NationStates Jolt Archive

Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq

Rubiconic Crossings

11-09-2006, 14:49

whoa! Saddam should never have been deposed!

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/topstories_story_252203351.html

Senator Says World Would Be Better Without Iraq Invasion

(CBS News) WASHINGTON When the Senate Intelligence Committee released a declassified version of its findings this past week, the Republican chairman of the committee, Pat Roberts, left town without doing interviews, calling the report a rehash of unfounded partisan allegations.

Its statements like this one, made Feb. 5, 2003, by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell that have become so controversial, implying Iraq was linked to terror attacks.

"Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associated collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," Powell said.

But after 2 1/2 years of reviewing pre-war intelligence behind closed doors, the lead Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), who voted for the Iraq War, says the Bush administration pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.

"The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war,'" Rockefeller told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. "Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said 'my vote was wrong.'"

Rockefeller went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.

He said he sees that as a better scenario, and a safer scenario, "because it is called the 'war on terror.'"

Does Rockefeller stands by his view, even if it means that Saddam Hussein could still be in power if the United States didn't invade?

"Yes. [Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there," Rockefeller said. "He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources preventing us from prosecuting a war on terror which is what this is all about."

Republicans say there was flawed intelligence to be sure, but they insist there was no attempt to mislead the public.

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," White House Spokesman Tony Snow said.

The Nazz

11-09-2006, 15:05

Something important about this story. Notice how early on it mentions that Pat Roberts left town without doing interviews? That's because if not for two Republican Senators--Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe--this report wouldn't have been so damning. They crossed over party lines to make sure that the Senate report was an accurate one instead of a partisan job. Roberts wanted this report to be a completely different animal, and it's a testament both to those two Senators and to how unpopular Bush is that Hagel and Snowe both felt free to cross over and make sure an accurate report was issued.

Rubiconic Crossings

11-09-2006, 15:09

The Nazz

11-09-2006, 15:18

This is one of the frustrations...I don't know the nuances of the US political scene to catch things like that....

I have noticed though that George and Cheney are starting to loose their grip on the Goppers....

The real shock though is that a pol in the US stating outright that deposing Saddam was not the right thing to do....

Well, you've got Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut calling for a pull out now, largely because he's in a tough race for re-election, so yes, the tide is turning.

Rubiconic Crossings

11-09-2006, 15:37

Good stuff!

Nothing honourable in going to war on lie.

Pantera

11-09-2006, 16:14

Before the invasion of Iraq Saddam seemed to sit on his thumbs except for the occasional flare up. He purged a few hundred people twenty years ago and, no argument from me, did terrible things, but all in all managed to keep things peaceful in his country. Defiance of UN and all, the guy -was- isolated, without the means to do more than make loud noises and bluff. His presence over a united Iraq also seemed to keep Iran quiet. Afghanistan seemed a total victory and it looked like we were making headway in this War on Terror.

After Saddam was deposed? Iraq is aflame. The legion of terrorists we had before has only swelled into an army of insurgency. Civil war is possible and even likely, depending on you who talk to. Tens of thousands of civilians dead compared to the thousand or so Saddam gassed, not to mention insurgents and a few thousand American and allied troops. Iraq is a fiasco, with the insurgency still kicking fiercely and a growing majority of Americans, including this one, ready to get the fuck out of Dodge.

A mistake? I'd say so.

The Nazz

11-09-2006, 16:18

A mistake? I'd say so.
Especially once you factor in the fact that we pulled special forces out of Afghanistan when they were close to capturing Bin Laden, and put troops that could have been used to provide security in Afghanistan and rebuild--or just build, in many cases--the infrastructre to move that country into first world status into Iraq for an unnecessary war.

Ultraextreme Sanity

11-09-2006, 16:21

"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.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html

He's a dupe

John Kerry, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:

"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."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

Another dope

Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of terrorists nuking US cities:

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
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/03/ftn/printable581509.shtml

Hmmmm another fool ?

"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.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Georgetown University
January 23, 2003
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cfm/record.cfm?id=189831

Bad info I guess

"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."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

She didn't have access to good info..being Mrs. clinton..so what the hell

"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
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html

Another idiot

Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:

"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
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html

Must be a republican

"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on commencement of military strikes against Iraq
March 20, 2003
http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=191582

WHO IS THIS GUY ????

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more 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, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

More bad Presidents....

"We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."

Islamic terrorist group "Al Qaeda"
June 12, 2002
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP38802

This guy must be joking

"[W]e 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
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002391

Evidence ???

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

Mrs. Albright ????

"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He 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 ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

EVEN SANDY BURGLER !!!!

"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
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saddam/

Just some guy....

"Dear Mr. President: ... We 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 Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html

Bunch of war mongers

Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,797999,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/24/1032734161501.html

And global warming too !!!

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

Like she wouldn't know.............

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix

Who is this guy ???

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix

hmmmmm ???

CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?

HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
Interviewed on CNN
October 22, 2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/22/hamza.cnna/

liar liar pants on fire !!

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm

WAIT A SECOND !!!! I thought that was THE FUCKING NEO CONS...give it back THIEF !

"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.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."

Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html

Unless Rokerfella is off his rockerfella...he's a lying two faced prick .

IDF

11-09-2006, 17:11

The SR

11-09-2006, 17:21

Great post, of course the commie-libs will of course ignore it because it has too much factural content.

or it just proves the inherent corruptiion in the american political system that a list of political figures could get it that wrong?

Chellis

11-09-2006, 17:35

He's a dupe

Another dope

Hmmmm another fool ?

Bad info I guess

She didn't have access to good info..being Mrs. clinton..so what the hell

Another idiot

Must be a republican

WHO IS THIS GUY ????

More bad Presidents....

This guy must be joking

Evidence ???

Mrs. Albright ????

EVEN SANDY BURGLER !!!!

Just some guy....

Bunch of war mongers

And global warming too !!!

Like she wouldn't know.............

Who is this guy ???

hmmmmm ???

liar liar pants on fire !!

WAIT A SECOND !!!! I thought that was THE FUCKING NEO CONS...give it back THIEF !

Unless Rokerfella is off his rockerfella...he's a lying two faced prick .

The difference is, a large number of republicans still support the war, the democrats by large are changing their opinion(which isn't lying).

I'd much rather side with the party that made a mistake and wants to correct it, than the party who by and large wants to keep making that mistake.

Nobody is saying that the democrats have been right all along, so your post isn't really that relevant.

Ultraextreme Sanity

11-09-2006, 17:48

The difference is, a large number of republicans still support the war, the democrats by large are changing their opinion(which isn't lying).

I'd much rather side with the party that made a mistake and wants to correct it, than the party who by and large wants to keep making that mistake.

Nobody is saying that the democrats have been right all along, so your post isn't really that relevant.

Nobody is saying that the democrats have been right all along

EXCEPT the DEMOCRATS !!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

On the Global War on Terror in Iraq

Rep. John Murtha, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Democrat
"American Presence In Iraq Is More Dangerous To World Peace Than Nuclear Threats From North Korea Or Iran."
(Elizabeth Baier, "Pull Out Of Iraq Now, Congressman Urges," Florida Sun-Sentinel, 6/25/06)

"We can't win this... ...We are causing the problem."
(Congressional Record, June 15, 2006)

“I think we cannot win this.”
(CNN’s “Live Today,” June 8, 2006)

Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi
"Stay the course? I don't think so, Mr. President. ... It must be our resolve to end the war as soon as possible ..." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Floor Statement, June 16, 2006)

Democrat Rep. Pete Stark
"[Killing Abu Musab Zarqawi] is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess -- get out."
(The Washington Times, June 8, 2006, Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt)

Please dont force me to put John Dean and kerry up...it could overwhelm the server ....:D :D :D

You must be kidding...they are all out saying they where duped ...they did not know ...BUSH lied etc..

The fucking morons ,,,are being hung by their own quotes .

believe me there are TONS of them .

AND they knew ...or thought they knew from BEFORE 1998 that they would be going to war...so I ask

WTF ???:D :D

Sumamba Buwhan

11-09-2006, 17:50

Bush deliberately misled the public...

Bush Administration's 237 Misleading Statements on Iraq
Presented by Congressman Henry Waxman
Wednesday 17 March 2004

Background

On March 19, 2003, U.S. forces began military operations in Iraq. Addressing the nation about the purpose of the war on the day the bombing began, President Bush stated: "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

One year later, many doubts have been raised regarding the Administration's assertions about the threat posed by Iraq. Prior to the war in Iraq, the President and his advisors repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that jeopardized the security of the United States. The failure to discover these weapons after the war has led to questions about whether the President and his advisors were candid in describing Iraq's threat.

The Report

The Iraq on the Record Report, prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, is a comprehensive examination of the statements made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

The Database

This database identifies 237 specific misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq made by these five officials in 125 public appearances in the time leading up to and after the commencement of hostilities in Iraq. The search options on the left can be used to find statements by any combination of speaker, subject, keyword, or date.

Methodology

The Special Investigations Division compiled a database of statements about Iraq made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. All of the statements in the database were drawn from speeches, press conferences and briefings, interviews, written statements, and testimony by the five officials.

This Iraq on the Record database contains statements made by the five officials that were misleading at the time they were made. The database does not include statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made.

For more information, see the Full Iraq on the Record Methodology:
http://hgrm.ctsg.com/methodology.htm

To view the report:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

The Nazz

11-09-2006, 17:59

Ultraextreme Sanity

11-09-2006, 18:00

ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WERE WRONG ????

"Dear Mr. President: ... We 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 Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html

"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 C. Byrd
Former Ku Klux Klan recruiter, currently a US Senator (Democrat, West Virginia)
Addressing the US Senate
October 3, 2002

http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_oct2002/rls_oct2002/rls_oct2002_2.html

http://australianpolitics.com/news/2002/10/02-10-03a.shtml

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/2002/byrd100302.htm

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix

"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix

"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix

UN weapons inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in 1998:

CNN
November 5, 1998

U.N. Security Council votes to condemn Iraq

The United Nations Security Council late Thursday voted unanimously to condemn Iraq and to demand that Baghdad immediately resume cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. Baghdad has already said it will not comply.

The resolution called Iraq's decision last week to halt cooperation with the U.N. Special Commission a "flagrant violation" of the 1991 resolution on Iraqi disarmament. It is the 45th U.N. resolution involving Iraq since the country invaded Kuwait in 1990.:D

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/05/un.iraq.02

"Dear Mr. President:

The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.

This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.

The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.

Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."

Sincerely,

Congressman Harold Ford (Democrat, Tennessee)
Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida)
Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)

Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas)
Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina)
Congressman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois)
Senator Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi)
Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)
Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama)

Letter to President Bush
December 5, 2001
http://www.house.gov/ford/12_06_01a.htm

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."

Congressman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Congress
October 10, 2002

http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.htm

http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/pdfs/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.pdf

HOW can you say these things and then say you were WRONG at a later date without being a COMPLETE and UTTER MORON ?????? :D

Its NOT as you can see ONLY about WMDS...its the threat posed by an UNSTABLE leader who was KNOWN to use them to achieve his goals along with other things involving global terrorism...

ALL of these people were not wrong...

Full text of Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq.

US Senators who voted YES to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:

Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
Allen, George (R-VA)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Bennett, Robert (R-UT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Bond, Christopher (R-MO)
Breaux, John (D-LA)
Brownback, Sam (R-KS)
Bunning, Jim (R-KY)
Burns, Conrad (R-MT)
Campbell, Ben (R-CO)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Cleland, Max (D-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Cochran, Thad (R-MS)
Collins, Susan (R-ME)
Craig, Larry (R-ID)
Crapo, Michael (R-ID)
Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
DeWine, Mike (R-OH)
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT)
Domenici, Pete (R-NM)
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
Edwards, John (D-NC)
Ensign, John (R-NV)
Enzi, Michael (R-WY)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Fitzgerald, Peter (R-IL)
Frist, Bill (R-TN)
Gramm, Phil (R-TX)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH)
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
Hatch, Orrin (R-UT)
Helms, Jesse (R-NC)
Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
Hutchinson, Tim (R-AR)
Hutchison, Kay (R-TX)
Inhofe, James (R-OK)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Lott, Trent (R-MS)
Lugar, Richard (R-IN)
McCain, John (R-AZ)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Miller, Zell (D-GA)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nickles, Don (R-OK)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Rockefeller, John (D-WV)
Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
Schumer, Charles (D-NY)
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL)
Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
Smith, Robert (R-NH)
Smith, Gordon (R-OR)
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Thomas, Craig (R-WY)
Thompson, Fred (R-TN)
Thurmond, Strom (R-SC)
Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)
Voinovich, George (R-OH)
Warner, John (R-VA)

Full text of Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq.

US Congressional Representatives who voted YES to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

Get real..the war was the right thing to do ..it just was not done correctly and the planning for the aftermath sucked .

Ultraextreme Sanity

11-09-2006, 18:09

Why right-wingers keep bringing up shit people said in 1998 boggles me. Why? Because Clinton did something about that threat (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html) and by all indications, did it pretty damn good. And yet, what was he accused of doing by Republicans who now claim to be so tough on terror?

Oh yeah--he only bombed Iraq because he was trying to draw attention away from his impeachment vote.

Y'all have some pretty sad selective memories. And it's pretty pathetic that y'all got "serious" about terrorism only after we got hit on 9/11 and did pretty much all you could to impede Clinton when he was trying to do shit about it while President. Anyone who continues to be fooled by these morons deserves Republican governance. It's the rest of us who are getting fucked.

He DID something ????? he bombed an ASPIRIN factory in Afghanistan...and killed a few goats in empty training camps using million dollar a pop cruise missile 's then went back to getting blow jobs ...

I have a VERY good memory of clinton tucking his pansy ass tail out of somalia and NOT responding to the USS Cole being bombed in Yeman and of his pansy ass dealings with the UN and Al Queda...

I VOTED FOR THE GUY ....he wimped out..he didn't take the threat seariously and WE ARE PAYING FOR IT .

So go play a different drum..you dont have to be any wing to see he blew it..while getting blown .

He did alot....Wednesday, December 16, 1998 from YOUR link and story about bad ass Cliton

led to this

"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."

Congressman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Congress
October 10, 2002

http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.htm

http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/pdfs/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.pdf

So what did bad ass Cliton the cigar guy accomplish ...exactly ????

Here read this ............

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

The Nazz

11-09-2006, 18:14

He DID something ????? he bombed an ASPIRIN factory in Afghanistan...and killed a few goats in empty training camps using million dollar a pop cruise missile 's then went back to getting blow jobs ...

I have a VERY good memory of clinton tucking his pansy ass tail out of somalia and NOT responding to the USS Cole being bombed in Yeman and of his pansy ass dealings with the UN and Al Queda...

I VOTED FOR THE GUY ....he wimped out..he didn't take the threat seariously and WE ARE PAYING FOR IT .

So go play a different drum..you dont have to be any wing to see he blew it..while getting blown .

Didn't follow the link, I see. Why am I not surprised? Go crawl back under the bed with the rest of the terrified children. :rolleyes:

Allemonde

11-09-2006, 18:27

The Iraq war can be sumed in this old saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Ultraextreme Sanity

11-09-2006, 18:29

hey buds ...if this had worked ....in 1998

And so we had to act, and act now. Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspections system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction. And some day, make no mistake, he will use it again, as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspections system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, including the Vice President, Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, and the National Security Adviser, I have ordered a strong, sustained series of airstrikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam: If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price.

We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's headstart to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike.

I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses. So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a Government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq, or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force and, when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression, and prevent another Gulf war.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion, resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi Government, a Government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a Government that respects the rights of its people.

Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt: If he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

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. Because we are acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that, although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in a new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace. Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission, and their families. And may

We wouldnt have needed this then would we ?

"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.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Georgetown University
January 23, 2003
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cfm/record.cfm?id=189831

OR THIS

"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
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saddam/

OR THIS

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,797999,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/24/1032734161501.html

OR THIS

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix

OR THIS

"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.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.

The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

This is not an easy decision, and it carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and almost certainly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction -- the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Addressing the US Senate
September 12, 2002
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html

AND FINALLY

Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Yep that Cliton was a real lardass...I mean hard ass...

Anymore arguments to destroy ?

Ultraextreme Sanity

11-09-2006, 18:31

Didn't follow the link, I see. Why am I not surprised? Go crawl back under the bed with the rest of the terrified children. :rolleyes:

Right read the above ...QUOTED from YOUR link and DESTROYED argument .

Nodinia

11-09-2006, 18:32

Anymore arguments to destroy ?

"attempt to submerge in C&P" you mean?

Alleghany County

11-09-2006, 18:33

*snip*

Well said Ultraextreme Sanity.

Kecibukia

11-09-2006, 18:34

"attempt to submerge in C&P" you mean?

Every link has been valid, every quote attributed.

Can you dispute it?

The Nazz

11-09-2006, 18:36

Sure--all those poeple you quoted, with the exception of Hans Blix, were making their statements based on the intelligence given them by the White House, intelligence we know now was beaten into shape by people with a political agenda. They were fed bullshit. Sure, they could have been more credulous--I certainly was, and so were some members of Congress--and they were certainly feeling political pressure to support military action, so they perhaps saw a bit more than was actually there.

But no matter what they thought at the time, the fact remains that all this was bullshit, and members of the intelligence community knew it and were silenced or drowned out by politicians with an agenda--Republican politicians who were looking to use the threat of terror as a political weapon, and one which they used with great effectiveness.

Alleghany County

11-09-2006, 18:36

or it just proves the inherent corruptiion in the american political system that a list of political figures could get it that wrong?

Despite the fact that alot of this was stemming from talks dating back from the Clinton Administration? I guess he got it wrong too huh?

Congo--Kinshasa

11-09-2006, 18:38

Great post, of course the commie-libs will of course ignore it because it has too much factural content.

Yes, because we know all critics of the war are "commie-libs." Way to generalize. :rolleyes:

Congo--Kinshasa

11-09-2006, 18:41

Ultraextreme Sanity

11-09-2006, 18:41

Clinton is the guy that proved to the US military and anyone paying attention , that the only way to deal with Saddam was to remove him .

His way ..Clintons ..FAILED...Bush's way ..WORKED . No more saddam..now the "clean up and the planning for after Saddam is another and ongoing story .

And NODINIA and NAZZ...

WHO bullshitted Clinton and the rest in 1998 and afterwards ?

And all of the DEMOCRATS on the intelligence commitee ???

Your full of shit if you think the IC gets its info after its vetted by whatever administration is in office .

your argumment is invalid as a wooden nickle , you need to find a new one .

Nodinia

11-09-2006, 18:41

Every link has been valid, every quote attributed.

Can you dispute it?

Dispute what? Hes using excessive amounts of C&P? That he's done so before? That he will doubtless do so again?

There was no WMD, there was no Al Qaeda link. Smell the coffee.

Eutrusca

11-09-2006, 18:42

Alleghany County

11-09-2006, 18:43

Every link has been valid, every quote attributed.

Can you dispute it?

I do not think they can. The quotes speak for themselves and shows why that the Democrats are failing when it comes to National Security.

Nodinia

11-09-2006, 18:43

Kecibukia

11-09-2006, 18:43

Dispute what? Hes using excessive amounts of C&P? That he's done so before? That he will doubtless do so again?

There was no WMD, there was no Al Qaeda link. Smell the coffee.

And yet everyone is showing their BDS when the same things were being said during the Clinton years and by the people who had access to the same information.

Congo--Kinshasa

11-09-2006, 18:44

There was no WMD, there was no Al Qaeda link. Smell the coffee.

*gives Nodinia a cookie*

Congo--Kinshasa

11-09-2006, 18:44

Bush can't read a map? We sort of guessed.....

ROFLMAO :D

Kecibukia

11-09-2006, 18:45

*gives Nodinia a cookie*

So you're saying that Bush was in charge of national intelligence services when Clinton was in office or are you just ignoring the citations of that period?

Nodinia

11-09-2006, 18:47

And yet everyone is showing their BDS when the same things were being said during the Clinton years and by the people who had access to the same information.

Realistically, to me a democrat president of the US is probably going to appear as 'warmonger-lite'. But in fairness to Bill, he didnt kill thousands in his fuck-ups.

Ultraextreme Sanity

11-09-2006, 18:47

As usual they will just ignore what doesnt fit their agenda. Facts are worthless they can mean anything .

Alleghany County

11-09-2006, 18:49

As usual they will just ignore what doesnt fit their agenda. Facts are worthless they can mean anything .

Sad is it not?

Iztatepopotla

11-09-2006, 18:49

His way ..Clintons ..FAILED...Bush's way ..WORKED . No more saddam..now the "clean up and the planning for after Saddam is another and ongoing story .

Bush's way failed too. Sure, it accomplished the immediate goal of ousting Saddam (who had to be ousted) but you don't get rid of someone just for the sake of it. Bush's strategy failed in the mid and long term objectives of securing the place and accomplishing stability in the region. And any moron with more than two brain cells knew that an invasion of Iraq would fail at that.

Saddam had to go, but an invasion was not the best way to accomplish it.

Nodinia

11-09-2006, 18:50

As usual they will just ignore what doesnt fit their agenda. Facts are worthless they can mean anything .

Fact - no WMD.
Fact - no Al Qaeda link.
Fact - Osama on extened sabbatical.
Fact - thousands dead, any sympathy and good-will over Sept 11th blown, support for Islamists rising.

Alleghany County

11-09-2006, 18:50

Saddam had to go, but an invasion was not the best way to accomplish it.

It wasn't going to happen any other way.

The Nazz

11-09-2006, 18:54

So you're saying that Bush was in charge of national intelligence services when Clinton was in office or are you just ignoring the citations of that period?
What I'm saying--and I'm repeating since you can't seem to read--is that Clinton acted on his intel, and when we did go into Iraq, we discovered that he'd acted pretty well, that what little WMD capability Saddam had tried to restore was destroyed by those airstrikes. (How Ultraextreme Sanity missed that bit I'll never know. :rolleyes:)

But the intel collected once Bush came into office was looked at a second time by the Office of Special Plans (known as Team B in an earlier Republican administration, and with similar results). They cooked intel. They took raw intel that had been discredited and claimed it was good. They relied heavily on Ahmed Chalabi and the INC. They looked at single-source intel and gave it more credibility than it deserved. And they were wrong, on every fucking thing, and that's what they gave to Congress.

So here's the summary--1998 intel was acted upon, and was used successfully by Clinton. Some of that same intel and subsequent intel was looked at, fiddled with, and was used to come to some very erroneous conclusions, and now we're stuck in a war as a result. I call that deception. You can call it whatever you like, but the end result is a failed war and untold damage to the US military, Iraqi society, and the reputation of the US worldwide.

Iztatepopotla

11-09-2006, 18:54

It wasn't going to happen any other way.

Perhaps military intervention of some kind would have been necessary, but not a full-fledged invasion.

The no-fly zones did wonders for the Kurds, this zones could have been extended and military constraints tightened, until he eventually became an irrelevant figure.

Alleghany County

11-09-2006, 18:55

Perhaps military intervention of some kind would have been necessary, but not a full-fledged invasion.

The no-fly zones did wonders for the Kurds, this zones could have been extended and military constraints tightened, until he eventually became an irrelevant figure.

Not without a complete rewriting of the Cease-Fire agreement signed between the UN and Iraq.

Ultraextreme Sanity

11-09-2006, 18:57

Bush's way failed too. Sure, it accomplished the immediate goal of ousting Saddam (who had to be ousted) but you don't get rid of someone just for the sake of it. Bush's strategy failed in the mid and long term objectives of securing the place and accomplishing stability in the region. And any moron with more than two brain cells knew that an invasion of Iraq would fail at that.

Saddam had to go, but an invasion was not the best way to accomplish it.

Last I looked the jury was a few years from a verdict on that..unless of course you are pushing a political agenda and slanting the facts to fit your view.

Iraq has voted aits own government .

Iraq has voted its own constitution.

Iraq is now in controll of its own ARMY .

Iraq is still not firmly established as a democracy because there are those in iraq and outside of iraq that do not want that to happen.

WHO will win ?

Thats whats still in question . IMO if the US hhad planned better and sent more troops it wouldnt even be close ...but thats in hindsite...

We will see . Its not over and wont be for a while. But Iraq is making POSITIVE progress DESPITE the wailing from the naysayers...they are STILL there fighting for themselves and the country they are to BECOME .

Something that doesn't happen overnight.

BTW ..IF they had the FULL support of all of Europe and the UN ..like they should have...how long would the insurgency last ?

Thats your WTF ??? question for the day .

Kecibukia

11-09-2006, 18:58

Gift-of-god

11-09-2006, 18:59

Many of these quotes have been taken out of context and have already been debunked here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Many of the links provided after each quote are broken.

Attaching a huge amount of cut and paste from other sites that support your position makes you look desperate. Pick one quote and defend it well.

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
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...le581509.shtml

This was one of the first few in this thread. Following the link provided shows us this:

SCHIEFFER: And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Joining the questioning: Amy Walter of "The Cook Political Report."

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. Clearly, though, the president has not done this in the way that I hoped that he would and advised him to do it from the beginning, and that was to get the help that we have needed from the beginning from the UN, from NATO, from other countries in the world. It's...

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.

But I, from the beginning, starting in the spring of last year, in many meetings advised the president that he had to go to the UN, start the inspections; that that was the only way to get the UN with us.
Unfortunately, in the end, he did not get the UN. But even after the hostilities have ended and he lands on the aircraft carrier and tells us the war is over, he still has not gotten the help that we need.

We cannot solve this problem alone. We need the help of lots of other countries, including France, Germany and Russia.

Ouch. But it goes on...

GEPHARDT: Harry Truman had a saying, `The buck stops here.' And that's the way I feel about presidents. I think presidents decide who the secretary of Defense is. I don't think Don Rumsfeld has done a good job for a long time. It's not my decision on who the secretary of Defense is. That's George Bush's decision.

SCHIEFFER: Well, if...

GEPHARDT: And I assume by him continuing with him, that he feels he is doing a good job. The buck stops on the president's desk. The president is responsible for what happens in foreign policy and defense policy and domestically. And if he thinks these folks are doing a good job, then he's going to stand behind him.

I don't think George Bush is doing a good job. That's why I'm out in the country seven days a week, 18 hours a day. I think this foreign policy, as I've said a number of times, has failed, because...

SCHIEFFER: OK.

GEPHARDT: ...he's not gotten the help that we need to do very complicated and difficult things.

The buck stops here.

Since I grabbed the first working link I found, one can assume that many,if not all, of these quotes are just as misleading.

Ultraextreme Sanity

11-09-2006, 19:02

Bush deliberately misled the public...

For more information, see the Full Iraq on the Record Methodology:
http://hgrm.ctsg.com/methodology.htm

To view the report:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

They should put Kerry in there it would blow the computer up...:D

I can't blieve you use this crap to form an intelligent decision..:D

Iztatepopotla

11-09-2006, 19:04

Not without a complete rewriting of the Cease-Fire agreement signed between the UN and Iraq.

Of course. It's not like that cease fire agreement held up in the end anyway. The US could have obtained much more if they hadn't pushed so hard on the invasion thing and if the discourse hadn't been so radicalizing.

What pains me is all that good will and leadership that the US had gotten after 9-11 just thrown away so foolishly when so much more could have been accomplished.

The Nazz

11-09-2006, 19:04

Since I grabbed the first working link I found, one can assume that many,if not all, of these quotes are just as misleading.
Ouch. Should have figured Snopes was well on the case. Won't make a difference to those who are so deeply sold on the issue that they can't see past their fear of the Islamic boogeyman to get at the real issue--the incompetence and deceptive nature of this President and his administration.

Kecibukia

11-09-2006, 19:10

Ouch. Should have figured Snopes was well on the case. Won't make a difference to those who are so deeply sold on the issue that they can't see past their fear of the Islamic boogeyman to get at the real issue--the incompetence and deceptive nature of this President and his administration.

Of course ignoring the fact that Snopes said only some of the quotes were truncated or taken out of context.

BDS strikes again.

Texoma Land

11-09-2006, 19:10

Look at a map of the Middle East. Notice that Afghanistan is on one side of Iran and Syria, and Iraq is on the other side. Give you any clues as to what this invasion of Iraq was really all about? Think about it, dude.

:confused: Um...on my maps, Syria isn't in between Iraq and Afganistan. It is on the oposite side of Iraq from Iran. From west to east: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan.

Ultraextreme Sanity

11-09-2006, 19:14

What I'm saying--and I'm repeating since you can't seem to read--is that Clinton acted on his intel, and when we did go into Iraq, we discovered that he'd acted pretty well, that what little WMD capability Saddam had tried to restore was destroyed by those airstrikes. (How Ultraextreme Sanity missed that bit I'll never know. :rolleyes:)

But the intel collected once Bush came into office was looked at a second time by the Office of Special Plans (known as Team B in an earlier Republican administration, and with similar results). They cooked intel. They took raw intel that had been discredited and claimed it was good. They relied heavily on Ahmed Chalabi and the INC. They looked at single-source intel and gave it more credibility than it deserved. And they were wrong, on every fucking thing, and that's what they gave to Congress.

So here's the summary--1998 intel was acted upon, and was used successfully by Clinton. Some of that same intel and subsequent intel was looked at, fiddled with, and was used to come to some very erroneous conclusions, and now we're stuck in a war as a result. I call that deception. You can call it whatever you like, but the end result is a failed war and untold damage to the US military, Iraqi society, and the reputation of the US worldwide.

Ummmm No NAZZ I didnt miss a thing...what makes you think Clinton had any better info than Bush had ? and according to the freakin U.N. CLINTON didnt destroy crap ..or there was NO WAY to prove or disprove he destroyed ANYTHING...all you can prove is he bombed shit ! What did he hit ? and what was in it ? WTF ..your making the case for BUSH better than Bush does..at least by going in and being on the ground YOU KNOW there is NO WAY , Saddam is doing shit anymore.

Look at all the info that comes AFTER DEC 1998 ! WTF ..I know you are not blind .

Clinton did accomolish this ...

"Dear Mr. President:

The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.

This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.

The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.

Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."

Sincerely,

Congressman Harold Ford (Democrat, Tennessee)
Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida)
Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)

Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas)
Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina)
Congressman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois)
Senator Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi)
Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)
Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama)

Letter to President Bush
December 5, 2001
http://www.house.gov/ford/12_06_01a.htm

So now what ???

People take simple things and try nto make a big fucking conspiracy out of it.

UN ..." Saddam let us verify you have no WMDS "

Saddam " Your momma can eat my goats balls "

UN ..." we at the security council condemn you you are a bad man "

Saddam "YO mamma "

USA....A million tons of explosives and an invasion ,

" Saddam "...did you have to kill my sons ? BTW ..whats with this haircut you gave me ? Couldn't you find a better picture ? I need more light in my cell.

Gift-of-god

11-09-2006, 19:17

To be honest, I am not entirely certain as to whether Bush lied to get support for a war in Iraq. The intelligence gathered and disseminated during the Clinton years was worthless by the time Bush began his campaign for support, so it is no good looking at that data.

The only way to know is to look at the same data he was presented with. You could then compare that to what he said, and then ask yourself if it plausible.

But from past US history and foreign policy, I would not be surprised if deception was part of the strategy.

Iztatepopotla

11-09-2006, 19:18

Last I looked the jury was a few years from a verdict on that..unless of course you are pushing a political agenda and slanting the facts to fit your view.

Sure, kid, everybody has an agenda except yourself.

Iraq has voted aits own government .

Iraq has voted its own constitution.

Iraq is now in controll of its own ARMY .

A constitution that was approved and ratified by the US. A government that's not in control of its own country and an army that can't hope to enforce that control. Those are not great achievements by any measure.

Politically Iraq is deeply divided and will continue to be that way for the foreseeable future.

Iraq is still not firmly established as a democracy because there are those in iraq and outside of iraq that do not want that to happen.

Some of those Iraqies themselves.

WHO will win ?

Thats whats still in question . IMO if the US hhad planned better and sent more troops it wouldnt even be close ...but thats in hindsite...
Nope. It was foreseen, Bush was warned of this possibility and should have been planned for.

We will see . Its not over and wont be for a while. But Iraq is making POSITIVE progress DESPITE the wailing from the naysayers...they are STILL there fighting for themselves and the country they are to BECOME .

Something that doesn't happen overnight.
So, if 60 years from now the US finally retires from the Iraq and 20 years later Iraq becomes a modern Republic that'd have to do with Bush's strategy?

What if the same could have accomplished in 10 years using a more intelligent strategy?

BTW ..IF they had the FULL support of all of Europe and the UN ..like they should have...how long would the insurgency last ?

Thats your WTF ??? question for the day .
It is, because I can't understand what you're asking.

Kecibukia

11-09-2006, 19:19

Ummmm No NAZZ I didnt miss a thing...what makes you think Clinton had any better info than Bush had ? and according to the freakin U.N. CLINTON didnt destroy crap ..or there was NO WAY to prove or disprove he destroyed ANYTHING...all you can prove is he bombed shit ! What did he hit ? and what was in it ? WTF ..your making the case for BUSH better than Bush does..at least by going in and being on the ground YOU KNOW there is NO WAY , Saddam is doing shit anymore.

Look at all the info that comes AFTER DEC 1998 ! WTF ..I know you are not blind .

Clinton did accomolish this ...

So now what ???

People take simple things and try nto make a big fucking conspiracy out of it.

UN ..." Saddam let us verify you have no WMDS "

Saddam " Your momma can eat my goats balls "

UN ..." we at the security council condemn you you are a bad man "

Saddam "YO mamma "

USA....A million tons of explosives and an invasion ,

" Saddam "...did you have to kill my sons ? BTW ..whats with this haircut you gave me ? Couldn't you find a better picture ? I need more light in my cell.

Remember, that letter is taken out of context. The link to Snopes that doesn't contain it proves it along w/ every single other post.

Gift-of-god

11-09-2006, 19:20

Ummmm No NAZZ I didnt miss a thing...what makes you think Clinton had any better info than Bush had ? and according to the freakin U.N. CLINTON didnt destroy crap ..or there was NO WAY to prove or disprove he destroyed ANYTHING...all you can prove is he bombed shit ! What did he hit ? and what was in it ? WTF ..your making the case for BUSH better than Bush does..at least by going in and being on the ground YOU KNOW there is NO WAY , Saddam is doing shit anymore.

Look at all the info that comes AFTER DEC 1998 ! WTF ..I know you are not blind .

Clinton did accomolish this ...

So now what ???

People take simple things and try nto make a big fucking conspiracy out of it.

UN ..." Saddam let us verify you have no WMDS "

Saddam " Your momma can eat my goats balls "

UN ..." we at the security council condemn you you are a bad man "

Saddam "YO mamma "

USA....A million tons of explosives and an invasion ,

" Saddam "...did you have to kill my sons ? BTW ..whats with this haircut you gave me ? Couldn't you find a better picture ? I need more light in my cell.

Your link is broken. Perhaps you could check these things before you post.

Gift-of-god

11-09-2006, 19:23

Your link is broken. Perhaps you could check these things before you post.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/congress-120601.htm

It's okay. I found a working link.

Here is a part not shown:

This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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.

For much of the last year, the Administration has struggled to plug loopholes in the international sanctions against Iraq. Unfortunately, efforts to coopt Saddam’s illegal trading partners -- particularly Syria -- have failed. In the meantime, the illegal oil trade from Iraq has flourished, and Saddam now earns an estimated $2 billion annually, much of which he has devoted to his military and his illegal weapons programs.

If we have learned one thing from the ongoing battle in Afghanistan, it is that working effectively in coordination with locals on the ground can significantly leverage our own use of military force. While we have no doubt that in the long run, the United States will always prevail in battle with the likes of the Taliban (not to speak of Saddam Hussein), we also know that we can minimize casualties and shorten conflict by cooperating with opposition forces. That has been a key element of US strategy for several decades.

Since the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act three years ago, we have fought to provide support for Iraqis inside Iraq. The Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella group of all the significant anti?Saddam forces inside Iraq, has consistently requested Administration assistance for operations on the ground in Iraq ranging from the delivery of humanitarian assistance and information-gathering to military and technical training and lethal military drawdown.

Despite the express wishes of the Congress, the INC has been denied U.S. assistance for any operations inside any part of Iraq, including liberated Kurdish areas. Instead, successive Administrations have funded conferences, offices and other intellectual exercises that have done little more than expose the INC to accusations of being “limousine insurgents” and “armchair guerillas.” We note the troubling similarity of these accusation to charges made against the Afghan guerillas now helping us win the war against the Taliban.

The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.

Please note that some of this seems to support your argument, while some is critical of the current policy. Oh, and the signatories don't match up.

Ultraextreme Sanity

11-09-2006, 19:40

http://www.newamericancentury.org/congress-120601.htm

It's okay. I found a working link.

Here is a part not shown:

Please note that some of this seems to support your argument, while some is critical of the current policy. Oh, and the signatories don't match up.

I have been following every link and reading the FULL text of every article and it takes time as the web page itself notes...

Note: As some of these comments above are embarrassing, some of the specific web pages cited may mysteriously disappear. In some cases, multiple links have been provided to bypass such disappearances.

Links to the above cited web pages were all working and verified at the time of posting, and the original web pages and text have been archived in their entirety for historical purposes. All dates and citations provided are 100% accurate to facilitate further research.

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

If you are interested in reading all of them go for it.

Saddam had to go.

We did a bad job after we got rid of him .

We are paying for it along with the Iraqi people .

It is vital that we succeed in Iraq . And that Iraq become a stable democracy.

It is apparent that NO democrat can do this.

Nothing I have read will change the way I feel ...I have yet to read anything CREDIBLE to prove that BUSH acted with anything but the best intentions of the US and its people and with the bbest information he had at the time .

I think all those who gave him the info after reading what was collected an anylising it .... should be fired..... or shot for being dopes .

if you want to call that an agenda go for it .

Meath Street

11-09-2006, 19:50

Great post, of course the commie-libs will of course ignore it because it has too much factural content.
You think that being against the Iraq war mean that I'm a communist?

In that case, by golly the Soviets have conquered the hearts of Europe.

Rubiconic Crossings

11-09-2006, 19:51

Look at a map of the Middle East. Notice that Afghanistan is on one side of Iran and Syria, and Iraq is on the other side. Give you any clues as to what this invasion of Iraq was really all about? Think about it, dude.

I have a number of ideas yes.

Please address your point to the OP....or how they interact....I'd be quite interested in hearing it....!

Ultraextreme Sanity

11-09-2006, 19:55

Remember, that letter is taken out of context. The link to Snopes that doesn't contain it proves it along w/ every single other post.

Not true I just came from snopes and google and cant find anyone challenging the web sites accuracy or its sources.

I did find this though ........

Note: As some of these comments above are embarrassing, some of the specific web pages cited may mysteriously disappear. In some cases, multiple links have been provided to bypass such disappearances.

Links to the above cited web pages were all working and verified at the time of posting, and the original web pages and text have been archived in their entirety for historical purposes. All dates and citations provided are 100% accurate to facilitate further research.

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

I have been searching snopes and other sources for any condemnation of the web site or its sources..I have yet to find one .

I am getting a headache reading the archives though .

Meath Street

11-09-2006, 19:56

Nobody is saying that the democrats have been right all along

EXCEPT the DEMOCRATS !!!!!! :D
Funny how almost none of the liberals on this forum line up with the Democrats, but that almost every conservative lines up with Republicans.

His way ..Clintons ..FAILED...Bush's way ..WORKED . No more saddam..now the "clean up and the planning for after Saddam is another and ongoing story .
The clean up is what matters. Obviously the US military could make mince of Hussein, it always could, but I don't consider Iraq to be a success simply because Saddam doesn't run it anymore.

I do not think they can. The quotes speak for themselves and shows why that the Democrats are failing when it comes to National Security.
The Democrats aren't the government so they're irrelevant. The Iraq war has done nothing to improve the security of America and Europe.

If there was no war there 191 Spaniards and 57 Britons would still be living.

As usual they will just ignore what doesnt fit their agenda. Facts are worthless they can mean anything .
People from many sides do this. Not just liberals.

Gift-of-god

11-09-2006, 20:24

I have been following every link and reading the FULL text of every article and it takes time as the web page itself notes...

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

If you are interested in reading all of them go for it.

Saddam had to go.

We did a bad job after we got rid of him .

We are paying for it along with the Iraqi people .

It is vital that we succeed in Iraq . And that Iraq become a stable democracy.

It is apparent that NO democrat can do this.

Nothing I have read will change the way I feel ...I have yet to read anything CREDIBLE to prove that BUSH acted with anything but the best intentions of the US and its people and with the bbest information he had at the time .

I think all those who gave him the info after reading what was collected an anylising it .... should be fired..... or shot for being dopes .

if you want to call that an agenda go for it .

Yes. I'm also getting a little stiff, and my eyes feel buggy.:)

Like I said earlier, there is no proof that Bush lied, and if there was, it would probably stay under wraps until it's no longer important.

Yeah, they should be fired. Somebody dropped the ball.

Rubiconic Crossings

11-09-2006, 20:33

So the President should not take responsibility for failures of his administration?

In business the board or the shareholders take a dim view of big mistakes.

Willamena

11-09-2006, 20:42

...ready to get the fuck out of Dodge.
The smart presidential candidate will be the one who runs with that catchphrase.

Nihonou-san

11-09-2006, 21:28

Hey, man. The war in Iraq was unnecessary. I always thought that. Bin Laden and Saddam had nothing to do with each other. We've killed thousands of innocent civilians, and for what? Oil? Maybe. But I'd rather have Libertarians running the country than Bush. He might fall victim to the curse of Tecumseh (All presidents elected in the years ending with a zero will die).

Gravlen

11-09-2006, 22:08

And you keep saying "used successfully" and have yet to show that he did anything "successfully" when he even signed a bill calling for regime change. I'm not denying your red herring about the reputation of the US, but even Blix said in 2002 and 3 that Iraq still had WMD's. The security council agreed and had access to the same raw data.
Um... They didn't agree that he had WMD's. That was the whole point of the inspectors, remember?

And could you please provide a quote to prove that Blix said they actually had WMD's?

Gravlen

11-09-2006, 22:21

I have been following every link and reading the FULL text of every article and it takes time as the web page itself notes...

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
They're good at taking things out of context at least. And did you say they didn't have an agenda?

If you are interested in reading all of them go for it.
Done.

Saddam had to go. No he didn't. Why did he?

We did a bad job after we got rid of him .

We are paying for it along with the Iraqi people .

It is vital that we succeed in Iraq . And that Iraq become a stable democracy.
True.

It is apparent that NO democrat can do this.
:rolleyes:
Nor any republican either apparently...

Nothing I have read will change the way I feel ...I have yet to read anything CREDIBLE to prove that BUSH acted with anything but the best intentions of the US and its people and with the bbest information he had at the time .
I'm more worried about the circle around Bush then Dubya himself, to be honest.

I think all those who gave him the info after reading what was collected an anylising it .... should be fired..... or shot for being dopes .
Instead those in charge are awarded the Presidential medal of Freedom. Go figure.

if you want to call that an agenda go for it .
I will, thank you :)

Nodinia

11-09-2006, 22:24

And the Congressional medal of failure, don't forget.

Kecibukia

11-09-2006, 22:26

Um... They didn't agree that he had WMD's. That was the whole point of the inspectors, remember?

And could you please provide a quote to prove that Blix said they actually had WMD's?

Read pg 1.

"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusn...wsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/spr...ranscript.blix

Of course now, you'll say "He didn't say they absolutely had it so I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and go LALALALALALA to the dozens of other quotes and just say bias, out of context, etc."

[NS:]Begoner21

11-09-2006, 23:16

Funny how almost none of the liberals on this forum line up with the Democrats, but that almost every conservative lines up with Republicans.

That's because it's physically impossible to line up with the Democrats, unless one day you're for the war, the next you're against it, and you consider a good day ruined if you haven't flip-flopped on at least 5 issues that day. Republicans tend to stick to their values, no matter which way the political wind blows, at least much more so than Democrats. It's easier to have mostly overlapping policies with the Republican party because they have sensible and immuatable policies.

Neo Undelia

11-09-2006, 23:18

I agree with him for the most part.

Meath Street

11-09-2006, 23:25

[NS:]Begoner21

11-09-2006, 23:27

Well, the Republicans aren't really any more consistent than the Democrats, but thanks for proving my point.

Actually, Republicans are much more steadfast on major issues than the Democrats, although they may shift their position when it becomes completely untenable (ie, Iraq). And I'm always glad to oblige in proving points.

Kinda Sensible people

11-09-2006, 23:28

ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WERE WRONG ????
HOW can you say these things and then say you were WRONG at a later date without being a COMPLETE and UTTER MORON ?????? :D

Its NOT as you can see ONLY about WMDS...its the threat posed by an UNSTABLE leader who was KNOWN to use them to achieve his goals along with other things involving global terrorism...

ALL of these people were not wrong...

Get real..the war was the right thing to do ..it just was not done correctly and the planning for the aftermath sucked .

Gee... Maybe you can be fooled by dilleberately misleading (and selectively picked) evidence? I mean, you know, when the President and the CIA have chosen to go to war before they bother to find the facts, it tends to be easy for them to claim that they have facts that really aren't by any means supported.

Yes, Dems should have cross-examined the evidence when it was presented, but the mistake they made was trusting the President to tell the truth. Clearly he did not bother to do so. Who then is at fault?

"Fool me once... Shame on me. Fool me... Fool me twice... You can't get fooled again!!"

Don't worry, we won't be. :D

Gravlen

11-09-2006, 23:31

Read pg 1.

"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusn...wsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/spr...ranscript.blix

Of course now, you'll say "He didn't say they absolutely had it so I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and go LALALALALALA to the dozens of other quotes and just say bias, out of context, etc."

No I won't, because I asked specifically for quotes from Mr. Blix - and you yourself obviously know that this quote isn't convincing enough or you wouldn't throw such a childish tantrum.

Anyway, no, you're right, he did not say "that Iraq still had WMD's" as you claimed prevously.
And that's my point. While some said it was a "slam dunk" case, others were far more careful and sceptical.

Kinda Sensible people

11-09-2006, 23:32

Begoner21;11669548']That's because it's physically impossible to line up with the Democrats, unless one day you're for the war, the next you're against it, and you consider a good day ruined if you haven't flip-flopped on at least 5 issues that day. Republicans tend to stick to their values, no matter which way the political wind blows, at least much more so than Democrats. It's easier to have mostly overlapping policies with the Republican party because they have sensible and immuatable policies.

Oh teh noes!

The evil liberals have learned how to change their opinions as new facts are presented! Amazing!

You know, in Washington they call that Flip-flopping, but in the rest of the world they call it intelligence and adaptability.

What good is a consistent administration if it is consistently wrong?

I also challenge you to show me a single "Flip-Flop" that isn't related to Rove et al's War on Middle East Stability?

Keruvalia

11-09-2006, 23:42

Fascinating ...

So ...

Fact: Bush lied!
Con Response: All these Dems voted ok on it, so they're just as bad!!
Fact: Dems changed their position, Repubs did not.

So ...

Party A: 2002 "War! Fuck Yeah!", 2006 "Ummm ... we're fuckin' it up."

Party B: 2002 "War! Fuck Yeah!", 2006 "War! Fuck Yeah!"

Whose side are you on?

Sumamba Buwhan

11-09-2006, 23:44

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060909/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report&printer=1

Democrats singled out CIA Director George Tenet, saying that during a private meeting in July Tenet told the panel that the White House pressured him and that he agreed to back up the administration's case for war despite his own agents' doubts about the intelligence it was based on.

"Tenet admitted to the Intelligence Committee that the policymakers wanted him to 'say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said,'" Intelligence Committee member Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters Friday.

Tenet also told the committee that complying had been "the wrong thing to do," according to Levin.

[NS:]Begoner21

11-09-2006, 23:55

The evil liberals have learned how to change their opinions as new facts are presented! Amazing!

Adapting your views on a particular position based on additional information is OK by me. However, changing your views continuously to fit the particular political climate is not only confusing but wrong. Sticking to your guns is not stubborn unless there is clear evidence showing that your view is incorrect. If your views are flimsy and insubstantial enough that they can be changed often, it means you are not the correct choice as a leader of America.

I also challenge you to show me a single "Flip-Flop" that isn't related to Rove et al's War on Middle East Stability?

When the Democrats were in power in Congress, they wanted to ban the filibuster. But a while back, when they lost Cogress, they started protesting against banning the filibuster.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050522-115721-3263r.htm

Keruvalia

12-09-2006, 00:09

Begoner21;11669792']If your views are flimsy and insubstantial enough that they can be changed often, it means you are not the correct choice as a leader of America.

If you're so stubborn as to believe you are absolutely right even though you've been shown time and time again undeniable proof that you are wrong, then you are not the correct choice as a leader of America.

Kinda Sensible people

12-09-2006, 00:16

Begoner21;11669792']Adapting your views on a particular position based on additional information is OK by me. However, changing your views continuously to fit the particular political climate is not only confusing but wrong. Sticking to your guns is not stubborn unless there is clear evidence showing that your view is incorrect. If your views are flimsy and insubstantial enough that they can be changed often, it means you are not the correct choice as a leader of America.

They aren't changed often. That's your anti-dem spin.

When the Democrats were in power in Congress, they wanted to ban the filibuster. But a while back, when they lost Cogress, they started protesting against banning the filibuster.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050522-115721-3263r.htm

Correction: Ted Kennedy and bunch of his pseudo-Dem cronies. They do not represent mainstream Dems by any means.

CanuckHeaven

12-09-2006, 00:19

He's a dupe

Another dope

Hmmmm another fool ?

Bad info I guess

She didn't have access to good info..being Mrs. clinton..so what the hell

Another idiot

Must be a republican

WHO IS THIS GUY ????

More bad Presidents....

This guy must be joking

Evidence ???

Mrs. Albright ????

EVEN SANDY BURGLER !!!!

Just some guy....

Bunch of war mongers

And global warming too !!!

Like she wouldn't know.............

Who is this guy ???

hmmmmm ???

liar liar pants on fire !!

WAIT A SECOND !!!! I thought that was THE FUCKING NEO CONS...give it back THIEF !

Unless Rokerfella is off his rockerfella...he's a lying two faced prick .
A classic example of a partisan hack. :p

Taking people out of context in the manner in which you have done so, blows your argument out of the water. You lose.... :D

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV on the Senate Floor (http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html)
On the Iraq Resolution
October 10, 2002

This time, trying reading ALL of the words!! :eek:

CanuckHeaven

12-09-2006, 00:20

Great post, of course the commie-libs will of course ignore it because it has too much factural content.
If you think that is a great post then you are also just a political hack as well. :D

CanuckHeaven

12-09-2006, 00:23

Nobody is saying that the democrats have been right all along

EXCEPT the DEMOCRATS !!!!!! :D :D :D

Please dont force me to put John Dean and kerry up...it could overwhelm the server ....:D :D :D

You must be kidding...they are all out saying they where duped ...they did not know ...BUSH lied etc..

The fucking morons ,,,are being hung by their own quotes .

believe me there are TONS of them .

AND they knew ...or thought they knew from BEFORE 1998 that they would be going to war...so I ask

WTF ???:D :D
It appears that it is you that is being hung by your own lack of knowledge? :eek:

CanuckHeaven

12-09-2006, 00:27

CanuckHeaven

12-09-2006, 00:30

Well said Ultraextreme Sanity.
Gotta love the Corneliu like snippage. :D

CanuckHeaven

12-09-2006, 00:34

I do not think they can. The quotes speak for themselves and shows why that the Democrats are failing when it comes to National Security.
The quotes speak for themselves, even if they are taken out of context?

Congrats.....you can join Ultra, and IDF in the political hacker column. :D

CanuckHeaven

12-09-2006, 00:40

CanuckHeaven

12-09-2006, 00:48

Read pg 1.

"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusn...wsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/spr...ranscript.blix

Of course now, you'll say "He didn't say they absolutely had it so I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and go LALALALALALA to the dozens of other quotes and just say bias, out of context, etc."
In other words, you can't prove what you stated earlier so you will ignore criticism? Hmmmmm

Rubiconic Crossings

12-09-2006, 00:49

A classic example of a partisan hack. :p

Taking people out of context in the manner in which you have done so, blows your argument out of the water. You lose.... :D

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV on the Senate Floor (http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html)
On the Iraq Resolution
October 10, 2002

This time, trying reading ALL of the words!! :eek:

yeah...so full of holes I thought it not worth responding to.

shame really.

all those bits used up on the Jolt servers taking up space best used for something more worthwhile like pics of marmite sarni's....

http://static.flickr.com/41/115480106_0ad3f230a2_t.jpg

CanuckHeaven

12-09-2006, 00:52

Begoner21;11669548']That's because it's physically impossible to line up with the Democrats, unless one day you're for the war, the next you're against it, and you consider a good day ruined if you haven't flip-flopped on at least 5 issues that day. Republicans tend to stick to their values, no matter which way the political wind blows, at least much more so than Democrats. It's easier to have mostly overlapping policies with the Republican party because they have sensible and immuatable policies.
Republicans don't flip flop?

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263)

My favourite:

14. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

Bush's Top Ten Flip-Flops (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/politics/main646142.shtml)

More than 50 Bush Flip-Flops (http://www.50bushflipflops.com/Introduction/home.html)

Fish out of water????

Kecibukia

12-09-2006, 00:53

In other words, you can't prove what you stated earlier so you will ignore criticism? Hmmmmm

Is that like lying about gun control laws CH? Or ignoring the dozens of other quotes and sources that even scopes doesn't have alternate sources on while also stating only some were "taken out of context or abridged"? Hmmmmm

Kecibukia

12-09-2006, 00:56

No I won't, because I asked specifically for quotes from Mr. Blix - and you yourself obviously know that this quote isn't convincing enough or you wouldn't throw such a childish tantrum.

Anyway, no, you're right, he did not say "that Iraq still had WMD's" as you claimed prevously.
And that's my point. While some said it was a "slam dunk" case, others were far more careful and sceptical.

Oh, a "childish tantrum" when you are doing exactly what I said you would do?

Or just denial that they said they had it and Blix said we need to find it or they need to prove it's gone.

Rubiconic Crossings

12-09-2006, 01:07

http://static.flickr.com/41/115480106_0ad3f230a2_t.jpg

won't somebody think of the bits???? Please think of the bits!!!

boooo hooo hoooo hooo

/sniffle

CanuckHeaven

12-09-2006, 01:07

yeah...so full of holes I thought it not worth responding to.

shame really.

all those bits used up on the Jolt servers taking up space best used for something more worthwhile like pics of marmite sarni's....

http://static.flickr.com/41/115480106_0ad3f230a2_t.jpg
Well, you know what Bush would say?

President Bush "Fool me once?" (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10340.htm)

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." :D

CanuckHeaven

12-09-2006, 01:10

Is that like lying about gun control laws CH? Or ignoring the dozens of other quotes and sources that even scopes doesn't have alternate sources on while also stating only some were "taken out of context or abridged"? Hmmmmm
What has gun control got to do with this? Nice side track, and nice flame. Record will show that you called me a liar. Can't win the argument, attack the poster. You lose!! :D

CanuckHeaven

12-09-2006, 01:12

Oh, a "childish tantrum" when you are doing exactly what I said you would do?

Or just denial that they said they had it and Blix said we need to find it or they need to prove it's gone.
Blix said there was co-operation on process or did you forget that part of the report? Did you also forget that he stated that more time and more inspectors were needed?

And another flame....you are doing well. :rolleyes:

[NS:]Begoner21

12-09-2006, 01:13

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

Way to give the full context of the quote. Here it is in full:

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did."

Basically, he has no clue where Osama is due to lack of information regarding his whereabouts. Thus, he focuses on the US troops that are fighting abroad. I do not consider that an unreasonable course of action.

And then a bit later in that same press conference, he stated:

"I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will."

Hypocrisy, anyone?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

CanuckHeaven

12-09-2006, 01:16

Begoner21;11670113']Way to give the full context of the quote. Here it is in full:

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did."

Basically, he has no clue where Osama is due to lack of information regarding his whereabouts. Thus, he focuses on the US troops that are fighting abroad. I do not consider that an unreasonable course of action.

And then a bit later in that same press conference, he stated:

"I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will."

Hypocrisy, anyone?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
The only hypocrisy is that of the Bushmeister. He stated that he would hunt down Bin Laden, and when he realized that his words were hollow, he had to backtrack and cover up his glaring misspoken words.

The Nazz

12-09-2006, 01:53

Begoner21;11670113']Way to give the full context of the quote. Here it is in full:

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did."

Basically, he has no clue where Osama is due to lack of information regarding his whereabouts. Thus, he focuses on the US troops that are fighting abroad. I do not consider that an unreasonable course of action.

And then a bit later in that same press conference, he stated:

"I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will."

Hypocrisy, anyone?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Question--if he was so convinced that we had Bin Laden on the run, if he was so comfortable that we had him cornered, then why did he pull Special Forces out of the area? Could it be that he really didn't care about Bin Laden anymore and that he had a sexier target now, namely, Saddam Hussein? And if that's the case, then what does that say about his command ability, that he dropped an important target that was on the run for one that was contained and was no threat?

No wonder we've lost both wars. We've got Bush in command and people like you supporting him. We're lucky we haven't accidentally nuked ourselves.

Meath Street

12-09-2006, 01:55

Begoner21;11669606']Actually, Republicans are much more steadfast on major issues than the Democrats, although they may shift their position when it becomes completely untenable (ie, Iraq).
Just like the Democrats or any other major political party in the word you can think of.

Chellis

12-09-2006, 03:56

Nobody is saying that the democrats have been right all along

EXCEPT the DEMOCRATS !!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

Please dont force me to put John Dean and kerry up...it could overwhelm the server ....:D :D :D

You must be kidding...they are all out saying they where duped ...they did not know ...BUSH lied etc..

The fucking morons ,,,are being hung by their own quotes .

believe me there are TONS of them .

AND they knew ...or thought they knew from BEFORE 1998 that they would be going to war...so I ask

WTF ???:D :D

I hate quoting posts from pages ago... but this was just begging for it.

You did absolutely nothing to refute my point. You say that the democrats say they they have been right all along, then quote them saying now that they are against the war.

You didn't post anything with them saying that they believed this before they voted for the war.

All you posted was them being against the war. That supports my point, that they changed their opinions on a war. Please, explain to me how that means they believe that they were right the whole time, from when they voted for the war, to now when they say it should be stopped.

Chellis

12-09-2006, 04:50

Oh, a "childish tantrum" when you are doing exactly what I said you would do?

Or just denial that they said they had it and Blix said we need to find it or they need to prove it's gone.

Blix also wanted UN inspections to continue, over an invasion. He obviously didn't think that it was pressing enough for an immediate invasion. He believed there was a possibility of WMD's, and that the truth needed to be found.

I'm not so much arguing with you, just saying that blix wasn't pushing for an invasion, and his belief was that there was possible WMD left from before the gulf war. What he said doesn't really support US actions, nor give a strong indicator of WMD in iraq. Simply that there were discrepancies that the UN inspectors were looking for.

CanuckHeaven

12-09-2006, 05:40

Blix also wanted UN inspections to continue, over an invasion. He obviously didn't think that it was pressing enough for an immediate invasion. He believed there was a possibility of WMD's, and that the truth needed to be found.

I'm not so much arguing with you, just saying that blix wasn't pushing for an invasion, and his belief was that there was possible WMD left from before the gulf war. What he said doesn't really support US actions, nor give a strong indicator of WMD in iraq. Simply that there were discrepancies that the UN inspectors were looking for.
Exactly!! Certainly not enough reason for circumventing the inspection process.