Posted by Guest (Post 269984)

cologal, waynet is always being asked to supply a reliable source. So in fairness, where are your sources? Are these just your feelings? When you say, "...there are many thoughts about why W wanted to go to war..." Whose thoughts? Yours?

When you say, "So the Bush administration went on a PR campaign for war. Using the 9/11 attack as the basis for war it was relentless on TV and talk radio," the terrorist attacks against American citizens was September 11, 2001. We first invaded Iraq March 23, 2003. That is some PR campaign! It even fooled the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and 36 other countries in addition to 29 Democratic US Senators and 82 Democratic members of the US Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

"Why did they lie....because they wanted to get Saddam Hussein." Who exactly is "they"? Did Bush say this?

What about these people? Were they under the same hypnotic trance that the watchdog media was under with Bush's "PR campaign for war"?:

"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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of 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. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2002-455

Posted by Guest (Post 269996)

Administrator: please move to "Political"

Posted by Guest (Post 270010)

Yoda: Noticing what didn't show up in your quoting of me.

What part of:

wasn't clear? That's the exact quote from the Washington Post article.

Heck, the caption on the accompanying picture reads:


Yes - I read all the quotes in the Democratic Underground site. I figured you would dismiss them, and I even admitted that I didn't chase down all the quotes to see if they were attributed properly. What I *did* say was that it took me seconds to find examples and that's why I led with the more recognizable Washington Post.

Again, I'll sum up.

Bush was an *atrocious* President. He left a mess unlike anything since *Hoover*. And don't get me started on shredding the Constitution with wanting even more executive power Obama seems to be showing that he's not exactly up to the task of fixing what he and his team identified as the crap that was left for them. Granted the jury is still out as far as a final verdict goes, but, IMO, the direction is not looking good.

Posted by Guest (Post 269984)

cologal, waynet is always being asked to supply a reliable source. So in fairness, where are your sources? Are these just your feelings? When you say, "...there are many thoughts about why W wanted to go to war..." Whose thoughts? Yours?

When you say, "So the Bush administration went on a PR campaign for war. Using the 9/11 attack as the basis for war it was relentless on TV and talk radio," the terrorist attacks against American citizens was September 11, 2001. We first invaded Iraq March 23, 2003. That is some PR campaign! It even fooled the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and 36 other countries in addition to 29 Democratic US Senators and 82 Democratic members of the US Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

"Why did they lie....because they wanted to get Saddam Hussein." Who exactly is "they"? Did Bush say this?

What about these people? Were they under the same hypnotic trance that the watchdog media was under with Bush's "PR campaign for war"?:

"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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNESCO [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of 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. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2002-455

Posted by Guest (Post 270054)

THERE WERE TRAINING CAMPS FOR AL QUEDA IN IRAQ

Which I have heard nobody dispute

Posted by Guest (Post 270170)

cologal quote: "...That the facts....not what people thought but the facts you cannot change the facts. No matter how many quotes you throw at me. History has proven all those people wrong. I was out there protesting the war because I didn't believe the hype and I was correct you all were wrong. End of story. So many young man and women have been lost and wounded, my nephew among them, and still you all still hang on to this BS...."

So somehow you knew the "truth" when even leaders in other countries and members of the US Congress believed the PR lies. Okay, Bush came before the American people and said things that were believed to be true at the time and they turned out to not be factual.

It does seem hypocritical to defend untruths that come from Obama's Whitehouse by saying Obama isn't lying if he didn't directly speak the words and/or if that is what he believed and was told at the time.

No disrespect, I have always told you how proud I am of your nephew and been sympathetic with you over him being in harms' way every time you mention him. Pulling at the heartstrings of patriotic Americans, like me, by using a soldier and in the same breath talking about protesting a war is beyond my comprehension. Wonder how the troops who didn't have your clairvoyant powers to see through the lies felt to see people protesting a job they were proudly doing?

Did you protest Obama's surge in troops in Afghanistan?

It is absurd to say that Alan Jackson's patriotic song after the attacks on American soil September 11 was part of the Bush propaganda machine.

Posted by Guest (Post 270221)

It almost seems silly to argue a point about an Alan Jackson song. But since I am a big fan of Alan Jackson and Country music and since you brought it up, the lyrics, actually the chorus, to the song say:

I'm just a singer of simple songs
I'm not a real political man
I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you
The difference in Iraq and Iran
But I know Jesus and I talk to God
And I remember this from when I was young
Faith hope and love are some good things he gave us
And the greatest is love

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/alanj...edturning.html

Point taken about my post saying what Obama said and didn't say. My post should have said, Obama appointee Ken Salazar modifies report after experts sign off and Obama says nothing.

Posted by Guest (Post 270225)

OMG, he is saying he's just country singer, not too political, you know, a simple man, a normal person. He said he does watch the news some, like CNN. He couldn't point out the two countries on a map. He doesn't know the difference between Iraq and Iran. Honestly, what the heck am I missing that you see in that??!!!
I don't think there is a secret message in that song. You can dissect that he watches CNN instead of Fox.

Posted by Guest (Post 270235)

I didn't hear you scream cologal. But you know what even if Alan Jackson's song was political, which I don't think it was, Alan Jackson is free to speak his mind. He can say what he wants to say ... he shouldn't have his feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy his records when he speaks out ... Freedom is a two-way street ... I don't really care what Alan Jackson said. I want to do what I think is right for America, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America. It stands in stark contrast to the way Iraq was.

Posted by Guest (Post 270303)

Cashman,the facts have been presented to you as far as I can tell 8 times from many different sources. Because you choose to ignore them does not mean they are not facts. The facts say Bush lied period.

Posted by Guest (Post 270243)

Why are we spending all this time on a subject that has nothing to do with today and what Obama is doing to us.

So the liberals on this thread are convinced, without facts on there side, that Bush is a liar. Let's leave them in there mire and talk about the future.

Posted by Guest (Post 270313)

Why don't all you "we're losing our country" people sign off here and go listen to some more to Beck, Savage, et al to get your fix and increase your anger.
Methinks you are allowing yourself to be manipulated and sold a bill of goods -- and a ton of their books. They are, deep down, good self-promoters who add nothing to true dialogue. They are selling books and ads on their shows...and those programs truly are shows. These self-serving, self-promoting clowns are not new...remember Father Coughlin and Joe McCarthy? They, too, cared more about themselves than their country.
We have real issues and real opportunities to be part of the growth and development of this nation. Let's look to real leaders (today's or tomorrow's) and not allow ourselves to be sidetracked by the charlatan naysayers. Let's do some positive things, express some positive ideas rather than whine in unison with (expletive deleted!) selfish horn-blowers who will never put their names on the line and run for office...putting their money where their mouths are.
They are part of the problem.

Posted by Guest (Post 270339)

I think we have made some progress -- limited, far from perfect -- on making health insurance available to more people and eliminated the pre-existing condition block; started to have some regulation of the crazy, incestuous Wall Street nonsense where the rating companies are paid by the investment firms to 'affirm' the alleged value of the investments and then tell investors that the rating agencies gave them an A-plus; and finally blowing apart the Mineral & Minings Service division of the Interior Department that has been -- literally and figuratively -- in bed with the coal and oil industry. MMS was set up to monitor and safeguard oil and coal exploration. It has been a flop...under several administrations...including this one.
I have no preference for any of the various cable channel pundits or either political party or any columnist. I care only for the nation and reasonable discussion of possibilities.
And I hope that we can all distinguish between real ideas and self-serving BS that seeks only to divide the nation and sell books.
I seek solutions, not predictable talking point, canned nonsense.
Please join me in a dialogue...one that is for the nation's good with no commercial gain for anyone.
What say you?

Posted by Guest (Post 270339)

I think we have made some progress -- limited, far from perfect -- on making health insurance available to more people and eliminated the pre-existing condition block; started to have some regulation of the crazy, incestuous Wall Street nonsense where the rating companies are paid by the investment firms to 'affirm' the alleged value of the investments and then tell investors that the rating agencies gave them an A-plus; and finally blowing apart the Mineral & Minings Service division of the Interior Department that has been -- literally and figuratively -- in bed with the coal and oil industry. MMS was set up to monitor and safeguard oil and coal exploration. It has been a flop...under several administrations...including this one.
I have no preference for any of the various cable channel pundits or either political party or any columnist. I care only for the nation and reasonable discussion of possibilities.
And I hope that we can all distinguish between real ideas and self-serving BS that seeks only to divide the nation and sell books.
I seek solutions, not predictable talking point, canned nonsense.
Please join me in a dialogue...one that is for the nation's good with no commercial gain for anyone.
What say you?

Posted by Guest (Post 270303)

Cashman,the facts have been presented to you as far as I can tell 8 times from many different sources. Because you choose to ignore them does not mean they are not facts. The facts say Bush lied period.