Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 85
  1.    #1  
    Claim of al-Qaida ties to Iraq called coerced

    Not only is this an example of how this administration lied us into Iraq, it's also a prime example of how to LOSE the struggle against terrorism.
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Claim of al-Qaida ties to Iraq called coerced

    Not only is this an example of how this administration lied us into Iraq, it's also a prime example of how to LOSE the struggle against terrorism.
    Funny how Al Libi keeps popping up on that side of the fence now. This has been discussed before, still he was one and only one source of intel that many, many people, nations and govt's used prior to the war to determine Saddam's percieved threat to the world. You still need to look at the evidence the world used prior to the war (to include our friends on the other side of the pond, and the UN) that determined that Saddam had failed to meet the demands of the UN resolutions, that he was either in possesion or very near to acquiring the WMDs the world feared he would use. The previous administratiion and the opposing presedential candidate agreed the need was there.
  3. #3  
    It is more of an example of how al-Libi lied. btw, Bush didn't lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Claim of al-Qaida ties to Iraq called coerced

    Not only is this an example of how this administration lied us into Iraq, it's also a prime example of how to LOSE the struggle against terrorism.
  4. #4  
    Although the US had this info in 1998 during Clinton's tenure, I'm sure it will still be the fault of the current admin.

    US warns Saudi Arabia of plane terror
  5. #5  
    Yet another Iraq thread...

    Yipeeee!
  6. #6  
    Why did Bill Clinton bomb a Sudanese asprin factory claiming it was an Al Qaeda & Iraqi chem weapons facility? Should we hate Clinton and say he lied, too???

    This cr@p is all about politics and not about the country. Of course you won't be, but you should be ashamed.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #7  
    Lock herr up sirs. There should a thread entitled 'Iraq war'.
    Last edited by NRG; 12/09/2005 at 12:20 PM.
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    It is more of an example of how al-Libi lied. btw, Bush didn't lie.
    Bush lied to himself.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Bush lied to himself.
    It could be said that when W entered the WH he was continuing the established policy of the last 12 years covering 2 other administrations. For example below is a typical W Bush speech:

    THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.

    Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein

    "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

    The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

    These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998.

    Clinton was speaking at the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.

    Matters looked different in 1998, when Democrats were working with a president of their own party. Tom Daschle not only supported military action against Iraq, he campaigned vigorously for a congressional resolution to formalize his support. Other current critics of President Bush--including Kerry, Graham, Patrick Leahy, Christopher Dodd, and Republican Chuck Hagel--co-sponsored the broad 1998 resolution: Congress "urges the president to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

    Tom Daschle said the 1998 resolution would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law." And he vigorously defended President Clinton's inclination to use military force in Iraq.

    Summing up the Clinton administration's argument, Daschle said, "'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

    John Kerry was equally hawkish: "If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights," Kerry said back on February 23, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

    Considering the views these Democrats expressed four years ago, why the current reluctance to support President Bush?
    You can view the full article here:


    "Just consider the facts," Bill Clinton urged.

    "Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth."

    Clinton was on a roll:

    "Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

    Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. "

    More Clinton: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century," he argued. "They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."
    Here is a timeline actually dating all the way back to 1992 concerning removing ever cooperative and upfront honest guy of Saddam:

    The deep politics of regime removal in Iraq: Overt conquest, covert operations
    The US war lobby


    The roots of the George W. Bush administration's policy for Iraq "regime change" can be traced to strategies formulated since the early 1990s by a small network of inveterate Cold Warriors linked by philosophical lineage and war-intelligence policy collaborations.

    1. 1992 Pentagon Defense Planning Guidance. As noted by Joe Taglieri (From the Wilderness 10/1/02), this was one of the first official regime removal plans, prepared for then-Defense Secretary **** Cheney by his two assistants:

    2. The Open Letter of 1998. In February 1998, 40 "prominent Americans" a signed an open letter to President Clinton, which formed the basis of the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998.

    This letter calling for an insurrection, and recognition of the (CIA-backed) Iraqi National Congress as the official government of Iraq, was spearheaded by Ahmed Chalabi of the INC. Signers of the letter were:

    Link for complete letter and who signed it

    3. Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. The act itself was promoted in Congress by Woolsey, Clarridge, and now-Deputy National Security Advisor for Counter-terrorism Wayne Downing. The act (a piece of bombastic anti-Saddam propaganda full of historical falsehoods) passed Congress and was signed by Clinton, with scant attention from the public at large.

    Link to view the full Act
    Here is some more information about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998:

    Believe it or not, the American call for "regime change" in Iraq didn't start with George W. Bush. For that, we must return to the days of the 105th Congress, when Bill Clinton occupied the White House. Recall a piece of legislation dubbed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338). Not only did it call for Saddam Hussein's ouster, it also spelled out the goal of replacing his regime with a democratic Iraq.

    Here's what the law says: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

    You may think the Iraq Liberation Act was ramrodded down the throats of reluctant Democrats by a House and Senate dominated by conservative Republicans. Consider the final tally:

    The House passed the bill by a vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans and the House's one independent to back the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. The act, with bipartisan cosponsorship of two Democrats and six Republicans, also passed the Senate by unanimous consent. And Bill Clinton signed it into law on Oct. 31, 1998, declaring at the time that the evidence was overwhelming that freedom and the rule of law "will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."
    http://www.vermontgop.org/king_3_8.shtml

    The Iraq Liberation Act

    "Iraq Liberation Act" introduced into Congress SEPTEMBER 29, 1998

    CLICK FOR: STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Bill Clinton THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release October 31, 1998

    CLICK FOR: Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act
    "Iraq News" Meanwhile, this issue deals with the developments regarding the policy promoted by Congress to deal with the Iraqi threat, namely to overthrow Saddam.
    CLICK FOR: Senate Unanimously Passes Iraq Liberation Act, Oct 7
    October 7, 1998
    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ
    Mr. McCAIN: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4655, which is at the desk.
    The PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:A bill (H.R. 4665) to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
    The PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection to the immediate consideration of the bill, There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
    Mr. LOTT: Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is about to act on H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
    For a full discourse on Clinton's call for establishing USA's official policy for regime change in Iraq please read here:

    A Course Set by Congress
    The American call for "regime change" in Iraq when Bill Clinton occupied the White House.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    But I believe it would be an impeachable crime if he took us to war without even the legal fig leaf of congressional authorization.
    Looks like you can't impeach him on that one either.....

    Congress Approves Iraq Resolution
    Friday, October 11, 2002

    WASHINGTON Congress has given President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq in a major policy victory for the White House.

    The Senate approved the measure 77-23 early Friday morning at the end of a rocky week-long debate. The House voted for the resolution Thursday afternoon, 296-133.

    Because the Democratic-led Senate approved the House version of the measure without changing a word, it now goes directly to Bush for his signature.

    The resolution gives Bush the power to use American military force to enforce existing United Nations Security Council mandates that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein dispose of his weapons of mass destruction.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65395,00.html

    U.N. Panel's Vote Is Unanimous
    By TERENCE NEILAN

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssn/cssn.../11/00035.html

    After more than seven weeks of diplomatic wrangling and finessing, the United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed today on a resolution requiring Iraq show that it has abandoned its weapons of mass destruction or face "serious consequences."

    The 15 to 0 vote came as something of a surprise, because Syria had been widely expected to abstain and earlier today the Russians were still expressing doubts about its passage.

    The resolution, sponsored jointly by the United States and Britain, gives United Nations arms inspectors "immediate, unimpeded and unconditional" rights to search anywhere, including President Saddam Hussein's palaces, for chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

    It went on to threaten Iraq with "serious consequences" if it fails to cooperate, a clear allusion to the use of force by the United States.

    ........

    The new measure still leaves the United States free to attack Iraq without a formal second United Nations resolution authorizing the use of force. But it requires the Security Council to assess any serious violation that could lead to war.

    "The resolution approved today presents the Iraqi regime with a test a final test. Iraq must now, without delay or negotiations, fully disarm, welcome full inspections and fundamentally change the approach it has taken for more than a decade."

    .................

    After the vote, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said the resolution "affords Iraq a final opportunity."

    "To the Government of Iraq, our message is simple: non-compliance no longer is an option," he said.

    Mr. Negroponte reminded delegates that Secretary General Kofi Annan said on Sept. 12, and in further remarks made by Mr. Annan today, that the Council "must face its responsibilities."
    Did Saddam have a change of heart and welcome unfettered inspections to verify he had gotten rid of his WMDs and their programs? Actually they were allowed back in, but he pulled all the same tricks he did on Clinton.....which, given the strict language of this resolution, made it an even bigger joke than the situation that Clinton discribed during his administration.


    CONCLUSION
    Simple pop quiz:

    1) Now how long before GWB came to office and how long before 9/11 did planning for taking out Saddam begin?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/09/2005 at 12:45 PM.
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #10  
    Now, now Hobbes, don't try to bring in the facts. We all know the world was in a complete state of calm and trust before the evil W arrived on the scene.
  11. #11  
    So did democratic senators.

    The 'Bush Lied' ain't working for you or your party. Bring on a new talking point.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Bush lied to himself.
  12. #12  
    I often get sick of these political threads because it seems people only show evidence that support their agenda. If they are for someone they will defend that person no matter what and if they are against someone they will crush them every chance they get.
    One thing about Hobbes is that you 'Keep it Real!' You show the facts for what they are (on both sides). Keep it Real and I'll keep checking for your post.
    Make It Happen!!
    If you don't, who will?
  13.    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It could be said that when W entered the WH he was continuing the established policy of the last 12 years covering 2 other administrations. For example below is a typical W Bush speech:



    You can view the full article here:




    Here is a timeline actually dating all the way back to 1992 concerning removing ever cooperative and upfront honest guy of Saddam:



    Here is some more information about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998:



    http://www.vermontgop.org/king_3_8.shtml

    The Iraq Liberation Act

    "Iraq Liberation Act" introduced into Congress SEPTEMBER 29, 1998

    CLICK FOR: STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Bill Clinton THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release October 31, 1998

    CLICK FOR: Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act


    CLICK FOR: Senate Unanimously Passes Iraq Liberation Act, Oct 7


    For a full discourse on Clinton's call for establishing USA's official policy for regime change in Iraq please read here:

    A Course Set by Congress
    The American call for "regime change" in Iraq when Bill Clinton occupied the White House.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true



    Looks like you can't impeach him on that one either.....






    Did Saddam have a change of heart and welcome unfettered inspections to verify he had gotten rid of his WMDs and their programs? Actually they were allowed back in, but he pulled all the same tricks he did on Clinton.....which, given the strict language of this resolution, made it an even bigger joke than the situation that Clinton discribed during his administration.


    CONCLUSION
    Simple pop quiz:

    1) Now how long before GWB came to office and how long before 9/11 did planning for taking out Saddam begin?

    One only has to look to the Neo-Con website for how far back their plans go.
  14.    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    So did democratic senators.

    The 'Bush Lied' ain't working for you or your party. Bring on a new talking point.
    I'm not trying to hit a 'talking point'. I'm just pointing out a really sad fact.
  15. #15  
    Neocon. The new "N" word.
  16. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I'm not trying to hit a 'talking point'. I'm just pointing out a really sad fact.
    Really, what fact would that be?
  17. #17  
    Seriously, is the right word 'sad'? Or is that a talking point word?

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I'm not trying to hit a 'talking point'. I'm just pointing out a really sad fact.
  18. #18  
    I didn't really phrase that correctly. My question is are you sad?

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I'm not trying to hit a 'talking point'. I'm just pointing out a really sad fact.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I'm not trying to hit a 'talking point'. I'm just pointing out a really sad fact.
    See the thin about "facts" is that they're expected to be "true" and not made up BS political bumper sticker lines. If "Bush Lied" is a fact, why are we STILL waiting for an example of one?

    Put up or shut up.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    See the thin about "facts" is that they're expected to be "true" and not made up BS political bumper sticker lines. If "Bush Lied" is a fact, why are we STILL waiting for an example of one?

    Put up or shut up.
    "We are not in the business of nation building" Gov. Bush 2000
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions