Bush Lied!!! The Gop Lied!!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TM_Direct, Sep 4, 2003.

  1. I will finally have to agree that there are no weapons
    This is what lead me to beleive our president...but he and Blair were in this togehter. they lied in january.

    "The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Bush said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

    "Along with Prime Minister (Tony) 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," Bush sad
    The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

    Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Bush said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

    "Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Bush said.

    " I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.
  2. Now this is the presidents line!

    "Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

    "If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

    Bush also called Hussein a threat to his people and to 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," Bush said.

    Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Bush said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

    "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."
  3. Those were all Clinton's quotes:D

    Yet somehow he didn't think that it would be a good idea to go to war over it and then we had 911. I see the connection!:D

  4. I'm getting sick and tired of Clinton getting blamed for 911...as I recall, WonderBoy and HeartAttackBoy were "in charge" during 911...it's their fuckin' faults, not clinton's...

    The first WTC bombing occurred right after clinton came in office...acc to your logic, Bush Sr is to blame for the first one.

    Also, according to your logic, Reagan and his merry band of retards (incl Cheney and Rumsdick) are to blame for Saddam and OBL, a logic which I fully support and agree with in this case.

    Sorry if I'm stating the obvious so bluntly.

  5. It is not so obivous....in fact, none of them are obvious....attacks are attacks....I don't know why somebody always has to be blamed for degenerates....but I do believe our paper tiger approach to terrorism against the U.S ( starting with Reagen and the marine barracks ) should have been the start of a mass campaign of anti-terror movements...after that you had numerous attacks wiht NO REPRISAL ( the USS COLE, WTC, Embassies ect..)
    we sent the signal we were a paper tiger...even the Pan Am jet that Libya blew up should have resulted in the US removing Khadahfi from power with a huge show of force, not a few f-14 strikes....Im just shocked at how much bubba and dubbya are alike in their speeches:confused: :confused:
  6. Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
    CLINTON: Good evening.

    Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

    Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

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


    :confused: :confused:

    he doesn;t have them i thought?
  7. It would be absurd to think that Iraq does not have any chemical and biological weapons. If they don't have them, how did hundreds of thousands of Kurds were slaughtered in their homes? They just magically dropped dead in the streets?

    Russia and Iraq had various joint weapon development programs some of them involving chemical and biological research. Why Russia does not expose them? Where are all those labs? Vanished?

    Germany and France sold to Iraq materials that can be used to manufacture chemical weapons. Where are all the materials? Vanished?

    Iraq shot tens of scud missiles to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel, do you believe they lunched ALL of their missiles? Where are all the spare parts they should have for them? Where are all the lunch vehicles? Vanished?


    TM Trader
  8. maxpi


    I think our focus was on Commies a lot of that time, at least up to maybe 1980 to 85 or so when it started to be understood that the Soviet Union was going to go away of it's own accord. I met immigrants in the US in those years that told me that the Soviet and Eastern Block militaries were not a threat but I never believed them until things collapsed. Nowadays we can turn our attention to ..... more rewarding tasks like stopping some of those bastards that have screwed up our airlines, and our Olympics, and our energy supply and our embassies and our Twin Towers and our stock markets and economy and our peace and freedom.
  9. msfe


    A War Crime or an Act of War?


    ECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

    The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

    But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

    I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

    This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

    And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

    The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

    These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

    I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

    In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

    We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

    Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

    Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

    All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

    Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

    Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?
    #10     Sep 5, 2003