees it everytime GOPers post the same, same list.

You are not getting the point:

Going to war matters.

Talking hot air does not matter.

All the people you list simply talked hot air. None of them took us to war.

Bush, on the other hand, used this same type of words-words-words to go to war and get bogged down. And that's a problem.

Talking doesn't matter.

War does matter, especially if you bog down.

that is not what you said:


No. Who believed that nonsense about WMD? I never believed it! I was for the war, but I knew all that was just propaganda at the time. The Europeans certainly knew it ----- all those MARCHES protesting!! They knew.

I suppose there were stupid people here who wallowed in every holy world Bush emitted, but it was well known that the WMD stuff was just propaganda.

you clearly lay the blame at bush's feet

5stringJeff
07-09-2008, 03:17 PM
I see it, Yurt. Everyone sees it everytime GOPers post the same, same list.

You are not getting the point:

Going to war matters.

Talking hot air does not matter.

All the people you list simply talked hot air. None of them took us to war.

Bush, on the other hand, used this same type of words-words-words to go to war and get bogged down. And that's a problem.

Talking doesn't matter.

War does matter, especially if you bog down.

So diplomacy is worthless? After all, it's just talk.

mundame
07-09-2008, 03:36 PM
So diplomacy is worthless? After all, it's just talk.


Well, sure, frequently it's worthless!

North Korea.

Munich and Chamberlain.

I could go on......


I keep thinking of more examples.

mundame
07-09-2008, 03:41 PM
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by mundame http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=268985#post268985)
I see it, Yurt. Everyone sees it everytime GOPers post the same, same list.

You are not getting the point:

Going to war matters.

Talking hot air does not matter.

All the people you list simply talked hot air. None of them took us to war.

Bush, on the other hand, used this same type of words-words-words to go to war and get bogged down. And that's a problem.

Talking doesn't matter.

War does matter, especially if you bog down.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
that is not what you said:


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">No. Who believed that nonsense about WMD? I never believed it! I was for the war, but I knew all that was just propaganda at the time. The Europeans certainly knew it ----- all those MARCHES protesting!! They knew.

I suppose there were stupid people here who wallowed in every holy world Bush emitted, but it was well known that the WMD stuff was just propaganda. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
you clearly lay the blame at bush's feet
************************************************** ***

I am not clear on what our disagreement is here.

Yes, of course I blame Bush. He's the one who ACTED. Only action counts, not talkie-talkie. And he failed, bigtime, so the action was a big disadvantage for our country.

The carrying-on by Dems was silly and no doubt much regretted now, but the point is, they did not and would not have taken us to war. We know that for SURE, because they DIDN'T. They did talkie-talkie, but Clinton was prez for 8 years during all the talkie, and he never took us into a war he lost.

Including Rwanda. Lots of smarmy talkie-talkie about that, too, but he wasn't such a fool as to actually DO anything about it.

Talking is nothing. Action is something. If a prez acts, he BETTER win. Bush didn't: he fell asleep at the helm, for years. So I blame him for that.

I don't know how to make it any clearer. Does that work?

Abbey Marie
07-09-2008, 03:47 PM
Mundame, turn off that South Pacific DVD now!

Yurt
07-09-2008, 03:48 PM
************************************************** ***

I am not clear on what our disagreement is here.

Yes, of course I blame Bush. He's the one who ACTED. Only action counts, not talkie-talkie. And he failed, bigtime, so the action was a big disadvantage for our country.

The carrying-on by Dems was silly and no doubt much regretted now, but the point is, they did not and would not have taken us to war. We know that for SURE, because they DIDN'T. They did talkie-talkie, but Clinton was prez for 8 years during all the talkie, and he never took us into a war he lost.

Including Rwanda. Lots of smarmy talkie-talkie about that, too, but he wasn't such a fool as to actually DO anything about it.

Talking is nothing. Action is something. If a prez acts, he BETTER win. Bush didn't: he fell asleep at the helm, for years. So I blame him for that.

I don't know how to make it any clearer. Does that work?

1. you cannot know that for sure, you cannot know how a dem prez would have acted

2. it is not true, many dems approved the war and have continued to provide the funding.

mundame
07-09-2008, 03:49 PM
Mundame, turn off that South Pacific DVD now!


Hmmmmmmmmmm.......................http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/happysad.gif

mundame
07-09-2008, 03:50 PM
1. you cannot know that for sure, you cannot know how a dem prez would have acted

Yes, I know for sure, because we saw how Clinton behaved while Obama --- I mean, Osama -- bombed two embassies and a Navy ship. So we have that data.



2. it is not true, many dems approved the war and have continued to provide the funding.

Yes, well, you certainly have a point there. http://bestsmileys.com/evil/9.gif

Abbey Marie
07-09-2008, 03:52 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmm.......................http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/happysad.gif

Shall I explain? :laugh2:

Yurt
07-09-2008, 03:52 PM
Yes, I know for sure, because we saw how Clinton behaved while Obama --- I mean, Osama -- bombed two embassies and a Navy ship. So we have that data.




Yes, well, you certainly have a point there. http://bestsmileys.com/evil/9.gif

so because ONE person did something, that means everyone in his party would act the same way?

mundame
07-09-2008, 03:58 PM
Shall I explain? :laugh2:

Please...........

mundame
07-09-2008, 04:01 PM
so because ONE person did something, that means everyone in his party would act the same way?


Well, I don't know, Yurt, but don't most of you profess to think no Dems would make war even if Iran or somebody blew up our Strategic Oil Reserve? Waving checkered scarves and black ski masks?

So there is no use you all suddenly calling Dems a bunch of warmongers, when all they did was talkie-talkie. It was BUSH who actually did the deed, and then sort of lost his place and got distracted by the TV or whatever.

Abbey Marie
07-09-2008, 04:02 PM
************************************************** ***

I am not clear on what our disagreement is here.

Yes, of course I blame Bush. He's the one who ACTED. Only action counts, not talkie-talkie. And he failed, bigtime, so the action was a big disadvantage for our country.

The carrying-on by Dems was silly and no doubt much regretted now, but the point is, they did not and would not have taken us to war. We know that for SURE, because they DIDN'T. They did talkie-talkie, but Clinton was prez for 8 years during all the talkie, and he never took us into a war he lost.

Including Rwanda. Lots of smarmy talkie-talkie about that, too, but he wasn't such a fool as to actually DO anything about it.

Talking is nothing. Action is something. If a prez acts, he BETTER win. Bush didn't: he fell asleep at the helm, for years. So I blame him for that.

I don't know how to make it any clearer. Does that work?

Lyrics to Happy Talk from South Pacific:

Happy talk, keep talkin' happy talk,
Talk about things you'd like to do.
You got to have a dream,
If you don't have a dream,
How you gonna have a dream come true?

Talk about the moon floatin' in the sky
Lookin' at a lily on the lake;
Talk about a bird learnin' how to fly.
Makin' all the music he can make.

Happy talk, keep talkin' happy talk,
Talk about things you'd like to do.
You got to have a dream,
If you don't have a dream,
How you gonna have a dream come true?

Talk about the sparrow lookin' like a toy
Pickin' through the broaches of a tree;
Talk about the girl, talk about the boy
Countin' all the ripples on the sea.

Happy talk, keep talkin' happy talk,
Talk about things you'd like to do.
You got to have a dream,
If you don't have a dream
How you gonna have a dream come true?

Talk about the boy sayin' to the girl:
"Golly, baby, I'm a lucky cuss."
Talk about the girl sayin' to the boy:
"You an' me is lucky to be us!"

Happy talk, keep talkin' happy talk,
Talk about things you'd like to do.
You got to have a dream,
If you don't have a dream
How you gonna have a dream come true?

If you don't talk happy,
And you never have dream,
Then you'll never have a dream come true!

mundame
07-09-2008, 04:09 PM
Lyrics to Happy Talk from South Pacific:

Happy talk, keep talkin' happy talk,
Talk about things you'd like to do.
You got to have a dream,
If you don't have a dream,
How you gonna have a dream come true?

Talk about the moon floatin' in the sky
Lookin' at a lily on the lake;
Talk about a bird learnin' how to fly.
Makin' all the music he can make.

Happy talk, keep talkin' happy talk,
Talk about things you'd like to do.
You got to have a dream,
If you don't have a dream,
How you gonna have a dream come true?

Talk about the sparrow lookin' like a toy
Pickin' through the broaches of a tree;
Talk about the girl, talk about the boy
Countin' all the ripples on the sea.

Happy talk, keep talkin' happy talk,
Talk about things you'd like to do.
You got to have a dream,
If you don't have a dream
How you gonna have a dream come true?

Talk about the boy sayin' to the girl:
"Golly, baby, I'm a lucky cuss."
Talk about the girl sayin' to the boy:
"You an' me is lucky to be us!"

Happy talk, keep talkin' happy talk,
Talk about things you'd like to do.
You got to have a dream,
If you don't have a dream
How you gonna have a dream come true?

If you don't talk happy,
And you never have dream,
Then you'll never have a dream come true!


Omigosh, yes, I can hear the tune. http://macg.net/emoticons/smile4.gif Sounds like The Secret book.


In fact, I seem to have stolen the phrase from the book I'm reading this afternoon, Agatha Christie's Passenger to Frankfurt, about spies and diplomats.

"Hullo, Nye," said Chetwynd, smiling all over his impressively handsome face. "Glad to be back? How was Malaya?"
"Hot," said Stafford Nye.
"Yes. Well. I suppose it always is. You meant atmospherically, I suppose, not politically?"
"Oh, purely atmospherically," said Stafford Nye.
He accepted a cigarette and sat down.
"Get any results to speak of?"
"Oh, hardly. Not what you'd call results. I've sent in my report. All a lot of talky-talky as usual."

SpidermanTUba
07-31-2008, 10:08 AM
Proof?

And answers to my other questions that you snipped out?



You are asking for proof that the President has greater access to classified intelligence material than the Congress? Really? The same administration that has routinely refused to turn over documents of all types to Congress?


http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/congress.pdf

SpidermanTUba
07-31-2008, 10:22 AM
Allow me to go a little further to those who would still call Bush a liar and absolve the Dems at the same time...

What PROOF is there that Bush was given different information? Any proof that this is info damaging to the extent that Dems would have voted, or spoken to the American public differently?


The pre-war report "Iraq's Continuing Programs of Weapons of Mass Destruction" that he got wasn't the same as the one Congress got. That's just one example.



Why this has to be proven to you I can't figure out. The fact that the Commander in Chief, the Executive, the guy who friggin RUNS the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, etc., gets access to information that Congress does not get access to ... its kind of obvious.



And what about the Dems that spoke with absolute certainty about Iraq having WMD's and working towards nukes?
What about them? Had they had the same reports as Bush they would have known the CIA was not 100% certain.