Flagreen

Yo! Bush Haters - Did These Folks Lie?

Recommended Posts

Several members here have accused President Bush of having lied regarding Iraq and WMD. Well here are a few quotes from various other politicians regarding Iraq and WMD and I'm curious to know whether or not you think all of these people were lying as well.

"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
"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
"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

"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
"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
"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

"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
"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

"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 know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"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 th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated 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, Dec 5, 2001
"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

"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

"[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: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 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

"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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
"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

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Were they lying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lying is a relative term to Democrats.The statements suited there needs at the time they made them.The truth or lack of it was not an issue.

Flagreen,

My compliments you did your homework well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I doubt Iraq had WMDs (nuclear weapons in particular), and I am not sure if they would have had the ability to acquire them any time soon, considering the kind of person that Hussein is, they likely would have acquired them eventually. Iraq would not be my first choice in countries to have that kind of power.

Dingo, blanket statements like that do not leave an impression of a person that is capable of looking objectively at both sides of a story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sivar,

Oh but yes it does the same statement I made applys to the other Party as well.They both say what suits there needs at the time.You know and I know nobody is gonna find nukes in Irag.

Flagreen still did his homework well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That I would haveto agree with, most of the time. Regardless of political party, politicians are not known for honesty (granted, sometimes they have their reasons). Nor are lawyers, which is the starting career of many politicians. It has become cliché.

The post mentioned only the democratic party, which is why I figured it was another MyPoliticsIsRightYoursIs100%Evil post. If that was not the purpose, I respectfully withdraw my statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sivar,

Maybe this will help it applys to both parties.Thank you it was indeed not the purpose.

politician

politician (pòl´î-tîsh´en) noun

1. a. One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics. b. One who holds or seeks a political office.

2. One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and maneuvering: "Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but . . . they do not want them to become politicians in the process" (John F. Kennedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, Bill, none of those people claimed SH tried to acquire uranium from Africa after having a specific investigation reveal that that was not true. I'm not saying I think that Bush knew about that report; I'm just saying that it's entirely possible that he did, and he certainly SHOULD have known, so it's not entirely unreasonable to argue that he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! two of our Moderators have replied to this thread each with an off-topic response. That's not setting a very good example fellows. Check your warning level because it may just have gone up.

It's a simple question guys - Did the people I quoted lie or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of those comments include words like "belief", "feel", "think" and other vagueness.

Whether they lied doesn't matter to me. I don't know more than half of them so I also don't know whether they're more to the right or to the left in the democratic party. As far as foreign policy is concerned, there seems little difference between democrats and republicans.

What does matter is that your president and his administration used LIES to invade Iraq. LIES. Can you read? The Bush administration started this war on the pretense that the Hussein regime had a WMD program that could be a threat to the US. LIES. Don't you care about that? I know politicians lie all the time and bend the truth at the best of times but when they have to LIE to convince their people to go to war, things are pretty bad. Where are those WMD?

The sad thing is that your brilliant prez would have gained massive support, certainly in Europe, had he attacked for the right reasons, reasons he now claims support his decision to invade (mass graves comes to mind). But no. He lies. When the truth would have been quite effective. Aren't you scared with someone like that as a president?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of those comments include words like "belief", "feel", "think" and other vagueness.

Oh I see. Well now that you've explained that to us could you give us some examples, using direct quotes, of "lies" as told by president Bush?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh*

Google for them yourself if you please. Your tactic of demanding for quotes, sources and evidence has become long in the tooth a long while ago. You know very well that it's rather difficult to quote something that was on television. And you probably can't read Dutch so giving you a scan of an article in a Flemish newspaper wouldn't impress you either. Of course I'd have to have newspapers lying around the place. What did you do for studies? PR? You sound just as funny as the average presidential pr-flack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*sigh*

Google for them yourself if you please.  Your tactic of demanding for quotes, sources and evidence has become long in the tooth a long while ago.  You know very well that it's rather difficult to quote something that was on television.  And you probably can't read Dutch so giving you a scan of an article in a Flemish newspaper wouldn't impress you either.  Of course I'd have to have newspapers lying around the place.  What did you do for studies?  PR?  You sound just as funny as the average presidential pr-flack.

LOL I'm sorry if my tendency to rely on factual information when forming my opinions and demanding the same from others annoys you. You're absolutely right, it's far easier just to make up the truth as you go along. The problem is I'm not a Bush-hater so I just can't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So simply because I'm not going to scour the web for quotes, it means I rely on fantasies to form my opinion? I regularly watch the news here, I try to watch foreign news broadcasts as well. Now you say that because I can't link/quote/whatever to those news broadcasts, I'M MAKING UP THE TRUTH? I just feel like you called me a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So simply because I'm not going to scour the web for quotes, it means I rely on fantasies to form my opinion?  I regularly watch the news here, I try to watch foreign news broadcasts as well.  Now you say that because I can't link/quote/whatever to those news broadcasts, I'M MAKING UP THE TRUTH?  I just feel like you called me a liar.

Well I'm only using the same criteria for determining who is a liar and who is not that you use aren't I? What's the problem? If you don't have to back up your calling President Bush a liar then why should I have to back up calling you a liar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from a conversation between Hermann Goering and Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a simple question guys - Did the people I quoted lie or not?

No, the only habitual liar in this scenario is SH himself.

You have not only done some nice homework, but done some nice follow up work in:

A Pointing out those who wish to pontificate and argue w/out supporting facts.

B Flushing out Bush/US haters. Perhaps the most amusing comment I have seen to date is the notion that "Oh, if you would have used these reasons instead of those then the war would have been justified and we would have supported you." That's just too damned stupid to even be funny.

Let me get this straight: The entire world did not know that SH was a mass-murdering tyrant?

Even if the leftist-communist-revisionistdemocrats were correct and they were as pure as driven snow on the issue and the Bush admin deliberately made the calculated decision to lie to gain support for the war, then the worst Bush could be accused of is liberating an oppressed people, imprisoning a terrorist supporting genocidal dictator all while delivering historically low casualties on both sides.

Shame, shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is from a conversation between Hermann Goering and Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Setting aside that Goering was both a morphine addict and a convicted war criminal for the moment, will you elaborate a bit on your why you posted this? It can be taken in a number of ways so I am unsure as to the point you were trying to make and about whom you were making it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a simple question guys - Did the people I quoted lie or not?

No, the only habitual liar in this scenario is SH himself.

You have not only done some nice homework, but done some nice follow up work in:

A Pointing out those who wish to pontificate and argue w/out supporting facts.

B Flushing out Bush/US haters. Perhaps the most amusing comment I have seen to date is the notion that "Oh, if you would have used these reasons instead of those then the war would have been justified and we would have supported you." That's just too damned stupid to even be funny.

Let me get this straight: The entire world did not know that SH was a mass-murdering tyrant?

Even if the leftist-communist-revisionistdemocrats were correct and they were as pure as driven snow on the issue and the Bush admin deliberately made the calculated decision to lie to gain support for the war, then the worst Bush could be accused of is liberating an oppressed people, imprisoning a terrorist supporting genocidal dictator all while delivering historically low casualties on both sides.

Shame, shame.

Yes you would think that simple decency would justify the war wouldn't you?

I suspect that even the harshest critics of President Bush and the war would concede that no matter what form of government the Iraqis end up with that they will be better off than they were under Saddam. Yet they rant and rail at President Bush for having "lied" to America (a charge which they never substantiate) and condemn the war as being unjustified!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, they all lied.

Thank you for the direct answer! I assume by your answer then that you feel Prseident Bush lied as well. Can you tell us if you will what your opinion is as to why they lied? What was their motive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Several members here have accused President Bush of having lied regarding Iraq and WMD. Well here are a few quotes from various other politicians regarding Iraq and WMD and I'm curious to know whether or not you think all of these people were lying as well.
"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
"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
at no point does Kerry state that SH HAS WMDs, only that the threat is valid. Where is the lie?
"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

Directional - SH want's WMDs and is developing a "capacity" for them. Not a lie, and not really news.
"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
SH DID violate every UN Resolution in covering up his weapons programs. But Waxman was not correct - we have proof from post-war defectors that many weapons WERE destroyed by Iraq.
"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
Depending upon the timing, the original manipulated intelligence report regarding the Uranium DID say that SH was looking for it. Byrd says similar regarding nuclear aims for SH the same week (see below). I think this is an example of Defense Department manipulated ingtelligence reports doing their work
"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

Kerry says "he believes." Ok, so he believes. That's different than stating it as a FACT over and over again, a la GWB.
"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
Hard to say if Byrd was lying, or going off that White House manipulated intellingence report.
"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
Totally truthful - SH WAS SEEKING WMDs. He just didn't HAVE any, and Teddy didn't say he did.

"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

A truthful statement in all respects - he didn't actually say SH HAD them...just that he wanted them.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Al, Al, Al - a pretty ignorant statement at the very least - a lie if not.
"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
This WAS a lie - SH wasn't building WMDs in 2002, or our inspectors would have found them by now.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated 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, Dec 5, 2001
Programs and speculation...no claim that he actually has WMDs. Can't say that any of this is actually a lie - one of his missles DID exceed it's legal range, by a whopping handful of miles.
"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

She WAS right about the palaces
"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

As we will see, this is a directional statement like many others here, NOT a specific claim that he had a stockpile. No one disputes that he was interested in obtaining them - the question is DID HE HAVE THEM IN 2003? How Ms. Pelosi's quote from 1998 can be relavant to THAT question has me scratching my head...
"[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: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
Yep, we all agree - SH needed to end his programs to get WMDs. But THEY DIDN'T CLAIM HE HAD ANY IN EXISTENCE - just the PROGRAMS...
"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

No one denies that SH used them previously, the only question is did they still exist in 2003? This quote is from 1998...
"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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
Directional, not a specific claim that he had them at that time, let alone in 2003
"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

A worthy goal & he didn't say SH actually had weapons, just a program. I have a program to make a billion dollars too...
"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
A laudable goal that, certainly no lie there

Were they lying?

Only a few were actually lying - most of them were citing true known facts, and many were simply saying "SADDAM CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE WMDs." Not that they had specific proof that they currently existed - only that he was working towards them (remember all those paper sketches and plans they found? That constitutes working towards them, as opposed to actually having them). As a directional statement, NO ONE in the US would say that Saddam should be allowed to have WMDs, Democrat or Republican.

Go re-read the above posts...while a few DID say that they thought he had them, most were merely directional. "Developing","we are determined to deny", "we want to diminish the threat", "leaders of a rogue state will use WMDs", etc. I have taken the liberty of marking up and responding directly above...

The problem is that GWB didn't make directional remarks - he made specific accusations that Saddam was KNOWN to HAVE WMDs in an operational status, was actively attempting to purchase nuclear materiels (when his own intelligence said otherwise), and was actively partnering with Al Quida (not merely allowing refugees after Afghanistan fell, which actually WAS known to be the case).

I could go on, but on a day when the leader of the US weapons inspection team has DECLARED THAT THERE WERE NO WMDs IN IRAQ WHEN THE WAR STARTED, I think GWB is looking pretty naked...especially the more his administration keeps claiming they DID exist, as they continue to do in the linked article...

Future Shock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect that even the harshest critics of President Bush and the war would concede that no matter what form of government the Iraqis end up with that they will be better off than they were under Saddam. Yet they rant and rail at President Bush for having "lied" to America (a charge which they never substantiate) and condemn the war as being unjustified!

I generally agree. It is clear to me that Bush et. al. identified several threats in what was a foggy picture - one that was exacerbated by SH himself, for self-serving (though ultimately strategically miscalculated) reasons. Bush seems to me to be, for a President, and extremely principled individual.

Having said that, I still have yet to see evidence that the entire Iraqi population is worth the life of one American. Yes, I believe the war was clearly justified, but no I would not have supported it if the only justification had been the liberation of the Iraqi people. "Just", perhaps in some general moral view, but not the correct action. Liberation/revolution is ultimately the responsibility of the people of a nation, if they lack the backbone for it then they do not deserve it.

My preference would have been strategic bombing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow! two of our Moderators have replied to this thread each with an off-topic response. That's not setting a very good example fellows. Check your warning level because it may just have gone up.

It's a simple question guys - Did the people I quoted lie or not?

Simple answer for your simple (and jaundiced) question: I don't know. But as far as SH trying to reconstitute his programs, of that I have no doubt. We have WMD programs here in the US; it only makes sense that our enemies would want to develop them, even if they weren't the despicable regime of SH. I am NOT convinced, however, that SH's WMD program posed a significant threat to the US.

Simple question for you: why should I have to rely on what all these people (including Bush) think, feel, and believe? I don't trust any of them, Democrat or Republican. Why can't I see the facts for myself?

Ah, yes. National security. The very thing we try to protect prevents the people from ever seeing if it has actually been protected. Prevents the people from seeing if that which should be protected is being used as a cover for something else.

Look, it's not a perfect system. I understand that. But the current president, whether due to his ineptitude at public speech or actual policy of secrecy, gives me the strong impression that he doesn't reveal any information that he doesn't feel he absolutely must, or face dire political consequences, even if it wouldn't necessarily hurt anything, and it would help people make decisions. For example, revealing some information that we had about Saddam's WMD programs in the dossier that he and Blair put together was not done until it was clear that no one was buying their story, and most of the information in there was not in the least a breach of national security, as far as I could see.

This impression I have gained of the administration has created a great deal of distrust in me. I have no proof that the President ever lied; no one who is talking now does, aside from Paul O'Neil, and his credibility is questionable at least on the surface. But several things concern me:

1) No WMD have been found. I didn't necessarily expect it to be easy, but if we had such good intelligence, then I would expect to turn up SOMETHING significant within the first six months.

2) The lack of evidence of ANY signficant WMD programs doesn't fit the claims made prior to the war: where is the Congressional oversight? Congress is a check to the executive power. They ceded that right in terms of the decision to go to war, but they bloody well can still investigate the administration's claims that led to the war. So much for Congress checking executive power. Perhaps this is understandable since many of their asses are on the line for giving the president the power to go to war. In addition, any scandal involving the president makes it more likely that he won't be voted into office, which the current majority party would not like, and I would guess an investigation would be impossible to form without their help.

3) We have even CUT BACK our efforts to search for the WMD, which suggests that either we know we are unlikely to find something significant, or that we are blindingly stupid in our attempts to find them. I choose the former, since I don't really think the administration or the military is that stupid. If there's so much danger from Iraq's WMD, why are we seemingly LESS worried about them falling into the hands of the current guerilla fighters (and now terrorists as well) in Iraq??? Hence, one more point where rhetoric and action do not seem to match. Not good for building my trust.

If I am honest with myself, I will say that I would still be more apt to trust the president if I LIKED him a little better. And if he weren't completely surrounded by advisors who have been advocating attacking Iraq for years, and who advocate the use of US military power as the primary means for effecting US influence throughout the world. Perhaps if he were a better diplomat. Perhaps if he weren't quite so pro-large business. Perhaps if he wasn't doing in Republican Congressional campaigns a couple of years ago what he criticized Bill Clinton for doing during his presidency. Perhaps if he didn't spend money like a Democrat.

Wow! two of our Moderators have replied to this thread each with an off-topic response. That's not setting a very good example fellows.

Thanks for the tip. You're a gem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Future Shock,

The problem is that GWB didn't make directional remarks - he made specific accusations that Saddam was KNOWN to HAVE WMDs in an operational status, was actively attempting to purchase nuclear materiels (when his own intelligence said otherwise), and was actively partnering with Al Quida (not merely allowing refugees after Afghanistan fell, which actually WAS known to be the case).

Well are remarks which are not "directional" lies? Are accusations based upon available evidence at the time they are made "lies"? If you believe so can you provide us with some quotes from president Bush which we can examine so that we can see for ourselves? Every speech the president has made can be found on the Whitehouse web site for anyone who is interested in looking.

I don't understand why it is so difficult for anyone to come up with a quote President Bush to post in this thread. What is the problem? There is his 2003 State of the Union speech, his address to the U.N. general assembly from 2003, news conference transcripts and many other sources readily available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liberation/revolution is ultimately the responsibility of the people of a nation, if they lack the backbone for it then they do not deserve it.

That's funny...they did try to rise against SH after the first Gulf War; the US had promised aid, and subsequently let them rot when SH very bloodily put them down.

Even the US had valuable allies in its original bid for independence. Good thing France didn't forget about us....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now