[Chris A]

If you really believe that President BUSH lied - - THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL

BUDDIES -- then read this.


"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 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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], 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 Sens. 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 invigorated 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, December 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
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"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

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

Boy! Talk about two tongued philosophy

[Stoner]

ChrisA

Are you proposing that a lie told by a Republican is cancelled out by a lie from a Democrat?



Bush lied!



or just pointing out the Democratic position?




Bush lied!

[Chris A]

Na Stoner just pointing out that there must have been a lot of bad intelligence for all those people to make all those statements.

I never did buy the line that Bush lied.

[bassetman]

As Sharpton said 'If Bush didn't know he lied, we're in even more trouble' (paraprhased.)

[LANMaster]

The statement;
"If Bush didn't lie, then that is an even more serious problem."
Is a legitimate concern, I think.

However, as Chris pointed out, there are many other people who supplied intel and other world leaders who believed these multiple sources of intel.

I'm still pleased with the decision to invade Iraq and oust Hussein.

But that intel sure does worry me.

It is still possible that WMD could have been moved, or simply not found yet. But I am certainly not holding my breath.

I think Bush truly believed that US troops would uncover WMD in Iraq. All of the evidence supported that assertion.
Therefore I do not believe that Bush lied to the American people.

[ComputerFix]

Originally posted by bassetman:
As Sharpton said 'If Bush didn't know he lied, we're in even more trouble' (paraprhased.)

As webster said

If Sharpton doesn't know the definition of lie....

"to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive"


Bolding mine, as this is the crux....

One cannot by definition lie without knowing that they are lieing, however, one can provide false information and not be a liar, the defining issue there being if they knew it to be false or not.

While some of those quotes are taken out of context, or are dated (statements revised with new information), like Chris, I have a hard time believing that Bush knew the statements about Iraq and Saddam to be untrue at the time they were said, therefore, he did not lie.


In effect, they do not "cancel" each other out, mearly illustrate that if the label of a lie is correct, than we have been lied to from a great many organizations from the White House to the UN.

However, the more probable, and far more realistic, though troubling, truth is that these people, along with many others, simply put faith in the wrong information. That isn't a lie, that is making a decision that, in retrospect, is deemed incorrect.

[bassetman]

An email from my terse friend in the middle east.

..Had to treat and medivac a kid who had a mine go off in his face today. I pray that he doesn't make it. I do believe it was the most horificaly f**ked up thing I have ever seen.

[LANMaster]

Mines are the worst.

They should be outlawed for eternity. No army ever cleans them up completely and children are most often the victims.

Awful.

[LANMaster]

Note, Article stolen by me.
So this is blatantly plagiarized. Don't say I didn't admit to it.

THE KERRY LIES

As I listened to the news, I was stunned by the blatant lies being put forth by one Senator John Kerry.

He ranted and raved about how Bush is using the troops for political purposes. He is cutting their pay, their benefits and if HE were President, he would fix all that. I guess Kerry has had some private revelation about how the troops are being taken care of because nothing he said is even vaguely true. He has been and voted anti-military for decades. We do not need another military hating liberal in the White House. Now is NOT the time. It will be our undoing.

He compared Iraq to Vietnam. You know that war where he said he threw his medals away in protest. Well, not really. He threw someone else's. His are in a case on the wall behind his desk. It was the war that he used to put himself in the public light so he could get elected. He claims Bush is using the war for political reasons. What crap. (Gosh, what is HE doing right now?) Kerry said we need to send more troops. That Bush needs to listen to the Congress in regard to managing the war. We need to crawl to the U.N. because WE just can't handle the situation. That's what got us into trouble in Viet Nam! NOT LISTENING TO THE MILITARY MEN! Instead, LBJ and his democrat congress tried to run the war and you see how it ended up. The General in command in Iraq has said repeatedly that he DOES NOT NEED more troops. He needs more cops! He needs more engineers. He doesn't want OUR troops guarding bridges and buildings where they will just be targets. But Kerry thinks he knows it all. Like Gore, he feels a couple of years in the military, which he decried for years, is suddenly some banner for him to wear. He apparently thinks no one will look up his abysmal record when it comes to shafting the military and the men and women in them. He's wrong.

He said he has long advocated all things good for our military. RUBBISH! I can't believe he can even stand up in front of veterans, who have served this country and lie to them like that.

Here is a sample of his record: Kerry was lieutenant governor under Dukakis, one of the worst Governors in history. He was thrashed when he ran for President. Kerry was all for the passes for murderers and rapists which, once enacted, resulted in the rapes and murders of innocent people. He wants taxpayers to pay for all abortions on demand, including the partial birth murders.

Kerry Has Voted Against A Balanced Budget Amendment At Least Five Times.

Kerry Voted Against President Bush's Tax Cuts, At Least The Tenth Key Anti-Tax Relief Vote Of His Senate Career.

Kerry Voted For The Biggest Tax Increase In American History Under President Clinton.

Kerry Has Voted For At Least Seven Major Reductions In Defense And Military Spending Necessary For Our National Security.

In 1996, Introduced Bill To Slash Defense Department Funding By $6.5 Billion.

In 1995, Voted To Freeze Defense Spending For 7 Years, Slashing Over $34 Billion From Defense.

Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution – Defense Freeze. “Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training.”

In 1993, Introduced Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs, Including:

Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews

Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one

Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force

Terminate the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program

Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year.

Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Defense Spending, Including:

In 1993, Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years.

In 1992, Voted To Cut $6 Billion From Defense.

In 1991, Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion From Defense, Shift Money To Social Programs.

In 1991, Voted To Cut Defense Spending By 2%.

Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Or Eliminate Funding For B-2 Stealth Bomber Has Voted Repeatedly Against Missile Defense. Weapons Kerry Sought To Phase Out Were Vital In Iraq. “[K]erry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might -- the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks.” (Brian C. Mooney, “Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One,” The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

Military hardware he felt we no longer need since the "cold war" is past. The money would be better spent on "social" programs. These weapons are now the core of our military might.

F-16 Fighting Falcons.

B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s.

M1 Abrams.

Patriot Missile.

AH-64 Apache Helicopter

Tomahawk Cruise Missile.

Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser

During 1980s, Kerry And Michael Dukakis Joined Forces With Liberal Group Dedicated To Slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of “Jobs With Peace Campaign,” which sought to “develop public support for cutting the defense budget…”(“Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs,” The Associated Press, 6/3/88)

Running For Congress In 1972, Kerry Promised To Cut Defense Spending. “On what he’ll do if he’s elected to Congress, Kerry said he would ‘bring a different kind of message to the president.’ He said he would vote against military appropriations.” (“Candidate’s For Congress Capture Campus In Andover,” Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)

“So you can look at all the potential threats of the world, and when you add the expenditures of all of our allies to the United States of America, you have to stop and say to yourself, ‘What is it that we are really preparing for in a post-cold-war world?’”(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/15/96, p. S5061)

Apparently, Kerry was blissfully unaware of any of the multitude of terror attacks and threats against the country. If we had listened to him, we would have no military at all.

Kerry was also one of those who helped castrate our CIA and intelligence gathering, which, along with Clinton's total ignoring of the problem, led to 9/11 and the present global war on terror we are now fighting.

What upsets me most about this man is how easily he can LIE. Just like Bill. He even makes himself look like a Kennedy clone and married a woman rolling in money who would be an embarrassment as First Lady. (Almost as bad as Hillary, but more honest about it) I don't care if he was in the military. I don't care if he was in Viet Nam. He is a socialist and thus he abhors the military. He can write his time off in the service as "youthful indiscretion".

He is a Liar. If you value your freedom, your very life and that of your children, don't even consider voting for this man. It may well be the last vote you live to make. This man could no more conduct the war we are facing than my 4 year old Grandson. NOTE: My grandson might even be better.

Sources:

http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCRese...earch012303.htm

http://www.rnc.org/newsroom/rncrese...earch071803.htm

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...s1580is.txt.pdf

Well, I doubt I would have put it as strongly as he did, but I didn't want to edit his editorial so I left it complete.

But Kerry's voting record must be brought up in this campaign. Because it stinks.

[Wino]

.......But Kerry's voting record must be brought up in this campaign. Because it stinks

Yeah! kinda like I wish GWB had had a voting record, or had been successful in business or as governor of Texas - he came as a mint blank coin and was elected governor and president based on nothingness. He is damn lucky his competition was poor quality as Bush is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, and a blank check to his special interest supporters. Seems to me some of his position statements (what few he had) in presidential debates have changed since being elected - and I paraphrase "We will not nation build" - "We will use our military wisely" - at least Kerry has a record to review and it's probably similar to everyone's - it modifies over time to meet the times.

[Stoner]

Originally posted by LANMaster:
Note, Article stolen by me.
So this is blatantly plagiarized. Don't say I didn't admit to it.

THE KERRY LIES

(edited for space considerations)

Sources:

http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCRese...earch012303.htm

http://www.rnc.org/newsroom/rncrese...earch071803.htm

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...s1580is.txt.pdf

Well, I doubt I would have put it as strongly as he did, but I didn't want to edit his editorial so I left it complete.

But Kerry's voting record must be brought up in this campaign. Because it stinks.

Well said LAN

But your sources?
How about some text at those links, or am I supposed to be an ethernet psychic?

[bassetman]

Good "unbiased, unfiltered truth" there eh Stoner?

[Stoner]

Originally posted by bassetman:
Good "unbiased, unfiltered truth" there eh Stoner?

It could have been worse- FOX

[AlbertB]

An interesting point raised by BM and Wino in #9 and #10.

Like Wino's suggestion, I have been thinking that nowadays ALL campaigns have become so embroiled in raking up smut and negative criticism on all sides that the only strategies capable of offering a good chance of a win which we are left with are:

1) put up a candidate who is genuinely whiter than white, unfeasible in the real world of course.

2) put up a candidate who has never done anything and has therefore never screwed up and is therefore whiter than white.

I suspect that until the public learn to see things as Wino suggested, in the light of changing circumstances, or to basically forgive past indiscretions to a degree, we will see more bland or faceless men reaching high places. Dangerous when you consider that those bland men are the easiest to guide and manoeuver from behind by others more determined.

Best bit of advice ever given to me was from a very high powered lawyer who said that the most powerful position in any organisation was vice-Chairman, as, if he knows what he is doing, he gets to exert influence equal to the Chairman and can hide behind him when things start to go wrong and heads roll.

So the interesting question has to be who would be standing in the shadows behind any whiter than white leader we could produce?

[bassetman]

As usual Albert a great job of analyzing and summarizing!