Did Bush Lie to Launch the Iraq War? »
Posted by: omerazam 3 months, 1 week ago268 Comments Report this Story
Bush supporters, this time it isn't a `liberal whacker' saying it. It's from a longtime Bush friend and loyalist who finally got a conscience. Straight from former White House Press Secretary
Read Full Story at politicalcortex.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 268
-
0%
libsRfunny3 months, 1 week ago
I find it interesting that a book not yet available to the public and so far showing only vague innuendo somehow amounts to a damning condemnation.
No e-mails, not recorded phone calls, just vague innuendo. As I've said before, the worst Bush might be guilty of is group think. He said nothing more than what many others had said before him and the leaders of many other nations affirmed.
You'd have to be a complete moron to think dozens of nations joined the UN sanctioned coalition based solely on information provided by the U.S.
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny3 months, 1 week ago
"[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."â;; From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny3 months, 1 week ago
"Saddam's goal â;¦ is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."â;; Madeline Albright, 1998.
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"â;; National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998.
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."â;; Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 .
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny3 months, 1 week ago
"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."â;; Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998.
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."â;; Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002.
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny3 months, 1 week ago
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."â;; Bill Clinton in 1998 .
"Saddam's goal â;¦ is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."â;; Madeline Albright, 1998.
Reply-
0%
quackpot3 months, 1 week ago
Hmmm - not one mention of Hans Blitz - The U.N. Inspector that that was casting severe doubts on the WMD story until Bush rushed into the invasion.
Why not, libs? I'm sure you know about it.
Reply-
0%
injest3 months, 1 week ago
Hmmm - not one mention of Hans Blitz - The U.N. Inspector that that was casting severe doubts on the WMD story until Bush rushed into the invasion.
If Hans Blitz, the UN, IAEA had done their job in Iraq 1992 till they were kicked out in 1998, none of this would have happened.
They would have found out in 1994 that all his stock piles were destroyed as were his weapons programs dismantled.
BTW were all those folks that Lib cited lying?
Must have been cause there were no WMDs in 1998.
Reply-
0%
bubba23 months, 1 week ago
"were all those folks that Lib cited lying?"
Well, you can go back and search for what the intelligence reports - CIA and such - or the NIE reports - were saying in 1998. I am not too worried about that or about whether or no the politicians were 'lying' then, because they AT LEAST did NOT start any wars.
Bush had all the intelligence he needed in 2002 - he didn't want to use it because it didn't fit his agenda. So, he and Cheney and Rove - with Feith's help - re-wrote the intelligence to fit their agenda.
All of that has been proven, by your own Republican-controlled administration, over the last 2-3 years.
But you can't bring yourselves to accept that truth - you continue to defend liars and deceivers.
Reply-
0%
donald513 months, 1 week ago
Bubba, you got it! No VP ever visited the CIA more than Cheney who didn't get what he wanted, so he asked Rummy to give him the same intel only the way he wanted it! Tenet now admits he should have stopped that false intel coming through the Penagon too! Then to constantly say all the 1998 info was still valid... what liars! Dumya and his cohorts whould be rotting in a foriegn jail guilty of war crimes!
Reply -
-
0%
fourthtunz3 months, 1 week ago
ADAGUY
"you continue to defend liars and deceivers."
{{{{{What do you expect them to do?}}}}
Yes, bush continues to get what? Around 22% support? A certain amount of these people work for the government propaganda squad, some are making so much money they don't want things to change and then there are the idiots.
The fact is that most all of the bush cabinet are members of the Pnac, which stated that the US needed "a new pearl harbor" to spur us into action against terrorism.
This article came out in '97 and is still on the site. This is about money.
Reply -
0%
Endoscopy3 months, 1 week ago
So why is the Democrat congress getting worse approval ratings???
Maybe they are the only ones giving themselves a good report.
There are articles written about almost anything. I can create on that tells how you embezzled money from something you have never been associated with. I can publish it. Does that make it true. There are all kinds of conspiracy nuts out there putting up articles with no basis in fact. For example the government did 9/11. Pure hogwash but some people on this site believe it.
Reply-
0%
ADAGUY3 months, 1 week ago
If you read a few of my posts, you will see that I am 100% in favor of the prosecution of the entire bunch!
The reason I asked "what do you expect them to do" is due to the fact that until they get off the party support ideals, a small group of idiots will never speak out against wrongdoing!
Thus, 22%.
Reply-
0%
ADAGUY3 months, 1 week ago
If you read a few of my posts, you will see that I am 100% in favor of the prosecution of the entire bunch!
The reason I asked "what do you expect them to do" is due to the fact that until they get off the party support ideals, a small group of idiots will never speak out against wrongdoing!
Thus, 22%.
Reply
-
-
0%
donald513 months, 1 week ago
because of the Repug senators that still generally back Dumya's vetos...and would surely block a dumya impeachment conviction! The obstructionist repugs have even ruined this congress, but we will never forget the 109th "Do Nothing" Repug Congress that helped get us into all this mess! With Bush kisser Lieberman as an independant touring the country with McCain, the Dems have a senate majority in name only!
You are right Endo, you and Faux Fox Facts are rewriting history constantly - at least trying to! Sorry you aren't part of the 82% of Americans that finally see the truth, you deluded fool!
Reply -
-
0%
mesodude3 months, 1 week ago
Actually, I think you'll find that almost every public opinion poll taken since the Democrats took over indicates that, even though this Congress has an even lower approval rating than the previous one, Americans still continue to trust Democrats to run the country over Republicans. The reason the polls are lower is because the GOP has far surpassed the record for filibusters this past year and they continue to obstruct the will of the people. Bush has an 80% disapproval rating and America is sick to death of Bush AND the GOP. These people are absolutely filthy and must be voted out of office in November if we are to begin cleaning up the horrific clusterf*ck they turned our country into over the past 8 years. I'd really like to see McConnell, Boehner, Mel Martinez, Hatch,Grassley, Graham, Dole, Coburn, Domenici et al in leg irons. I like the idea of Lezzie Dole being some burly female prison guard's bitch and scrubbing toilets for 5 bucks per week. ;-(
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
jimdoze3 months, 1 week ago
Hans Blitz casting severe doubt?
Hans Blitz was proof positive that the only way to guarantee that there were no WMD was to have military force scour the place. And, in any case, if Blitz would have proved that there were no WMD, he would have provided Iran with all the proof needed for them to take their next move.
Reply-
-
0%
jimdoze3 months, 1 week ago
Such is the nature of information in today's world. True... the Iranians DO now have the same info. But, with U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq, there is no chance to use it. They must now work their intent by proxy. Far better the current state of affairs than to have been put in a position of re-arming and supporting Saddam as a counter. Sooner or later, U.S. boots were going to be on the ground in Iraq. The situation, as it stood (WMD or no WMD) was untenable and strategically many times more dangerous than it is today. In fact, the largest strategic danger today comes from the U.S. losing heart and pulling out.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy3 months, 1 week ago
quackpot
"not one mention of Hans Blitz - The U.N. Inspector that that was casting severe doubts on the WMD story until Bush rushed into the invasion."
And no mention that Hans Blix was frustrated because he was not allowed free access to where he wanted to go. They kept stringing him along with promises that were constantly broken. They would give a little here and there and make him think they were going to cooperate. They never fully cooperated with the inspections.
For some reason the lie keeps being spread that there were no WMD found. That is wrong. To date there have been over 5000 warheads etc. that have been found. The first few were reported but after that it was news that the MSM didn't want to report. After all how can people keep up the lie of "Bush lied" if it is shown that there are WMD.
Reply-
0%
bubba23 months, 1 week ago
Hans and several other inspectors were in Iraq up to the day before invasion, doing their job and telling the White House that Iraq was cooperating. But Bush would not listen - he ordered them out and started the invasion.
All "weapons" found in Iraq are not "WMD".
Where is the documentation for your statement that "over 5000 WMD" have been found?
There is no "lie". YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT has confirmed, multiple times, that NO WMD was found in Iraq.
Get over it ...
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy3 months, 1 week ago
Cooperating by taking several hours to go 60 miles while there were trucks loading up and taking things away. Iraq had to have the locations given the day before. That is some cooperation.
They were supposed to be surprise inspections to locations given only after they were almost there. Never happened.
How about the people who were there finding them and reporting them. Is that a good enough source? They are found a few at a time. The list now is over 5000. The MSM only reported the first 500 in a brief blurb and has been silent since.
Reply-
0%
fourthtunz3 months, 1 week ago
Endo, you are a victim of government propaganda.
The MSM as you call it are owned by the same people who own our government so of course they will put out what they are told and yes they cloud issues on purpose to misdirect.
Do your own thinking. Do you think our bankrupt country can afford 100 bases around the world? Why shouldn't the UN have been the one to go into Iraq in the first place? Why should they not take over now?
We are a 3rd world country and we no longer have the resources to police the world.
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy3 months, 1 week ago
No I got it from the horses mouth. From some soldiers here from their tour. They are totally frustrated by the totally biased reporting going on by the MSM here. They see the improvements going on there and none of it is being reported. Only the negatives which they loudly broadcast. Then people like you take it a gospel that things are horrible over there.
I take it that you are another conspiracy buff that believes that the media is controlled by those in power.
Reply
-
-
0%
bubba23 months, 1 week ago
Bull ... prove it - where is the documentation to back up what you are saying?
There is NONE ....
The "first 500" were totally degraded chemicals that dated back 1991. They were AT LEAST 12 years old, and they were useless because they WERE so old.
That is NOT "WMD".
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
ETproductions3 months, 1 week ago
LibsRfunny wrote: "Saddam's goal is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." Madeline Albright, 1998.
The latest tool of RepubniCon spin mastering. The trusty time machine. Ignore everything Bush has OBVIOUSLY bungled and defend him by attacking what Madeline Albright said in 1998, 4 years before Hans Blitz, Scott Ritter and the rest of the UN Weapoons Inspection team was let back into Iraq and was establishing that there were no WMDs and no nuclear weapons program.
In fact, the trusty ConMan time machine is now being used to attack Scott McClellan himself. Again, ignore the OBVIOUS truth of his message. Instead seek to destroy the messenger. Why didn't he say what he concluded in late 2004 back in early 2003 when it could have done some good -- TWO YEARS BEFORE HE KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON.
Reply
-
-
0%
obiefrommuskogee3 months, 1 week ago
Sadaam had no WMDs. Even though all these morons that you quote were repeating the same thing, it was meaningless. A lynch mob repeats the same thing over and over too if it suits their purposes, in other words, supports a decision they have already made to hang someone, whatever. This is mob behavior and stems from our chimp ancestry. So, chimp, it's nothing to be proud of.
Scott Ritter's book before the war stated that there were no WMDs. As a weapons inspector who actually did the inspecting, not Blitz, who was a supervisor in need of a job.
Reply-
0%
tanglang3 months, 1 week ago
It proves that there is no way for W to have lied. That is the point. How could he lie to convince people saddam had wmds when those people were saying he had them as far back as 98?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8&feature=...
Reply-
0%
Will13133 months, 1 week ago
February 2001 -- COLIN POWELL... lots more relevant than news from 1998..
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...
Reply-
0%
splitrch3 months, 1 week ago
It's a real shame that Powell didn't run for President. I wonder why it is that some people on these boards continue to believe anything Bush says? The mental contortionism necessary to twist all the lies and all the blunders into virtue is beyond belief. It's almost like they live on a different planet.
Reply-
0%
donald513 months, 1 week ago
...their motives aren't sane... just greedy self-righteousness!
Reply -
-
0%
splitrch3 months, 1 week ago
I certainly could have supported Powell for President. What Jeremiah Wright has to say is of no consequence to me. In fact it should be of no consequence to anyone capable of independent thought. You guys always find some b@%L s!$t nonsensical issue to trouble your minds with.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
ETproductions3 months, 1 week ago
tanglang wrote: It proves that there is no way for W to have lied. That is the point. How could he lie to convince people saddam had wmds when those people were saying he had them as far back as 98?
There you go with your ConMan time machine again. 1998 was 4 years before the UN Weapons Inspectors were allowed back into Iraq and given complete access to all requested sites. And yet you want to use it to excuse Bush's blunders by claiming that those who acted without knowledge of the facts the weapons inspectors revealed were just like Bush, who knew the facts and chose to ignore them.
Your argument is as ridiculous as asking why the Allies didn't end WWI by just using a single atom bomb.
Reply-
-
0%
ETproductions3 months, 1 week ago
The problem is all the people you are holding up as proof Bush didn't lie were privy ONLY to the "intelligence" the Bush/Cheney spin machine decided to give them. The fact that most of the proof came from a known alcoholic liar named only "Curveball". The fact the Germans had told the US not to trust his reports...
I could go on and on. The only intelligence that got outside this secrecy obsessed White House was heavily redacted to remove any hint of dissent, while there was a strong chorus of dissent within the CIA and the State Department.
Reply-
-
0%
ETproductions3 months, 1 week ago
There goes that trusty ConMan time machine again. 5 years BEFORE the UN Weapons Inspectors were allowed back in in late 2002.
The UN team was allowed back in AFTER the House and Senate had issued the authorization of force, so they voted BEFORE having any knowledge of what the Inspectors would find. Bush invaded AFTER knowing they were finding NOTHING. In fact, he ordered the inspectors out so he could start bombing before the completely debunked his false case for war.
Sorry, but your time machine doesn't work. Bush lied, and if you want to keep claiming he did not, then you are as guilty as he is.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy3 months, 1 week ago
Sadaam had no WMDs.
That is funny. Keep up the lie.
1. What happened to the Kurds? Did they just curled up and died for no reason?
2. In the early going there were about 500 chemical items found.
3. As time went on the total has risen to 5000.
The MSM did a brief item about the first 500. They have been silent about the rest for some reason. Probably gives lie to "Bush lied".
Reply-
0%
bubba23 months, 1 week ago
The "first 500" were totally degraded chemicals that dated back 1991. They were AT LEAST 12 years old, and they were useless because they WERE so old.
There is NO lie, unless you are accusing YOUR REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED government of lying.
The pentagon in 2007 and 2 Senate investigations in 2005 and 2006 documented that there was NO link between Iraq or Hussein and al Qaeda.
Pentagon report debunks prewar Iraq-Al Qaeda connection
posted April 06, 2007
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts....
US Senate Examines Critical Pentagon Report on Iraq Pre-War Intelligence - February 9, 2007
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/ne...
REPUBLICAN Senate Panel Releases Report on Iraq Intelligence
Published: September 8, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washington/09...
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy3 months, 1 week ago
How come the people on the ground have found over 5000 and that is not being made public by the MSM. Why is nothing said in the MSM about the good things happening there. The people dealing with the media keep giving them the updates good and bad. The updates are mostly good but they report only the bad. Why???
Reply-
0%
bubba23 months, 1 week ago
PROVE IT! Where is the documentation of those "over 5000"?
There is NONE. You can't admit it.
The ONLY good thing happening is that the violence is down THIS month.
The country of Iraq has been virtually destroyed by Bush and his policies.
There is little to NO clean water, electricity, food, sanitation, medical care, medical supplies or jobs (50% unemployment). The mortality rate for children under 5 is the HIGHEST in the history of the country, and women's rights have been totally destroyed - women cannot work for fear of being killed, and women are being kidnapped and killed for not wearing a veil.
If things are so good in Iraq, you should go pay the country a visit and live there for a while and then come back and tell us how wonderful it is.
Reply-
-
-
0%
donald513 months, 1 week ago
...or you got your lies from faux fox facts... a sure guarantee of deception!
There is a reasson why most military facilities, like Cheney, require only Fox to be on... to further deceive our soldiers! I know, being retired military by a post I often still visit! I've not found anyone who can back your lies here Endo, not even my son who was Infantry for 2 tours in Iraq!
Reply -
0%
bubba23 months, 1 week ago
Supply some real PROOF, not some alleged 'words' from some alleged soldiers. We don't know who those 'soldiers' were so we can't say if they are lying or telling the truth.
But you are trying to use second-hand information as proof. I believe any court in this country would call that "hearsay".
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Blackacereturn3 months, 1 week ago
LibsRfunny - You call Obama's followers coltish but your love for bush is bordering on manic obsession. Dude he lied! what you are doing is called denial! There isn't a single sane person that would think bush and his band of crooks didn't lie to get us into this war. Just wait your little delusional world is about to come crashing down around you, congress is calling him to testify and then we will see who is crazy and who is just plain old stupid! I always thought you were a little off but after reading your post I know you are plump out of your freaking mind!
This is not an attack this is the TRUTH!
Reply-
-
0%
fourthtunz3 months, 1 week ago
Ah, I get it, you are one of the propagandists.
Ok, Israel has 150 nukes, should me invade them?
Reply -
0%
ETproductions3 months, 1 week ago
Endoscopy wrote: "2. Also over 5000 WMD warheads etc. have been found."
There have been a small number of unexploded chemical ordinance found here and there around the country. All were so old and degraded that they were of no military use, just a hazard to kids playing with them.
There was no large cache of these. There were NO useful WMDs of any kind. There were NO nukes. There was no engineering plans for chemical, biological or nuclear programs. There was no nuclear fuel enrichment facility needed to build a bomb.
On top of all that, Saddam had no ICBMs, no long range bombers, and no naval capacity to project force beyond his own borders. He posed the USA ZERO threat. Bush lied when he threatened us with a mushroom shaped cloud, and he either knew it was a lie when he said it, or was so bewilderingly stupid he has no business serving another day as President.
Reply-
0%
sinophil493 months, 1 week ago
ET - You missed the technical explanation of the mushroom shaped cloud.
It is actually an ultra-high speed, high def video imaging of Bush's flatulent capability, heretofore, a top-secret, ultraclassified national security item. Them Iranians don't know what's gonna hit them!
Reply
-
-
0%
sinophil493 months, 1 week ago
endo - Calm down. The 5000 items you mentioned are not warheads. They were just empty artillery shells designed for chemicals. You are right. These were found by our forces.
However, these shells were empty.
They did find chemical traces of sarin, but the residuals were completely degraded.
I have said it in a couple of posts, so I apologize for the redundancy for those who have read it.
Weaponized anthrax bacilli and botulinin toxin have a shelf life of 3 yrs; sarin 5 yrs; VX gas about 6.
So these chemical weapons are useless.
As Scott Ritter testified in Congress, there are more toxic substances under the average American kitchen sink than what was found in Iraq.
Reply -
0%
Blackacereturn3 months, 1 week ago
Endoscopy _ do you really think that Saddam had WMD's? He had chemical weapons that we sold to him,we knew what he had! I can't see this Administration finding WMD's and not letting us know about it! You and guys like Lib keep saying that they had WMD while the government and the military keep saying there is none. Who do you think people is going to believe on this, you or the military? What was found was not what we were told they had! And if you are going to sight a DEM maybe you should have listen when they told you that AK wanted to strike on US soil!
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
libsRfunny3 months, 1 week ago
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."Ã;¢;; Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003.
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."Ã;¢;; Tom Daschle in 1998
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny3 months, 1 week ago
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."â;; Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998.
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny3 months, 1 week ago
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction."â;; Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."â;; Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002.
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."â;; Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002.
Reply-
-
0%
TemplarScribe3 months, 1 week ago
Gosh, LibsR, you've monopolized this story so much, there's only room for me to post negs!
Except for this:
We know that Cheney and Bush misled America by neglecting 2002 intel, and by using evidence they KNEW were false (aluminum centrifuge tubes, the tall tale of Iraq meeting with terrorists, supposedly ironclad WMD sites, etc.).
Showing out of date statements from eight years before, or statements based on the same phony data shown to congress members as was shown to America, does nothing to disprove McClellen's statements of fact.
BTW: It's interesting how much effort you and other Neocons are putting into discrediting this latest defection from the sinking Bush armada. especially if, as you so thoughtfully said only two days ago, this was nothing but "sour grapes."
I guess only the worst administration in US history can try and make wine out of these grapes.
Reply-
0%
CaptainLucid3 months, 1 week ago
Also fails to mention that right before the invasion Hans Blix was getting cooperation with Saddamn. Saddamn was not happy about it but once he knew we were not going to put up with his crap he stopped interfering. Finally W had to interfere with Blix's investigation because it might reveal the truth, that Saddamn no longer had WMDs. W had already decided to invade and he wasn't going to let minor things like reality stop him.
Reply
-
-
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin3 months, 1 week ago
''Everyone knows there were no WMDs.''
Bush already said 'there were none'
But people like LIbsR prefer to believe the Bush that said 'there were some'
Bush even joked about it 'none under here' [looks under podium]
denial knows no bounds I guess
and they can always just use WOT coulda woulda whoulda style conjecture: 'well MAYBE he had them and he MAY have hid them before we got there'
justifying going to war over maybe's?
got to be a lot of hard work
small wonder LibsR wrote and pasted about a gazillion words
---
Reply-
0%
ETproductions3 months, 1 week ago
Yeah, he hid them, and he even airlifted all the factories he was building them with out into the desert and buried them. He disposed of all the plans for them and the engineering facilities that developed them and the scientists and engineers and all their families and nobody in Iraq noticed any of this happening.
The world according to LibsRfunny. To paraphrase Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz", "Libs, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."
Reply
-
-
-
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin3 months, 1 week ago
'' "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."â;; Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002.
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."â;; Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002. ''
yet kennedy voted AGAINST authorization of force in Iraq
doesn't that tell you how much what all your pasted pols words are worth?
LIBSRFUNNY
HERE IS BUSH SAYING NO WMD AT 0:26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE
later in the clip he says Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
AND HE LIES by saying 'Nobody said Iraq had anything to do[with 9/11]'
Cheney and Powell and Bush all said Saddam had ties to AQ, and AQ did 9/11
it's all right there in a 2 minute clip
but belief is often about desire to believe, and this clip of the prez lying will mean nothing to some
Reply
-
-
0%
libsRfunny3 months, 1 week ago
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"â;; National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998.
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."â;; Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 .
Reply-
0%
bubba23 months, 1 week ago
Your repeated efforts to use OLD quotes to support what we CURRENTLY know to be TRUE is not only wearying, it is inane and ludicrous and irrelevant.
NO ONE started a war during the Clinton administration.
The quotes from 2002 are all based on the COOKED 'intelligence that Bush and Cheney 'allowed' people to see. They either IGNORED or they CHANGED the REAL intelligence so that they would have 'evidence' (non-existent) to fit their agande to invade Iraq.
Get OVER your tired, useless little history of quotes. They make NO difference in the FACT that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, Rumsfeld, and the White House LIED about all of the intelligence and about ALL of the reasons to invade Iraq.
Your inability to face the truth is so obvious. It is hard to admit that you supported someone who LIED to you, apparently.
Reply-
0%
injest3 months, 1 week ago
BuBBA
"Your repeated efforts to use OLD quotes to support what we CURRENTLY know to be TRUE is not only wearying, it is inane and ludicrous and irrelevant."
Wearying? Perhaps
inane and ludicrous and irrelevant? Hardly.
Because of "what we CURRENTLY know to be TRUE" is that Saddam got ride of ALL his WMD stock piles in 1994.
Those quotes are from 1998, after 4 years of continued inspections, were they lying in 1998.
So please explain your logic that makes this inane and ludicrous and irrelevant
Reply-
0%
bubba23 months, 1 week ago
It IS inane, because whether it was true or not, NO one USED it to START any wars.
Apparently you do NOT get that at all.
BUSH started the war. And HE started it even when the intelligence did NOT support his reasons to start it.
THAT is what is relevant, not 5 year old quotes from Democrats.
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy3 months, 1 week ago
ROTFLMAO
Everybody back then was lying. All the other countries intelligence agencies were lying. All the Democrats were lying. You say those quotes are not relevant. What a stick your head in the sand guy you are. All evidence that Bush didn't lie and was saying what everybody else was saying is just garbage because it proves something you can't handle. The fact that Bush didn't lie. You like the Democrat mantra of argument by repetition so much that it is part of you. Anything that shows the truth you can't handle.
bubba2 cant handle the truth.
bubba2 cant handle the truth.
Reply-
0%
donald513 months, 1 week ago
Endo, obvious that you have never taken a class in ethics or morality! No conscience either...but you stick to party line, however wrong or illegal!
Why bring up dems? Its 82% of America that knows you are wrong... and they all aren't Dems! Failed basic math too?
Reply -
0%
bubba23 months, 1 week ago
I did NOT say whether or not the Dems in 1998 were lying - you would just LIKE for me to say it.
What ANYONE said in 1998 is IRRELEVANT.
Bush took office in January 2001. From THAT point foward, HE and HIS administration were in control of this country and of whatever CURRENT intelligence was gathered at THAT time.
You try to imply that Bush relied on Democrats' comments from 1998.
I know Bush is not smart, but he is not THAT stupid and neither is anyone else, except for you and LibsRfunny.
You show NOTHING of any proof regarding BUSH'S actions.
Bush lied - his administration lied to the American people and to Congress.
You are the one that can't handle the truth.
How sad for you ....
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin3 months, 1 week ago
succinct
---
lazy pols anyway
relying on others for forming your own opinions...not a good idea for even a blogger.
---
'dittoheads' indeed
what an insult, to call someone a 'dittohead'
sad
Reply -
0%
Endoscopy3 months, 1 week ago
Garbage that ALL of the western nations were saying because their intelligence agencies were saying the same thing. Clinton and his administration lied. Bush and his administration lied. Democrats and Republicans under Clinton and Bush lied.
So why don't you believe President Clinton and his administration?
Reply-
0%
ETproductions3 months, 1 week ago
ConMan Time Machine alert. What Clinton believed in 1998 has nothing to do with what we should have known in 2002 when the UN Weapons Inspectors were allowed back into Iraq and given full access. It might be easy to hide WMDs, but it isn't easy to hide the factories and engineering programs required to produce them.
It is virtually impossible to hide a nuclear development program with the thousands of centrifuges required for uranium enrichment.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Blackacereturn3 months, 1 week ago
Lib - There were NO WMD there; we didn't find any, you can quote the entire world, the bottom line is there was nothing there! You can speculate all you want but if speculation were fact, the entire world would be living in a golden mansion. Have you been smoking? Normally you are nuts but you are scary now. You are soo wild and all over the place on this that I am worried, like rush you may
have taken too much of your medication!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
