Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Bush Job Approval

Bush Job Approval 2005

  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#41 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 11:16 AM

How many more examples would you like? The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? Speech after speech by Democrat Senators and House Democrats on why we needed to bomb the hell out of Saddam Hussein in Operation Desert Fox?

You can play pretend and play along with the Democrats who act like our history with Saddam started in January 2000 with Bush's presidency, but their speeches, votes, and bills are all on public record, and damning for those crass Democrats who claim today that Saddam never had, never used, never sought, and never stockpiled WMD.

They can lie to you now all they want, but they can't lie to me. I've got their own words as proof.

H.R.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))

Quote

(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Quote

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

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

Quote

SEC. 6. WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR IRAQ.

Consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Quote

SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.

It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.
http://www.iraqwatch...slation/ILA.htm

Where's the lie today? Ask Senators Kerry, Byrd, Kennedy, and the rest of the liars from the left.

-Ogami

#42 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 11:18 AM

Quote

crass Democrats who claim today that Saddam never had, never used, never sought, and never stockpiled WMD.

Name one, please, with appropriate quotes.
Posted Image

#43 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 12:31 PM

I've yet to see one quote from you, period.

Wacko candidate (and representative Democrat) Al Gore:

Quote

"He betrayed this country!" Mr. Gore shouted into the microphone at a rally of Tennessee Democrats here in a stuffy hotel ballroom. "He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."

Democratic National Committee Chairman (and nut Presidential candidate) Howard Dean:

Quote

The alleged misrepresentation of U.S. intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is catching fire on the Democratic campaign trail, if not among the general public. Howard Dean opened his speech with the WMD issue and openly alluded to Watergate. "What did the president know, and when did he know it?" asked Dean. He often looks angry when he's talking about Bush, but this time he looked furious.

Dennis Kucinich made the same point, but it wasn't clear how much the political climate had changed till Bob Graham spoke. Graham has been bobbing and weaving for months on the Iraq question. His position hasn't changed, but it's so convoluted—he opposed the war because we should have declared war on several other enemies first—that he can spin it either way. Sometimes he pitches it as an anti-war position; sometimes he pitches it as an ultra-hawkish position. It depends which way the wind is blowing.
http://www.slate.com/id/2084178

Oops, Howard Dean wasn't always this way. Here he was in 2002 with Bob Schiefer:

Quote

SCHIEFFER: Well, does he have to have the means to deliver them to us? Or what if he had the means to give them to another terrorist group who could bring them into this country in a suitcase?

DEAN: Well, that's correct, that would certainly be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so unilaterally, we could do that.
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain523726.shtml

Waterpanther, please explain to me why you need quotes for what every Democrat with a tongue has been saying for two elections. Either the threat of Saddam's WMD program was real, or a lie invented by Bush. Which is it? The answer changes, depending on when you ask the Democrats. ;)

-Ogami

#44 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 03:29 PM

Ogami, what does anything you quoted have to do with The Bush Adminstration drawing false ties (via repeated speeches mentioning Saddam, Bin Laden and 911 in the same breath) making false claims about "knowing Saddam has XY&Z and that we knew where", presenting disputed and or refuted intell as fact and withholding intell that called those claims into doubt? We had reports from the former Treasury Sec. (I believe it was) stating that the administration was already looking for justifications to overthhrow Saddam when Bush took office. Now you can (and will) believe whatever you like regarding Bush's honesty but for me, it smells like something I'd scrape off my shoes.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#45 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 03:35 PM

waterpanther, on Dec 30 2005, 08:18 AM, said:

Quote

crass Democrats who claim today that Saddam never had, never used, never sought, and never stockpiled WMD.

Name one, please, with appropriate quotes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Not possible, since everybody knows he had them in the 80's. Problem is, he didn't have them this time around.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#46 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 04:03 PM

Lin asked:

We had reports from the former Treasury Sec. (I believe it was) stating that the administration was already looking for justifications to overthhrow Saddam when Bush took office.

You can go read "Bush at War" by Bob Woodward to learn that. Why is this a crime in the opposition's view? Bush took an oath to defend this country and its Constitution, it would have been treasonable for a president not to have drawn up contingency plans to deal with Saddam Hussein. (There were apparently no new military invasion plans drawn up since 1996, according to Tommy Franks.)

Also, Bush has a memory of Saddam Hussein that extends before January 2000, why do his critics have a problem with the concept of time? Saddam Hussein was a recognized threat to his people, his neighbors, this country, and our allies long before the governor of Texas wanted to be president. Why pretend otherwise? If the desire to remove Saddam Hussein was a scheme "hatched in Texas", as Ted Kennedy famously said last year, then he must not have read Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. If the Democrats want to pretend world history began in January 2000, that's fine with me. Our side will continue just fine without them.

Now you can (and will) believe whatever you like regarding Bush's honesty but for me, it smells like something I'd scrape off my shoes.

As I stated before, Saddam Hussein was a known threat before Bush took office. For the Democrats to pretend otherwise is silly, although it does gel perfectly with their desire to view Iraq as a total failure. What sort of political party views a defeat of American forces in Iraq as a victory for the Democratic party? That's an utterly sick attitude, yet an attitude I am sorry to see has taken hold amongst the Democratic leadership. A win for America is a defeat for them. And they put themselves in this position with enthusiasm.
___________________________

Rhea wrote:

Not possible, since everybody knows he had them in the 80's. Problem is, he didn't have them this time around.

And we were to take Saddam Hussein's word on it? That is the Democrat position. I would simply ask, on what basis of Saddam's past behavior (again, before January 2000 when Bush took office) would we base this new trustworthiness of Saddam's word? Bush did the right thing in removing Saddam. The repercussions are still lashing America's enemies.

-Ogami

#47 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 04:09 PM

But, Ogami, I'm not asking for

Quote

quotes for what every Democrat with a tongue has been saying for two elections.
.

I'm asking for one name--just one--with an actual quote to back it up, who

Quote

claim[s] today that Saddam never had, never used, never sought, and never stockpiled WMD.

Now, I really don't expect you to produce such a name or quote because no Democrat that I'm aware of has ever made such a silly statement.  This is the old straw man argument--accuse your opponent of saying something s/he never said, then wax righteously indignant when asked for proof.  

Now, one name, please.  One name, or a retraction.
Posted Image

#48 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 04:31 PM

Ogami,
the problem with Bush looking for an excuse to topple Saddam is that it lends even more credibility to the claims that the "bad intell" was not the problem but that cherry picking it and concealing intell that contradicted Bush's goals was the problem. It lends credibilty to the felling that many Americans have that they were sold a big, fat lie so Bush could pursue his agenda. Without all the WMD, Bin Laden/Saddam innuendo, mushroom cloud BS do you beleive Americans would have supported an invasion? I surely don't. I never believed Bush and I never believed for a second that anything Saddam did or didn't do would prevent an invasion.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#49 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 04:37 PM

More arguing about who lied to whom? and who started what war? and somebody's getting mighty defensive around here with all the line by line answerings ...
let me get to the first post now, the W approval ratings? what does this mean to you? what does this do for you? what's it for, "what's it all about, Alf... ?" erm, "about, Walker?"

With all this Rep and Dem debating, does this approval rating "do Rep" or "do Dem" for you? or is it more than that?
The starting of the "war" which is really "security" now, and the spin for that, is now old hat: and the gov has already decided the final chapter, ramp up the Iraqis then get the boots out; we'll probably keep some air security in there, and security experts and advisors, I mean we did promise to keep supporting Iraq and not dump them, "hey we came over and did our bit, now we're outta here and y'all can go disintegrate into civil war" - hey that leads me to a newspaper headline I saw yesterday about the Kurds, maybe another thread?

So, W approval rating: does this speak to you on Congress for 2006 or the big ticket toward the end of 2007? who Rep will run? is there any Rep you can vote for? how are the Dems in Congress, changes needed? and if so is it because of Bush approval ratings?

I have no idea what I'll do for 2007, and it's not just partisan, heck I voted for Reagan, my first prez vote, but he's also the last Rep I voted for about White House: so is it about Congress? what will you do, and swayed by W approvals? I like my two lady senators and my lady governor, and not just about Rep or Dem, they have good hearts and want what's best for all no matter what of the eight parties you like. They are also the first set ever of lady senators and governator. But there are many out there who really really wanna toss out some rep. or senator, so: does this W rating make you wanna toss out .... yers?
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#50 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 04:40 PM

Quote

And we were to take Saddam Hussein's word on it? That is the Democrat position.

Indeed, it is not and was not.  Remember those U. N. inspectors?  The ones Bush didn't allow to finish their work once it had become apparent that they were unlikely to find anything that would support his claims?  Those are the people whose word was and is accepted.
Posted Image

#51 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 05:13 PM

offworlder, on Dec 30 2005, 09:37 PM, said:

So, W approval rating: does this speak to you on Congress for 2006 or the big ticket toward the end of 2007? who Rep will run? is there any Rep you can vote for? how are the Dems in Congress, changes needed? and if so is it because of Bush approval ratings?

I have no idea what I'll do for 2007, and it's not just partisan, heck I voted for Reagan, my first prez vote, but he's also the last Rep I voted for about White House: so is it about Congress? what will you do, and swayed by W approvals? I like my two lady senators and my lady governor, and not just about Rep or Dem, they have good hearts and want what's best for all no matter what of the eight parties you like. They are also the first set ever of lady senators and governator. But there are many out there who really really wanna toss out some rep. or senator, so: does this W rating make you wanna toss out .... yers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Really all this lousy Bush Approval rating does for me is to make me feel justified or better about my own opinion of the man and his job performance.

Some folks may say it reflects on satisfaction or the lack thereof with the Republican Party or maybe with the whole list of current elected officials.

But I vote on a case by case...or rather candidate by candidate basis.  I look at their voting record overall and my own personal opinions of the candidates.  Can they do the job?  Do they try to do their job?  

I don't vote straight ticket Republican or straight ticket Democrat....I vote for the best person for the job based on a whole lot of factors...that have nothing to do with party affiliation.

For example....I voted for a Republican for judge locally and a Democrat for sheriff

and while I am a registered Democrat...I would vote for John McCain if he ran for President.  When I lived in AZ I voted for him as Senator and felt really confident in him based on actually meeting the man.  Okay, it sounds silly to say you voted for someone based on the vibe or energy you sensed but.....my gut feelings are seldom wrong.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#52 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 05:16 PM

Waterpanther fumed:

Now, one name, please. One name, or a retraction.

Senator Kennedy. Senator Kerry. Senator Byrd. (then) Senator Daschle. And probably a few dozen more that aren't memorable off-hand. Bush not only used faulty intelligence on WMD, but we are told by these clowns that Bush made it all up. Saddam must be as innocent as the day is long!

Let's have Senator Byrd speak for his bunch, as the self-styled defender of the Constitution wrote:

Quote

On February 6, the President announced the creation of his own commission to investigate our intelligence agencies to find out, in the words of Dr. David Kay, why we were almost all wrong about the administration's prewar claims of huge Iraqi stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. If Congress is serious about getting to the bottom of this apparent intelligence failure and the administration's rush to war, we must realize that once stripped of its dazzling plumage, the White House proposal for its own so-called independent commission is a real, honest to goodness turkey. It is not only fine feathers that make fine birds.
http://www.counterpu...rd03042004.html

Edited by Ogami, 30 December 2005 - 05:16 PM.


#53 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 05:23 PM

Lin wrote:

Ogami,
the problem with Bush looking for an excuse to topple Saddam is that it lends even more credibility to the claims that the "bad intell" was not the problem but that cherry picking it and concealing intell that contradicted Bush's goals was the problem.


But Lin, Bush's critics are so seeped with hatred (going back to the 2000 election) that it is irrelevant what claims of "credibility" his critics make. They have cried wolf every minute of this man's presidency, and still expect people to come running over the latest "Bush lie" they think they found. It gets old, the critics have worn themselves out, and have nothing to show for it. Nothing! In fact, the only people buoyed by the critics have been Al Queda, not much of an accomplishment.

It lends credibilty to the felling that many Americans have that they were sold a big, fat lie so Bush could pursue his agenda.

Which was...? To steal Iraq's oil? Didn't happen. Since that absolute, total, 100% BIG LIE by Bush's critics didn't pan out, where is their apology? Where are his critics apologies for their bad intel? Hmmm?

Without all the WMD, Bin Laden/Saddam innuendo, mushroom cloud BS do you beleive Americans would have supported an invasion?

A Saddam Hussein left in power is a Saddam Hussein left to pursue nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons. Sitting on your thumbs and hoping he'll be a nice guy may be what the Democrats/independents consider great foreign policy, but it's not what a real leader would sit around and do.

I never believed Bush and I never believed for a second that anything Saddam did or didn't do would prevent an invasion.

Check out the UN resolutions dumped on Saddam Hussein for 12 years, including the last one authorizing the use of force if he did not comply. (Of course, France and Germany differed on what 'serious' consequences would imply. The same serious UN consequences that Iran laughs at over their nuclear program, probably.)

#54 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 05:25 PM

Waterpanther wrote:

Indeed, it is not and was not. Remember those U. N. inspectors? The ones Bush didn't allow to finish their work once it had become apparent that they were unlikely to find anything that would support his claims? Those are the people whose word was and is accepted.

Yes, more "victims" of Bush. Everyone's a victim of Bush, the world is doomed, and we're all gonna die. Small wonder the Democrats keep losing, this is what the American people see as their national slogan.

-Ogami

#55 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 06:28 PM

Quote

Senator Kennedy. Senator Kerry. Senator Byrd. (then) Senator Daschle.

Now the quote, please.  The quote in which one of these Senators said that Saddam never had, never used, never sought, never stockpiled WMD.

Quote

Yes, more "victims" of Bush. Everyone's a victim of Bush, the world is doomed, and we're all gonna die. Small wonder the Democrats keep losing, this is what the American people see as their national slogan.

And how does this speak to your point, that Democrats were taking Saddam's word that he had no more WMD or WMD programs?  It doesn't, of course.

Edited by waterpanther, 30 December 2005 - 06:31 PM.

Posted Image

#56 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 06:42 PM

As you well know, the stated attitude of the entire Democratic party since summer 2002 has been that Saddam Hussein was never a threat to anyone (even his own people), and that Bush created a series of lies in order to illegally, unilaterally invade Iraq and depose their "elected" President. In order to perform these mental gymnastics, the Democrats found it necessary to pretend that there was no Gulf War I, no invasion of Kuwait, no use of WMD, no stockpiling of WMD, and that our entire history with Saddam Hussein started with this president coveting Iraq's oil.

Claim to hear these claims for the first time today all you want, Waterpanther. You may want to conveniently forget the stances of the Democratic party, I have a longer memory.


And how does this speak to your point, that Democrats were taking Saddam's word that he had no more WMD or WMD programs? It doesn't, of course.

They weren't????????????????????????????!

Then what is Bush lying about, if the Democrats refused to take Saddam at his word? That is precisely what they have been slamming Bush with for three years! (chuckle)

Exercises in memory lapses must be what passes for debate around here. I guess this is the nuanced wiggle room that John Kerry adopted during his campaign. Be on all sides of a position so you don't have to take a side, and criticize Bush for not doing the same.

-Ogami

#57 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 06:52 PM

Quote, please.  Not inferences; quote.
Posted Image

#58 Batrochides

Batrochides
  • Islander
  • 669 posts

Posted 30 December 2005 - 08:21 PM

Since this topic has now veered away from any import of Bush's state-by-state approval numbers to the matter of WMD intelligence, I'll state the following for the record:

While there it is very likely that President Bush and Vice-President Cheney listened to intelligence sources that favored their own interpretation of Iraq/Saddam and its/his nuclear capability, there is nothing to indicate that either of them deliberately, in a Nixonian manner, LIED significantly about  Iraqi WMDs...that is to say, that they KNEW for a certainty that Saddam had no such weapons, or that he had no intention of acquiring either such weapons or the means to develop them.

Intelligence on these matters was, necessarily incomplete, and naturally it would be impossible to verify the non-existence of WMDs without the complete cooperation of Saddam (as was required by the 1991 ceasefire agreement). After 1992, Saddam's intrasigence led to the eventual cessation of the inspection program, and, based on his behavior, it was reasonable to conclude that he either had secret stockpiles of WMDs or at the least intended to resume pre-1991 WMD development as soon as all UN sanctions against Iraq were lifted (something that Saddam demanded and which his prewar friends in the French and German governments were striving mightily to achieve in the UN Security Council).

As far as this poster is concerned, matters should have proceeded on the course that was aborted only by the 1991 agreement that concluded the first Gulf War. In order to secure the safety of Kuwait and the other Gulf nations, it was required that Iraq--or more precisely, Saddam's Iraq--cease to pose a military menace; it was only by fulfilling all of the conditions of the 1991 agreement that the logical outcome of the first Gulf War and the complete destruction of the Saddam government was to be avoided. The natural penalty for Saddam and his country in complying with only part of that agreement, and by exhibiting behavior that would indicate subterfuge, was the resumption of the 1990-1 war to its bitter end.

In reviewing the arguments of those who counseled against the 2003 war, their common thread is cataloging reasons why invasion should not be attempted, but are noticeably lacking in (what I consider to be) vital answers or practical alternatives to invasion on the following matters: the perpetual presence of large numbers of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that were necessary to provide defense against Iraq and to enforce the sanctions; the implementation of an inspection regime that was foolproof from Iraqi evasion; the prevention of Saddam providing support to terrorist groups (no, there was no practical support to al-Qaeda, but there WRE unexpected contacts, and there WAS considerable support to Palestinian terrorist groups against Israel).

I fault the Bush Adminstration for not making serious preparations for a long Intafada-like conflict in Iraq, and for allowing chimerical hopes (e.g a "peaceful, democratic" Iraq) and too much regard for cultural sensitivity   (e.g. not making mass arrests of Baathists and their Sunni allies in order to try to coax them into entering the political process, not using EOD dogs in sweeps because of Muslim prejudice against such animals) to take precedence over military considerations, which was not the case in the war against Germany and Japan.

Batrochides

Edited by Batrochides, 30 December 2005 - 08:29 PM.


#59 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 02:28 PM

Batrochides, on Dec 30 2005, 08:21 PM, said:

While there it is very likely that President Bush and Vice-President Cheney listened to intelligence sources that favored their own interpretation of Iraq/Saddam and its/his nuclear capability, there is nothing to indicate that either of them deliberately, in a Nixonian manner, LIED significantly about  Iraqi WMDs...that is to say, that they KNEW for a certainty that Saddam had no such weapons, or that he had no intention of acquiring either such weapons or the means to develop them.

Bush, and members of his administration, lied REPEATEDLY to get the war they came into office looking to start.  

They knew the Uranium/Niger claim had been proved false and put it in the State of the Union address, anyway.  Why let the truth get in the way of a good line?  

They knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 even as they decided to use 9/11 to get their war with Saddam.  

Cheney (and others) went around saying Iraqi agents "met with Mohammed Atta in Prague."  Cheney even said that meeting "has been pretty well confirmed" before (months later) claiming that he would never have said such a thing, because, of course, the metting never occured.  

http://216.239.51.10...a Prague &hl=en

Cheney also said: "Saddam Hussein has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons" and that the first warning "could be a mushroom cloud over an American city."

http://www.cnn.com/2...br.iraq.claims/

And then, there's this:

GEORGE W. BUSH, on PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, said:

Did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.

Of course, the inspectors were ON THE GROUND in Iraq at the moment he said that.  In fact, Bush had forced them to leave the country before they could finish their work, lest they discover what the military later acknowledged: there were no WMDs, and thus, no threat.

How, pray tell, could that be anything other than a lie?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#60 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 03:10 PM

_Ph wrote:

Bush, and members of his administration, lied REPEATEDLY to get the war they came into office looking to start.

Not only did they NOT lie, but there was no need to lie, because Saddam Hussein was a known threat BEFORE they came into office. Only certain Democrats pretend Saddam Hussein was not a threat before Inauguration Day 2001. Why they persist in such a ridiculous claim, _ph, I haven't the slightest idea. It's ridiculous to pretend that Saddam Hussein was a deadly threat before January 21, 2001, yet a safely-contained harmless lovable guy after January 21, 2001. The only difference, left unstated by the Democrats, is that we are supposed to like bombing Saddam with Clinton and hate bombing Saddam with Bush. One is good, the other is bad, because we're not supposed to like Bush, no matter how Saddam Hussein was viewed with the previous president. To "get" Bush, it's necessary to excuse Hussein.

They knew the Uranium/Niger claim had been proved false and put it in the State of the Union address, anyway. Why let the truth get in the way of a good line?

They "knew it was false"? That's purely your personal opinion, and you simply repeat a failed 2004 campaign slogan. It flopped, it failed. The 2004 campaign is over, the politicians who made that claim did not convince the American people, and themselves no longer make such assertions because they know it was never true.

Don't you think it's odd that only a tiny few believe a failed campaign slogan from the past? We don't hear a single Democrat in the Senate or House repeating it to this day, so why do you still believe it? Don't you think if the Democrats had an impeachable offense they could get Bush on, they'd run with it? Yet they dropped it. (And you haven't.)

They knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 even as they decided to use 9/11 to get their war with Saddam.

Saddam Hussein had every reason to hate the United States. As Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld stated several times, Saddam Hussein could fund future attacks similar to 9/11. Why this desire, _Ph, to give a proven wielder of WMD the benefit of a doubt? I fail to see what record of Saddam Hussein's inspired such a benefit of a doubt. Saddam Hussein earned no such benefit of a doubt, why create one for him?

Left in power, there is every reason why Saddam Hussein would fund, support, and create terrorists to use against us, our allies, and our interests, in the region and further abroad. Anyone who claims otherwise cannot point to Saddam Hussein's past record as proof to the contrary! Show me where in Saddam's past invasion of Iran, past invasion of Kuwait, past gassing of innocents, that he WOULD NOT do this sort of thing. You're making the claim, point to Saddam's record and back it up.

Cheney (and others) went around saying Iraqi agents "met with Mohammed Atta in Prague."

The 9/11 Commission differs with Cheney on the level of contact between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda. What the 9/11 Commission does say, however, is damning for Saddam Hussein, not Cheney:

Quote

In a report released last month, the commission concluded that though there were numerous contacts in the 1990s between Iraq and al Qaeda, those contacts did not result in a "collaborative relationship."

How tight were these contacts between the two groups? Who knows. But they occured, which is something the 9/11 Commission agrees with the Administration on.

Cheney even said that meeting "has been pretty well confirmed" before (months later) claiming that he would never have said such a thing, because, of course, the metting never occured.

from the same article, 9/11 Commission does disagree with Cheney:

Quote

Cheney also said recently that the United States has never been able to "knock down" an uncorroborated Czech report that September 11 plot leader Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, Czech Republic, before the attacks.

The commission said it doesn't believe such a meeting ever took place.
http://www.cnn.com/2....911/index.html

But this is still in dispute, and has not been settled authoritatively as you claim. You, _Ph, claim it never happened. The 9/11 Commission does not believe such a meeting took place. Two very different things.

Cheney also said: "Saddam Hussein has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons" and that the first warning "could be a mushroom cloud over an American city."

Yes, and given Saddam Hussein's clear usage of WMD on his country's enemies (and his own people), I will choose to believe Cheney's word over Saddam's, every time. I like how this Administration's critics criticize everything we've done in Iraq, all without going to the step of demanding we reinstate Hussein back into office. If Saddam is a victim of a lying America, then why not take it the rest of the way? Advocate putting him back in power! Oh, he's not a victim, he really is a monster who threatened his people, his neighbors, and us? Then where is the lie, hmmmm? Great to criticize from the sidelines, but it's never risen above the level of partisan nitpicking. The greatest Democrat minds in the Senate, House, and DNC, and their criticism NEVER rose above, "Nyah nyah, we don't like Bush, so we'll defend Saddam Hussein to the ends of the earth if it means discrediting Bush."

How, pray tell, could that be anything other than a lie?

Because, as you well know, the weapons inspectors were turned away from site after site after site after site after site, some they were not let in at all, and others, after Saddam's goons had sufficient time to make the locations "presentable" for inspection. Pretend otherwise if you wish, but Saddam Hussein learned very quickly that we weren't going to settle for "pretend inspections". His bluff was called, and he's in a cage where he belongs. (Or does he...?)

There were a lot of lies told about Iraq, and they were all told by the party out of power, and the party that will stay out of power for the forseeable future for the very reason of their ongoing lying: The Democratic party.

Edited by Ogami, 01 January 2006 - 03:13 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Bush, Job Approval, 2005

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users