[dialo]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
So did Clinton, Gore, the U.N.

Clinton didn't have UNMOVIC, and the bush admin claims were either not in line with the evidence as detailed by the UN or omitted details that cast serious doubt on their claims.

[Evan_11]

Yes you are that transparent.

Lerk: You stated in another thread that you were a Gephardt man. That man stood beside George Bush when he signed the resolution to go to war. If Bush lied then Gephardt lied also. Don't you see the hypocrisy of your accusations? If you trust Gephardt then why would you distrust Bush. The only logical reason I can come up with is that you...just....don't.....like....Bush.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I think a lot of the hand-wringing on the left would be appeased if the pro-war contingent said "You know what? They're politicians, they probably did exaggerate the WMD rhetoric. But they did it for the right reasons, those being the overthrow of a brutal, dangerous dictator, the liberation of millions of people and possibly, just possibly, positive long-term change in the Middle East."

It's hard for me to claim that they exaggerated the WMD rhetoric when it is so damn similar as that presented by the prior administration. Unless, of course, they were exaggerating the rhetoric as well.

Dec. 16, 1998 - Washington -- President Clinton ordered America's Armed Forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq to "attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

"I made it very clear at that time what 'unconditional cooperation' meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning."

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's hard for me to claim that they exaggerated the WMD rhetoric when it is so damn similar as that presented by the prior administration. Unless, of course, they were exaggerating the rhetoric as well.

Point taken, but we always come round to the fact that unlike Clinton (whose administration made its share of miscalculations), Bush ordered a full-scale invasion and occupation based, or so I believe, on evidence that was knowingly fudged/exaggerated. Again, I think it's a matter of degree and intent.

Mind you, I'm not that interested in the legalities. Clinton himself has said that the invasion was legal (although he has his own reasons for saying so), and I've never argued that it wasn't legal. People can argue 'til the cows come home what the U.N. resolutions meant. I'm mostly just interested in political realities, and my perception of reality is that the need for an immediate, full-scale invasion based on the WMD threat was overstated. There's reason to believe that Powell himself thought so, but was overruled. However, you've made a good case for your perception of reality. In the end I mostly just hope it works out for the best.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Yes you are that transparent.

Lerk: You stated in another thread that you were a Gephardt man. That man stood beside George Bush when he signed the resolution to go to war. If Bush lied then Gephardt lied also. Don't you see the hypocrisy of your accusations? If you trust Gephardt then why would you distrust Bush. The only logical reason I can come up with is that you...just....don't.....like....Bush.

BOO-YAH!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Yes you are that transparent.

Lerk: You stated in another thread that you were a Gephardt man. That man stood beside George Bush when he signed the resolution to go to war. If Bush lied then Gephardt lied also. Don't you see the hypocrisy of your accusations? If you trust Gephardt then why would you distrust Bush. The only logical reason I can come up with is that you...just....don't.....like....Bush.

I answered you in the other thread.

but more specifically to this:
So your spin of Why Bush lied is because Lerk is a hypocrite? I'm telling ya, I don't think these spins are going to fly on a national level. Most people don't know who I am.

But, seriously, Gephardt voted on the resolution to go to war. I don't agree with that...but there werent a lot of people that voted the other way, now are there?
But for him to vote, BASED on Bush's lies about the intelligence he claimed he had, does not make him a liar, just someone who, apparently like you, was persuaded by a liar.

Still, I have to say I've only applauded one post thus far in this thread that took on the challege head on.

kinda sad. Is the fact that Bush lied like the elephant in the living room? all the republicans know its there but none of them want to talk about it?

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I answered you in the other thread.

but more specifically to this:
So your spin of Why Bush lied is because Lerk is a hypocrite? I'm telling ya, I don't think these spins are going to fly on a national level. Most people don't know who I am.

But, seriously, Gephardt voted on the resolution to go to war. I don't agree with that...but there werent a lot of people that voted the other way, now are there?
But for him to vote, BASED on Bush's lies about the intelligence he claimed he had, does not make him a liar, just someone who, apparently like you, was persuaded by a liar.

Still, I have to say I've only applauded one post thus far in this thread that took on the challege head on.

kinda sad. Is the fact that Bush lied like the elephant in the living room? all the republicans know its there but none of them want to talk about it?

Lerk, you set yourself up everytime.

Gebbie knew exactly what he was doing. The intelligence is the same. Saddam had a weapons program when he wasn't supposed to. In the end we gave him too much time to cover his tracks.

Bottom line. I'm glad he's gone. Now, hopefully the Iraqi's will work to bring some order back to their nation.

Oh yeah and the blood for oil ain't bad either. heh, heh.

The man's gotta throw the dog a bone.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Lerk, you set yourself up everytime.

Gebbie knew exactly what he was doing. The intelligence is the same. Saddam had a weapons program when he wasn't supposed to. In the end we gave him too much time to cover his tracks.

What exactly does Gephart have to do with a discussion on Bush?

Bottom line. I'm glad he's gone. Now, hopefully the Iraqi's will work to bring some order back to their nation.

Yes, we all are. That's irrelevant.

Oh yeah and the blood for oil ain't bad either. heh, heh.

The man's gotta throw the dog a bone.

Why aren't you clever.

Why do Bush's supporters keep changing the subject? It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to just admit that Bush lied. We all know he lied, it's obvious that he lied, just say it and stop trying to confuse the issue by drawing in other unrelated topics. I voted for Bush too, I think invading Iraq was generally a good thing (though I think it probably could have been done better), I also just happen to think that many of the other things he have done have been absolutely horrible, and that he's doing way more damage to this country than the little good he is doing is worth. You don't have to blindly support everything your elected officials do, and there's nothing wrong with admitting you made a mistake.

[Evan_11]

Non, you sound bitter. Sour grapes eh? What else has Bush done wrong to make you hate him so? I mean you agree with the war and everything. Did you miss the tax break cut off? Sorry starving students are not included.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Non, you sound bitter. Sour grapes eh? What else has Bush done wrong to make you hate him so? I mean you agree with the war and everything. Did you miss the tax break cut off? Sorry starving students are not included.

In case you've forgotten Bush did many things before the war. I seem to recall him signing something called the PATRIOT act into law, I seem to recall him completely bypassing constitutional law and human rights and allowing people to be thrown into prison and held indefinitely without council and without being charged or tried, I see to recall all sorts of things that I didn't like. And, for your edification, I did, in fact, make the tax break cut off. But that doesn't change the fact that the tax break was a horrible idea. Don't get me wrong, I hate taxes and dispute the right of the government to levy them, but any idiot knows that you don't intentionally decrease your income while increasing your spending.

Of course none of this changes the fact that you're still avoiding the topic at hand by changing the subject. Just come out and say it. The truth shall set you free (in a figurative sense, of course).

[Evan_11]

So tell me Non, how has the Patriot effected you and 99.99% of the rest of legitmate U.S. citizens? It doesn't. You're reading between the lines and have been brainwashed by dipzoid liberals who would rather have Fidel Castro as their leader. Your logic concerning the tax breaks makes no sense either. Never mind that the economy is improving at a rate not seen in 20 years.

[Evan_11]

Let me sum up why the tax credits are a good idea: investment in the stock market which is exactly what is happening. Paying off consumer debt. Incurring more consumer debt by spending more.

Its a vicious cycle.

[nonhuman]

I'd be happy to discuss these things with you in a different topic, or by private message, or email or IM. But it's really not on topic at all here so I'm going to drop it for now.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I'd be happy to discuss these things with you in a different topic, or by private message, or email or IM. But it's really not on topic at all here so I'm going to drop it for now.

so you don't have a response then.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
so you don't have a response then.

Yes, I see how it could seem that way if you didn't actually read what I said. Want me to make it easier? Here's my email address: [email protected]. And here's my AIM screen name: nonhvman. And here's my MSN screen name: [email protected]. And here's my ICQ number: 7996583. And here's my YIM screen name: tovarishchbob.

Want a response, ask for it in an appropriate place.

[Troll]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Mind you, I'm not that interested in the legalities.

Okay, big picture. Almost everyone agrees that it is good that Saddam is gone. By the same token, the majority of the people on the planet think it would be good if Bush were gone. There is a massive leap between wishing someone away and actually taking them out. I'm all for using force to implement human rights. But I also believe in a certain minimum standard of behaviour on the part of the enforcer of human rights. If the global community had required changes in the human rights situation in Iraq and had given Saddam proper deadlines and he had failed to respond, then I'd have no problem with his being toppled by force. That NEVER happened. The UN never discussed removing Saddam and he was never asked by the international community to fix his human rights track record or face consequences. He was told that he needed to get rid of his WMD.

I'm interested in the legalities but it's just that - an interest. Obviously we can't undo the war. What we can undo is the set of circumstances that lead to this war. This was indeed a political game. IMHO, the American people need to realise that they were manipulated by the Bush Administration. The Administration made them fear for their lives by hyping the danger posed by terrorists and despotic regimes and then it used that fear to obtain unfettered power to pursue agendas the Administration had had since before it came to power. It needs to realise that this game had a huge cost.

3 times the number of innocent people that were killed on 9/11 have been killed in Iraq. They were killed not because their country was a danger to world peace, not because they refused to cooperate with the international community, but ostensibly because a small group of people in the US had decided before they even had the power to implement their decision, that it was in the strategic interests of the US to turn Iraq into a pro-US state.

That Administration continues to manipulate; to misstate the facts (read Bush's SOTU address to see how he once again links Iraq and 9/11 for example), to strike fear into the hearts of Americans and to present the removal of civil liberties as the only way to protect against the danger. I care because I don't like to see human rights being abused anywhere (including the US). I care because as a result of this process, people outside of the US are dying, being locked up for years without facing charges or seeing counsel, being arbitrarily discriminated against. I care because that process of grabbing power from the people is also skewing what is really important to the welfare of this planet at present; because resources are being squandered on wars that have no purpose whilst far more urgent, pressing and solvable problems could easily be resolved at just a fraction of the cost.

[loksar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lets go over this again folks.

Who asked you? haha

Hey Zitfire shouldn't you be driving your Dodge Neon and starting threads about Mac desktop pictures and making little candy colored buttons for your wittle komputor?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Don't need anything new if the old one still works good.

The peaceniks STILL have nothing to offer as a substitute for the 'liberation' that would have ended Saddam's rule effectively, decisively, and as quickly. Nothing, nada, zilch.

Oh yes. It's true. The peaceniks don't have their humanitarian foundation to stand on. Somebody accidentally brought the 'anti-Dubya' platform. and it ain't as solid.

And that's no spin.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
If Bush told a bald faced lie to go to war with Iraq wouldn't he at least of tried to cover his tracks? I know you say he's stupid but he' aint' that dumb.

If Bush lied then:

So did Clinton, Gore, the U.N.

Your man Gebbie lied.

Face it, you just don't like Bush. Time to pony up chump.

I have yet seen a libby admit to this. Admit that they just don't like Bush. That no matter what he does, right or wrong, they wont like him because he is Republican.

And that my friends is what is really going on in this lounge.

The political zealots cannot stand a different party having a THE seat in office.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
spin #312: Bush didn't lie because Lerk hates bush.

I"m overwhelmed by your masteful command of logic

Liberal Spin #450

Call everything a spin even when it's not to detract from the facts.

It's easier that way.

[perryp]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

^^^^^
Is that you after Kerry has won?

[loksar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

I just love it when Troll starts out replies like this. He lives up to his nickname.
[ [/B]

I love it when the King de Retard thinks he should post something in the adults forum! Now run back and make a new GUI or something important like that Zitfire.

And yes I am planning to get banned. It is fun for me.

Now where is that crypto-fascist vmarks?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by perryp:
^^^^^
Is that you after Kerry has won?

No this would be me after Kerry won



Cause it aint gonna happen.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by loksar:
I love it when the King de Retard thinks he should post something in the adults forum! Now run back and make a new GUI or something important like that Zitfire.

And yes I am planning to get banned. It is fun for me.

Now where is that crypto-fascist vmarks?

You must have high goals in life.

Give me your momma's email. She would be proud.

[loksar]

It would be funny if it weren't so sad that you are all arguing over the wrong thing.

The fact that some of you still think that we went to Iraq to free the Iraqis are so obviously blind to the sale of that country to the highest American corporate bidder it is truly sad.

GO READ! Get some information!

We didn't just go in to get Saddam. We didn't go in to get the oil. We went in to take over the country. Even IF the military leaves the country is owned by US corporations! please wake up. Governments are irrelevant. They have become the military tools of industry. The taxpayer pays for corporate empire. While you argue over irrelevant politicians.

[loksar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You must have high goals in life.

Give me your momma's email. She would be proud.

Hey good job Zitfire you didn't mispelll one word! You been takin classes?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And that's no spin.

You gotta keep up here Zim. The reason Clinton and the UN said the same thing was that they got their information from the same source. The UN was apparently the only source of information on Iraq's WMD up to that point.

Bush said he had independently gathered information which he then refused to supply to the UN. What he did show them was either old information that the UN already had or discredited (like forged documents). Powell stood up and presented reams of new, independent evidence and he made statements of fact that neither the UN nor any president of any country had EVER made before, like announcing that there were rockets under palm trees in Western Iraq or that Iraq had a specific number of train based WMD production facilities. No one else had ever said such things. If they were lies they were indeed lies that are unique to the Bush Administration.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
The only spin you are putting on this is that WMD's were the sole reason for going to war.

Your man Weasley Clark felt that it was ok to go into Kosovo for one of the many reasons we decided to go into Iraq.

How is Iraq any different?

Look up "unilateral" and "multilateral".

-s*

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That isn't knowing exactly where they are.

I almost hurt myself laughing at this.
New low, Zim. New low.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You must have high goals in life.

Give me your momma's email. She would be proud.

AD HOMINEM!!! AD HOMINEM!!!


hypocrite.

Oh. Wait.



Yah. There we go.

[Lerkfish]

ahem.....

can we all get back to the topic?

what spin will be used to excuse/justify the fact that Bush lied?

that's the challenge of the thread, not discussing random policies or other candidates.

Driving into work, I thought of a good bumper sticker:

BUSH LIED
TROOPS DIED

[Zimphire]

Yeah it was. But look who I was responding to.

I don't think the mods would be too upset.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
any idiot knows that you don't intentionally decrease your income while increasing your spending.

Not every idiot, apparently.

-s*

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
what spin will be used to excuse/justify the fact that Bush lied?

that's the challenge of the thread, not discussing random policies or other candidates.

Lerk all I have seen so far is accusations.

When this all comes to a end, and all the stories come out. Then we can tell who lied, who was tricked, and what happened.

Put away the witch burner. You're starting to remind me of Dean.



Don't you even find it a bit weird that both Bush and Clinton believed the same things about Iraq?

Why did they believe this Lerk?

Where they both lying? Or was they getting information telling them this?

I wasn't a big Clinton supporter. But at least I supported his actions against Iraq.

Come on Lerkypoo it's not to hard to connect the dots.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Don't you even find it a bit weird that both Bush and Clinton believed the same things about Iraq?

Why did they believe this Lerk?

Where they both lying? Or was they getting information telling them this?

I wasn't a big Clinton supporter. But at least I supported his actions against Iraq.

How many times do you have to be told the same thing before it sinks in???? A few posts back I answered this question for you for a second time! Now, for a third time!

Originally posted by Troll:
You gotta keep up here Zim. The reason Clinton and the UN said the same thing was that they got their information from the same source. The UN was apparently the only source of information on Iraq's WMD up to that point.

Bush said he had independently gathered information which he then refused to supply to the UN. What he did show them was either old information that the UN already had or discredited (like forged documents). Powell stood up and presented reams of new, independent evidence and he made statements of fact that neither the UN nor any president of any country had EVER made before, like announcing that there were rockets under palm trees in Western Iraq or that Iraq had a specific number of train based WMD production facilities. No one else had ever said such things. If they were lies they were indeed lies that are unique to the Bush Administration.

[Zimphire]

My point is, If Bush is a liar So is Clinton. Both said the SAME thing. Both attacked Iraq for the SAME reasons.

And there was reasons. Both attacks were justified.

I mean I could stoop to some of your levels and say Clinton only did it to distract from the Monica story!

But that would be silly.

What we know is, the information they had may or may not have been true.

We don't really KNOW if anyone LIED. People could have gotten misinformation. Things could have been moved since information was made. With every bit of information you have, you will also have a lot of disinformation.

There was no proof of them all out lying. Some of you are quick to jump the gun and point the LIIIIIAAAAAR!!!! finger a bit too soon.

We don't know the whole story. Not yet. They very well could have been flat out lying.

If that is the case, they will lay in the bed they made.

You can also tell the difference between the people in here that are actually curious as to what went on, and those who are just hell bent on going on and on about how much is a lying murderer.

The latter makes themselves hard to take seriously.

Like a screeching baboon.

BUUUUUSH LIIEEEEEED REEEEEEEEEEEEEER
MURRRRRDERERRRRRRR

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
My point is, If Bush is a liar So is Clinton. Both said the SAME thing.

No, they did not. Neither Clinton nor the UN nor any other leader of any country said any of the following things:

From Powell's Feb 5 Presentation to the UN
"We know that Iraq has at lest seven of these mobile biological agent factories. The truck-mounted ones have at least two or three trucks each. That means that the mobile production facilities are very few, perhaps 18 trucks that we know of--there may be more--but perhaps 18 that we know of. Just imagine trying to find 18 trucks among the thousands and thousands of trucks that travel the roads of Iraq every single day."

"Iraq has rebuilt key portions of the Tariq (ph) state establishment. Tariq (ph) includes facilities designed specifically for Iraq's chemical weapons program and employs key figures from past programs."

"Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons. And we have sources who tell us that he recently has authorized his field commanders to use them. He wouldn't be passing out the orders if he didn't have the weapons or the intent to use them."

"While inspectors destroyed most of the prohibited ballistic missiles, numerous intelligence reports over the past decade, from sources inside Iraq, indicate that Saddam Hussein retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud variant ballistic missiles. These are missiles with a range of 650 to 900 kilometers."

"What I want you to know today is that Iraq has programs that are intended to produce ballistic missiles that fly 1,000 kilometers."

"And of the little that Saddam Hussein told us about UAVs, he has not told the truth. One of these lies is graphically and indisputably demonstrated by intelligence we collected on June 27, last year. According to Iraq's December 7 declaration, its UAVs have a range of only 80 kilometers. But we detected one of Iraq's newest UAVs in a test flight that went 500 kilometers nonstop on autopilot in the race track pattern depicted here."

"The (Al Qaeda terrorist) network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons."

"We know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq. Most of the launchers and warheads have been hidden in large groves of palm trees and were to be moved every one to four weeks to escape detection.

We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities."

Neither Clinton nor the UN ever made such statements. When other leaders heard these statements, they consistently said they did not believe they were true. These were NEW pieces of information that the Bushies added (read sucked out of their thumbs). And they were either grossly negligent statements to make or just plain lies. Thank God the members of the UN saw through it! All this has now been proven to have been complete and utter B-S!

[Zimphire]

Troll before anyone knew what was BS, and what wasn't you guys were saying the SAME THING.

We can see right past it.

Funny thing is, I never seen any Dems ask Clinton were the WMDs was when he attacked Iraq.

Giving similar reasons (Iraq had WMDS!!!)

They had no problem taking HIS word for it.

Heck, Clinton didn't even TRY to get UN approval.

Where was the outrage when he bombed the crap out of Iraq?

Where was the liberals screaming "WHere are the WMDS!!??!?! SCREEEEEAAAACH"

There was none. Why? And why now is there?

Because of political mudslinging reasons.

Yes it's that shallow and transparent.

Don't think we don't see right through it.

"What!>!? No WMDS!??! THERE WAS NO REASON TO GO TO IRAQ!~!! BURN TEH WITCH0r!!



Give me a break.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Troll before anyone knew what was BS, and what wasn't you guys were saying the SAME THING.

No we weren't!!! Hans Blix rejected almost everything that Powell said. Go back and read his comments on Powell's presentation. Read what Germany and Russia and France said - that their intelligence agencies disagreed. Read about how Powell stalled and stalled and finally presented Blix with dud proof of his statements. At the time Powell said these things I recall us debating the issue and many people in these fora saying it was B-S.

It is simply NOT TRUE that everyone said that Iraq had WMD. There is a nuance that you are missing. People said he had not accounted for WMD and that he should do so and that inspections was the best way of verifying his statements. Bush & Co. said something completely different. They said, "We KNOW (look how many times Powell used that word) that he has WMD and we KNOW he is ready to use them." That is a major difference, because the second implies a need to address the threat urgently that the first doesn't. Clinton and the UN and other leaders said the first bit. Only the Bush Administration ever said the second bit.

I have no interest in domestic US politics. I care as much about Clinton as I do about Bush, so accusing me of being pro-democrat is just silly.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Troll:
No we weren't!!! Hans Blix rejected almost everything that Powell said. Go back and read his comments on Powell's presentation.....

here's a handy icon you can use in these situations, troll:

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ahem.....

can we all get back to the topic?

what spin will be used to excuse/justify the fact that Bush lied?

that's the challenge of the thread, not discussing random policies or other candidates.

Driving into work, I thought of a good bumper sticker:

Where are your facts that Bush lied?

You have yet to prove anything.

So a weapons program has not been found in Iraq. This does not mean that he didn't have one. The facts all point to him having one.

You keep ignoring the other issues.

In the end the best you can come up with is a bumper sticker?

"Bush lied, Troops died"

Thats kind of over simplifing your ignorance isn't it? Above all its a cheap, hippy-dippy shot at the troops who are risking their lives in this conflict.

...and again must I bring it up that you support canidates who HAVE LIED TOO.

Your hometown hero Gephardt stood beside Bush in the rose garden when he signed the declaration to go to war.

Your 2nd man Weasley Clark said the following

September 26, 2002: "There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. This is simply a long-standing right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self-defense. Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict, if necessary. In my experience, I was a commander of the European forces in NATO when we took action in Kosovo. We did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn't agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it."

You are god granted, living breathing hypocrite amongst other things....

I'd love to see Dennis Miller rip you a new one on live tv.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
So a weapons program has not been found in Iraq. This does not mean that he didn't have one. The facts all point to him having one.

Please name one country in the world without a "weapons program".

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Troll:
Neither Clinton nor the UN ever made such statements.

Here:

Former US president Bill Clinton said in October (2003) during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

Here...

February 24, 2001 - BERLIN, Germany -- Saddam Hussein may be able to fire nuclear weapons at Iraq's neighbours within three years, Germany intelligence service has said.

The service also reported it may be able to hit Europe with missiles within five years.

The Federal Intelligence Service (BND) said Baghdad is stepping up efforts to produce chemical weapons and increase its ability to produce biological weapons.

Here...

"Are there other weapons of mass destruction? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them." -- Jacques Chirac, February 16, 2003

Some other gems...

"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 in April of 2003

"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, 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

As for Blix...he repeatedly noted that weapons were unaccounted for while maintaining that this didn't necessary mean they were present. But in terms of UN resolutions and inspections, he had this to say.

"You see, if they didn't have anything_[WMD] after '91, there must be some explanation why they behaved as they did," Blix said. "They certainly gave the impression that they were denying access and so forth._I mean, you can put up a sign on your door, 'Beware of the dog', without having a dog."

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Where are your facts that Bush lied?

You have yet to prove anything.

The Bush administration plainly stated that they knew that Iraq had WMD and that they knew or at least had a very good idea of where those weapons were.

So a weapons program has not been found in Iraq. This does not mean that he didn't have one. The facts all point to him having one.

If the administration had actually known or had a very good idea of where those weapons were, why can't they find them now? Even the inspectors, who were there to find the weapons and continue to look for them are saying that the WMD simply don't exist.

So, Bush said something, that something was contradicted by fact. Therefore, Bush lied. Even if they do find WMD, Bush still lied, because they obviously weren't where he knew they were.

And nobody gives a **** that Clinton lied. We all know he lied. He lied under ****ing oath and was impeached for it. No one disputes that he lied, and the fact that he lied does not justify Bush's lie. Get over it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
No we weren't!!! Hans Blix rejected almost everything that Powell said. Go back and read his comments on Powell's presentation. Read what Germany and Russia and France said - that their intelligence agencies disagreed. Read about how Powell stalled and stalled and finally presented Blix with dud proof of his statements. At the time Powell said these things I recall us debating the issue and many people in these fora saying it was B-S.
<snip>

You misunderstood me. I said you guys where going on about Bush being a liar before you knew the fact.

And you did indeed do that.

And you guys are still doing it.

Like a piece of saran-wrap.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
And nobody gives a **** that Clinton lied. We all know he lied. He lied under ****ing oath and was impeached for it. No one disputes that he lied, and the fact that he lied does not justify Bush's lie. Get over it.

I think people were pointing out the Dems never got pissy about Clinton not showing proof of WMDs when he attacked, but yet are doing so with Bush.

Showing the hypocricy.

Hell Clinton didn't even try to get UN approval.

Could you imagine if Bush did that?

IT WOULD BE A OUTRAGE!

Just showing the hypocrisy. Just showing this is all a political smear campaign.

BTW spacefreak, nice smackdown.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I think people were pointing out the Dems never got pissy about Clinton not showing proof of WMDs when he attacked, but yet are doing so with Bush.

Showing the hypocricy.

Hell Clinton didn't even try to get UN approval.

Could you imagine if Bush did that?

IT WOULD BE A OUTRAGE!

Just showing the hypocrisy. Just showing this is all a political smear campaign.

BTW spacefreak, nice smackdown.

I seem to remember a lot of people being pissed off about that. People would probably have been even more pissed off about it if the media hadn't emphasized the sexual misconduct part instead of the purgery part.

(I am not, by the way, blaming the media for this. Everyone focused on the sex part, very few people seemed to focus on the purgery part. The media just followed public interest as they tend to do.)

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I seem to remember a lot of people being pissed off about that. People would probably have been even more pissed off about it if the media hadn't emphasized the sexual misconduct part instead of the purgery part.

(I am not, by the way, blaming the media for this. Everyone focused on the sex part, very few people seemed to focus on the purgery part. The media just followed public interest as they tend to do.)

Er I wasn't speaking about him lying under oath.

I was speaking about his WMD claims. Not one democrat questioned this. Not one.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Er I wasn't speaking about him lying under oath.

I was speaking about his WMD claims. Not one democrat questioned this. Not one.

Oh. My bad. I didn't really pay much attention to politics back then (I was only in high school) so I don't really know a whole lot about Clinton's administration. All I can really remember was something about a pharmaceutical factory being bombed because they thought it was producing anthrax or something and, off course, the Chinese embassy.

On the other hand, if you're talking about Clinton's more recent endorsements of Bush's statements then I can sort of see that being justified as him forming opinions based off a much smaller pool of intelligence than he used to have. But really, who cares what Clinton says now.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW spacefreak, nice smackdown.

I'd rather not have to spend my forums time doing this sort of thing. The ousting of Saddam has been in the works for multiple administrations, the arguments for war were already played out, and the regime is gone. We need to focus positively on the reconstruction.

As for the lack of WMD, I think we really need to probe the intelligence instead of constantly arguing whether Bush (and only Bush) lied. There are more than enough instances of leaders of all idelogies and regions who have looked at either US, UN, or other foreign intelligence and concluded that Saddam did, or probably did, have WMD, and that he was continuing these programs. Even Kay's first report showed these programs were undeniably ongoing.

Ultimately, the single, all-consuming goal by many is to continue to try and convince people to hate Bush. That's all it's ever been about to some. They quote bad news with glee, and when good news arises, they routinely criticize or dismiss the positive news as insignificant, irrelevent, or false.