You are missing the point I was making. If one criticizes President Bush for his lies of WMD he is being Un- American And this is where the conversation went sour...Bush didn't lie...Bush used the intelligence that Clinton used...and that the rest of the had as well. If David Kay is to be believed Saddam and his generals all thought the Iraqis still had WMD and the only ones that knew they were destroyed, lost sent to Syria, or whatever were the scientists. A lie is a very specific thing...it means Bush would have KNOWN the information he was putting out was incorrect...NO ONE knew it was incorrect.but on the other hand its OK to trash President Clinton!!! Of course there is mud slinging going on on both sides. We DON'T know if the story is true and both sides are guilty of character assassination . What I understand about Bush's military record is there is still some months of military service unaccounted for actually, there aren't unaccounted for months...there are months were he didn't do any service at all, and other months when he did four or five times the amount that's normal. but I know you will buy anything the Republicans tell you. Having served in the reserves before I came back on active duty I know a bit about how the reserves/National Guard work....I'm not "buying" anything...it's something I KNOW from my own experience. If Bush had been "AWOL" as you're so ready to believe, 1) he would not have earned enough points to get a discharge, B) he would not have an honorable discharge. Seems like it is going to be a dirty election but whats new. No, I think this one will be dirtier than normal, and it's a shame.
USA Election 2004
by Simon 242 Replies latest social current
-
Yerusalyim
-
plmkrzy
The only SURE THING in politics is both the winners and losers all get to go on a mud ride.
I think Bush just screwed up with regards to WMD and was going on the information that was given to him BECAUSE that is the only way it could have possibly went down UNLESS he was doing all the investigations himself while running for president. LOL! taking no one elses word for anything.
I did not vote for Bush and I don't think I want to vote this year at all because I don't like any of them.
-
dubla
william-
If one criticizes President Bush for his lies of WMD
if you truly believe bush "lied" about wmd, this puts you in a real bind come voting time (unless you dont vote). at this point, it sure looks like its going to be bush vs. kerry, and as im sure you know, kerry believed, just as bush did, that saddam had wmd......that fact is well documented. so, which "liar" do you vote for, bush or kerry?
aa
-
Yerusalyim
Arguing with me is like wrestling with a pig, everybody gets dirty, but the pig loves it.
-
Doubtfully Yours
Not that any candidate ever will solve any of the important issues, but I do sincerely hope Bush wins. At least he's presidential looking, plus I also like the Republican stance in most things.
That other Kerry guy reminds me of Marmaduke; and his wife, Gosh!!!, have you at all listened to the idiocy and nonsense that comes out of the woman's mouth?!!!
She'd very possibly be the dumbest/nuttiest First Lady ever, if the Kerry candidate was to win. Oh, please, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DY
-
waiting
hey dubla,
it sure looks like its going to be bush vs. kerry, and as im sure you know, kerry believed, just as bush did, that saddam had wmd......that fact is well documented.
If it is well documented - then the people I've listened to who are sooooooo against Bush (primarily because of the war) haven't read what you've read - because they're planning on voting anything that moves Democratic - just to get Bush out.
I'm just listening/reading at this point - but is there a place where this documentation can be found?
Thanks
waiting
-
Yerusalyim
they're planning on voting anything that moves Democratic - just to get Bush out.
Waiting,
This is why the Dems are on a collision course with losing another election, they're bereft of any ideas, just a hatred of Bush. If they haven't read that the Dems in the intelligence committee saw, and believed the same info Bush saw, they're just being blindly partisan. No one who looks at this objectively can seriously think Bush lied. Clinton believed in WMD, the UN believed it, the UK, France, Russia and Germany also believed it...and all from seperate source intelligence.
Now if you disagree with how the administration DEALT with the intelligence it had, we can debate...give me some ideas...but the "Bush lied" mantra is old, tired and quite untrue. If the Dems want to win they've got to address the issues with vialble solutions...not just bash Bush.
-
SixofNine
Now if you disagree with how the administration DEALT with the intelligence it had, we can debate
There's no debate. Bush lied, people died. And yes, the way he DEALT with the intelligence was fraudulent, designed to take us to war with Iraq, not designed to keep us safe. So yes, he lied, and people died.
The intelligence did not call for a war. It's not funny, and it's not ok.
-
dubla
waiting-
here you go (bold/italic mine):
Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.
He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html
With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why does Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection team previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM (U.N. Special Commission) identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all those things and more because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy the world should trust?
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.htmlI have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein's record bears this out. He has continually failed to meet the obligations imposed by the international community on Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf War to declare and destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and to forego the development of nuclear weapons. During the seven years of weapons inspections, the Iraqi regime repeatedly frustrated the work of the UNSCOM (UN Special Commission) inspectors, culminating in 1998 in their ouster. Even during the period of inspections, Iraq never fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of its pre-Gulf War WMD programs nor did the Iraqi regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure.
It is clear that in the four years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to the CIA's unclassified report released last Friday, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last four years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the last four years, with the result that all key aspects of this program - R&D, production and weaponization - are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program - probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.
now, im not stating that kerry agreed with every aspect of the presidents policies on iraq or the war, but its obvious (especially from that last quote) that he indeed believed the same intelligence reports that bush believed about iraqs wmd. so, if by using these intelligence reports bush "lied", then obviously so did kerry (not to mention a litany of other democrats......ill dig for more quotes if youd like them).
aa
-
SixofNine
Notice the difference between the National Guard slacker of a president (and his chickenhawk cabinet) and real men:
General Wes Clark testifying to congress Sept 2002:
"If you're talking to the mothers and the loved ones of those who die in that operation, you want to be sure that you're using forces and expending American blood and lives and treasure as the ultimate last resort," General Clark said, "not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions or frustration from the domestic political processes of allies."
"If there is an effective al-Qaeda left - and there certainly will be an effective organisation of extremists - they will pour into that country because they must compete for the Iraqi people,"
"It's not beyond consideration that we would have a radicalised state, even under a US occupation in the aftermath."
General Anthony Zinni speaking about the war recently:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec03/zinni_09-30.html (I highly recommend reading the full text)
Is the criticism of the Iraq plan deserved? GEN. ANTHONY ZINNI (RET.): I think there was definitely a lack of planning for the aftermath. I think the conduct of the war went superbly well. And certainly my hat is off to Tommy Franks in the way he handled that. But I think it was clear they underestimated what they were going to face in the aftermath of the war. They didn't have sufficient planning for some of the problems they would face in major reconstruction of a country so centrally controlled and dominated by one figure and also had control of the institutions.
I also think the case that was made to the American people for going in was exaggerated. And I think that's dangerous. We've been down that road before. If it was to take down Saddam because he is bad and evil, if it was to improve things in the region, if it was a strategic decision based on some strategic assessment, it should have run on its own merits.
JIM LEHRER: The weapon of mass destruction issue was the thing that was exaggerated?
GEN. ANTHONY ZINNI (RET.): Yes, I believe that it was clear to all of us that had obviously that had responsibilities for this region of the world that Saddam had the framework for a program. It was clear to us that he had the scientists, the documentation, the dual use facilities, programs he was allowed to have like the Al-Samoud system that he could do experimentation, research and development He was fooling around with UAV's, unmanned aerial vehicles possibly, and they were really at rudimentary stages of development. And it was clear he wanted a clean bill of health from Richard Butler and his predecessor Rolf Ekeus and even Hans Blix.
JIM LEHRER: These are U.N. weapons inspectors.
GEN. ANTHONY ZINNI (RET.): Yeah, the inspectors that headed the teams. I think he saw the possibility if they could not find a quote smoking gun -- he had the framework of the program to start it up. But I think the inspectors -- certainly Richard Butler in my time and Rolf Ekeus and I believe Hans Blix were on to him. But to make the case that there was, you know the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud or that there's 48 hours that he could launch a missile, I think was really exaggerated.
JIM LEHRER: Exaggerated intentionally, exaggerated as a result of poor intelligence? Why?
GEN. ANTHONY ZINNI (RET.): I don't know and I wouldn't speculate. But I think if it's poor intelligence something is drastically wrong with the intelligence product that our leadership receives. If it was exaggerated to make the case easier to the American people or those that would support it, then I think that's wrong. If it was a strategic decision, if there was a sincere feeling that taking down Saddam and reconstructing Iraq would be better for the region and for our own security, it should have been just stated on its own merits.
JIM LEHRER: It's a serious matter, general, isn't it?
GEN. ANTHONY ZINNI (RET.): It clearly is a serious matter. You can't politicize intelligence, if that's what happened. If the intelligence has mis-delivered the product and assessment, then I think we need to look at the intelligence agencies. We have a number of them.