Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

waynet, you believe Bush lied. So, you must have studied and thought this through. Why do you think he said those things about Saddam Hussein and lied to the world?

I would love to have Wayne respond to both your post and mine, but doubt we will hear from him again for awhile...that is what he does plus if one of the whacko web sites does not address it, he will not be able to formulate an opinion !

Man, I am so sick of this folks blaming everything but the Holloway murder on Bush...he did some stupid things and a number of dumb ones...he spent too much money, but this mantra that we hear is a result of the Soros take over of the Dem party and the dumbing down of the members to spout only the party line no matter what (Oh I know the Repubs try to do the same thing...just not quite as organized or good at it as the Dems).


Bottom line is that Wayne will NOT respond to either post...he may post but he WILL not address the questions asked...because he cannot !

I agree Bucco. I have waited on him to supply a reliable link to your question. The thing that really irks me is that I fall for it nearly everytime that he and other liberals get off subject (sorry Yoda) and Bush bash!! Such an obvious ploy those liberals have. No real answers. Just distraction. I really try to have a conversation, and I know you do too. But it's just one-sided when you don't get a real answer.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

I agree Bucco. I have waited on him to supply a reliable link to your question. The thing that really irks me is that I fall for it nearly everytime that he and other liberals get off subject (sorry Yoda) and Bush bash!! Such an obvious ploy those liberals have. No real answers. Just distraction. I really try to have a conversation, and I know you do too. But it's just one-sided when you don't get a real answer.

Just once would love to hear them come on here and say something positive about Obama instead of just bashing Bush. Even if I disagreed with them it would be refreshing to think they may be paying attention to the real world !

I'm suprised that these enlightend Dems, liberals, progressives, etc. seem to forget that "W" is no longer the POTUS. To keep blaming a man who no longer has the power is just the way the Dems and their ilk avoid talking and placing this country's best interest into their politics. It is easier to blame the other guy than come up with a plan to move our country along,

Clearly, those in our congress cannot justify the reckless path that they have put into motion and their tax and spend policies so they explain it away by saying "'Bush started it, he lied, he created the oil spill he did this or that".
Note how much easier that is than being transparent.(or intelligent) Too, it is easier for the Dems to follow the leadership(?) of their very astute (snicker) and experienced, kick ass leader. (a true diplomat he is, NOT)

This thread only proves the point that there are those who only spout the party line and can not give accurate citations to their rhetoric.

What IS it with people here?

Took me 15 seconds to find the following quote:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting.

From the 6/18/2004 Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun17.html

Now, I'm sure you won't like this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x2526958

That one has 10 quotes and identifies the when and where on each - though I confess I didn't chase down THOSE references to ensure them.

For crying out loud, the 'solution' to the 'problems' with Obama (perceived, real or otherwise) is NOT to put the previous gang of Party-First, Country-Somewhere-Down-The-List kleptocrats back into power!

I can't stand EITHER ONE of these self-serving batches of legislooters.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

waynet, you believe Bush lied. So, you must have studied and thought this through. Why do you think he said those things about Saddam Hussein and lied to the world?

I will answer the question for you....... there are many thoughts about why W wanted to go to war. One is that Saddam Hussein tried to have Bush 41 killed. The other major thought is that Cheney wanted to finish what 41 started but failed to complete.

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. Many in the US thought that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. The CIA believed their informants who later were found not to be credible.

I can remember several statements on the Sunday morning shows....but my personal favorite was Condi Rice saying "Do we need to wait for the mushroom cloud".

Why did they lie....because they wanted to get Saddam Hussein.

Originally Posted by djplong

What IS it with people here?

Took me 15 seconds to find the following quote:



From the 6/18/2004 Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun17.html

Now, I'm sure you won't like this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x2526958

That one has 10 quotes and identifies the when and where on each - though I confess I didn't chase down THOSE references to ensure them.

For crying out loud, the 'solution' to the 'problems' with Obama (perceived, real or otherwise) is NOT to put the previous gang of Party-First, Country-Somewhere-Down-The-List kleptocrats back into power!

I can't stand EITHER ONE of these self-serving batches of legislooters.

Did you read these? you should have before you posted them.

Yoda

Originally Posted by djplong

What IS it with people here?

Took me 15 seconds to find the following quote:



From the 6/18/2004 Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun17.html

Now, I'm sure you won't like this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x2526958

That one has 10 quotes and identifies the when and where on each - though I confess I didn't chase down THOSE references to ensure them.

For crying out loud, the 'solution' to the 'problems' with Obama (perceived, real or otherwise) is NOT to put the previous gang of Party-First, Country-Somewhere-Down-The-List kleptocrats back into power!

I can't stand EITHER ONE of these self-serving batches of legislooters.

So now you're saying Bush lied because what he said, according to the kook Dem. Underground source you linked, gave "the impression" of a link to the 9/11 attacks?
What proof do you have of the disconnection of the Terrorist organizations to Saddam Hussein? All you'll find is the supposition of people who hated the Bush Administration and that's not good enough for me. I don't buy it and I don't care how many kook leftist bloggers you cite.

The ultra-liberal Washington Post? This article was written at the height of the anti-Bush backlash of the leftist organizations against the former President and even in this article cites meetings between Osama bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein and discounts them. Well, I didn't then and I don't now. I'm sorry, but this all seems lame now, even more so than it did in 2004.

Originally Posted by cologal

I will answer the question for you....... there are many thoughts about why W wanted to go to war. One is that Saddam Hussein tried to have Bush 41 killed. The other major thought is that Cheney wanted to finish what 41 started but failed to complete.

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. Many in the US thought that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. The CIA believed their informants who later were found not to be credible.

I can remember several statements on the Sunday morning shows....but my personal favorite was Condi Rice saying "Do we need to wait for the mushroom cloud".

Why did they lie....because they wanted to get Saddam Hussein.

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

Originally Posted by cologal

I will answer the question for you....... there are many thoughts about why W wanted to go to war. One is that Saddam Hussein tried to have Bush 41 killed. The other major thought is that Cheney wanted to finish what 41 started but failed to complete.

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. Many in the US thought that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. The CIA believed their informants who later were found not to be credible.

I can remember several statements on the Sunday morning shows....but my personal favorite was Condi Rice saying "Do we need to wait for the mushroom cloud".

Why did they lie....because they wanted to get Saddam Hussein.

I siuncerely believe as do most credible historians that the main reason for invasion of Iraq was for the US to establish a "base" in the mideast. This was a concept fostered by a number of neo con groups!

The justification at the time was handed to them by the UN....they (the UN) ALL agreed that there was a threat of WMD in Iraq....the UN's only slowness was the invasion itself. They had already passed the FIFTEENTH resolution on Iraq but many countries did not want to have a confronttation, even though Iraq had been SHOOTING AT OUR PLANES and others for a number of years.

Added to that was the FACT that Iraq was a base for many of Al Queda training camps.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

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

Great post BK.....the revisionist history fostered by the Soros group has grown over the years with no consideration of actual facts.

Administrator: please move to "Political"

Originally Posted by saratogaman

Administrator: please move to "Political"

I swore this WAS in political...did I lose my way ?

It is in political. So is the other discussion saratogaman flagged to be put into political...at least my computer is showing both discussions in the political forum.

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

What part of:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting.

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

Heck, the caption on the accompanying picture reads:

President Bush, with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, talks to reporters after a Cabinet meeting. He again said that "there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

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.