Being wrong and lying are two completely different things. Why is it that the left can't distinguish between the two?
So the US, British, Russian and most other "reputable" intelligence in the world thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and since they had been blowing off the UN for a decade, there was reason to believe they may be hiding something.
Of course, were it not for 9/11, we wouldn't have gone in there, though no one in the administration would admit that.
However, it doesn't change the fact that everyone thought that there were weapons. At the time, that's why we went in. That's the reason. People have been juggling terms since to try and make it appear that we didn't go in for the reasons we went in initially in order to make it look like we didn't fail, but we went in for WMDs. And we were wrong; they didn't have them.
So they were wrong, maybe even incopetant. But when you around saying that they lied, defrauded the people, committed treason, and knew that there were no WMD, it's just idiocy and bullshit, and pollutes the value of the rest of your logical arguments because you are perceived as a loon.
was Bush lying in Buffalo when he told us "Anytime we talk about wire tap, it requires a court order"
(paraphrase)
Everyone knew Iraq had no WMD (including nuclear) and Saddam was complying with the UN....
Quote:"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
Quote:"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear (hmmm GW was even creating false information before he was president)programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
Quote:"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
Quote:"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
Quote:"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
and so on and so on....
Galt Wrote:Everyone knew Iraq had no WMD (including nuclear) and Saddam was complying with the UN.....
where did I say that?
Ken'sPen Wrote:Everyone may have believed he had some weapons, but there was a HUGE debate over what weapons he had, and what threat he posed. Our traditional allies are on record telling us that they believed we were wrong in our estimates, and the war was unfounded. Bush knew world opinion was going against him, as he had bugged the UN.... This is why he never called for the "up or down" vote he promised us he would take.
Seems pretty consistent that people were talking about him have chemical weapons at the time (and had used them) as well as having a current nuclear weapons program in place. If everyone else believed that (including top democrats) were you honestly saying that we should have just waited until he had nuclear weapons before we went in?
Ken'sPen Wrote:Bottom line, Saddam WAS complying, but Bush wanted to invade,
and nothing was gonna stop him from doing it....
You said Sadam was complying; he wasn't according to top officials on both sides of the aisle (at least at the time; they can surely change their tune now if they like.
You said that our inspectors were finding nothing at the time; that our allies were saying there was no imminent threat, that you, and others were saying there was no imminent threat; but that Bush was ignoring that information, feeding the populace lies and goading Iraq into war.
Be that as it may, he was going off the same intelligence as everyone else, and he was coming up with the same conclusion as the Democratic leaders.
Being wrong and lying are two completely different things. Use the proper words and it will be a lot more difficult to dismiss your arguments.
These types of threads always bored me. Too many words. Give me a good ole poopies thread anyday
OK,
what happend to Galt?
He's all over the place in this thread, apparently unable to discern the meanings of the quotes he's posting...
and his conspiracy thread is a great example of twisted horseshit logic?
when did this death spiral of posting ability start?
where will it end?
The other thread was where you were supposed to dodge questions.
I miss the Galt that was worth reading.
I think Galt had a very well laid out argument.
I just think it's weak when the wingnuts resort to posting the cherry picked quotes laid out for them on RNC websites....
many of the quotes are taken out of context,
or based on the faulty intel presented by the Bush Administration.
"DON'T QUOTE PEOPLE ON THE LEFT WHEN IT DOESN'T FIT INTO MY ARGUMENT!!!!"
WAHH
Do you have any argument BUT quotes?
Ken'sPen Wrote:Everyone may have believed he had some weapons, but there was a HUGE debate over what weapons he had, and what threat he posed. Our traditional allies are on record telling us that they believed we were wrong in our estimates, and the war was unfounded. Bush knew world opinion was going against him, as he had bugged the UN.... This is why he never called for the "up or down" vote he promised us he would takeKen'sPen Wrote:plus you took that quote and paraphrased it into
Quote:Everyone knew Iraq had no WMD (including nuclear) and Saddam was complying with the UN....
where in there do I say he had NO WMD?
my point has consistently been that Bushies hide behind the term WMD,
and fail to differentiate between Mustard Gas and Atom bombs.
you know ken is drowning when he resorts to his usual crutch in the form of criticizing the poster instead of the post.
Quote:my point has consistently been that Bushies hide behind the term WMD,
and fail to differentiate between Mustard Gas and Atom bombs.
psssst....we already established that bush never said Iraq had nuclear weapons.
Keyser,
I am discussing the Bush administration...
he often sends his minions to go out and lie on his behalf.
I already established that.
I have no fall back website to get my opinion and support from,
but are you saying you never heard Condi, or Cheney make comments about Saddam's reconstituted nuclear program?
How about Bush's comment in the state of the Union about the discredited purchase of Yellow Cake Uranium?
is it your contention the Bush administration made no such statements or assertions?
i'd like to see you post actual quotes where they specifically said SADDAM CURRENTLY HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
and as usual you resort to name calling because you have a weak argument. i used QUOTES and FACTS to support my own opinons and arguments. i welcome you to do the same, it makes your argument stronger when its based on actual FACTS and things people actually said and not your interpretation of what they said.