If you really believe that President BUSH lied

[TYLERTECHSAS]

If you really believe that President BUSH lied - - THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES -- then read this.

"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.
That is 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 [the USA], 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 a
licit 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
mandated 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

NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES.

TALK ABOUT HYPOCRISY!!

[duckbillplatty]

Thanks for that post Tyler.

Great stuff to throw back at the libs at work. I just sent out about 20 copies as an email

[weunice]

They'll deny it. When they question the credibility of the post, SNOPES verifies it WITH context.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Snopes DOES try to spin it to point out that the Dems were opposed to the war and I am sure they will feel vindicated upon reading that. IMHO that isn't news and it also is NOT the point of the email. The POINT was to indicate that if BUSH is a liar then so are ... well ... almost every Democrat of name in this country.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Your welcome! It was sent to me and I thought it needed to be passed on to as many as possible.

[TechsasDawg]

I guess I'm surprised that the liberal press has not mentioned this massive support of WMD by the upper class of the Democratic Party! NOT!

TD
~~

[Dirtydawg]

You guys are hilarious. For years you cast dispersions on the credibility of Democrats, especially the Clinton group (rightfully so I might add), yet now you use their quotes as a benchmark of proof to support President Bush. The simplest way to look at this is that President Bush did lie. He made assertions that left people with the impression that there was no doubt that WMD would be found. He made assertions that he had data and intelligence reports that left no doubt that Saddam was stockpiling WMD. But what have we in results? Nothing definitive and reports from intelligence stating that there was nothing definitive and that before the invasion the intelligence community even informed him that they had nothing definitive.

Do I think that Saddam was pursuing the making of WMD? Most definitely!!!! Do I think Saddam had WMD? Most definitely!!!! However, that doesn't excuse that fact that President Bush, who I support, has misled us. Is he the first to mislead the country? Definitely not and won't be the last.

What I think is sad is that there are many of you who are so scared to admit that an incumbent Republican president is human and not divine in nature, and you are so blindly insistent that he can do no wrong, that instead of admitting he is wrong, you try to play the sleight of hand blame game by pointing out what others have done wrong in the hopes that it will put the accusers on the defensive, so that they are too busy defending themselves instead of pointing out the faults of those in charge.

Come on people. Repeat after me. President Bush is not infallible. President Bush is not divine. President Bush is just a man. See now. That wasn't so hard was it?

[TechsasDawg]

Dirty, I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure what happened is a lie. We were certainly misled, but so was he. Acording to the dictionary that I have, 'Lie' has the following meanings: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

To those who insist on saying that the President (and others, as posted above) deliberately told a falsehood aren't too bright! What in the world could the president (or any other politician) gain by telling a lie of this magnitude? On the other hand, had he done nothing, and we were attacked by a weapon of mass destruction, that would be the end of him and any career he thought he had.

It is clear that he was mislead, as were others - including me. We all thought that Saddam had WMD's. I personally feel that the intelligence community also truely believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. If any of them were also deliberately telling a lie, then their career would be over also - they would be out of a job. And career intelligence people don't have a lot of skills other than those needed to collect, analyze and distribute intelligence information.

I file this under an honest mistake, which was extremely costly, but only a mistake. Certainly not as a plot to deliberately mislead hundreds of millions of people worldwide. I should note that the entire intelligence community worldwide also believed that Saddam had WMD's. Not to say that individual analysists didn't disagree, but as a whole, the intelligence communities did believe it. Even those that didn't support the war (such as Russia, Germany, and France).

Just my $0.02.

TD
~~

[olddog29]

I am and have always been a conservative republican. I feel that the removal of Sadam Hussein and the threat he posed to you and I and this great country we live in was reason enough to launch our campaign. However, with that in mind, I also feel that we were misled. Ask yourself, how is it that Sadam had the ability to become a threat? Well, he did this by having a resource that we in this country use more than any other country in the world - oil. He used the money and support that the US had given in the past to put himself in a position to be a threat. He continued being a threat after desert storm because he was still able to raise capital by selling more oil. (Yes, I realize that there are many other reasons, but those reasons would not have caused action without the capital to finance the efforts which oil provided.) There are and will continue to be dictators in this world who will pose a threat, not just to us, but to the world, because they have a resource that we can not live without. They will use the money they can obtain through the sale of a resource to us - against us. I say this to make the following point. If Sadam had not had access to money for oil, how important would he have been to the United States? Additionally, if President Bush would have asked for the allocation of the billions of dollars we spent on the war to be put into research and development of hydrogen powered vehicles or some other form of energy source, its development would have made Sadam and Iraq a poor country in short order. Certainly, this would have made Sadam and the many Islamic nations we are dependent on for oil, less capable of being a threat to us without the loss of so many American Patriots. There were other choices. Bush choose the easiest and in the process, caused fuel prices among other commodities to be jacked up on the excuse that our supplies were being depleted. He thusly more than reimbursed the oil companies that so willing contributed to his campaign coffers. Being Tech grads, I feel we are a cut above anyway, so perhaps it was just a case of doing what the masses felt was needed. A war waged on the excuse that we were cutting the chances of future acts of terror which also created the opportunity to profit. Unfortunately, US history is chock full of similar decisions to go to war. Many times, our government has been guilty of the use of an excuse to go to war in the pursuit of some other tangible goal. Some examples you ask? Civil War - excuse slavery - goal, control to this day of the South's economy by Northern Interests. (The end of slavery was the greatest outcome of the war, but the introduction of machinery to pick cotton more efficiently would have resulted in the same outcome - though at a much later date.) Spanish-American War - excuse - the sinking of the Maine, goal - taking possession of Spain's colonies. You get the idea. However if you wish to know of many other follow the dollar scenarios resulting in war, I will be happy to discuss. There is no doubt in my mind that we have accomplished the task of reducing the threat to our security, but at the cost of one American life per day, is cheap oil really worth it when alternatives exist, but remain to be developed? Again, I feel that Bush did not know that WMDs were not present, but did feel it was a good excuse to help his own interests.

So much for my .02

[Cool Hand Clyde]

Seems like this President has contributed a substantial amount of money to the development of alternative fuel sources.

[Champ967]

However if you wish to know of many other follow the dollar scenarios resulting in war, I will be happy to discuss

Good post 29. How about our entrance into WWI? Excuse ... Zimmerman letter. Goal ... ensure repayment of war loans to Allies.

I am inclined to agree that Bush was misled. But it was a lie/error that wasnt worth questioning, because it served his agenda. His subordinates knew what he wanted to hear, so that's what he got. Then Congressional democrats bought it. Then the American people bought it.

I admit it's hard to say who is to blame .... but there are no WMDs, and there and no links to al Qaeda. Whether he passed these falsehoods onto us intentionally or by accident ... they are still false, and still his responsibility. In the end, if Bush is an honorable man, he will take responsibility and admit he led our country to war under false prentenses.

But that is not going to happen. Bush is not some morally superior creature ... he's just a politician like all the rest of em. He will always take credit when he can benefit and shift blame when he cannot.

[CARTEK]

Ah, October surprises!

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Maybe even before October CARTEK! :wink:


Dr. Kay Had Maps with Coordinates of WMD Hiding Places in Syria

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report and Analysis

February 2, 2004, 3:33 PM (GMT+02:00)


No mirage...


Setting up an inquiry commission is the political leader’s favorite dodge for burying an embarrassing problem until the pursuit dies down. President George W. Bush will this week bow to election-year pressures from Democrats and his own Republicans alike and sign an executive order to investigate US intelligence failings regarding Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction on the eve of war. Both his senior war partners, the Australian and British prime ministers, face the same public clamor ever since WMD hunter Dr. David Kay resigned, declaring there were probably no stockpiles in Iraq and “we were all wrong.”

At the same time, the CIA and other intelligence bodies accused of flawed performance do not look particularly dismayed by the prospect of facing these probes. They point to the cause of the political flap, Dr Kay, as contradicting himself more than once in the numerous interviews he has given since he quit as head of the Iraq Survey Group.

In the last 24 hours, DEBKAfile went back to its most reliable intelligence sources in the US and the Middle East, some of whom were actively involved in the subject before and during the Iraq war. They all stuck to their guns. As they have consistently informed DEBKAfile and DEBKA-Net-Weekly , Saddam Hussein’s unconventional weapons programs were present on the eve of the American-led invasion and quantities of forbidden materials were spirited out to Syria. Whatever Dr. Kay may choose to say now, at least one of these sources knows at first hand that the former ISG director received dates, types of vehicles and destinations covering the transfers of Iraqi WMD to Syria.

Indeed the US administration and its intelligence agencies, as well as Dr Kay, were all provided with Syrian maps marked with the coordinates of the secret weapons storage sites. The largest one is located at Qaratshuk at the heart of a desolate and unfrequented region edged with marshes, south of the Syrian town of Al Qamishli near the place where the Iraqi, Syrian and Turkish frontiers converge; smaller quantities are hidden in the vast plain between Al Qamishli and Az Zawr, and a third is under the ground of the Lebanese Beqaa Valley on the Syrian border.

These transfers were first revealed by DEBKAfile and DEBKA-Net-Weekly in February 2003 a month before the war. We also discovered that a Syrian engineering corps unit was detailed to dig their hiding places in northern Syria and the Lebanese Beqaa.

A senior intelligence source confirmed this again to DEBKAfile, stressing: “Dr. Kay knows exactly what was contained in the tanker trucks crossing from Iraq into Syria in January 2003. His job gave him access to satellite photos of the convoys; the instruments used by spy planes would have identified dangerous substances and tracked them to their underground nests. There exists a precise record of the movement of chemical and biological substances from Iraq to Syria.”

Armed with this knowledge, Kay was able to say firmly to The Telegraph’s Con Coughlin on January 25: “We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons. But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.

Yet in later interviews, the last being on February 1 with Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s Late Edition - and for reasons known only to himself - Kay turned vague, claiming there was no way of knowing what those convoys contained because of the lack of Syrian cooperation.

What caused his change of tune?

Since he began talking to the media, interested politicians have been rephrasing his assertions on the probable absence of stockpiles, by dropping the “probable” and transmuting “no stockpiles”, to “no WMD.” These adjustments have produced a telling argument against Bush’s justification for war and a slogan that has deeply eroded public confidence in US credibility in America and other countries. Tony Blair and John Howard will no doubt set up outside inquiry commissions like Bush. In Israel too, opposition factions have seized the opportunity of arguing that if Israel’s pre-war intelligence on Iraq’s arsenal was flawed, so too was its evaluation of Yasser Arafat’s role as the engine of Palestinian suicidal terror. The fact that intelligence was not flawed - UN inspectors dismantled missiles and Iraq fired missiles at Kuwait - is easily shouted down in the current climate.

By the same token, no connection is drawn between the Iraqi WMD issue and the grounding this week of transatlantic flights from Europe to America by credible intelligence of an al Qaeda plot. The Washington Post spelled the threat out as entailing the possible spread of anthrax or smallpox germs in the cabin or planting of poison chemicals in the cargo.

It was also suggested that suicidal pilots might crash an airliner on an American city and drop payloads of toxic chemicals and bacteria.

Two questions present themselves here. One: if minute quantities of weaponized biological and chemical substances dropped by Osama bin Laden’s killers from the air are menacing enough to trigger a major alert, why would Saddam need stockpiles to pose an imminent threat to world security and his immediate neighbors? Would not a couple of test tubes serve his purpose? Two: Where did al Qaeda get hold of the WMD presumed to be in its possession and who trained its operatives in their use?

Once again, DEBKAfile’s senior intelligence sources recall earlier revelations. The ex-Jordanian terror master Mussab al Zarqawi is key director of al Qaeda’s chemical, biological and radioactive warfare program. In late 2000, we reported him operating WMD laboratories under the supervision of Iraqi intelligence in the northern Iraqi town of Bayara. Since then, the same Zarqawi has masterminded some of the deadliest terrorist attacks in Iraq, such as the blasts at the Jordanian embassy and the murder of Italian troops in Nassariya.

Zarqawi is and was the embodiment of the link between Saddam and al Qaeda going back four years, long before the American invasion of Iraq - which indicatges the source of Osama bin Laden’s unconventional weapons purchases.

In another interview, the former ISG director expanded on his statement that Iraq was falling apart “from depravity and corruption.” The Saddam regime, he said, had lost control. Saddam ran projects privately and unsupervised, while his scientists were free to fake programs.

A senior DEBKAfile source commented on this assertion:

”That’s one way of describing the situation – and not only on war’s eve but during all of Saddam Hussein’s years of ruling Iraq. We are looking at institutionalized corruption of a type unfamiliar in the West; it was built up in a very special way in Iraq.” The country was not falling apart, but it was being looted systematically. Just imagine, he said, Saddam and the two sons the Americans killed in July 2003 had their own secret printing press for running off Iraqi dinars and other currencies including dollars for their own personal use. The central bank went on issuing currency in the normal way, unaware that it was being undermined from within by the ruler’s private press. “Saddam’s corruption was structured, a hierarchical pyramid with the ruler, his sons and inner circle at the top and the petty thieves at the bottom making off with worthless paper.”

Some of our sources challenged two more of Dr. Kay’s assertions to Wolf Blitzer: a) After 1998 when the UN left, there was no human intelligence on the ground, and b) “There were no regular sources of information, not enough dots to connect.” If this is true, how does he explain another statement in the same interview that the US entered the war on the basis of “a broad consensus among intelligence services – not just the CIA, but also Britain, France and Russia?”

On what did this consensus rest if there were no informants on the ground?

And furthermore, how were the American and British invading armies able to advance at such speed from Kuwait to Baghdad with no obstructions and without blowing up a single bridge, road or other utility, including oil fields, ports and military air fields? Every obstruction had clearly been removed from their path by intelligence agents on the ground , who reached understandings with local Iraqi commanders before the war began.

In the face of this evidence, the question must be asked: Why does Bush take David Kay’s assaults and demands with such stoicism instead of going after Damascus - as defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld has proposed from time to time?

One theory is that he does not trust any of the evidence. Saddam was famous among UN inspectors for his deception techniques; he may have practiced a double deception. Hard and fast facts are likewise hard to come by in Damascus. Above all, Bush may simply be determined to adhere to his plan of action come what may, whatever crises happen to cross his path, in the confidence that his path will lead to a November victory at the polls.

Three inquiry commissions will most likely be set up to examine the American, British and Australian intelligence assessments of Saddam’s weapons of destruction in the run-up to the Iraq war. In the meantime, the actual weapons will continue to molder undisturbed in the ground of Syria and Lebanon




http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=780

[coona$$tiger]

LOL Cartek. Ya think?

Can't wait to hear the Dem spin on the find.

[Champ967]

Hmmm ... that will be interesting. It looks like this one might not be settled after all.

In the meantime, I am still waiting for the conservative spin on the DEFICIT ......

How will Repub's blame indiscriminate discretionary spending on Dems when appropriations are passed by REPUBLICAN CONGRESS???

(crickets ......)

[CARTEK]

Unlike liberal Democrats, I'll grab this by the horns. I am very disappointed in the administration and its free spending. The drug benefit is a disaster waiting to happen. The immigrant amnesty thing is utter lunacy...guest worker program requiring documentation and no chance for citizenship, I can go for.

I am for smaller government...spending does not equate with smaller government!