In the two-year run-up to the Iraq invasion, President Bush and his team made some 935 false statements about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaida, according to a new study by the Center for Public Integrity, which says it was part of an “orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.â€
Bush led the pack with 259 false statements, 231 about WMDs in Iraq and 28 about Iraq’s alleged links to al-Qaida — claims that have since been debunked.
The White House has contended that it was simply following the accepted intelligence, but the study points to many Bush team claims that flew in the face of CIA and other intelligence assessments at the time.
Equally damning is the complicity of the national media, which the study found was “far too uncritical and deferential,†passing along and in effect amplifying the administration’s misleading claims to an “almost impenetrable din†in the months leading up to the war.
From candidates of both parties, the nation now deserves a discussion of how this nation got itself into the Iraq war and the lessons learned.
135 Comments
DUH!
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Sorta like Bill Clinton did when he blew up that aspirin factory in Sudan which killed poor workers, but didn’t reveal any WMD.
This was NOT a “study” it was a partisan political hit piece.
To quote Hillary, when she gets attacked “this is all old news” — and this time, most of this stuff is false old news.
Keep on telling yourself, Paul, you’re right and the rest of the world is wrong.
Saddam Husseins Iraq was listed, for 8 all years, as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” by President Bill Clinton.
The official policy of the Clinton administration was “regime change”.
Iraq is no longer on that State Department list.
Iraq was removed from the list of “State Sponsors of Terror” by George Bush.
The untruths that led to a Bush presidency.
the people killed at the ‘aspirin factory’ was only a fraction of the diners and restaurant workers bush had blown up in Baghdad trying to hit Saddam.
More on the damage done by the bush bear market.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080123/pl_nm/usa_politics_contest_dc_2
econ101,
You seem to have a bad case of “tunnel vision”. Do you ever get tired of looking at the entire world thru a tiny straw?
As usual Paul, you leave out salient details – during some of the Clinton Years, Saddam refused UN inspections.
The UN Inspectors returned to Iraq in 2002 and only left when George started bombing.
If Bush had waited another month or two, the he would have known what we all know now – Hussein was a toothless paper tiger.
Sheesh………………….
Just keep telling yourself, Paul, “me right, everyone else wrong.”
Unfortunately the Repubs. will block any attempt to come up with ‘lessons learned’ and all will get is the feeble attempts to deflect, deny any responsibility for the lies and misinformation.
I’ve noticed only brainwashed bushies post here in defense of bush. I think the moderates have come to the realization that they’ve been had.
WS
I am talking about Clinton listing Saddam’s Iraq as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”
Show me, please, the mandate of the UN inspectors?
Those inspectors were NOT charged, in any way, to investigate Saddams support of terrorism
The Clinton administration, along with others, already made that determination,
Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism.
Bush did know in 2001 that Saddam had no wmds an Powell and Condi both said so http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ
cosmos
Talk about tunnel vision!! Buddy. WMD’s were not why we went into Iraq, but I’ll not waste any time giving the other reason’s, you won’t be able to see them through the “straw” you are looking through.
“Talk about tunnel vision!! Buddy. WMD’s were not why we went into Iraq, but I’ll not waste any time giving the other reason’s, you won’t be able to see them through the “straw” you are looking through.”
Jeez, I could have sworn that Bush said that Saddam had WMD and he was a threat to the US.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………………….
How is that WMD hunt going these days?
“WMD’s were not why we went into Iraq,”
On that we agree. thing is, George WMD Bush tole us WMDs WERE the reason. So, you agree that Bush lied!
I told the truth and got called every name in the book.
“Terrorism” is the excuse, not a real problem.
The war on “terror” is a pure phony.
There, I told you so.
Sure Bush is a liar but he’s just representing his supporters who do nothing but lie to themselves and think Bush is a great President.
But Clinton lied about a BJ, and that’s an impeachable offense. Lying to the nation, killing hundreds of thousands of people, spending a trillion dollars, sanctioning gang rape of Americans, torture of Canadians and Aussies, spying on millions of Americans, killing journalists, etc. That’s all okay if you are a Republican.
Republicans have no credibility, Paul is just another example of that.
Ben
Hillary said that WMD’s were the reason.
So did a whole bunch of other Democrats.
That is why those Democrats voted to go to war.
Paul, Hillary was one of the people the Bush regime was lying to. If he had been honest about the facts the votes would have turned out differently. You’ll go to any lengths to justify Bush’s lies.
This study was funded by extreme lefist George Soros, but of course the article did not state that. The News Media is doing all they can to help the terrorist and the Islam crazies. The News Media are bottom feeders, how any one believe what they say. How come you did not memtion this Randy? Here is the other side of the story listed here:
http://publiusforum.townhall.com/g/df1dcaea-4da1-47e5-a8be-2deabbb61345
PaulTheCon – you are correct. They, and the media, stupidly listened to Bush. But they did NOT vote to go to war. They foolishly voted to trust Bush with the decision. I agree with you, Bush should never have been trusted.
“That is why those Democrats voted to go to war.”
Again, Paul, you leave out salient facts – George had access to the NIE’s and classified intelligence, not the Democrats.
The Democrat’s crime was that they were gullible enough to believe George W Bush.
They screwed up – they trusted him.
george is correct in being skeptical about the Bush-parroting media:
“Equally damning is the complicity of the national media, which the study found was “far too uncritical and deferential,” passing along and in effect amplifying the administration’s misleading claims to an “almost impenetrable din” in the months leading up to the war.”
“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
Here’s the initial official reason given to occupy Iraq:
“a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world”
The first two were false. The third is true, Saddam killed Iraqis and used torture, so we went there and replaced the person doing it with an American. The last one wasn’t accepted by the UN so the Security Council opposed Bush.
So now all that is left to be accomplished is for us to leave so we’ll no longer be committing atrocities upon the Iraqi people.
“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
“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
“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
Max, Hillary was referring to the lies that were presented to her from the Bush regime. Now that she has the facts she changed her mind about her position. Keep up with the times. If I tell you a lie and believe it then who is at fault? Am I at fault for telling a lie or you for believing it? If you think you are at fault then everyone is justified in lying.
“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
——————————————————————————————————–
“[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
“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
The Republican cowards are just up to their usual games. They always lie, that’s all they can do. We’ve seen their leadership skills, endless war, thousands dead, trillions of dollars wasted, entering a recession, higher unemployment, etc. So rather than tell the truth they continue with more lies. You Republicans have no credibility so naturally you lie and try to claim it’s all the Democrats fault from 10 years ago.
“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
“Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002″
Stupidly repeating what Bush’s people told her.
“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
“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
—————————————————————————————————-
“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
Max, you’re as obtuse as Paul the Con……….
In 1998, Saddam was preventing the UN Inspectors from verifying that he had complied with UN mandates – it was reasonable to assume that he had reconstituted his WMD program, since he did not all verification.
Saddam allowed the inspectors back in again in November 2002 – and they were just months away from proving that Saddam did not have a program of WMD.
Those are the facts………………..
“…INTELLIGENCE REPORTS show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild…”
I just want to make sure we’re reading the same thing.
So where did those intelligence reports come from?
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 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
“Bush lied, people died.” – Sign from a pro-American protester telling the truth about the fascist regime of the Bush administration.
“if necessary ”
Important words. They stupidly trusted Bush with that authority. It was never necessary – he allowed inspectors in and they verified that there was nothing there.
Ever since Saddam lost his supplier he has been toothless.
“C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”
-Downing Street Memo proving that Bush knew the facts but had to lie to justify his illegal occupation of Iraq
In defense of George WMD Bush – there were many in the media and elsewhere who were foolish enough to listen to him.
“The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.”
-Downing Street Memo proving that Bush was going to lie at all costs and knew Iraq wasn’t a threat.
The Republican Bush played Otter to the Democrat’s Flounder.
“Hey, you f*cked up, you trusted us!”
And who would have thought that an American President, especially one “restoring honor and dignity to the White House” would stoop so low as to LIE about the intelligence regarding Iraq?
MR. RUSSERT: Again, learning from mistake, do you wish you had read the National Intelligence Estimate, which had a lot of caveats from the State Department and the Energy Department as to whether or not Saddam Hussein really had a biological and chemical and active nuclear program?
SEN. CLINTON: I was fully briefed by the people who wrote that. I was briefed by the people from, you know, the State Department, the CIA, the Department of Defense; all of the various players in that. And many people who read it–well, actually, not very many people read the whole thing because we were getting constant briefings. And people–some people read it and voted for the resolution, some people read it and voted against the resolution. I felt very well briefed. And it wasn’t just what the Bush administration was telling us in the NIE, I went way outside of any kind of Bush administration sources; independent people, people from the Clinton administration, people in the British government. I looked as broadly as I could at how to assess this.
And if, of course, you see the vote as I saw it as opposed as how it’s been characterized, I thought it was a vote to put inspectors back in, to make it very clear that Saddam Hussein wouldn’t be able to go off unchecked. If those inspectors had been permitted to do the job that they were set up to do, we would have avoided war. It became clear in retrospect, Tim, once people started writing books and information came out of the administration, the president had no intention of letting the inspectors do their job. That’s not what I was told by the Bush White House. That’s not what we were told in constant briefings from high-level Bush administration officials. That’s not what the president told the country in his speech in Cincinnati shortly before the vote. If you remember, he said this vote was the best chance to avoid some kind of confrontation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22634967/
MR. RUSSERT: You say you’ve been deeply involved in the eight years of the Clinton administration. One of the powers given to a president is the power of pardon. At the end of the president’s second term, he granted 140 pardons, including one to Marc Rich, someone who had been convicted of tax evasion, fraud and making illegal oil deals with Iran. Were you involved in that pardon?
SEN. CLINTON: No. I didn’t know anything about that.
MR. RUSSERT: No one talked to you whatsoever?
SEN. CLINTON: No. No. Unh-unh.
MR. RUSSERT: His ex-wife gave $109,000 to your campaign.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, no one talked to me about it, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: Nobody?
SEN. CLINTON: Nobody.
MR. RUSSERT: Your two brothers proposed people for pardons and you were paid money. One brother, you asked to give the money back.
SEN. CLINTON: That’s right. That’s right.
MR. RUSSERT: Were you aware your brothers were involved?
SEN. CLINTON: No, I was not.
MR. RUSSERT: If you’re president, will you make a pledge that your family will not recommend people…
SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely. Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me bring you back to October 10 of 2002, when the Senate had to vote on the authorization to go to war. This was Senator Clinton on the floor of the Senate.
(Videotape, October 10, 2002):
SEN. CLINTON: So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein, this is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Casting your vote for conviction for the authorization for use of military force against Iraq resolution. That same week Senator Obama gave a speech, and this is what he said: “I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors. … I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that” “invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale” “without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”
Who had the better judgment at that time?
Interesting quotes posted by max. The thing is, Bush and his cronies were going to war qwith Iraq regardless of what the intelligent reports stated. That has been proven time and time again. If max can find all the democrats saying we should go to war with Iraq, I’m sure he can find the trail Bush left in going to war with Iraq.
In Saddam’s last interview, prior to his death, with the CIA, he firmly stated he had no WMD, and only stated he did to discourage Iran from invading Iraq.
econ’s statement, “I am talking about Clinton listing Saddam’s Iraq as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism””, has a modicom of truth in that he gave the families of suiciders X amount of money. But the sad truth is after the invasion, Iraq has turned into a terrorist training ground, with American soldiers as the training targets.
Econ’s hatred of anything liberal blinds him to the distortions of the truth Bush perpetrated on Congress, as well as the American people. Bush is the worst president ever!
I’m wondering if any of the adults (i.e. not Bush supporters) recall Saddam’s report to the US government about his WMD programs. The Bush regime got it and edited out a large portion of it before releasing it to Congress.
Isn’t it interesting to see the Bushbots squirm and make excuses for their leader’s lies? I think they honestly believe that if a Democrat believes Bush’s lies then Bush really didn’t lie. Well, I never accused them of being honest or mature.
Max, and others posting statements from 2002,
Do not notice the date of this statement, and do not read the statement. It will destroy part of your fantasy world.
7 March 2003 | New York, USA
Statement to the United Nations Security Council
‘The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update’
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml
The invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003
Why do we continue to hash and rehash all this? The two independent reports released yesterday are only a couple in a much longer list of other reports that came out in 2006 and 2007, saying pretty much the same thing.
Any reports since then that have said something different? And, no, I don’t take Bush and Cheney’s word for it. Fool me once… The same goes for the rest of this admin. When they have PROOF, I’ll pay attention.
But then if those emails hadn’t been destroyed…? How very, very convenient they’re gone, considering the time period they covered.
And you wonder why people are suspicious? Someone, I sincerely doubt the administration destroyed the things that could save their @asses.
Sorry. “Someone” should be “Somehow”. Darn fingers have a mind of their own. :)
Doug
Hillary was FIRST LADY for 8 years. She keeps telling us about all her “experience” — so surely you did not forget.
Also, Bush does not “filter” intelligence information to Congress.
Hillary had a direct line to all of the information, and all the sources, that Bush had.
Doug,
Several hundred pages were missing from that report.
Ben posted January 23, 2008 at 2:00 pm
“In defense of George WMD Bush – there were many in the media and elsewhere who were foolish enough to listen to him.”
LOL! Well said, and it deserved a repost.
Paul, all the time Hillary was first lady she never once voted to invade Iraq.
It could not have happened without thousands of sleeping dogs in the media. Hey WE, got fleas?
Doug
Saddam harbored one of the 1993 WTC bombers.
Saddam’s Iraq was listed, even by the Clinton administration, as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”
Saddam DID use WMD against the Kurds.
Saddam DID operate “rape rooms”.
Saddam DID use wood chippers, to torture political prisoners.
YOU are making false statements:
—–
“Doug
Posted January 23, 2008 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
Here’s the initial official reason given to occupy Iraq:
“a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world”
The first two were false. The third is true, Saddam killed Iraqis and used torture, so we went there and replaced the person doing it with an American. The last one wasn’t accepted by the UN so the Security Council opposed Bush.
So now all that is left to be accomplished is for us to leave so we’ll no longer be committing atrocities upon the Iraqi people.”
—–
Doug, if “honesty” is the issue, well, you should try to lead by example!
Doesn’t matter whether Bush lied or not. Impeach him if you think he did.
With Senators like Hillary Clinton who didn’t even bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate reports before agreeing to war with Iraq, the Sheep in the Senate will vote whichever way the wind blows – whether they hear the truth or not.
And Going Forward…
Y’all want Hillary Clinton to be the new decider for America.
Better hope the wind is blowing in the right direction when a decision needs to be made during the next crisis!
Baaaaaaaaaa
One word: Darfur
Max,
Did Hillary say she hadn’t read the NIE? I’m asking because I don’t know, not to get a rise.
RD,
Read the Meet The Press link I posted above.
To answer your question: Yes.
Max
Posted January 23, 2008 at 2:06 pm | Permalink
Thank you for that post Max, Clinton’s words just supported what WSC and Ben have been saying, that it was NOT a vote to go to war. And I thought you didn’t like us Democrats.
I think this sums it up nicely:
“Pol Pot killed one point seven million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, aged seventy-two, well done indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it is they killed their own people. And we’re sort of fine with that. Hitler killed people next door. Oh, stupid man. After a couple of years we won’t stand for that, will we?”
~~Eddie Izzard
One more word:
Congo
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/01/23/congo/?iref=mpstoryview
From the Killing Fields in Cambodia (2 million dead) and many others including Darfur, and now new reports on the Congo, what conclusions can we make?
Is there any reason for the United Nations?
Do they serve any functional non-political purpose today?
What is the UN good for, if it isn’t an instrument to unite nations to address genocides that continue around the world?
Serious question. I’d really like to know what the UN is good for?
Why should the US maintain the UN in NYC and pay for the majority of the UN budget if it nothing other then a glorified political chat room, or convenient place to yell at each other?
TDT
Not exactly.
Hillary did not say, prior to her vote, that she was NOT voting for war.
Hillary covered her ass, with the lunatic anti war left, after the vote, by claiming such.
You trust Clinton’s words?
Read the resolution she voted FOR.
Face it, we can’t even comprehend the killing of millions. We ignore most, as mentioned above, and we would have ignored Saddam, except for the fact that we needed a presence in the Middle East (because of OIL), and he was an easy target. Easy to attack and invade, and even easier to manufacture “reasons”. And especially because it made those that matter the most–NOT the American people, NOT the Iraqi people–filthy rich.
“Saddam DID use WMD against the Kurds.”
…………… WMD’s that we sold him in the Eighties and he sued during the Iraq/Iran War.
The Gulf War of 1991 ended all that.
Are you saying that another invasion was warranted based on what he did when he was a US ally?
Oh, please, please do read the resolution!
The US continues to work against the UN. What do you expect?
“with the lunatic anti war left”
So she was wrong for believing Bush and voting for the War Authorization and she was wrong for being against the War on Iraq.
Well, isn’t that special – damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
And you folks give Bush a pass?
Sheeeeeeesh…………………………….
cosmos
Posted January 23, 2008 at 2:20 pm | Permalink
Thanks for that post. That very specifically stated in the report that there was NO evidence of uranium enrichment since 1990, there was no evidence of a nuclear program, and all of this before we actually invaded. So he got this information, realized that his lie was about to surface, and hurried up and took us to war before it was too late.
Public Law 107–243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
….Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq”.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to–
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Max
Posted January 23, 2008 at 2:50 pm | Permalink
You trust Clinton’s words?
I trust Clinton’s words a helluva lot more than Bush’s!!
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
I think the above bears repeating.
“Serious question. I’d really like to know what the UN is good for?”
We are the U N, Max. We have a permanent seat on the U N Security Council and we have veto power over any and every resolution or mandate.
We invented the U N and it is our baby.
End of story.
Oh by the way, voting FOR the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq” was:
Hillary Clinton
John McCain
John Edwards
TDT,
Butting in where I wasn’t invited… But I’m to the point where I don’t trust anyone’s words. Actions, yes, and I watch and listen to see if the words and actions line up. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
As for George W’s action, prior to his bid for President, his actions did NOT tell me that he was a man who cared for anything but his own wealth. A miserable failure at business (except making money for himself), he managed to run all 3 oil companies he “owned” into the ground…TEXAS oil companies, at that, and was bailed out by his daddy’s buddies, the Saudis. And ask anyone is TX how they feel about the baseball team and stadium fiasco. It’s the wealthy in the state who support him. The wealthy and the not so bright.
Yes, Max, Hillary, John, and John.
Now name the Repulicans who voted against it.
This bears repeating too:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
David Kay, Right. Joe Wilson, Right. Bush,Wrong!
RD, that would be Ron Paul.
Last I checked he was polling lower then Fred (who dropped out) and Rudy (who will soon drop out).
Didn’t forget about him, but he really doesn’t have a chance in hell.
Max just posts garbage an ignores evidence that does not support his claim that GWB is innocent and the Clintons are responsible for the War on Iraq….
After seven years of the Bush Administration, everything is still Bill Clinton’s fault.
And if it is not, then it is Hillary’s fault.
max,
do they pay you by the word or by the post?
RD
Posted January 23, 2008 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
Yes, Max, Hillary, John, and John.
Now name the Repulicans who voted against it.
_________________________________________________
Ron Paul
Efforts to make Democrats complicit in bush’s lies are dishonest.
Congress voted authorization only. The decision to act was made by the handlers of bush and bush himself.
And they are about to pay for it next election.
America won’t trust Republicons for another 20 years or more.
“This was NOT a ’study’ it was a partisan political hit piece.”
I wonder if the above should go into the Paul F. Rossell false statements file? Nah, who would have enough time or computer space to store them all?
This is the offending groups website:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
This was their methodology:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=methodology&id=953
Doesn’t look like a “hit piece” to me. But I have the ability to perceive reality that poor ole Mr. Rossell so sorely lacks.
It was a mistake. If Bush lied, prove it and impeach him. The democrats put a gun in Bush’s hand. BOTH sides screwed up. Time to collect or marbles and go home. As for the UN, time to collect our marbles, and billions, and go home.
Where is the impeachment of Bush? Why is he not impeached by the Democratically controlled Congress?
WTO – collect our marbles
NATO – collect our marbles
NAFTA – collect our marbles
AND GO HOME
rfl – since there is still a GOP controlled Senate there would be no point in doing so. That said, I DO think the House should move against him and let the Republicans in the Senate close ranks in support of Bush’s war.
Korea – collect our marbles and come home
Japan – collect our marbles
Germany – collect our marbles
Here’s a fun idea… how bout we mind our own damn business for a while. Last I checked our poop is WEAK and we have NO business telling others how to run their countries. Lead by example right?
Spin, revision and hyping up stories by the Democrats that have long been refined by the spin machines.
They’ll never learn that their words of reversal and no plans are what keeps them out of power.
It must suck to be max and paulie these days…
grrl, They got fluffy homemade tortillas there in KS?.
Heh Sol, we do at MY house. In the restaurants? Not so much. Thin tortillas, weak salsa, instant beans and rice, and pre-mixed margauritas.
Sigh.
I also made some KILLER carne guisada last week to go with the homemade tortillas and salsa. heheheheh.
I think I’m going back to Tejas in February. I feel so much more at home there anymore….
Below are the institutions that conducted the study.
“The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
“
Sound like radical leftist organizations to Paulie?
“Why is he not impeached by the Democratically controlled Congress?”
Because, unlike the Republic Congress that impeached Clinton, knowing full well that they did not have the votes to convict, the Democrats realize that with only a slim margin (if any) in the Senate, impeachment would be futile.
It takes 67 votes in the Senate to convict, and the Republics would never cross over.
Impeachment would be unless, despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans just can’t wait until we have a new president.
George Walker Bush – the Worst President in American History.
We liberals are all too willing to respect the Constitution of the United States.
If we’d followed our instincts, we’d have led a revolution against George WMD Bush’s inauguration on January 20, 2001. After all, the presidency had been stolen from us by the SOCTUS judicial coup d’etat.
But, no. It was the SCOTUS and whether we agreed or not, those were “the rules.”
And we lived by them.
We Democrats — despite all the evidence otherwise — were fools to think that George WMD Bush would cook the intelligence and lie to us simply to attack Iraq with no provocation.
Senators Clinton and Edwards were so patriotic, they could not phathom a President who’d lie to America about waging an offensive war against a nation that produced no threat to us. I mean, who in his right mind would attack a foreign nation for no other reason than his ego?!
Well. We found out who.
All you Cons can sit back and chortle, “We lied to you and you guys BELIEVED it!!!” And feel smug because we thought there might be a modicum of decency and honesty about the Oval Office. Yes, we were fools to believe that, I guess.
But as George WMD Bush said, “Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on… uhm… you can’t get fooled again.”
At just about every step of the way toward and into and through Shrub’s little Iraqi adventure, the American people have been lied to. Out of respect for what the Presidency is supposed to be, too many liberals and Democrats have given the Oval Office the benefit of the doubt; only because they certainly wouldn’t lie about that! would they?
But, of course, they did. And they still do.
Along the way, those of us who believe in the Constitution have been distracted by Shrub’s attempts to shred the Bill of Rights. The traditional — for 500 years, since the Magna Carta — belief in habeas corpus has been attacked by the Bushies in a subtle but viral attempt to make government all-powerful without recourse to the rule of law.
George Walker Bush has done more damage to this country than 9-11.
It is almost as if his actions were a follow-up to the initial attack.
George Walker Bush is the enemy.
A new book shows Saddam did support al Qaeda and the Taliban:
‘Both In One Trench: Saddam’s Secret Terror Documents’
http://www.bothinonetrench.com
In other, more honest words, you mean that there were MISTAKES made which helped lead up to the war.
Of course, since we are talking about the truth, why would you want to bother using any honesty in your opening sentence?
Lets just start right of the bat by mischaracterizing what happened.
I suppose that is the more honest thing to do?
What a crock.
“A new book shows Saddam did support al Qaeda and the Taliban:”
Jeez, Ray, YOUR president says that is NOT true – who ya’ gonna believe – your government or some damned writer?
Randy was being generous, should have read The Lies that…
So, Ray……………….
“A new book shows Saddam did support al Qaeda and the Taliban:”
Well, your president and your government says that is FALSE – who ya’ gonna believe – your government or some damned writer?
Well, Ray, your president and your government says that is FALSE – who ya’ gonna believe – your government or some damned writer?
“A new book shows Saddam did support al Qaeda and the Taliban:”
“In other, more honest words, you mean that there were MISTAKES made which helped lead up to the war.”
Mistakes? Those were mistakes? Missing your exit on the freeway is a mistake – lying about the run up to war is not just a mistake.
Sheeeeesh……………………
Y’all are short by five on the Republicans in the House who voted against.
Care to come up with them? Or would you like the entire list of both the House and the Senate posted?
Okay, Ksfrmgrrl.
How do you make the fluffy good tortillas?
I’ve tried to make them several times with Masa Harina (maize) flour. The taste is right but I can’t get the thinness. Also, the dough sticks to the rolling pin.
Do you use a tortilla press?
I’ve heard the mamacitas just pat them out in their hands.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm
Let’s review the lies, shall we?
1) The administration was not bent on war with Iraq from 9/11 onward.
2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.
3) Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger.
4) The aluminum tubes were proof of a nuclear program.
5) Iraq’s WMDs were sent to Syria for hiding.
6) The CIA was primarily responsible for any prewar intelligence errors or distortions regarding Iraq.
7) An International Atomic Energy Agency report indicated that Iraq could be as little as six months from making nuclear weapons.
8) Saddam was involved with bin Laden and al Qaeda in the plotting of 9/11.
9) The U.S. wants democracy in Iraq and the Middle East.
10) Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress are a homegrown Iraqi political force, not a U.S.-sponsored front.
11) The United States is waging a war on terror.
12) The U.S. has made progress against world terrorist elements, in particular by crippling al Qaeda.
13) The Bush administration has made Americans safer from terror on U.S. soil.
14) The Bush administration has nothing to hide concerning the events of September 11, 2001, or the intelligence evidence collected prior to that day.
15) U.S. air defenses functioned according to protocols on September 11, 2001.
16) The Bush administration had a plan for restoring essential services and rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure after the shooting war ended.
17) The U.S. has made a good-faith effort at peacekeeping in Iraq during the postwar period.
18) Despite vocal international opposition, the U.S. was backed by most of the world, as evidenced by the 40-plus-member Coalition of the Willing.
19) This war was notable for its protection of civilians.
This from the Herald of Scotland, May 23: “American guns, bombs, and missiles killed more civilians in the recent war in Iraq than in any conflict since Vietnam, according to preliminary assessments carried out by the UN, international aid agencies, and independent study groups. Despite U.S. boasts this was the fastest, most clinical campaign in military history, a first snapshot of ‘collateral damage’ indicates that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi non-combatants died in the course of the hi-tech blitzkrieg.”
20) The looting of archaeological and historic sites in Baghdad was unanticipated.
21) Saddam was planning to provide WMD to terrorist groups.
22) Saddam was capable of launching a chemical or biological attack in 45 minutes.
23) The Bush administration is seeking to create a viable Palestinian state.
24) People detained by the U.S. after 9/11 were legitimate terror suspects.
25) The U.S. is obeying the Geneva conventions in its treatment of terror-related suspects, prisoners, and detainees.
26) Shots rang out from the Palestine hotel, directed at U.S. soldiers, just before a U.S. tank fired on the hotel, killing two journalists.
Eyewitnesses to the April 8 attack uniformly denied any gunfire from the hotel. And just two hours prior to firing on the hotel, U.S. forces had bombed the Baghdad offices of Al-Jazeera, killing a Jordanian reporter. Taken together, and considering the timing, they were deemed a warning to unembedded journalists covering the fall of Baghdad around them.
27) U.S. troops “rescued” Private Jessica Lynch from an Iraqi hospital.
28) The populace of Baghdad and of Iraq generally turned out en masse to greet U.S. troops as liberators.
29) A spontaneous crowd of cheering Iraqis showed up in a Baghdad square to celebrate the toppling of Saddam’s statue.
A long-distance shot of the same scene that was widely posted on the internet shows that the teeming mob consisted of only one or two hundred souls, contrary to the impression given by all the close-up TV news shots of what appeared to be a massive gathering. It was later reported that members of Ahmed Chalabi’s local entourage made up most of the throng.
30) No major figure in the Bush administration said that the Iraqi populace would turn out en masse to welcome the U.S. military as liberators.
When confronted with–oh, call them reality deficits–one habit of the Bushmen is to deny that they made erroneous or misleading statements to begin with, secure in the knowledge that the media will rarely muster the energy to look it up and call them on it. They did it when their bold prewar WMD predictions failed to pan out (We never said it would be easy! No, they only implied it), and they did it when the “jubilant Iraqis” who took to the streets after the fall of Saddam turned out to be anything but (We never promised they would welcome us with open arms!).
But they did. March 16, Dick Cheney, Meet the Press: The Iraqis are desperate “to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that…. [T]he vast majority of them would turn on [Saddam] in a minute if, in fact, they thought they could do so safely”).
31) The U.S. achieved its stated objectives in Afghanistan, and vanquished the Taliban.
32) Careful science demonstrates that depleted uranium is no big risk to the population.
Pure nonsense. While the government has trotted out expert after expert to debunk the dangers of depleted uranium, DU has been implicated in health troubles experienced both by Iraqis and by U.S. and allied soldiers in the first Gulf War. Unexploded DU shells are not a grave danger, but detonated ones release particles that eventually find their way into air, soil, water, and food.
While we’re on the subject, the BBC reported a couple of months ago that recent tests of Afghani civilians have turned up with unusually high concentrations of non-depleted uranium isotopes in their urine. International monitors have called it almost conclusive evidence that the U.S. used a new kind of uranium-laced bomb in the Afghan war.
33) The looting of Iraqi nuclear facilities presented no big risk to the population.
34) U.S. troops were under attack when they fired upon a crowd of civilian protesters in Mosul.
35) U.S. troops were under attack when they fired upon two separate crowds of civilian protesters in Fallujah.
36) The Iraqis fighting occupation forces consist almost entirely of “Saddam supporters” or “Ba’ath remnants.”
37) The bidding process for Iraq rebuilding contracts displayed no favoritism toward Bush and Cheney’s oil/gas cronies.
38) “We found the WMDs!”
There have been at least half a dozen junctures at which the Bushmen have breathlessly informed the press that allied troops had found the WMD smoking gun, including the president himself, who on June 1 told reporters, “For those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.”
Shouldn’t these quickly falsified statements be counted as errors rather than lies? Under the circumstances, no. First, there is just too voluminous a record of the administration going on the media offensive to tout lines they know to be flimsy. This appears to be more of same. Second, if the great genius Karl Rove and the rest of the Bushmen have demonstrated that they understand anything about the propaganda potential of the historical moment they’ve inherited, they surely understand that repetition is everything. Get your message out regularly, and even if it’s false a good many people will believe it.
Finally, we don’t have to speculate about whether the administration would really plant bogus WMD evidence in the American media, because they have already done it, most visibly in the case of Judith Miller of the New York Times and the Iraqi defector “scientist” she wrote about at the military’s behest on April 21. Miller did not even get to speak with the purported scientist, but she graciously passed on several things American commanders claimed he said: that Iraq only destroyed its chemical weapons days before the war, that WMD materiel had been shipped to Syria, and that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda. As Slate media critic Jack Shafer told WNYC Radio’s On the Media program, “When you… look at [her story], you find that it’s gas, it’s air. There’s no way to judge the value of her information, because it comes from an unnamed source that won’t let her verify any aspect of it. And if you dig into the story… you’ll find out that the only thing that Miller has independently observed is a man that the military says is the scientist, wearing a baseball cap, pointing at mounds in the dirt.”
39) “The Iraqi people are now free.”
40) God told Bush to invade Iraq.
Not long after the September 11 attacks, neoconservative high priest Norman Podhoretz wrote: “One hears that Bush, who entered the White House without a clear sense of what he wanted to do there, now feels there was a purpose behind his election all along; as a born-again Christian, it is said, he believes he was chosen by God to eradicate the evil of terrorism from the world.”
No, he really believes it, or so he would like us to think. The Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, told the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz that Bush made the following pronouncement during a recent meeting between the two: “God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.”
Oddly, it never got much play back home.
Bush is a LIAR and Clinton was a LIAR. Any news there? All the Bush supporters (the few, the proud I guess) think that because we think that he is an IDIOT and a LIAR that we are fans of Bill Hill. I am not. Given the choice between Bill Hill and Bush, I would choose Bill Hill but I am really hoping not to ever have to make such a choice again. Only idiots think we have to choose between 2 “royal families” like Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton. God save us!
If one were to take a critical, in-depth, review of the Bush Presidency, one would find a closed shop. The whole Bush administration, at least those who stayed, insulated themselves from congress. There was NO bi-partinson
If one takes a critical, in-depth review of the Bush presidency, one would come to the conclusion he preferred to operate in a closed shop. There were NO bipartisan efforts with congress, republican or democrat. His use of signing statements leave no other conclusion.
Example: when the warrant less part of the homeland security act, which was about to expire, was signed by Bush, who then signed a signing statement basically absolving him, and protecting him, from any future actions taken against him for doing so. That is something reserved for despots.
But the lead in to his signing it is pretty sick in itself. He had Gonzales go to the hospital, where John Ashcroft was suffering from pancreatitus. That is one of the most painful things a person can go through. I know because that is what led to my mother’s death, and I was there to see it all. Ashcroft had to be on either Demerol or Morphine or both.
People under the legal influence of those drugs are usually there because of extreme pain. Even so, Ashcroft had enough common sense to lambaste Gonzales for one, coming to see him, when he was in this condition, and, two, telling Gonzales that he, John, could not and would not sign it because it was in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
That is the humanity Bush has shown both his own people, congress, the American people, and the fighting men and women of the armed forces of this country.
We are in this war because BOTH parties screwed big time, but Bush and Cheney wanted this war from day one, and used any and all means possible, including lying to congress and the United Nations to see it come about. Bush is one major POS.
To the biased news media here is some coments leading to the Iraq war made by democrats.
“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
“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
“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
“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
“[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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 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 have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
:lol:
I think you’re in for a long day, george, if you want to go head to head against the Dems on the runup to Iraq.
Run Bush from 9/12/2001 – 4/1/2003, for False Statements.
ANS: 284
Pages of ‘em. Better bring a lunch. :D
WELL said Walker.
Particularly…
“But the lead in to his signing it is pretty sick in itself. He had Gonzales go to the hospital, where John Ashcroft was suffering from pancreatitus. That is one of the most painful things a person can go through. I know because that is what led to my mother’s death, and I was there to see it all. Ashcroft had to be on either Demerol or Morphine or both.”
Yeah that was a PARTICULARLY despicable little bit of under handedness. I had pancreatitis. Damned painful.
Here’s a little hypothetical. The Dems gain in Senate and House. Gain enough to have the numbers and THEN impeach bush and Cheney just months before the end of their sorry term.
Smash their teeth in the election and then twist the knife. Ya know? Just for fun.
:lol:
If, and this is obviously a ginormous IF, GW Bush ever holds an honest news conference, one where the audience is filled with normal everyday Americans and not handpicked by his nannies, I do believe you’ll never see that boy go NEAR anybody with a laptop.
This database is s w e e t.
Poor george is stuck back in 1998. Guess he doesn’t know that inspectors were in Iraq in early 2003.
7 March 2003 | New York, USA
Statement to the United Nations Security Council
‘The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update’
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml
The invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003
Try reading the Blog, George, one of your good buddy right wing friends already copied and pasted that section from Snopes………
It’s too bad that neither of you noted that most of the comments were related to the four days of bombing on Iraq that President Clinton ordered because of Saddam’s kicking out the UN Inspectors.
Of course, right wingers are never quite known for telling the truth.
We won’t solve any of this until we realize that Globalization is at it’s heart an evil institution, which seeks to consolidate power into the hands of a few hand picked domination minded psychos.
The Bush’s and Clintons are up to their neck in the feces of this and you can’t trust either family to take care of a pet rock.
Did Bush lie? Of course he did, so did Bill, So did H.W. and so is Hillary. Can we please start voting against these comprimised criminals and elect leaders who have a record of consistency and have led a moral life? Just once?
Unless, of course ,you like the idea of a couple idiots being able to decide that since you protested outside of the nice new fascist free speech zones, you are now an enemy combatant.
The 4th reich is coming and the Globalists all have a nice caring smile on their face as they hand deliver it to a neighborhood near you.
Anyone who continues to support this criminal regime of the Bush Co. NeoCons are just as damn guilty as he is.
All this evidence of lying, I pray to the Lord that he seems fit to motivate everyone who has lost a family member in this illegal occupation to come together to file a class action Lawsuit against Bush,Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice any one in the know who moved these plans forward. Not the Government, that would only hurt the people, I mean these folks individually should have to face a civil trial with their fortunes and future at stake. Sue them all into obscurity, for the good of us all.
IN the meantime, these are the issues being brought up in the Impeachment movement.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c14_1201070979
Tell me how all the things brought up here aren’t treason against the Republic?
Not to mention the stunningly retard and backwards philosphy of we must use WMD’s to stop the potential use of WMD’s.
Gotta love that Nato manefesto.
The Dems,just don'tget it.They never found any weapons of mass destruction, but the reason they knew Saddam had wmd’s is because we sold iraq chemical and biological weapons when he was our alley to use against Iran. In the 80’s. Of course they never told us that, because that would have made them look really bad, and ruin their chances for invasion.
The whole population needs to harness our buying power and boycott companies we find offensive until they start conducting their business in line with our environmental, ethical, and lawful standards. One thing that scares me about some of the huge media stations like msnbc, is that their owned by General Electric, I’m just giving one example, but GE makes missiles and bombs four our military among countless other businesses and products they own. Kind of makes you wonder about the news when their all owned by super monster corporation conglomerates, if the top people of those corporations have an agenda, they have plenty of influence to push it through all the means they own.
What Gives the US the Right to Claim a Moral Monopoly Over the World?
Paul Craig Roberts
Counterpunch
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
“The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.”
Five Western military leaders.
I read the statement three times trying to figure out the typo. Then it hit me, the West has now out-Owellled Orwell: The West must nuke other countries in order to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction! In Westernspeak, the West nuking other countries does not qualify as the use of weapons of mass destruction.
The astounding statement comes from a paper prepared for a Nato summit in April by five top military leaders–an American, a German, a Dutchman, a Frenchman, and a Brit. It can be found here.
The paper, prepared by men regarded as distinguished leaders and not as escapees from insane asylums, argues that “the West’s values and way of life are under threat, but the West is struggling to summon the will to defend them.” The leaders find that the UN is in the way of the West’s will, as is the European Union which is obstructing NATO and “NATO’s credibility is at stake in Afghanistan.”
And that’s a serious matter. If NATO loses its credibility in Afghanistan, Western civilization will collapse just like the Soviet Union. The West just doesn’t realize how weak it is. To strengthen itself, it needs to drop more and larger bombs.
The German military leader blames the Merkel government for contributing to the West’s inability to defend its values by standing in the way of a revival of German militarism. How can Germany be “a reliable partner” for America, he asks, if the German government insists on “special rules” limiting the combat use of its forces in Afghanistan?
Ron Asmus, head of the German Marshall Fund and a former US State Department official, welcomed the paper as “a wake-up call.” Asmus means a call to wake-up to the threats from the brutal world, not to the lunacy of Western leaders.
Who, what is threatening the West’s values and way of life? Political fanaticism, religious fundamentalism, and the imminent spread of nuclear weapons, answer the five asylum escapees.
By political fanaticism, do they mean the neoconservatives who believe that the future of humanity depends on the US establishing its hegemony over the world? By religious fundamentalism, do they mean “rapture evangelicals” agitating for armageddon or Christian and Israeli Zionists demanding a nuclear attack on Iran? By spread of nuclear weapons, do they mean Israel’s undeclared and illegal possession of several hundred nuclear weapons?
No. The paranoid military leaders see all the fanaticism, religious and otherwise, and all the threats to humanity as residing outside Western civilization (Israel is inside). The “increasingly brutal world,” of which the leaders warn, is “over there.” Only Muslims are fanatics. All us white guys are rational and sane.
There is nothing brutal about the US/Nato bombing of Serbia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, or the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, or the Israeli ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, or the genocide Israel hopes to commit against Palestinians in Gaza.
All of this, as well as America’s bombing of Somalia, America’s torture dungeons, show trials of “detainees,” and overthrow of elected governments and installation of puppet rulers, is the West’s necessary response to keep the brutal world at bay.
Brutal things happen in the “brutal world” and are entirely the fault of those in the brutal world. None of this would happen if the inhabitants of the brutal world would just do as they are told. How can the civilized world with its monopoly on morality allow people in the brutal world to behave independently? I mean, really! God forbid, they might attack some innocent country.
The “brutal world” consists of those immoral fanatics who object to being marginalized by the West and who reply to mass bombings from the air and to the death and destruction inflicted on them through myriad ways by strapping on a suicide bomb.
Unable to impose its will on countries it has invaded with conventional arms, the West’s military leaders are now prepared to force compliance with the moral world’s will by threatening to nuke those who resist. You see, since the West has the monopoly on morality, truth, and justice, those in the outside world are obviously evil, wicked and brutal. Therefore, as President Bush tells us, it is a simple choice between good and evil, and there’s no better candidate than evil for being nuked. The sooner we can get rid of the brutal world, the sooner we will have “freedom and democracy” everywhere that’s left.
Meanwhile, the United States, the great moral light unto the world, has just prevented the United Nations from censuring Israel, the world’s other great moral light, for cutting off food supplies, medical supplies, and electric power to Gaza. You see, Gaza is in the outside world and is a home of the bad guys. Moreover, the wicked Palestinians there tricked the US when the US allowed them to hold a free election. Instead of electing the US candidate, the wicked voters elected a government that would represent them. The US and Israel overturned the Palestinian election in the West Bank, but those in Gaza clung to the government that they had elected. Now they are going to suffer and die until they elect the government that the US and Israel wants. I mean, how can we expect people in the brutal world to know what’s best for them?
The fact that the UN tried to stop Israel’s just punishment of the Gazans shows how right the five leaders’ report is about the UN being a threat to Western values and way of life. The UN is really against us. This puts the UN in the outside world and makes it a candidate for being nuked if not an outright terrorist organization. As our president said, “you are with us or against us.”
The US and Israel need a puppet government in Palestine so that a ghettoized remnant of Palestine can be turned into a “two state solution.” The two states will be Israel incorporating the stolen West Bank and a Palestinian ghetto without an economy, water, or contiguous borders.
This is necessary in order to protect Israel from the brutal outside world.
Inhabitants of the brutal world are confused about the “self-determination” advocated by Western leaders. It doesn’t mean that those outside Western civilization and Israel should decide for themselves. “Self” means American. The term, so familiar to us, means “American-determination.” The US determines and others obey.
It is the brutal world that causes all the trouble by not obeying.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Ron Paul anyone? No, your still in denial? Don’t like to eat your vegetables eh, rather eat all the tasty crispy stuff and then complain when the country dies of an epidemic of disease, (corruption).
The Dr. has the cure for the diseased neocon policy, it’s a little antibiotic called Truth.
There are neocons out there that have went as far as to say Russia help Iraq hide their WMD’s rather than to admit they were either excruciatingly wrong or a pack of criminals and liars.
Iraq, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.
BTW Max, I did finally read the resolution, and it WAS NOT A RESOLUTION TO GO TO WAR. Seriously, did you read it?!?
6 Trackbacks
nancy agram video…
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin…..
Hot Garden Fountain Freak…
Hey, this is not completely true, if you do a search in Google you will see why i say that….
Katarina Witt…
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin…..
Jessie…
I’m a real sucker for anything to do with accelerated learning ideas. Thanks for your post. I’m going to get back into this next month….
angela bassett twins…
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !…
Payday Loans…
…