"We've traveled the world, we've known Kings, we've known Prince's, discoursed with scholars, and reasoned with fools." --Scottish folk song
Democrats say President Bush lied to get America into this war in Iraq. They don't seem to consider that maybe he was just given flawed information.
This is a quiz. Here are some quotes from Democrats regarding information received about WMD.
Which ones are lies? Which quotes are the result of false or misleading information? Explain the difference.
"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
"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
"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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
"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 mandate 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
"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
"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
Extra Credit:
Why is it when Democrats react to misleading intelligence information, they have been misled, and so, cannot be held accountable, but when Republicans do the same, they are lying?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
The difference is the damn president is in charge and the damn Republicans are running Congress.
But the issue is not lying per se, but when and why. When? After Bush decided to take out Saddam whether the country wanted him to or not. Why? To hoodwink the rest of the country fall in line!
"There are Communists in Southeast Asia." Not a lie. "They shot at us in the Gulf of Tonkin." Lie.
"Saddam is a tyrant who must be dealt with." Not a lie. "Saddam is on the verge of attacking us with WMD -- right now!" Not just a lie, but a damned lie.
--ER
"Saddam is a tyrant who must be dealt with." Not a lie. "Saddam is on the verge of attacking us with WMD -- right now!" Not just a lie, but a damned lie.
You didn't prove a thing. Just your opinion. Your perception that President Bush said "Saddam is on the verge of attacking us with WMD"...and even if those were the exact words, which they are not, it doesn't prove a lie. In order to prove that the Administration was lying, you have to prove that they knew Saddam did not possess WMDs.
The case for war was made up of about 4 major reasons; not just WMDs.
Saddam in power is like a cancer metasticizing. You have to remove it before the threat becomes immiment. To act instead of react. In an age of nuclear weapons, to wait until the threat is already imminent, is to respond to the threat too late.
Well, nyaah, nyaah, nyahh nyaah nyaah to you too, Nan.
You got me. I didn't prove a thing!
I wasn't trying to prove anything, Nan. I don't believe Mark asked for an argument. He sure didn't present one -- "just" a stack of quotes that he probably believes leaves his position unassailable. I responded with "just" an opinion, which is all it deserves.
But note: the WMD "reason" was the ONE that pulled me and millions of other in to support an offensive war. And it was ramrodded down our throats. Damn Bush, and damn the Democrats who bent over and took it.
Damning the Dems does NOT, however, eliminate the president's ultimate governmental responsibility, nor the Republican Party's ultimate political responsibility, for dragging us into a war under false pretenses.
Besides all that, aside from being able to deliver a sxpeech pretty well once in awhile, he's not much of a president, in my book, and his and his party's policies are ruining the country, in "just" my opinion.
He really ought to high-tail it out of South American before Hugo Chavez scares him!
--ER
Oh Come on. The entire point of the post can be summed up in the last paragraph. According to the Democrats and their shills in the Media, when Democrats said those things, they were just reacting to misinformation. When Republicans said it, it was a malicious lie.
The quotes only serve to bolster that point.
Come on! No one can truthfully say they really believe that Bush, or any other Republican intentionally lied to start a war. If they say they do, they are either lying or have some serious psychological issues. Let's get real.
Personally, I believe there may have been some misleading information, and Bush did what even the Democrats would have done, given the same situation, and the quotes bring that point out as well. Particuarly the one from the letter from Senate Democrats to President Bush in which they urge hum to attack Iraq.
oops, Sorry. The letter was to President Clinton. That is a whole other post.
READ "BUSH AT WAR." Warning: It's a whole BOOK.
It makes perfectly clear that Bushg came into office gunning for Saddam -- and was willing to come up with anything to justify it.
-ER
Mark, I, for one, see your point as clear as day. I try to look at it in the elementary way:
My son comes home from school and says he got into trouble for not walking his bike a minimum of 1 block before riding it. The principal of the school calls me and says that my son disobeyed school policy and has removed his bike privledges for 1 week. I explain to the principal that I was not aware of the "one block walk policy" and neither was my son. He says, "You really should read the parent handbook you were given at the beginning of the school year. Each child has the rules read to them on the first day of school." I hang-up and start looking through the handbook and it says, "Students must walk their bike at the school crossing. They must take care for one block when riding their bikes down the bike path for the safety of walkers." I had taken the principal at his word and handed my son the punishment. Was I mislead? Yes, I was. After all, he is the principal. The one who gives parents information about school rules, right? Wrong! Not only did he mislead me, but even when I was handed written evidence, it was misleading. It was his interpretation of the rule and he punished my son based on this. Was I angry at the principal? Well, not really.
So what's my point? Simple, at the time the principal told me the rule, I believed he knew better than I. I trust this principal all day for the safety and well-being of my children. So, when he provides me with information, I have to believe him. However, it wasn't until later that I read the evidence myself, that I felt mislead. I didn't feel he lied to me for his benefit. What could he benefit from lying to me about a bike? Why would he be gunning to punish a child for riding his bike? He wouldn't.
The moral of the story is easy. When you are given information from a source you've trusted for years, you believe it as fact. If later you discover different, it doesn't mean that the person lied, but acted based upon their belief and perspective.
Do I feel mislead by President Bush? No. He was acting upon trusted reliable sources. Was he mislead? I believe in some cases he was but that doesn't mean the President lied to me.
Speaking of WMD, the CIA has done three in-depth investigations on Bush's WMD assumptions. None of the investigations showed that he was making up allegations simply to go to war. Bill O'Reilly made mention of that.
Here's an honest question to all who want to crucify Bush. Would we support the war effort if John Kerry had been president? Kerry himself in the presidential debate made this statement: "I would have gone about the war differently." So, yes, he would have gone to war. He just would have done it differently. That said, I support the war in Iraq, and I'd stil support it even if Kerry were in office. Can liberals say the same?
Well, nyaah, nyaah, nyahh nyaah nyaah to you too, Nan.
You got me. I didn't prove a thing!
Thank you, de press.
But note: the WMD "reason" was the ONE that pulled me and millions of other in to support an offensive war.
I saw it as finally enforcing years of violation to cease fire agreements and UN Resolutions; and because of it, a perfect candidate for the greater war on terror; and I do believe it's ultimately in defense of our country. The status quo certainly didn't make us safe; when was the Middle East ever stable? If Saddam were still in power, he'd still be making billions off of the Food for Oil Scandal and France would be working hard to help push for lifting of sanctions. And what the mainstream likes to ignore in the Duelfer report is that "as UN sanctions eroded there was a concomitant expansion of activities that could support full WMD reactivation." In addition, "the steps the Regime took to erode sanctions are obvious in the analysis of how revenues, particularly those derived from the Oil-for-Food program, were used. Over time, sanctions had steadily weakened to the point where Iraq, in 2000-2001, was confidently designing missiles around components that could only be obtained outside sanctions . . . . ISG's investigation also makes quite clear how Baghdad exploited the mechanism for executing the Oil-for-Food program to give individuals and countries an economic stake in ending sanctions."
for dragging us into a war under false pretenses.
Again...you are assuming..."false pretenses" implies intentional lying. Something not proven.
Ask the CIA if they lied to the President; or if they just handed him faulty information. Ask it of every government around the world that also believed Saddam possessed wmds. Saddam only has Saddam to blame. He could have easily complied instead of year after year, thumbing his nose at the UN until it became a running gag.
he's not much of a president, in my book, and his and his party's policies are ruining the country, in "just" my opinion.
I think President Bush stands to go down in our history books as one of our greatest leaders. I'm glad he has people I disagree with so pissed off. It tells me he must be doing something right when moonbats howl.
I love that half the world hates him; because half the world is royally screwed up in their world view.
Nanny, you can go right on poofin' yer chest out like you've won something if you want to -- but I ain't providing proof because none is required when, as you acknowledged, what we're talkin' about here is perception. And that's one slippery critter.
But I would not put it past the neocons runnin' the country now to obfuscate the facts, eschew the obvious, twist reality and otherwise spin their own take on what actually IS to make it look like what they WANT it to be. On purpose. Especially when the country as a whole is incredibly slow to go to war, and they wanted to go fast.
There. Didn't use the L-word once. But it's dishonest, no matter how you s(lie)ce it.
--ER
Pamela got closet to the truth than she meant to, probably, comparing a school principal to el presidente. I've never known a school principal who wasn't a control freak willing to twist reality at the expense of pupils and students.
--ER
*poofs chest*
*flexes biceps*
There. Didn't use the L-word once. But it's dishonest, no matter how you s(lie)ce it.
So you believe...
Press,
I knew exactalactily (pun intended) what I "meant" to say. Want to know what the school principal dressed up as for Halloween? A King!! All Hail to Bush...oops I meant King.
Well, that was a nice piece of incoherent rambling. Stop by again when the drugs have worn off. Or when they kick in. Whatever.
Oh, dude, Mark! For a change, Bruiser had the most rational comment on this post!
Nanny and Pammy: Are y'all drinkin' or what? 'Cause yer last posts didn't make any sense to me.
Do what??
--ER
Senate Intell Committee Chairman, Pat Roberts of Kansas had an idea: Dems on the Committee wanted to investigate GOP statements on Iraq and WMD. Roberts said sure, but let's make it a blind study and include statements made by Democrats too.
Guess what? The Dems weren't interested.
WHY? Probably because Vice Chairman Rockefeller was on the record saying "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat"
Bush NEVER said anything like that and if Press wants us to believe the quote he used in the first comment on this stream is real, then he has been misled, or is lying.
I KNEW I went to bed too early last night!
ER?
"Oh, dude, Mark! For a change, Bruiser had the most rational comment on this post!"?
Everyone has lost the focus of this situation.
This war was declared by Radical Muslim Extremists, who have declared a desire to wipe out the Western Lifestyle.
Freedom.
Prosperity.
Any religious belief other than Islam.
President Bush has vowed to eliminate the organizers of Terror attacks, wherever in the world they hide. When the U.S. overtook Afghanistan, the Terrorists went to Iraq, and Saddam Hussein welcomed them.
The President had said "If you are not for us, you are against us."
The WMD's were only a small part of it.
Maybe Saddam wasn't an imminent threat to the U.S., but I look at that like this.
If you have a six year old son, and ever since he learned to talk, he has professed a hatred for his sister.
He announces, "I am going to build a slingshot, and shoot out her eye, and you can't stop me!"
He then methodically begins to compile the components, and to try to piece them together, as well as stockpile marbles.
Do you let him complete the slingshot?
How far along do you let him get before you intervene?
Okay, when you do intervene, he hides the marbles, and parts, but continues to work on it at every opportunity. What do you do now?
As to Bruiser's rational comment, let's take it point by point.
1. America was attacked by Muslim extremist Terrorists. The borders in the Middle East were drawn by the British. They mean very little to the residents of the region. Had we been officially attacked by the Saudi Government, we would be at war there, instead of Afghanistan.
We would still have gone to Iraq. That's a whole different issue.
2. Bin Laden has been rendered irrelevant, other than as a symbol.
3. We went to war with Iraq because Iraq harbored Terrorists, announced to the world that they had WMD,and that they were planning to build more.
We went to Iraq because Saddam repeatedly defied U.N. Resolutions, paid money to the families of suicide bombers, and encouraged and supported terrorist attacks against the U.S and our allies.
4. Bin Laden is most likely dead.
5. The CIA, FBI and Pentagon had been restricted from sharing information between them during the Clinton Administration.This has now been remedied.
6. Bin Laden is unimportant.
7. George W. Bush is the President of the United States.
8. A smear campaign against Bin Laden has passed.
9. Bin Laden is still free, but would have been in custody for a long time now, without the loss of a single American soldier, had President Clinton not been so busy worrying about (Ahem..) other things.
10. A smear campaign against The President has been going on for years now.
11. WTF?
12. Dan Rather and Bill Clinton are still Free?
And now for the only part of that comment with which I agree whole heartedly...
Enough said---Good Night & God's Speed America.
Irrelevant and unimportant except as a symbol.
There are more important issues to be dealt with at this time than your poster boy, Bin Laden, Bruiser.
And once again,
BIN LADEN WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN CUSTODY BEFORE 9/11 HAD DEMOCRATS NOT BEEN IN POWER IN THE LATE NINETIES!!
Thank you, and goodnight.
If he shows up, I would be glad to have him...
I just think that there are more important people and things to worry about right now than getting pidgeon holed into wasting a lot of resources on chasing an irrelevant Ghost.
The only reason that you are interested in Bin Laden is because you think that the fact that he has not been caught makes President Bush look bad.
Your hatred for the President and his supporters drives every word that you type into your keyboard.
And I have never called you unAmerican, Dude.
Post a Comment