how come no one claims Dems lied about WMD?

[militarymuscle69]

Some democrat quotes leading into the war. How come everyone says it was Bush that lied about WMD?

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations.  Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." 
 
   Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
   Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
   December 16, 1998
   http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons.  There's no question about that." 
 
   Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
   During an interview on "Meet The Press"
   November 17, 2002
   http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=375

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities.  I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein.  ...  Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein.  Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons." 
 
   Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
   Addressing the US Senate
   October 10, 2002
   http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
   cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H7777&dbname=2002_record 

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. 
 
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." 
 
   President Clinton
   Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
   February 17, 1998
   http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction.  It has refused to take those steps.  That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict." 
 
   Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
   Addressing the US Senate
   October 9, 2002
   Congressional Record, p. S10145
   http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
   cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record 

It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat.  Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations.  The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so." 
 
   Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
   Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
   March 17, 2003
   http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030331&s=lizza033103

WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction. 
 
MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically? 
 
WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely. 
 
MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings.  Where are all these weapons? 
 
WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is.  People in Iraq do.  The scientists know some of it.  Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations.  There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this. 
 
   Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate
   During an interview on CNN
   January 18, 2003
   http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/smn.05.html


And that is just a start

[240 is Back]

Simple.

These dems all based their decision on information they received from organizations led by men selected by George Bush.

That intel from the Pentagon they admit was very exaggerated now?  Came from Feith, Rummy and Bush's neocon buddy in there.

CIA findings?  Selected from both points of view and delivered by a Bush appointee.

You see, history is starting to show that the White House would have 100 pieces of info and would select the only 2 that showed there might be WMD because it fit their agenda.  Dems and repubs based their decisions on this info.

You should be more concerned about a fearmongering regime which could give a shit what AMericans want and uses lies to obtain votes.  But, you want to dig up quotes all day, you have fun there, soldier!

[Dos Equis]

Good luck.  I tried this already.    

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=116187.0

[militarymuscle69]

Simple.

These dems all based their decision on information they received from organizations led by men selected by George Bush.

That intel from the Pentagon they admit was very exaggerated now?  Came from Feith, Rummy and Bush's neocon buddy in there.

CIA findings?  Selected from both points of view and delivered by a Bush appointee.

You see, history is starting to show that the White House would have 100 pieces of info and would select the only 2 that showed there might be WMD because it fit their agenda.  Dems and repubs based their decisions on this info.





You should be more concerned about a fearmongering regime which could give a shit what AMericans want and uses lies to obtain votes.  But, you want to dig up quotes all day, you have fun there, soldier!

So bush is accountable for believeing that inof, but the Dmes get a pass? Shouldn't they have checked more for themselves?

[240 is Back]

So bush is accountable for believeing that inof, but the Dmes get a pass? Shouldn't they have checked more for themselves?

Gee Whiz, I'm sure the CIA would have let every senator wander in and rummage thru things.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no sir.

They deliver reports, derived from their info, and that is what the senators get.  These reports were exaggerated and skewed.  The pentagon admitted it this week.  They were lies from Feith's office that we used.  The whole scooter libby thing comes becuase cheney tried to discredit the person giving info which didn't fit what he wanted.

The repub, and dems, could only make decisions based upon the info the Bush-led organizations gave them.

[mightymouse72]

Simple.
These dems all based their decision on information they received from organizations led by men selected by George Bush.

get your head out of the sand.

clinton was well known to have thought saddam had WMD.
this didn't start with bush

[OzmO]

the issue really is not the WMD's

The WMD was just the "justification"

The issue is and was:  "Was Saddam a danger to the USA"

The answer is was:  NO

[OzmO]

Also didn't 240 or Berserker posts transcripts of interview with COndolisa and Powell where they stated Saddam "wasn't a threat" in 2001 and 2002?

[24KT]

I think I was first to post the YouTube clip, ...but my boobie cloaking device was in effect. 

[Dos Equis]

the issue really is not the WMD's

The WMD was just the "justification"

The issue is and was:  "Was Saddam a danger to the USA"

The answer is was:  NO

Except everyone believed he was.  Republicans.  Democrats.  Liberals.  Conservatives.  The UN. . . .

[OzmO]

Except everyone believed he was.  Republicans.  Democrats.  Liberals.  Conservatives.  The UN. . . .

They believe it for different reasons all of which stemmed from "fear based" hysteria resulting from 9/11

Also what they said was political what they believed was in most cases was probably different then what they said.

No one ever used common sense:

-  What could have Saddam gain by attacking the USA?
-  What could have Saddam lost by attacking the USA?

Which made more sense to Saddam?

[Dos Equis]

They believe it for different reasons all of which stemmed from "fear based" hysteria resulting from 9/11

Also what they said was political what they believed was in most cases was probably different then what they said.

No one ever used common sense:

-  What could have Saddam gain by attacking the USA?
-  What could have Saddam lost by attacking the USA?

Which made more sense to Saddam?

Ozmo what we have now is the benefit of hindsight.  Going into the war, we all believed the same thing:  Saddam had or was trying to acquire WMDs and he was a threat.  That's why Congress passed multiple resolutions supporting the war after it started.  It is very easy to use hindsight and poke holes in our fear (which I actually think was rational after 911), but back in 2002 the world basically believed the man was a threat. 

[OzmO]

Ozmo what we have now is the benefit of hindsight.  Going into the war, we all believed the same thing:  Saddam had or was trying to acquire WMDs and he was a threat.  That's why Congress passed multiple resolutions supporting the war after it started.  It is very easy to use hindsight and poke holes in our fear (which I actually think was rational after 911), but back in 2002 the world basically believed the man was a threat. 

Well the world was wrong.  Whether they were manipulatied into believing Saddam was a threat (which was the case)  or not, common sense should have dictated that he was not a threat.

I was very much against the war before it happened becuase of this.

[Dos Equis]

Well the world was wrong.  Whether they were manipulatied into believing Saddam was a threat (which was the case)  or not, common sense should have dictated that he was not a threat.

I was very much against the war before it happened becuase of this.

I'm not convinced we were wrong.  Man there was too much smoke.  I suspect he moved whatever he had to someplace like Syria.  He had a ton of cash.  Remember the billion in American cash we found in one of his palaces?  I think he may have used that kind of money that he pilfered from the Iraqi people to develop his programs (or at least try) and move whatever he had out of the country.  I doubt that kind of cash is used for legitimate reasons by an evil man.  I guess we may never know for sure.

And you know, even if we would found a WMD stash, I wouldn't feel any differently about the loss of our men and women in combat.  It wouldn't take the sting away.  I'm sure the family members who have lost loved ones wouldn't feel any better.  We would still have the morass we have today, because we didn't effectively plan for the aftermath of Saddam's removal.  That's partly why I see the whole "the war is illegal" and the "lie" claims as non issues.   

[OzmO]

What wouild make the war illegal?


The only way i can see is if it's ever proved that the reports of WMD's were a lie and since there are soo many differnt reports out there from different agencies it will be impossible to make it stick.

So agree with you about it being a moot point but for a different reason.


But to me it's not the issue, the issue is:  was saddam a danger?

REgardless fo how much smoke there was, in principle, him attacking the USA makes about as much sense as Mexico invading Arizona. 

By the very nature of the situation Saddam was NOt a threat.

[24KT]

Well the world was wrong.  Whether they were manipulatied into believing Saddam was a threat (which was the case)  or not, common sense should have dictated that he was not a threat.

I was very much against the war before it happened becuase of this.

OzmO, I don't see it so as the world was wrong. The world was right!

The problem was, those who were against the war was bullied into silence.

I don't knnow the full extent of the coverage you received in the run up to war, ...but from where I sat, the opponents to war was absolutely overwhelming. There was no mistaking how 'the world' felt.

In addition, all the same things dragging this thing down were laid on the table... the objections regarding the lack of a clear strategy, ...the quest for global hegemony, ...the lack of an exit strategy... the creation of new terrorists... the fallout to the rest of the middle east... All things that have come back to bite the US in the butt were all hashed out, and the global concensus was NO WAR.

[OzmO]

OzmO, I don't see it so as the world was wrong. The world was right!

The problem was, those who were against the war was bullied into silence.

I don't knnow the full extent of the coverage you received in the run up to war, ...but from where I sat, the opponents to war was absolutely overwhelming. There was no mistaking how 'the world' felt.

In addition, all the same things dragging this thing down were laid on the table... the objections regarding the lack of a clear strategy, ...the quest for global hegemony, ...the lack of an exit strategy... the creation of new terrorists... the fallout to the rest of the middle east... All things that have come back to bite the US in the butt were all hashed out, and the global concensus was NO WAR.

It seemed to me there was plenty of pro-war int he US, but i wasn;t really paying much attention or had access to what people outside ethe US felt.  As i look back i think you are right. 

When i was reffering to the "world" i was using BB's use of the word world.

[24KT]

It seemed to me there was plenty of pro-war int he US, but i wasn;t really paying much attention or had access to what people outside ethe US felt.  As i look back i think you are right. 

When i was reffering to the "world" i was using BB's use of the word world.

ie: ...as in nothing outside the US borders counts?   
there was actually plenty of protest within the borders as well.

[Dos Equis]

It seemed to me there was plenty of pro-war int he US, but i wasn;t really paying much attention or had access to what people outside ethe US felt.  As i look back i think you are right. 

When i was reffering to the "world" i was using BB's use of the word world.

And I used the word "world" in a general sense, but in this case the "world" means the UN, which believed Saddam was a threat; hence the UN resolution(s).  I haven't looked at what the Canadian government believed during that time, but I would be surprised if it was out of line with what the rest of the world believed.  But I could be wrong.   

[a_joker10]

And I used the word "world" in a general sense, but in this case the "world" means the UN, which believed Saddam was a threat; hence the UN resolution(s).  I haven't looked at what the Canadian government believed during that time, but I would be surprised if it was out of line with what the rest of the world believed.  But I could be wrong.   

Canada would only join the US if there was a UN mandate. At the time the polling about invading Iraq was 30/70.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/128

http://www.queensu.ca/cora/polls/2003/April9-War_in_Iraq.pdf

[mightymouse72]

They believe it for different reasons all of which stemmed from "fear based" hysteria resulting from 9/11



-  What could have Saddam gain by attacking the USA?
-  What could have Saddam lost by attacking the USA?

Which made more sense to Saddam?

it's not that saddam was going to attack us personally, it was the threat of him giving and selling his weapons to al-quada and other terroists.  that is the very essence of saddam being a threat to the US.
 after 9/11, if you don't think that's possible then you learned nothing from that day.
of course he wasn't going to send jet fighters and ground troops over here, he's a tyrant, not stupid.

What wouild make the war illegal?


The only way i can see is if it's ever proved that the reports of WMD's were a lie and since there are soo many differnt reports out there from different agencies it will be impossible to make it stick.

nothing about this war is illegal. NOTHING.

after the first resolution saddam broke, the US and Britain had FULL authority to remove him.

plain and simple

[Dos Equis]

Canada would only join the US if there was a UN mandate. At the time the polling about invading Iraq was 30/70.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/128

http://www.queensu.ca/cora/polls/2003/April9-War_in_Iraq.pdf

Thanks.  What these articles say is according to the polls most Canadians opposed the war at that, but that the Canadian government participated anyway.  I guess that means Canada is included in my "world" comment?   

[240 is Back]

CIA, FBI, and White House info all went thru Bush/Cheney.

Their intel was parsed and cleansed by the WH then distributed.

You can blame clinton, blame FDR, blame it on the rain, whatever.

But info FROM the Bush CIA, Bush FBI, and Bush Admin was given to congress, and they made their decisions based upon it.


Problem is, we're now seeing (and it's underniable - pentagon ADMITS it now) that Feith exaggerated a majority of the info.  We also see Libby/Cheney went to great lengeths to remove any TRUE intel which countered their belief. 

Simply put, they lied.  They put their lies in word docs, and asked people to make decisions based on these word docs. 

[mightymouse72]

CIA, FBI, and White House info all went thru Bush/Cheney.

Their intel was parsed and cleansed by the WH then distributed.

You can blame clinton, blame FDR, blame it on the rain, whatever.

But info FROM the Bush CIA, Bush FBI, and Bush Admin was given to congress, and they made their decisions based upon it.


Problem is, we're now seeing (and it's underniable - pentagon ADMITS it now) that Feith exaggerated a majority of the info.  We also see Libby/Cheney went to great lengeths to remove any TRUE intel which countered their belief. 

Simply put, they lied.  They put their lies in word docs, and asked people to make decisions based on these word docs. 

explain the other countries intell.  russia, australia, japan, pakistan, etc. did Bush have them in his hip pocket too?? 

and if i may say, i don't care what any intell says, if you honestly think that saddam didn't have any major weapons or wasn't trying to obtain any to sell to a group of terrorist then you are as simple minded as you were on September 10, 2001.

saddam loathe the US and would have anything to destroy us.   
can't believe you're defending him.

[240 is Back]

and if i may say, i don't care what any intell says

wow.