http://www.gop.com/Default.aspx
Play the video! The dems can't deny their 180!
Play the video! The dems can't deny their 180!
-
🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪 -
🔥Check Out Muscle Gelz HEAL® - A Topical Peptide Repair Formula with BPC-157 & TB-500! 🏥
Democrats-Dishonest on Iraq!!
- Thread starter ZECH
- Start date
here we go!!You task me dg806. . .you task me. But like a poor marksman you keep missing the target.
It seems that President Bush is still lying about the antecedents of the Iraq invasion. In a Veteran???s Day speech, Bush once again tied Hussein to the attacks of 9/11. Bush is pissing me off b/c he???s nothing more than a cheap lying asswipe. That???s harsh, disrespectful and inappropriate. I???m sorry. . .President Asswipe. The president???s defenders have picked up the ball and have been claiming the following: ???Clinton and the Democrats thought Hussein had WMD too.???
Yes, but they didn???t say:
1) That Saddam could have a nuke within six months. That was the statement of Vice President Cheney???and it contradicted the state of the intelligence.
2)That there was only one use for those aluminum tubes???that the tubes could only be used in nukes. That statement was made by Condoleezza Rice. It contradicted the state of the intelligence.
3) That Iraq had unmanned aerial vehicles which it ???could use...to deliver biological weapons to its neighbors or, if transported, to other countries including the United States.??? That clownish claim was made by Colin Powell in his presentation before the UN???the presentation which ended debate about the war. . .
4) That Iraq could fire up its chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes. That was President Bush, in September 2002???making the statement which George Tenet derided as ???the 45-minute shit.??? President Clinton wasn???t talking this ???shit;??? it was Bush who was talking it.
5) That Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa. Whatever you???ve decided about this claim???we???d say it played an extremely small role in the run-up to war???it wasn???t Bill Clinton who made it.
6) That Iraq was involved in September 11. That was the Bush team, over and over. The claim was made to build the impression that Saddam was inclined to attack us. With those UAVs, for example. In as little as forty-five minutes.
The concept here isn???t all that tough. Yes, most people did believe that Iraq would have chemical or biological weapons. We???d assume that the Bush Admin actually thought this too.
But chemical and biological weapons weren???t a threat to the United States???so the Bush Admin began to pimp the idea that Saddam might also have nukes. The heavy pimping of the nukes began in August 2002???driven by blatant misstatements by Cheney, Rice and Bush, not by Clinton or the democrats. At the same time, we heard that Saddam???s UAVs could deliver chem and bio to this country???and we heard that Saddam would surely do so if he could. (Just look at his role in September 11!) Talk about rewriting history.
Bill Clinton and the democrats didn???t say these things???these things were said by Bush/Cheney/Rice. And these were the claims, in the fall of 02, which actually took the nation to war. The claim that Saddam had WMD was not the claim which took us to war. It was the claims we???ve listed above???claims which were not made by Clinton.
Source: Bob Somerby
It seems that President Bush is still lying about the antecedents of the Iraq invasion. In a Veteran???s Day speech, Bush once again tied Hussein to the attacks of 9/11. Bush is pissing me off b/c he???s nothing more than a cheap lying asswipe. That???s harsh, disrespectful and inappropriate. I???m sorry. . .President Asswipe. The president???s defenders have picked up the ball and have been claiming the following: ???Clinton and the Democrats thought Hussein had WMD too.???
Yes, but they didn???t say:
1) That Saddam could have a nuke within six months. That was the statement of Vice President Cheney???and it contradicted the state of the intelligence.
2)That there was only one use for those aluminum tubes???that the tubes could only be used in nukes. That statement was made by Condoleezza Rice. It contradicted the state of the intelligence.
3) That Iraq had unmanned aerial vehicles which it ???could use...to deliver biological weapons to its neighbors or, if transported, to other countries including the United States.??? That clownish claim was made by Colin Powell in his presentation before the UN???the presentation which ended debate about the war. . .
4) That Iraq could fire up its chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes. That was President Bush, in September 2002???making the statement which George Tenet derided as ???the 45-minute shit.??? President Clinton wasn???t talking this ???shit;??? it was Bush who was talking it.
5) That Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa. Whatever you???ve decided about this claim???we???d say it played an extremely small role in the run-up to war???it wasn???t Bill Clinton who made it.
6) That Iraq was involved in September 11. That was the Bush team, over and over. The claim was made to build the impression that Saddam was inclined to attack us. With those UAVs, for example. In as little as forty-five minutes.
The concept here isn???t all that tough. Yes, most people did believe that Iraq would have chemical or biological weapons. We???d assume that the Bush Admin actually thought this too.
But chemical and biological weapons weren???t a threat to the United States???so the Bush Admin began to pimp the idea that Saddam might also have nukes. The heavy pimping of the nukes began in August 2002???driven by blatant misstatements by Cheney, Rice and Bush, not by Clinton or the democrats. At the same time, we heard that Saddam???s UAVs could deliver chem and bio to this country???and we heard that Saddam would surely do so if he could. (Just look at his role in September 11!) Talk about rewriting history.
Bill Clinton and the democrats didn???t say these things???these things were said by Bush/Cheney/Rice. And these were the claims, in the fall of 02, which actually took the nation to war. The claim that Saddam had WMD was not the claim which took us to war. It was the claims we???ve listed above???claims which were not made by Clinton.
Source: Bob Somerby
Somerby offers an interesting slant, but the trump card to all the whining about the Dems had the same intelligence Bush had---Actually there's 2 trump cards: Bush et al. said "trust us" when it came to certain aspects of "classified" intelligence. Turns out we can't. The Dems were lazy and the Repubs were cunning. Less selective fact finding would have been preferable but the next point is what really matters, isn't it?
Bush started bombing Iraq before the WMD inspectors completed their jobs. Doesn't matter what you think you knew about Iraq's WMD, those that new best--the inspectors--were cut short by Bush's illegal invasion.
In short dg806, you can't win Rock. This guy'll kill you to death inside of 3 rounds.
Bush started bombing Iraq before the WMD inspectors completed their jobs. Doesn't matter what you think you knew about Iraq's WMD, those that new best--the inspectors--were cut short by Bush's illegal invasion.
In short dg806, you can't win Rock. This guy'll kill you to death inside of 3 rounds.
Last edited:
LISTEN to the video. All the democrats are on tape saying he had weapons and supported the president.
Quote by John Edwards, Dem senator from NC:
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Sadams weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple."
Edwards was elected in 1998 and was a Clinton wantabe. In fact it was Clinton who helped him campaign and get him elected and put on the intelligence committee.
So in Edwards words, Sadam was a problem before Bush was ever elected.
Quote by John Edwards, Dem senator from NC:
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Sadams weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple."
Edwards was elected in 1998 and was a Clinton wantabe. In fact it was Clinton who helped him campaign and get him elected and put on the intelligence committee.
So in Edwards words, Sadam was a problem before Bush was ever elected.
You are intelligent but inexperienced. Your pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking. READ the Somerby article I posted in response to your flick. Bush and his cohorts took it all a step or two further--imminent attack, a bomb in 6months, robot drones that'll swoop down and destroy us all; christ, even Powell has come out and stated these claims were BS.dg806 said:
No one denies Hussein was a problem. Bush elevated the toothless dictator to 'worldbeater' status...a complete and utter fabrication. Your quote of Edwards makes the point--nobody wants Iraq to have nuclear weapons--so what? Bush turned that blanket policy statement into a living breathing immminent threat that was patently false.
My view is that it doesn't matter what the Dems thought...fuck them...the Weapons Inspectors were the people that mattered, and to whom all others should have deferred, and Bush shut them down and started bombing.
If Democrats are dishonest then Republicans definately are....the Democrats just got suckered into believing Bush like the rest of us did.
Yes, Saddam was a problem ever before Bush was elected.
"The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.
Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)................
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
"The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.
Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)................
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,644
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 0
exactly. Democrats in 1998 were suckered into believing the Governor or Texas.Bazooka Tooth said:
LOL the big story is that bi-partisan politicking is still being used to avoid an honest day's work. Dem's and BushCo fans alike are all sacrificing our country's needs to continue their own agendas. As long as our collective points of view are focused on this grand shell game the real issues will be obscured.
That's a good observation. I'm surprised more people don't see it. But by the same token we are the democratic process ostensibly and we have to dance the dance. Critical thinkers are at a premium these days.BoneCrusher said:
They all lie and twist things....That's kind of how you become a politician.
Unfortunately it is virtually impossible for us to have an honest candidate at election time leaving us with an election process based on cash flow instead of the electoral process. Our "elected" leaders are the CEOs of the world ... they will only change when it is fiscally favorable to them to do so. If the next SUV Americans buy is a hybrid then that is the vote our "elected" leaders will act on. More money will be invested on that technology ditto all other secondary energy sources. Toss all the BS bantered back and forth on the reasons for Iraq and we are still left with an immutable fact. Our "elected" leaders control Iraqi oil now. As long as we continue to purchase vehicles ran only by petro we ALL vote to continue the war in Iraq.
It's all about the Benjamins.
It's all about the Benjamins.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
Please explain how this "control" of Iraqi oil works.BoneCrusher said:
The democrats aren't stupid and they weren't fooled. They just flip-flopped their opinions to coincide with public perception thinking that will win them votes. That is what gripes me.
Keeping it underground, so that all of those expensive offshore oil rigs can see the greatest return on their investments, it costs alot more time/money to drill at sea than it does on land.cfs3 said:
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
Is that the liberal flavor of the month? It used to be that Bush would take all of the oil produced in Iraq.. Then before that, he was going to let the Iraqis sell the oil, but take a cut of the profits. The one before that involved Bigfoot and the Easter Bunny.
I don't follow any flavors of any group, like I assume you don't follow the Conservative flavors of WMD, Harboring terrorists, Freedom for Iraq, War on Extremism, etc.cfs3 said: