George Dubya is the man!

[pete]

Subject: HMMMMMMMMMM



Re-evaluating Weapons of Mass Destruction
>
>
>
>"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. Thatis our bottom line."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
>
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
>
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
> - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
>
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
> - 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 an illicit 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 mandates 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
>
> SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

[briantech98]

Originally posted by pete
Subject: HMMMMMMMMMM


> SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

please don't type in all caps. It's against the rules and I don't like being yelled at.


But as a reply to all those quotes... so what? I never said the democrats don't lie too. All politicians suck. GWB just happened to be one politician that lied about something to start a war. And thats really bad.

I'd like to see how you all would react if the UN told the USA to expose and disarm all of its biological, nuclear or otherwise weapons of mass destruction.

lol. Then what if a country attacked us, because we refused? Who would be right? Kind of a double standard there aint it.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Originally posted by briantech98

GWB just happened to be one politician that lied about something to start a war. And thats really bad.

What did he lie about with the WMD's?

Originally posted by briantech98

lol. Then what if a country attacked us, because we refused? Who would be right? Kind of a double standard there aint it.

I've thought about that too. But, you have to remember, it was not just the United States that said he had to disarm. France, Germany, Russia, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Eqypt, the list goes on and on. I think maybe Zimbobway may not have. LOL

[N20LT4Bird]

Originally posted by briantech98
please don't type in all caps. It's against the rules and I don't like being yelled at.

I'd like to see how you all would react if the UN told the USA to expose and disarm all of its biological, nuclear or otherwise weapons of mass destruction.

lol. Then what if a country attacked us, because we refused? Who would be right? Kind of a double standard there aint it.

WHo cares if its a double standard? We should let maniacs house dangerous weapons that could kill us so that we can be fair and nice. If other countries are mad at us for doing the right thing, than so be it. Even if we couldnt find the WMD, Saddam still needed to be taken out - he's a tyrant. Just think of what would of happened if we took your point of view in WW2. We'd be speaking German.

[TimeLord]

It is the right thing depending on what god you chose to worship,,,

that is funny because in that case , those that believe in ISLAM are correct and must destroy the evil satan which is the U.S.A.!

in the other case the christians are right to obey their god and wipe other religions and beliefs from the earth because they aren't consequent with the Bible.

Problem is there is A god on each and every side and the one listening to HIS god is always right !!!!!!!

This is the HUGE problem I have with ANY religion,,,,,,,,,,

All politicians lie,if they told the truth we would never elect them,nice catch 22!!!!!!!!

[briantech98]

Originally posted by N20LT4Bird
WHo cares if its a double standard? We should let maniacs house dangerous weapons that could kill us so that we can be fair and nice. If other countries are mad at us for doing the right thing, than so be it. Even if we couldnt find the WMD, Saddam still needed to be taken out - he's a tyrant. Just think of what would of happened if we took your point of view in WW2. We'd be speaking German.

Actually the US didn't get involved in WW2 until japan attacked pearl harbor and declared war on the US. Pretty big differentiation there.

Also if you're trying to compare saddam to hitler... well saddam's got a ways to go before he reaches the pinnacle of evil that hitler sat on.

[AmericanZ28]

Originally posted by briantech98
Actually the US didn't get involved in WW2 until japan attacked pearl harbor and declared war on the US. Pretty big differentiation there.

Also if you're trying to compare saddam to hitler... well saddam's got a ways to go before he reaches the pinnacle of evil that hitler sat on.

To further comment on that, Saddam didn't even have the resources to make ICBM's, nor did he have them to make nuclear weapons. I think its fairly obvious over who was the bigger threat to the US between the Nazy's and Saddam.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jeff 95 Z28

I've thought about that too. But, you have to remember, it was not just the United States that said he had to disarm. France, Germany, Russia, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Eqypt, the list goes on and on. I think maybe Zimbobway may not have. LOL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is true, however, neither one of these contries supported us when it came to taking military action. As a matter of fact, we were heavily critisized by some of these same countries for taking military action.

I found some very good facts about Bush that I think people should consider, they can be found


here!

[gimp19]

GWB will go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever! The guy is a joke, not a single thing has improved in the U.S since he became pres. Not to blame him for the 911 attacks but its kinda wierd they happened even a year after he was elected.

Go ahead and flame me, he's the one using 911 as an excuse to attack Iraq. There are definatly much easier ways to go after a small group of people then war with and entire country, and costing U.S taxpayers billions. He's even said there is no way to fight terrorism, what he's doing is feeding there fire in the name of the entire U.S.

I dont belive evrything I hear on the news, listen to 2 of Georges "state of the Union address' " back 2 back, you wont belive how many times he contridicts himself, smerking the whole time. Its pitifull.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Well I've tried it twice and got no answers. What did Bush lie about with the WMD's?

[AmericanZ28]

Here are some lies....

Originally posted by Jeff 95 Z28
Well I've tried it twice and got no answers. What did Bush lie about with the WMD's?

March 24, 2004 | Daily Mislead Archive
Bush Administration Resorts to Lies About 9/11


With President Bush's former top counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke issuing well-documented criticisms of the White House's failure to defend America, the Administration has resorted to outright lies and distortions about its record. The president himself once again tried to deflect criticism, saying "had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on September the 11"1 - a statement designed to deflect attention from the specific warnings that he personally received outlining an imminent Al Qaeda attack2 that could involve hijacked planes3 being used as missiles4.

Here are four other explicit lies that the Administration has told over the last few days:

LIE: National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that Clarke "chose not to"5 voice his concerns about the Administration's counterterrorism policy. But Clarke sent an urgent memo to Rice in January 2001 asking for a Cabinet-level meeting about an imminent Al Qaeda attack6. The White House itself admits top Bush officials rejected Clarke's request, saying they "did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat."7

LIE: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan yesterday denied Clarke's charge that the president ordered the Pentagon to begin drafting plans to invade Iraq immediately after 9/11.8 But according to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq."9 This was corroborated by a September 2002 CBS News report which reported that, immediately after 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told "aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq."10

LIE: Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley denied Clarke's charge that there was an imminent domestic threat against America from Al Qaeda, saying, "All the chatter [before 9/11] was of an attack, a potential Al Qaeda attack overseas."11 But, according to the bipartisan Congressional report on 9/11, "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]."12

LIE: Bush National Security spokesman Jim Wilkinson claimed that "it was this president who expedited the deployment of the armed Predator" (the unmanned plane)13. But, according to Newsweek, it was the Bush Administration who "elected not to relaunch the Predator" and who did not deploy the new armed version of it despite "the military having successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001."14

Sources:
President Discusses Economy and Terrorism After Cabinet Meeting, 03/23/2004.
"August Memo Focused On Attacks in U.S.", Washington Post, 05/18/2002.
"Report Warned Of Suicide Hijackings", CBS News, 05/18/2002.
"Italy Tells of Threat at Genoa Summit", Los Angeles Times, 09/27/2001.
American Morning Transcript, 03/22/2004.
"Clarke's Take On Terror", CBS News, 03/21/2004.
"White House Rebuttal to Clarke Interview", Washington Post, 02/23/2004.
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, 03/23/2004.
"U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past", Washington Post, 01/12/2003.
"Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11", CBS News, 09/04/2002.
"Clarke's Take On Terror", CBS News, 03/21/2004.
Joint Inquiry of Intelligence Community Activities Before and After The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, 12/2002.
Fox News, 03/22/2004.
Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Quite obvious a partisan article but it does not address my question at all. What did Bush lie about with the WMD's?

[TimeLord]

Originally posted by Jeff 95 Z28
Quite obvious a partisan article but it does not address my question at all. What did Bush lie about with the WMD's?

Probably referring to the STOCKPILES of WMD's that everyone was tripping over before the attacks[that were abducted by aliens and are nowhere to be found now] and were being produced in vast quantities by everyone and his brother in law!!!


Just an observation,am retreating back to my homeplanet now!!

[AmericanZ28]

Originally posted by Jeff 95 Z28
Quite obvious a partisan article but it does not address my question at all. What did Bush lie about with the WMD's?

These following are staments which were given by Bush:

2. "We found the weapons of mass destruction."

3. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda."

Bush DID NOT find WMD's in Iraq, which quite obviously, make the above statements lies! And, so that theres no confusion, here is the definition of the word "lie" as defined by: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

LIE

NOUN: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

[N20LT4Bird]

Originally posted by briantech98
Actually the US didn't get involved in WW2 until japan attacked pearl harbor and declared war on the US. Pretty big differentiation there.

Also if you're trying to compare saddam to hitler... well saddam's got a ways to go before he reaches the pinnacle of evil that hitler sat on.

Had Japan not attacked the U.S. when it did, leading us into war, we WOULD be speaking German. Because we were being PASSIVE until there was no option but to fight. THat was Japan's crucial error - to awaken the sleeping giant. Had they waited, we would have remained passive for longer, the war machine would have gained more momentum, developed the atom bomb (as they were very close) and we would be occupied by Germany. The Hand of Providence is what saved us on that one.

Thats what we should have learned from the past - we dont want to come that close to allowing madmen build power and hurt us. You think the war on terror is bloody? Lets try another WW2. Your liberal passive theology is a slap in the face to the men who are DIEING to keep YOU safe. These guys are putting their life on the line to protect freedom from psychotic dictators and all some of us can say is "where's the weapons of mass destruction?" Give me a break. You guys seriously think he didnt have them - HES USED THEM BEFORE! Even if they arent present now, Saddam is a tyrant. We should not let tyrants run countries. If you watch your neighbor beat his wife every night do you say "oh well, not my business"? NO!, you go over there and kick the guys ass.

Its got nothing to do with religion either. My God doesnt tell me to wipe out Muslims and their god doesnt tell them to kill me. Maybe some of the muslim extremists - like the terrorist. But were not fighting terrorists to wipe out Islam - were fighting them to wipe out terror.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Originally posted by AmericanZ28
These following are staments which were given by Bush:

2. "We found the weapons of mass destruction."

Well technically the US forces did find WMD in Iraq, They found a big stockpile of mustard gas. Because it was not one of the chemicals Bush listed as being there, the liberal press did not consider it as saying yes we found what Bush said was there. They also found Mustard gas in the Euphrates river. Somebody saw it and took a sample. It seams they were dumping it to get rid of it right before the US entered Baghdad. It's totally not fair of the media to keep saying we did not find WMD's there when we did but because it was not one of the ones listed it doesn't count.

Originally posted by AmericanZ28

3. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda."

This is not a lie. intelligence gathered did say Iraq was gathering WMD's. Intelligence gathered by US, Britain, Israel, France, Germany, Russia, etc said it was there. Bush spoke about the intelligence. Now remember that a lie is a lie when at the time it is spoken is known to be untrue. If someone were to say something that he believed to be true and later it turned it to be false it is not a lie. It is a mistake.

Originally posted by AmericanZ28

Bush DID NOT find WMD's in Iraq,

Why do you keep saying Bush didn't find. Bush didn't even look for any. It's the United States.

Originally posted by AmericanZ28
...which quite obviously, make the above statements lies!

A lie is a lie when at the time it is spoken is known to be untrue. If someone were to say something that he believed to be true and later it turned it to be false it is not a lie. It is a mistake.

Originally posted by AmericanZ28

And, so that theres no confusion, here is the definition of the word "lie" as defined by: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

LIE

NOUN: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

As your definition says "deliberately presented as being true". As I said it also says that the statement is known to be false at the time it is spoken. If someone were to say something that he believed to be true and later it turned it to be false it is not a lie. It is a mistake. You are implying that he knew his statement was false when he said it and that is not true. Bush believed it, Bill Clinton believed it (and still does), The UN believed it, Ted Kennedy believed it in 1998, Tom Daschile believed it in 1998, Koffy Anon believed it, everybody believed it was true at some point in time. The democrats (except Bill Clinton) stopped saying they didn't believe it when they were not elected to office and became a minority party. Why did they change there stand? They were getting the same security briefings every one else was getting. That is partisan politics.

Look it took 4 months to find 25 jet fighter buried in the desert. Look how big a Mig 25 is. Now compare that to a 55 gallon drum. We may never find that.

A couple of weeks ago, the US captured another on the deck of cards. This guy said he new of three places where Iraq was stockpiling WMDs. He took US officials there and they were empty. They said he was surprised as they were. He did not know what happened to them. I don't know how true this story was because I was not there.

OK lets looks at some facts.
1. We knew he had chemical weapons because he used them on both Iran and the Kurds. This is well documented.
2. Terrik Azziz (spelling -5) said in a speech in 1994 that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. He said it not Bush. Every network news aired the tape. (Remember 1994 was before Fox news)
3. We knew he "had" them because he used them. Terrik Azziz said they "have" them. The UN resolution said that Iraq had to destroy them and provide evidence that they had. Iraq did not do that. Not one single shred of evidence they had destroyed anything. It was not our responsibility to prove that Iraq had WMD's. It was Iraq's responsibility to prove that they did not. Saddam did not do that.

Look I am not really a partisan person. I checked independent on the survey. Actually I place more as a libertarian. http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html . I don't care who is the president as long as they do what is right. I supported all of Clinton's action to help people around the world in need. I support Bush too. The things listed on those web sites about how Bush said he promised this amount of money but cut the budget for it could just as easily be said about Clinton. Those web sites are geared to do nothing but bash Bush. There are similar sites to bash Kerry.

I find it interesting how one of the web sites you posted mentions all of these times Bush said he supports this or that but ended up cutting the budget for it then the democrats come out and say he is spending too much. It is very easy to bash one side or the other like this. What I have done is made my own policy sort of a what I would do and if they go against that, I bash it. I'm not going to say we can't stop supporting everything but then say we have to cut spending. There is no way to do that. That is not fair.