Bush LIED about WMD by SignyM

Whose OPINION is refclected in the above "memo?"

I seem to recall some other "incriminating memos" being thrown at our president, that turned out to be forgeries.

The election is over--get over it. If you are passionate about defeating republicans, try to do it at the ballot box in 06 and 08.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 2:31 AM

KNIBBLET

My concern isn't republicans, JCKnife. My concern is the neocon chickenhawks who kicked off this bloodbath for oil and power and the dominionists who are determined to rewrite our constitution in the image of their god.
Those fuckin liars and nutcases are what worry me. It also worries me that the current administration is up to their necks with these koolaid dispensing timebombs.

Yep. They worry people who believe in law and the separation of church and state.

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
If you are passionate about defeating republicans, try to do it at the ballot box in 06 and 08.

"I'm gonna rip you a new puppet hole, bitch!"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 2:34 AM

Here's another problem with the memo (which, as far as I can tell, is not being picked up by any reputable news source): the use of the word "fixed" does not necessarily mean "altered"--especially in British usage. It seems likely that intellegence-gathering efforts were being centered on what was perceived as the next challenge of defeating world terrorism on its own turf. In that sense, "fixed" is as "we fixed our gaze on the enemy."

Even that is probably more attention than this memo deserves.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 2:44 AM

But it has got to be true, it is on the interWEB!

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You guys really are crackers, aren't you? The timesonline is part of the Times published in London, aka the London Times. That is the link.

Are you saying the London Times isn't reputable?

Oh! I just got it! You get YOUR info from FAUX news, which is SOOO much better!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 5:47 AM

CALLMEATH

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:

Yep. They worry people who believe in law and the separation of church and state.

Not really trying to get in this argument. I just have one small question. When did the whole "separation of church and state" thing become a law? If I recall correctly (and I may not, government class was so long ago) there is nothing in the constitution about it. The only mention of church in the constitution says something like "Congress may pass no law regarding the practice of religion". If fact, I believe the idea of separation came from a letter Jefferson wrote to someone (Madison?).

Oh, and I like the separation of church and state. Who cares if kids say "under God" in the pledge? A true Christian doesn't try to cram his/her religion down people's throat. One thing that does drive me nuts about the current administration is that it has everyone thinking that it acts in a Christian manner, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Jesus was quite the pacifist. I can't help but think of the Crusades, the African and other various slave trades, the Native American massacres and the Holocaust, all of which were "backed by God", which is of course a huge pile of crap. There's nothing about "holy wars" in Jesus's teachings.

Quote:
who are determined to rewrite the constitution in the image of their god

My point being that they don't know their God. They seem to think they can change Him to be like they want, however.

Wow, my whole "not wanting to get into this argument" thing really flew out the window, huh? Oh well, bring it on I suppose.

"Invader's blood marches through my veins like giant radioactive rubber pants. The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Actually, both Madison AND Jefferson wrote extensively about the "wall of separation between church and state". Sometimes they phrased it as "the wall of separation between government and clergy", sometimes they used the phrase "church and state" but however they phrased it, their intent was quite clear. Others wrote about the corrosive effect of allowing clergy into the government (produces neither good clergy nor good government).

I know ppl who read the Federalist often claim that the whole concept of the wall of separation between church and state is a "modern invention" but apparently they haven't read much about the Founding Fathers who were agnostics and deists and philosophers of the French Enlightenment, and who really really really hated the concept of mixing Church and religion. THEY had learned from the whole sordid history of "Christian" governments (Geneva was forced to change its official religion four times in a dozen years, and anyone who didn't get with the program was jailed, tortured or killed) as apaprently the current Christian Taliban hasn't figured out.

As for our Consitution- if you read it closely, you will see there is NOT ONE mention of "God". That is not accidental. The closest that the deists could come to mentioning "god" is found in the phrase "endowed by their Creator". Not "THE Creator" but "THEIR Creator"... however envisioned by other religions. Some of the Founding Fathers (Jefferson notably) were aware that even "pagans" had religion and left the Consitution open to embrace even them.

The best graffito that I ever saw was "Jesus was killed by preachers and politicians". Sigh. Ain't it the truth?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So- where are all the erstwhile defenders of the shrub? My, how quickly they abandon their own pretenses.

Edited to add: Not one of them is smart enough to figure out they were wrong, or honest enough to admit it. Worse, not one is mentally strong enough to contemplate the implications of an Administration of sociopathic liars.

Here- have some ketchup! You know who you are!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:12 AM

WTF? I haven't abandoned my president! The memo is a joke!

Hey, Aljazeera has picked up the story. That should help the London Times with credability.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service
_ID=8465

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, the Blair government hasn't denied it and the London Times hasn't retracted it. Ahem.... gurrrrrkk... mphhh... Sorry, I just can't help it! ....

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:25 AM

Here's another part of the memo that you left out:

Quote:
Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action.

Why would they assume their own participation in military action if it were grounded in falsehoods?

I think instead of ketchup for us you need a spoonful of sugar to help the medecine go down.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Because the Iraq government was about to sign large oil contracts with France and Russia once Iraq was cleared by Blix? Because Iraq wasn't about to accept US dollars? Because BP wanted the oil too????

WOW, naive as all hell, ain't ya?

Okay, I'm done talking with you. Have a nice life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:30 AM

ODDNESS2HER

Just out of curiosity, JC: Who would you consider a reputable news source?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:45 AM

Lately I've been seeing bumper stickers that say "Bush lied and you knew".

That pretty much sums it up for me and it's why I've lost all faith in the 51% of our nation that supported him anyway. I think the vast bulk of them knew damn well he lied AND JUST DIDN'T CARE. That, to me, condemns them to whatever disasters their pig-headed tunnel vision brings about. They deserve it. The only problem is, the other 49% will have to suffer along with them. Ain't democracy grand?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 8:58 AM

Wow, you guys are too busy looking for black helicopters to focus on reality. I'll chalk it up to sour grapes and see you at the polls next time--unless you move to Canada by then.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 9:28 AM

I don't throw 'pig-headed' out there as some kind of generic insult. It's an insult to be sure, but a very specific one. It applies to people who are shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that their convictions are based on delusion or deception - and they just don't care! In fact, they'll gloat in their stupidity, proud of their steadfast ignorance. This is why democracy is failing us and why it's time for the minority stand up and fight off the drooling masses.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 9:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Wow, you guys are too busy looking for black helicopters to focus on reality. I'll chalk it up to sour grapes and see you at the polls next time--unless you move to Canada by then.

Yeah, I remember tons of folks saying they would move if good ole Bush won. Why haven't they left yet?

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:02 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005
050402368.html
It all suddenly changed when leaked memos on Iraq seemed to confirm that Blair had promised Bush he would go to war to depose Saddam Hussein long before he had come clean with the British people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/05/AR2005
050500289.html
The results follow a short, sharp and highly personalized campaign in which opponents claimed Blair had lied about the reasons for going to war and could no longer be trusted.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505090005

In his weekly column, Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler reported without comment that readers had criticized the newspaper for ignoring a leaked British memo on the Iraq war published in the British Sunday Times.

Getler's failure to offer a judgment about the Post's editorial decision is remarkable, not only because he regularly responds in his column to reader criticisms, but because of the explosive content of the memo. The memo indicates that Britain's intelligence minister reported after a trip to the United States that President Bush had decided to go to war in Iraq in the summer of 2002, and "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around" the decision that had already been made. In contrast to the U.S. media, U.K. news outlets devoted considerable coverage to the memo, and its disclosure reportedly had a significant impact on the Labour Party's loss of seats in the House of Commons.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SargeantX- Hey, GREAT bumpersticker!!! Where can I get one?

Byte- What, and leave this great land in YOUR incapable hands??? Huh! Well, believe it or not, I love my country too much.

Rue- your post is FAR too long for the people who still defend Shrub. Keep it simple. Less than four words. In a row. Remember. They watch faux news.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:33 AM

CALLMEATH

Thanks for the info, SignyM. We seem to be on the same wavelength, although the writings of Jefferson, Madison and all the others don't make something law. I was just wondering if it's more of a policy or if its written down in a more official manner that there is a separation of church and state. I'd like to think so, at least.

I knew there was no mention of God in the constitution, and am very grateful the founding fathers made it so that the government has to stay out of religion. "Christian" groups (by which I mean the ones who try to force the world to live their way) need to stop trying to worm their way into government. It saddens me that people see these groups as examples of Christianity rather than the mockery of it that they truly are. If you want to convert someone, just tell them about your religion and let them make their own choice.

But, I need to get out of this thread before I get caught up in all the mayhem. Have fun with your arguments everyone!

"Invader's blood marches through my veins like giant radioactive rubber pants. The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I don't throw 'pig-headed' out there as some kind of generic insult. It's an insult to be sure, but a very specific one. It applies to people who are shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that their convictions are based on delusion or deception - and they just don't care!

There is no evidence, and in fact no reason to believe, that President Bush lied about WMD's. Was he misinformed? Yes--along with everyone else. I'm sure you have seen quote after quote from prominent democrats decrying Saddam and his weaponry during the Clinton administration. It was the prevailing wisdom of the day and holds with his known character and tendencies.

Call me pig-headed if you like--those are the facts as I see them.

You all like to play the victim of the Evil Big Corporation who is pulling the strings and above the law--instead why don't you carve out your own success in this land of opportunity? Maybe because George Soros proved that even multi-billionaires can't buy enough airtime to deceive the good-hearted American public who know what is best for themselves and the world--a president grounded in morals and with conviction for freedom.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Before anyone responds to this last post, let me remind you that he wears a tin-foil hat and believes Faux news. Engaging him with his own delusions is not healthy for him or for you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Callmeath- One last comment. I am a VERY lapsed Catholic, but long ago in a universe far away, I read the New Testament! For the life of me, I can't imagine where the Christian Taliban gets its message from. Whatever happened to:

"A camel has a better chance of getting through the eye of a needle than a rich man entering the gates of heaven"

and "Behold the Pharisee and the publican"

and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and even

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's..." (an argument for the separation of Church and State if I ever heard one!!)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:12 AM

Actually Fox News is slightly too left-leaning in my book. A big improvement over the alternatives, though!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:27 AM

CHRISISALL

Bush lied. As buffy would say, does the word 'duh' mean anything to you?
Let's be charitable for a second, if you believed something strongly for your whole life and a bunch of people tried to tell you it was all wrong, would you have a hard time believing them? would you poo-poo so called evidence and facts? This here, folks, is religion, plain and simple. It requires faith, nothing more. Bush is a good man. He is trying to do his best. He isn't very intelligent and has daddy issues.
That last sentance will be dismissed as if it is a joke or something by Bush fans. Just like if I said Daredevil can beat Hulk in a fight. "No way, not possible!"
I can be wrong. You can be wrong. But not Bush.
He is the hand of God. Not a sinner like Clinton.
That last sentance will be read like 'Ha, he doesn't know how right he is!!'by Bush fans.

Coming from fear, one needs to be correct. Only in coming from courage can we question if we are being correct.

Wait, I see a WMD!!! Aww, no I didn't Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
- and they just don't care! In fact, they'll gloat in their stupidity, proud of their steadfast ignorance.

For example:

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Actually Fox News is slightly too left-leaning in my book. A big improvement over the alternatives, though!

LOL... funny stuff, knife. Bet those little brown kids in Iraq are laughing their asses off - when they're not dodging bullets.

By the way, how funny is it that North Korea is getting ready to test nukes? Guess Bush is only interested in chasing down rumors of WMDs.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 2:23 PM

Okay Sarge--you play armchair president: how should the N. Korea situation be handled?

And hey, you're right, the Fox comment was for a laugh more than anything. They are the news source I trust most, but not without question.

Here's my other concession: the absence of WMD's IS an embarassment for our president and a failure of our intelligence agencies. In the end, though, the people of Iraq will be better off when this is over. If you deny that, I'd like to know on what basis.

All this stuff about fighting for oil is the tinfoil hat material. I'll try to "provide literate and though-provoking comments" per the little blue instructions above this box, but let's keep it realistic.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM:

"Rue- your post is FAR too long for the people who still defend Shrub." Yeah, I know. I just haven't had time to be brief. And I have to drop out for a while again. But I'll be back - promise or threat, take your pick.

PS I say it's time to hire a special prosecutor to impeach Bush. I wonder if Reno would take the job?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:25 PM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So- where are all the erstwhile defenders of the shrub? My, how quickly they abandon their own pretenses.

Edited to add: Not one of them is smart enough to figure out they were wrong, or honest enough to admit it. Worse, not one is mentally strong enough to contemplate the implications of an Administration of sociopathic liars.

Here- have some ketchup! You know who you are!

SigyM, perhaps the defenders of the current administration aren't charging into the fray because they feel that you won't listen. Based on my observation, you seem to want every rightwinger eating crow with ketchup, not responding to your arguments. I mean, gracious! JCKnife made a go of it, and instead of responding to his arguments, you accused him of wearing a tinfoil hat.

Now, I'm all for the voicing of opinions. And you're entitled to yours, same as everyone. And if you want a thread containing that opinion, I believe Haken will allow you that. But if people won't volunteer to be insulted, don't be surprised. You seem to want to flame people that disagree, rather than have a debate of the issue. And that's OK too! You can do that all you want. But don't make the mistake of assuming that the rightwingers are unable to respond. Perhaps they are simply unwilling to respond.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It's that whole notion - that somehow the London Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune (requires subscription) are ALL deficient news carriers and don't count when it comes to carrying the story, and that Faux News is better. That approach, in some strange indefinable way, creates a credibility problem.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 5:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Okay Sarge--you play armchair president: how should the N. Korea situation be handled?

Well, I'm not privy to enough information to come up with a sensible answer for that one, which is perhaps your point, but I'd at least say it ought to be 'handled' in some way.

I'm trying to point out that if Bush is really concerned about WMDs, he'd have been applying more attention and resources to resolving the situation with N.Korea and a little less chasing shadows in Iraq. But I think it's clear that the WMD issue was little more than one of many shifting excuses for going into Iraq.

The real reason they've gone into Iraq is to recreate the region in our own image. This isn't conspiracy theory stuff. The neo-cons spelled it all out loud and clear over ten years ago. They were just waiting for an opportunity. 9/11, and the easily fooled American voter, gave it to them.

The basic idea is that once American style democracy is imposed on Iraq, the entire region will forget centuries of cultural and religous conflict and get along - shiny happy people holding hands. Oh, and it will also open ripe new markets for the multi-nationals, but that in no way would influence Bush's decision.

Quote:
In the end, though, the people of Iraq will be better off when this is over. If you deny that, I'd like to know on what basis.

I deny it on the basis that there won't be an 'over' to this. The issues that make the region so unstable and difficult to govern are deeply ingrained and not something 'democracy' and 'rock-and-roll' are going to cure.

The only thing I see coming out of Iraq for many, many years is a constant stream of terrorists. There's a cruel irony behind conning the voters into thinking that invading Iraq would help stem terrorism. The irony is that we've taken a country that (through admittedly brutal means) had managed to put a cap on religious extremism, and turned into a training ground for Al-Queda.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 5:40 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Inevitable- You accuse me of trolling? You know, I have put more facts on this board (relative to just sheer unsupported opinion) than just about anyone else except maybe Rue and Soupcatcher. And really, at this point what is there to debate? It seems self-evident what the truth is.

You're right, I don't want to debate this issue. I want to scream and kick and TRY to make people understand that hugging their blankies of ignorance has important, real consequences. Dead people.... Americans included. Wasted money. Lost opportunities.

It's OK if they don't respond. They know who they are. They can either go on as before- or not. Whatever.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 1:37 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Inevitable- You accuse me of trolling? You know, I have put more facts on this board (relative to just sheer unsupported opinion) than just about anyone else except maybe Rue and Soupcatcher. And really, at this point what is there to debate? It seems self-evident what the truth is.

You're right, I don't want to debate this issue. I want to scream and kick and TRY to make people understand that hugging their blankies of ignorance has important, real consequences. Dead people.... Americans included. Wasted money. Lost opportunities.

It's OK if they don't respond. They know who they are. They can either go on as before- or not. Whatever.

Nope, not accusing you of trolling at all! You are one of the ones on the board that usually state an opinion, back it up, and then respond to arguments. In this case, you have stated your opinion, and backed it up with material that you believe supports you. I was merely pointing out that in this instance you don't seem to want much in the way of discussion.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 2:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Byte- What, and leave this great land in YOUR incapable hands??? Huh! Well, believe it or not, I love my country too much.

Ouch, burn. Riiiiiight. So you said you would leave? and you didn't? ok.

I haven't checked this thread in a bit but it definitely took the nose dive all the politi-threads take here. I am glad there are more entertaining(though just as fanciful) parts to this forum to bring me back.

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 2:43 PM

RAZZA

Quotes from Democrats about WMD:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." — President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." — Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." — Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." — Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D — MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20stat
ements/levin-10-9-98.html

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." — Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

http://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2001/011207/epf510.htm

" We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_12-10.html

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

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

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

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

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record
&page=S9874&position=all

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." —Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record
&page=S10174&position=all

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record
&page=S10306&position=all

"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, 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-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record
&page=S10288&position=all

"The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

"Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=
S10090&dbname=2002_record

"There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He has disregarded United Nations resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities and research and development programs. His forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south of his country. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons... — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=
S10156&dbname=2002_record

But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families.

"To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ''a defection agency,' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — Sen. Joseph Biden

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2003_record
&page=S1481&position=all

"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record
&page=S10171&position=all

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

"Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. — Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record
&page=S10325&position=all

I guess they were all lying too?

"Keep Flying"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:40 PM

Razza, thanks for posting all those quotes.

Here's a fundamental issue I'm having some problems with: Some of you are making the point that Iraq will never be peaceful now because we've imposed this democracy on them. I can agree that their culture is very different from ours and we should not expect them to react the same way we would...but if their culture is based on and guided by their religion, why is that okay for them but not for us?

I really don't have an agenda with this post--just questions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:20 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Probably it has to do with the fact that either religious or secular government can be the outcome of democracy.
In the case of the US, our democratically chosen constitution requires secular government. Iraq doesn't have a constitution yet, the choice is still up to them.

The quotes have 'issues'. First you have to delete all the quotes from 2001 forward - they were based on briefings from the Bush admin which were seriously flawed (to put it kindly). Then look at the remaining quotes - they talk about development programs and potential threats, but none (NONE) claimed Hussein had actual quantities of WMD. No quotes said the threat was 'imminent' (a legal requirement for preemptive war) and none made a connection between Hussein and global terrorists. Finally, Clinton didn't enage in a war of aggression against a nation that was in the process of being inspected.

I made claims before the election that 'Bush lied' about WMD and started laying out the evidence from various US government reports (the 'yellowcake" claim was definitively covered), but have been far too busy to get back to it.

But the memo is clear that Bush did plan to and did lie. Instead of trying to live in a fantasy, why not wake up and smell the coffee?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:59 PM

But at the time of these Bush admin briefings, weren't the intelligence agencies really the ones providing the info? And weren't the intelligence agencies still chock full of Clinton appointees?

I'm NOT trying to lay blame on Clinton--I just don't believe that Bush was deliberately deceitful. The only motivation that makes sense for that kind of lie is raw flexing of power for its own sake, and I honestly don't believe he is that sort of man. I realize a lot of you do. We're not going to agree on that point.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 6:27 PM

The quotes raise a really good point. I, for one, think the Democrats are equally responsible for the fiasco. If for no other reason than the fact that they've just put in a really weak showing as an opposition party. And, as the quotes point out, many of them were banging the war drums nearly as hard as Bush.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 6:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Razza, thanks for posting all those quotes.

Here's a fundamental issue I'm having some problems with: Some of you are making the point that Iraq will never be peaceful now because we've imposed this democracy on them. I can agree that their culture is very different from ours and we should not expect them to react the same way we would...but if their culture is based on and guided by their religion, why is that okay for them but not for us?

I really don't have an agenda with this post--just questions.

I don't really think it is 'okay', but it's none of my business. I'm certainly not going to tell the voters there that they can't disagree with me. And I'm sure as hell not going to send my sons over there to impose truth, justice, and the American Way on people that apparently don't appreciate it much.

I just don't think we need to be monkeying with another culture. If they are seriously threatening us, or attack us, then bomb the fuck out of them (Afghanistan for example). But as long as they leave us alone, even if they don't like us, I think we ought to return the favor.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 6:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Byte- Did I ever say I was going to leave? Check thru all my old posts first. You really DO seem to have a hard time distinguishing reality from fantasy. But, hell, I knew THAT already!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The intelligence was being fixed AROUND the policy. What does that tell you? The CIA is in reciept of tens of thousands of reports. Some of them contradict each other, some of them bolster each other. In order to create a "credible" threat you trim a bit here, pad some there, and pretty soon the developing picture no longer looks like the original totality. And you don't even have to make anything up!

Rue's little saying about being able to see anything if you use the right filters is not just a quip. Anyone who knows anything about electronics will understand that you can extract a Mozart sonata from white noise. That applies to EVERYTHING... even our vision, which we are accustomed to thinking is straightforward and unbiased and real ("seeing is believing") can't show us what the honeybee sees, and so for years the flowers' landing patterns and bee behavior was a mystery. Why? Because our eyes filter out huge swaths of the electromagnetic spectrum.

So, in terms of selction- why AREN'T we hearing anything about the secret memo in USA media? Why aren't we hearing anything about the letter that 88 Congressman signed, asking Bush about that memo? Why has the Valerie Plame case just sort of ... vanished? it's not like these things aren't happening.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 12, 2005 12:08 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"And weren't the intelligence agencies still chock full of Clinton appointees?" Low level analysts were still in place, but upper level appointees for the agencies (as I recall, Tenet was the only holdover from the Clinton Admin) and the entire DIA (composed of neocons) were skewing the conclusions to give Bush what he wanted.

No, it wasn't merely a mistake by Bush. The inteligence analysts got the facts right, but couldn't get (political) traction to get the story out. For example, Bush's SOTUs have to be vetted by all intelligence agencies. For #1, he submitted the yellowcake claim twice for review, and was informed repeatedly - in fact, at one point the cmte that harmonizes intelligence anlaysis telegraphed Bush twice in the same day re the same speech - and in strong terms said that the intelligence didn't support his language. So rather than say Niger Bush said Africa, instead of yellowcake he substituted uranium, and instead of referencing US intelligence, he referenced one skewed British report.

And so on in like manner for nearly all of the WMD claims. It was NOT a mistake.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Byte- Did I ever say I was going to leave? Check thru all my old posts first. You really DO seem to have a hard time distinguishing reality from fantasy. But, hell, I knew THAT already!

I guess you saying you weren't leaving led me to believe you may have said you were leaving, hence the question marks(?) in my post. And twice now you have inferred 'knowing' me and I am certain that you do not. As for my reality and fantasy distinction, that is a place no sane person would like to go.

Oh, yeah, as for my capable hands, I made my vote and it looks like I(we) won.

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 5:54 AM

BECSTHEBEAST

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I've lost all faith in the 51% of our nation that supported him anyway. . The only problem is, the other 49% will have to suffer along with them. Ain't democracy grand?

ok so i'm late to the table on this (and a brit and most of us were against this war before it started) but as far as i remember half of america didn't vote in the election so only a quarter of the electorate actually voted for bush - someone else said somewhere the election is over get over it and wait for the next one

hmmm .. if we live in democracies and we don't like what they are doing in our name surely its completly acceptable to deomonstrate that you do not agree and not just what to put your cross on a paper once every few years

its clear our leaders lied to take us to war that has cost us dear - 20% of the families of british soldiers killed in iraq have formed military families against the war - i think that says quite a bit about how things are turning out

'forgive my rudeness. i cannot abide useless people'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 11:33 AM

MACBAKER

Okay, I'll play this game. If Bush lied about WMDs and wasn't just mis-informed by bad intel, or the possibility that Saddam had more than enough notice prior to the war to destroy or move the evidence, then so did others! Clinton (both Bill and Hillary), John Kerry, Al Gore, and many others made similar comments about Iraq, Saddam and WMDs long before Bush became president. At the time, UN sanctions seemed to be the status quo for dealing with the problem, but after 9/11 that attitude seemed to change.

Did Bush use this as an excuse to remove Saddam? Possibly, even probably, but it was a decsion to go to war that both parties voted for, and they all had the same intel he was using. Intel that had been around since the Clinton administration. Everyone saw Saddam as a threat, and it wasn't until the last election that some candidates tried to re-write history, and point fingers at Bush.

Here's a large sample of quotes on record dealing with Saddam and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Read on:

If you really believe that President BUSH lied - - THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES -- then read this.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will
threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 12:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Pre-war, the intel was "vetted" through a conduit that Bush/ Cheney/ Rumsfeld expressly created to avoid CIA review- the Office of Special Plans. This was detailed by Karen Kwiatkowski, who in the OSP. Experienced CIA, Foreign Service and military personnel had voiced numerous caveats and doubts about the data that they were receiving before, during, and after the run-up to the war. One of the main WMD informers- Adnan Ihsan Saeed al Haideri, a friend of Ahmed Chalabi- had already been deemed unreliable by the CA and failed a polygraph test. "The White House used Saeed's claims in a background paper nine months after CIA and DIA officers had dismissed him as unreliable" www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0518-12.htm Saeed then shifted his sales pitch to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith, who welcomed him with open arms.

So while Clinton may have been "misled", Bush certainly knew better. As a results of CIA and Foreign Service staffers trying to flag the Administration on erroneous or overblown statements, Bush punished the messengers, outing Valerie Plame (treason) and dumping all of the blame on the CIA for "bad intelligence". As a result, morale at the CIA is extrmely low, and many effective, experienced staffers are leaving the agency.

I realize that I did not link to these items. You prolly wouldn't believe me even if I did. But I will add links later- I'm busy right now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 4:00 PM