Bush lied about WMD's

jasonk282

Banned
but so did these DemoCraps!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/985627/posts

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

Like Doc Holliday said in Tombstone "It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds". Doc Holliday
 

Facetious

Moderated

I know. Politicians lie. :hammer:


Top Democrats Support Attacking Iraq
"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 Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to
end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From
a letter signed by Joe Lieberman (D), Dianne Feinstein
(D), Barbara A. Milulski (D), Tom Daschle (D), & John
Kerry (D) October 9, 1998.

"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." Bob
Graham (D), Joe Lieberman (D), Harold Ford (D), & Tom
Lantos (D) December 6, 2001.

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire
agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered
into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its
weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to
permit monitoring and verification by United Nations
inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of
mass destruction, including chemical and biological
capabilities, and has made positive progress toward
developing nuclear weapons capabilities" Tom Harkin
(D) and Arlen Specter (RINO) July 18, 2002.

"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
(D), 1998.

"Saddam will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he
will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since
1983" National Security Adviser Sandy Berger (D), 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." Barbara Boxer (D), November 8, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October
of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained
some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons,
and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare
capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he
is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved
nuclear capability." Robert Byrd (D), October 2002.

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

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

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

"In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,
though there is apparently no evidence of his
involvement in the terrible events of September 11,
2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed
in that endeavor, he could alter the political and
security landscape of the Middle East, which as we
know all too well affects American security." Hillary
Clinton (D) October 10, 2002.

"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." Clinton's Secretary of
Defense William Cohen (D) 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." Tom Daschle (D) 1998.

"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." John Edwards (D)
Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is
about national security. It should be clear that our
national security requires Congress to send a clear
message to Iraq and the world: America is united in
its determination to eliminate forever the threat of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." John Edwards (D)
Oct 10, 2002.

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with
Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." Dick
Gephardt (D) in September of 2002.

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of
the Persian Gulf and we should organize an
international coalition to eliminate his access to
weapons of mass destruction. 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." Al Gore
(D) 2002.

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

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who
is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire
weapons of mass destruction." Jim Jeffords (I) October
8, 2002.

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

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It
has been with us since the end of that war, and
particularly in the last 4 years we know after
Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept
them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He
has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these
weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to
lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction
and the issue of proliferation." John F. Kerry (D)
October 9, 2002.

"(W)e 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. ...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."
John F. Kerry (D) Jan 23, 2003.

"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 mandates of the United
Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them." Carl Levin (D) Sept
19, 2002.

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical
weapons, biological weapons, and the development of
nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United
States." Joe Lieberman (D) August, 2002.


"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994,
despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and
dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that
Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various
reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing
nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to
think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has
actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N.
inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about
biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable.
In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and
later, against its own Kurdish population. While
weapons inspections have been successful in the past,
there have been no inspections since the end of 1998.
There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to
pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass
destruction." Patty Murray (D) October 9, 2002.

"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."
Nancy Pelosi (D) December 16, 1998.

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on
highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons
inspectors] 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."
Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter (reg D) in 1998.

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain
access to enriched uranium from foreign sources --
something that is not that difficult in the current
world. We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction." John
Rockefeller (D) Oct 10, 2002.

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

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the
Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think
there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He
has systematically violated, over the course of the
past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that
has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical
and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the
mandate and authority of international weapons
inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
time against enforcement of the just and legitimate
demands of the United Nations, the Security Council,
the United States and our allies. Those are simply the
facts." Henry Waxman (D) Oct 10, 2002.
 
the KEY DIFFERENCE is that one president DID invade

Clinton just threatened to

Do you really believe that there would have been a 75% approval rating for the war in 2003 if Americans hadn't been told for the previous decade that Saddam Hussein was building an arsenal of chemical and nuclear weapons? Or that 8 years of shitty military intelligence didn't hamper Bush's ability to gather accurate information about Iraq's capabilities? Clinton didn't pull the trigger, but he loaded the gun, put it in Bush's hands, and told him to shoot. If Bush is a murderer, then Clinton is a full accomplice in the murder. But no one wants to talk about that... it's easier to just form a lynch mob to string up Bush, while Clinton becomes America's most prominent foreign diplomat.
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
Yep, Ive posted that speech here on freeones in about 5 different threads.
Clinton was all set on going in but backed out.
But he did say what he said about saddam.

It always made me sick when the same democrats who supported clinton regarding iraq, spoke out against saddam and his danger, and voted yes for his removal later pointed their finger and said "he lied to us, he played on our fear".........
Any idiot can see they were simply selling out the country for their own political advancement.
Treasonous actually.
 
I had a volvo station wagon for 8 years and sold it to some fella down the road. He went out on the ale in it and ran over and killed a couple of kids. Naturally I was tried and sentenced as a willing accomplice in the crime.
 
There is also a bid difference when somebody has been given shady information by the intelligence services that are controlled by the president. If your in congress their only recourse at that time was to either claim our intelligence agencies were purposely lying to them, were extremely incompetent, or were right and we needed to take action. Without really good proof the first two would have been very bold and potentially dangerous accusations at the time, so there wasn't much left but to believe them. It's not like every individual has there own intelligence agency with billion of dollars in resources.

The difference between the Bush administration and other people however is a lot of things suggesting that he purposely mislead or skewed things to fit what he wanted or maybe even outright lied about the intelligence he was getting, and he took us to war for it. There is indication they knew the evidence they were presenting everybody wasn’t nearly as strong as they were saying. Looking back at all that stuff Colin Powell said to the international community, I'm surprised he was able to keep a strait face. Not to mention the buck stops with the president and he responsible for that one way or another. Looking back with all the revelations that the public now has at their disposal, it's obvious Bush should have known better. With the possible exception of Clinton in a few cases you can't blame some democrats because they were essentially deceived. Even Clinton didn't feel strongly enough to send people to die for something that was stupid. It could also be pointed out that the Bush administration had years more intelligence than the Clinton administration did.
 

Facetious

Moderated
But no one wants to talk about that... it's easier to just form a lynch mob to string up Bush, while Clinton becomes America's most prominent foreign diplomat.

We also never hear about Clinton and his involvement in Kosovo and all of the innocent Christian Serbians that were bombed out of their homes....
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
What is the purpose of dredging this up, Jason? And why to you keep referring to the opposition party by a derogatory name (like someone from the other side could come up with....oh, let's say....refucklicans! How's that? Really juvenile, honestly). The only possible reason would be to further drive a wedge between all of us by contriving something that would be supposedly controversial when it really isn't. That doesn't serve any positive purpose in my book other than the equivalent of sticking your thumbs in your ears and waggling your fingers while going "nyah-nyah!!!" to those who think differently than you do about certain political subjects.

This is OLD news. It has been discussed at least a thousand times here. It is common knowledge that both political parties were duped by the manipulation of bad intelligence. Again, I am puzzled as to why you would bring this up so far ex post facto when it is indeed such old news. Just like to reopen old wounds for sport I guess....things must be really slow in Pittsburgh this week since the Steelers have a bye I guess. :dunno::confused:
 
I had a volvo station wagon for 8 years and sold it to some fella down the road. He went out on the ale in it and ran over and killed a couple of kids. Naturally I was tried and sentenced as a willing accomplice in the crime.

If you cut the brake line and intentionally liquored him up, then yes, you are a willing accomplice. Because that's the closer analogy here. Clinton negligently - and possibly maliciously - damaged our military intelligence, and got the American public drunk on bloodlust for Hussein, then handed the keys of our military to Bush.
 

Legzman

what the fuck you lookin at?
we've known for years that he lied about WMD's, so why is this news?
 
Jason I thought you were against in principle this whole idea of looking back?:)

Iraq will go down in history as Bush's war.He knows that and has said history will judge him right.

After 9/11 there was almost a war fever in america,we wanted someone to pay.It is said Bush could have chosen several countres in that region to be the one invaded Iraq ,Syria,Libya or Iran.

Bush and his administration were given the authority to use all neccesary force against Iraq.That isn't the same as he was instructed to actually invade.Clinton never had any full scale invasion plans btw that i am aware of.

And further Bush and company didn't just say they beleived Saddam had WMDS they said they knew where they were.Rumseld,Cheney,Rice and Colin Powell who went to the UN and showed what he claimed were pics of mobile chemical labs etc all said they knew.Cheney and Rice talked about mushroom clouds etc whipping up the hysteria.Colin Powell later resigned over how he was used to lie about it.

Personally I think the reason for invading Iraq comes from a plan neocons had for us to have permanent military presense with large bases in a gulf oil state.The future of oil is one of a vital resource for the american and western economys that is more and more desired by others whose demand for oil will grow (china for instance) and we wanted to be in a position to dictate using military force if neccesary the flow of oil in the future to insure we and our allies had access to the amounts we desired.

They assumed Iraq would welcome us (and said we would be welcomed as liberators) and we would face little opposition after we got rid of Saddam.That was really the biggest miscalculation of all.If they had been right and no insurgency had come about no one would have complained here in the states.But the resistance was enough that americans turned against the war and Bush and that became a huge problem for him and the republicans and the neocons plan.

Oil wars are probably coming.That part of the neocons outlook may have some merit.But americans who like to view themselves as "the good guys" who don't go around using their military to impose their economic interests are a problem.As was admitted in the 1st gulf war by the first Bush ,our removing Saddam from Kuwait and protecting Saudi Arabia was about Jobs (american jobs).It ain't about freedom, it's about protecting our place as a country with 4% of the worlds population that consumes 30% of the worlds oil production.

I'm really just stating the facts as I see them about oil and the US.Both parties and the american people will in the future do whatever they think neccesary to try to maintain our and our friends access to oil when crunch time comes.We might have to lose some of the good guy stuff but you can't fill up your car on kindness.
 
I think alot of politicians are liars, but I think really think Bush took it a step further by taking us to war with a lie. I have little doubt that Clinton lied also. If he was given intelligence that said "Iraq has no WMDs" and then went before Congress and the US and said they did, well hell yeah he's a liar. The question is, did he try to influence the intelligence as Bush and his people did?

At the outset I agreed with the decision to attack Iraq, because I actually believed President Bush when he said they had WMDs. Little did I know that he and his VP and the rest of his staff were influencing the intelligence. If 100 intel analysts said "Iraq has no WMDs", Bush would reply "Go find me some evidence!".

And what was the evidence? It was basically, "A guy that knows a guy that knew a guy who's cousin worked for a guy that said Iraq had WMDs." I'm being somewhat sarcastic, but you get the idea.

Bush's response? "I told you, Iraq has WMDs!" I'm being somewhat sarcastic there, but you get the idea.

Overall, I think the lesson learned is never to trust politicians, regardless of their party. I never really paid attention to politics until the Iraq War. To have a sitting President lie to us so blatantly, about something as serious as War...that's unforgivable. Hell I don't even trust Obama now and I voted for him.

I don't even trust my dog anymore. Or my twin brother. All thanks to Bush!

Thanks Bush!

That's just my 2 cents.
 

jasonk282

Banned
I am not for hypocrisy in any party. That was this post was about. Not wheather or not we should have invaded or not or the cause behind the war. It simpley about pointing out the hypocrisy of Democrats. We all know Republican's are no better, but lets not act like its only one party spiting out the hypocrisy in Washington. There are several members on this forum that believe the Democrats are aways right and can do no harm, just point out that they are as greed and flip floppers like the republicans they post so much about.
 
I am not for hypocrisy in any party.
Then you need to find a new country to hang your hat in. As long as there are Republicans doosh bags within a fart's sniff of Washington DC there will be hypocrisy.

Shall we take another wander down the infidelity highway littered with the sexual carcasses of GOP bedhoppers?

That was this post was about. Not wheather or not we should have invaded or not or the cause behind the war. It simpley about pointing out the hypocrisy of Democrats. We all know Republican's are no better, but lets not act like its only one party spiting out the hypocrisy in Washington. There are several members on this forum that believe the Democrats are aways right and can do no harm, just point out that they are as greed and flip floppers like the republicans they post so much about.

As one who believes that, yes, Democrats generally can do no wrong (they just don't do enough RIGHT)....I don't really know what your point is with this.

Bush and Cheney faked the "intelligence," they lied to Congress and the American people in a State of the Union Address, they outed an actual CIA Agent (Valerie Plame) in a TRUE ACT OF POLITICAL COWARDICE. Joe Wilson literally should've walked into the White House and thrashed those turds (Dubya/Cheney) in defense of the honor of his wife.

The scorecard of shame leans bigtime to the GOP and it will take A LOT of crap from the Democrats to "even the score." Bush/Cheney/TurdBlossom Rove really torched the future of the GOP as they rode off into the sunset..

Dubya's final copter ride out of DC seemed like he was almost sprinting to the Copter (Take me back to Crawford!), it was a strange visual from Obama's Inauguration...I'll always remember that hasty copter ride...:wave2:
 

jasonk282

Banned
Then you need to find a new country to hang your hat in. As long as there are Republicans doosh bags within a fart's sniff of Washington DC there will be hypocrisy.
i don't think so I put my life on the line for 10 years for this country. I love it and hate to see it go down the shitter.

Shall we take another wander down the infidelity highway littered with the sexual carcasses of GOP bedhoppers?
Like I said "We all know Republican's are no better" And I have stated before that these people deserve what they get. people in glass house should not throw stones.



As one who believes that, yes, Democrats generally can do no wrong(they just don't do enough RIGHT) ....I don't really know what your point is with this.

^My point is apprently valid about people thinking Democrats do no wrong.
 
Bush is a cowardly sociopathic lying son of a bitch who should be tried and lynched after being found guilty for treason for misleading this country into an unnecessary war, putting the troops in danger and war crimes against the people of Iraq
 
Top