Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )



Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Trying To Regain Focus
Bookmark and Share
Shamalama 
Posted: 07-Nov-2005, 01:07 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 2,165
Joined: 05-Feb-2004
ZodiacBirch

Realm: Conyers, GA

male





Some of the other threads are becomming infected with words that have little to do with the actual thread, and as such the thread becomes useless. We all need to make sure any replies we make have something to do with the actual topic, and I am as guilty of thread-jacking as others.

Therefore I submit this thread that will, hopefully, take some of the heat away from "innocent" threads. I'll start it but I relinquish it to anyone that wants to take it. Remember that this is an unmoderated forum so don't come in here with thin skin. Also remember that you will not post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented, invasive of a person's privacy, or any other material that may violate any applicable laws.

Maybe we'll even get a "subset of those who would prostitute their faith to justify their own petty hatreds, prejudices, thefts, lies, and wars that kill tens of thousands by attempting to cloak themselves in a veil of sanctimonious piety," - I haven't heard that much hot air being passed since the last time I ate a chili dog with jalapenos.

Since we haven't found WMDs in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998.

The word "lie" means to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. It assumes forethought and that the knowledge is known prior to making a statement.

The problem with the "Bush lied" statement that the Left continues to repeat is that it is, in fact, a lie itself. The Left knows that various leaders of our government over the last several years, along with various leaders of foreign governments over the last several years, have been under the impression that Saddam either had, or was trying to have, WMD's. Considering that he had already used them on his own people, and considering that he was providing safe haven to a variety of international terrorist groups, it would be easy to conclude that Saddam's continued existence would be a threat to world peace.

We had already seen what terrorists would do with non-WMDs, like civilian aircraft, so even the possibility of terrorists with WMDs suddenly became unacceptable. And if Saddam ever owned WMDs, then so would the terrorists.

The US has been under attack by terrorists for the last 20 years with our only response being an occasional missle or bomb. Each non-response by the US makes the terrorists bolder. It took the massacre on 9/11 to finally wake up the US to the realities of modern terrorism, specifically that of Islamic radicals.

The Left wants to limit our scope to Osama and al Qaeda. But this is far larger - that's why Bush called this a War On Terror instead of a War On al Qaeda. And anyone that tries to say something about combining 9/11 and Saddam is either someone that doesn't know the facts or someone that is trying to twist the argument into their own specific agenda.

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration?s policy towards Iraq, I don?t think there can be any question about Saddam?s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002


If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0
by John Hawkins

Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

"[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

"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 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

"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

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"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

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"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

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, 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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

And the list goes on.

Conventional wisdom in the US, and elsewhere in the world, was that Saddam was either in possession of, or was obtaining, WMDs. So the forethought and the knowledge prior to Bush making any statement was that Saddam had WMDs. Therefore Bush told no lie.

The second part is the intent to deceive. When using common and accepted information there can be no deception unless Bush knew something that no one else knew. But there is no evidence that Bush knew beforehand that Saddam had no WMDs. This whole situation has been under a microscope for 10 years, and yet Democrat leaders still made the public declarations listed above. There was absolutely no knowledge beforehand that no WMDs would be found in Iraq. Therefore Bush told no lie.

So what are we left with? Just this: that the phrase "Bush lied" is a lie itself since anyone that would utter such a statement would already know the true facts that discredit the statement.

Their voices get higher, their vulgarities get stronger, but the simple fact is that Bush has said nothing that hundreds of leaders and experts haven't been saying for the last 10 years. It's not any statement that Bush has said, but rather that Bush said them. To the Left Bush is just this side of being the Antichrist - Bush could say that the sky is blue and the Left would find something in his statement to rail against.

If Clinton, either Bill or Hillary, had gone into Iraq the Left would be praising them for liberating an oppressed people. Bus as long as Bush is in office they use the term "occupying force". How much longer before the Left starts using phrases like "baby killers" like they did 30 years ago?

The real comedy will come if another Republican becomes President in 2008. You will then see the obsession swiftly move away from Bush and onto the next President, thereby proving that this is not about facts but rather politics. It is laughable in its infantilism.

Your mileage may vary.


--------------------

Clan Mac Cullaich:
- Brewed in Scotland
- Bottled in Ulster
- Uncorked in America

Common Folk Using Common Sense
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               
Top
Swanny 
Posted: 08-Nov-2005, 01:05 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,108
Joined: 08-Jun-2003
ZodiacBirch

Realm: Two Rivers, Alaska

male





QUOTE
The real comedy will come if another Republican becomes President in 2008. You will then see the obsession swiftly move away from Bush and onto the next President, thereby proving that this is not about facts but rather politics.


Shamalama and all, with proper respect, I submit to you that it won't matter whether the next president is a republican or a democrat, those of the "other side" will attack that person with the same obsessive focus that we see aimed at President Bush today. That has been the way of presidential politics for many years, and I see no indication that it is likely to change in the future.

Republicans are not above resorting to petty sniping to achieve thier political goals any more than are Democrats.

It's simply how the game is played.

Swanny


--------------------
user posted image "You can't run with the big dogs if you still pee like a puppy".

Stardancer Historical Freight Dogs, Two Rivers, Alaska.

"Aut pax, aut bellum" (Clan Gunn)
PMEmail Poster               
Top
stoirmeil 
Posted: 08-Nov-2005, 01:46 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 3,581
Joined: 07-Nov-2004
ZodiacBirch

Realm: New York







QUOTE (Shamalama @ 07-Nov-2005, 01:07 PM)
Also remember that you will not post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented, invasive of a person's privacy, or any other material that may violate any applicable laws.  . . .

Maybe we'll even get a "subset of those who would prostitute their faith to justify their own petty hatreds, prejudices, thefts, lies, and wars that kill tens of thousands by attempting to cloak themselves in a veil of sanctimonious piety," - I haven't heard that much hot air being passed since the last time I ate a chili dog with jalapenos.


1. Swanny's right. The only thing I can add is that if we want it not to be "simply how the game is played," we have to stop playing it that way.

2. With regard to the quoted material: this is all well and good, and I agree that the comment you cited was inflammatory, but your retort about chili dogs is just as "abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful. . .," if not as momentous, as the comment you are complaining about. I believe it's the almost reflexive readiness to resort to that kind of language that makes this forum as problematic as it is. Often enough, it's not the content of the argument that is getting people riled enough to give and take offense, it's the tone. It may be that it's part of the "fun" of a competitive debate spirit, but that's not a discussion, it's a competition, and if so, then more heat, more volume, more vulgarity is taken for granted as part of the game equipment. But none of that comes with the territory of sincere discussion conducted to gain insight.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 08-Nov-2005, 03:00 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 08-Nov-2005, 01:46 PM)


1.  Swanny's right.  The only thing I can add is that if we want it not to be "simply how the game is played," we have to stop playing it that way.

2.  With regard to the quoted material:  this is all well and good, and I agree that the comment you cited was inflammatory, but your retort about chili dogs is just as "abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful. . .,"  if not as  momentous, as the comment you are complaining about.  I believe it's the almost reflexive readiness to resort to that kind of language that makes this forum as problematic as it is.  Often enough, it's not the content of the argument that is getting people riled enough to give and take offense, it's the tone.  It may be that it's part of the "fun" of a competitive debate spirit, but that's not a discussion, it's a competition, and if so, then more heat, more volume, more vulgarity is taken for granted as part of the game equipment.  But none of that comes with the territory of sincere discussion conducted to gain insight.

Thirty-one words on topic - free.
One hundred fifty-two words of condescension - painful, but free.
Reading a comparison of leftist spin to gaseous indigestion - priceless.



Shamalama!!!!

Well done bro. Some of those statements are specifically what I was referring to in another thread, quoting prominent Democrats, when I said there is more, much more. Bush didn't lie. The left has been engaged in pure spin for going on three straight years. There are not justifications for saying Bush lied, and that's why bringing up these other assertions of Saddam's activities and capabilities brings nothing but silence from the left. But what is the real concern here? Is it that we who are not on the left simply wish to bask in the glory of victory over the left? No. We believe to this day that Saddam was a threat. There still remains no reason not to think this. So long as the possibility exists that Saddam may have ordered a hasty export of any WMD's, there is no reason to think that we are not still threatened by the residue of the Hussein regime.


--------------------
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.
~Mark Twain
PMEmail Poster               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 11-Nov-2005, 12:06 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





QUOTE (Washington Post)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush will use a Veterans Day speech on Friday to fight back against Democratic charges that the White House misused intelligence to gain support for the Iraq war, administration officials said.

"The president is going to directly take on the false attacks that Democratic leaders have been making," a senior administration official told Reuters.

Democrats in recent weeks have been accusing the White House of manipulating intelligence on Iraq and leaking classified information to discredit critics of the war.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted last month for obstructing justice, perjury and lying after a two-year investigation into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

Opinion polls show Bush's approval ratings sinking as the public becomes increasingly wary of the Iraq war.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said on Thursday Democrats were insisting that Americans "get the truth about why the White House cherry-picked and leaked intelligence to sell the war in Iraq."

He added: "The president may think this matter can be swept under the rug or pardoned away, but Democrats know America can do better."

Bush was expected to fight back in a speech on the U.S. war against terrorism at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania that will also pay tribute to military veterans.

The Bush administration's main justification for the Iraq war was that it posed a threat because it had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but none have been found.

Administration officials have acknowledged the intelligence on Iraqi weapons was faulty, but have said Democrats, Republicans and foreign intelligence agencies had believed Baghdad had deadly weapons before the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

"I point out that some of the critics today believed, themselves, in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They stated that belief, and they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq," said Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, on Thursday.

"For those critics to ignore their own past statements, exposes the hollowness of their current attacks," he said.


Of course, as has been demonstrated here and in other threads by Shamalama, myself, and others, the so-called "lies" are what have been reported exceedingly by top Democrats in Washington. This allegation has no legs, yet the Dems keep harping on the same old lines, effectively turning much of the country into the Emperor with his "new" clothes. I can't help but feel a bit of bitter-sweet sympathy for anyone who is either so gullible or so desperate as to lend credence to these politicians and their desperate attempt to glom onto even the most irrational of stances. However effective Bush's speech is today, the fact remains that there are many Americans who simply cannot be lead down the path toward insane grappling of chance and manipulation of mind, but rather insist upon dealing with truth and the relevance of recent history.
Full story.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 11-Nov-2005, 01:00 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





And so the speech was made, and the issue of Democrats attempting to manipulate public opinion to satisfy their own sick desires to win out over the president (at the expense of truth) has been put forward.

QUOTE (Associated Press)
"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges," the president said in his combative Veterans Day speech.

Defending the march to war, Bush said that foreign intelligence services and Democrats and Republicans alike were convinced at the time that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and mislead the American people about why we went to war," Bush said.

He said those critics have made those allegations although they know that a Senate investigation "found no evidence" of political pressure to change the intelligence community's assessments related to Saddam's weapons program.

He said they also know that the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing Saddam's development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.

"More than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," Bush said.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Shamalama 
Posted: 11-Nov-2005, 04:26 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 2,165
Joined: 05-Feb-2004
ZodiacBirch

Realm: Conyers, GA

male





Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

The main "lie" that George W. Bush is accused of telling us is that Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD as they have invariably come to be called. From this followed the subsidiary "lie" that Iraq under Saddam?s regime posed a two-edged mortal threat. On the one hand, we were informed, there was a distinct (or even "imminent") possibility that Saddam himself would use these weapons against us and/or our allies; and on the other hand, there was the still more dangerous possibility that he would supply them to terrorists like those who had already attacked us on 9/11 and to whom he was linked.

It defies all reason to think that Bush was lying when he asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one knows to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.

George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was "a slam dunk." This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. So the basic definition of "lie" is not applicable here - no matter how loud and how often the Leftists scream.

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and?yes?France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:

QUOTE


The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.



But the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:

QUOTE


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.



Then we get the pounding of "Saddam has WMDs" from so many Democratic leaders that has been quoted so many times here. To deny such is to deny fact.

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:

QUOTE


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.



After this we get even more pounding of "Saddam has WMDs" from so many Democratic leaders that has been quoted so many times here. To deny such is to deny fact.

Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:

QUOTE


Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Byrd: 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.



For them so say otherwise, as they do so often today, proves these two, and so many others, to be liars themselves. Period.

So, too, the Washington Post, a rag that certainly has no love for President Bush, which greeted the inauguration of Bush in January 2001 with the admonition that:

QUOTE


... of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous?or more urgent?than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade?s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.




All this should surely suffice to prove far beyond any even unreasonable doubt that Bush was telling what he believed to be the truth about Saddam?s stockpile of WMD. It also disposes of the fallback charge that Bush lied by exaggerating or hyping the intelligence presented to him. Why on earth would he have done so when the intelligence itself was so compelling that it convinced everyone who had direct access to it, and when hardly anyone in the world believed that Saddam had, as he claimed, complied with the sixteen resolutions of the Security Council demanding that he get rid of his weapons of mass destruction?

Another fallback charge is that Bush, operating mainly through Cheney, somehow forced the CIA into telling him what he wanted to hear. Yet in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it

QUOTE


... did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq?s weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.



Again we have fact that disproves the Leftist lie of "Bush lied." Again.

What of the related charge that it was still another "lie" to suggest, as Bush and his people did, that a connection could be traced between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11? This charge was also rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Contrary to how its findings were summarized in the mainstream media, the committee?s report explicitly concluded that al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam. The report of the bipartisan 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion, as did a comparably independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, which pointed to "meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al-Qaeda operatives." To say otherwise, be you a newspaper writer or a TV news reporter or a Sunday-morning-talking-head . . . or a poster here at CelticRadio, is either to deny facts . . . or to lie yourself.

So long as we are hunting for liars let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats that are now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq - the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy - have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation, and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals.

"Bush lied?" No, you just did. And I call you out on it.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 11-Nov-2005, 09:21 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





Bravo Shamalama!!!

*SCShamrock swells with pride!*
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Fiddler 
Posted: 12-Nov-2005, 06:42 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Chieftain of the Clan
*****

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 111
Joined: 19-Oct-2003
ZodiacAsh


male





Thanks, Shamalama for, once again, clearly stating the facts related to the most serious situation of our time. It becomes clear after reviewing the facts that top leaders in the party of the left are misleading the public but what is not so clear is the reason for their efforts. Some have said its all about power while others contend its just Bush bashing. I think there is a much deeper and more sinister motive. Anyone care to speculate?



--------------------
Support the brotherhood Everyone goes home
PMEmail Poster               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 12-Nov-2005, 12:52 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





QUOTE (Fiddler @ 12-Nov-2005, 06:42 AM)
Thanks, Shamalama for, once again, clearly stating the facts related to the most serious situation of our time. It becomes clear after reviewing the facts that top leaders in the party of the left are misleading the public but what is not so clear is the reason for their efforts. Some have said its all about power while others contend its just Bush bashing. I think there is a much deeper and more sinister motive. Anyone care to speculate?

Fiddler,

I suppose this will be a point of contention for many people from both sides of the aisle, but here's my opinion. I think that Democrats felt they had built up a head of steam during the Clinton years. It's all about gaining and retaining power. For them, the estimation is that the country is overwhelmingly liberal in social and fiscal matters, and as such, requires a party that will cater to special interest groups, and mentally/emotionally uplift the poor and downtrodden while at the same time suppressing wealth and success in our nation's citizenry. That is why issues such as abortion, gay marriage, taxes, etc., are such hot button issues because the perception is that they represent the majority, thus they represent votes. This misconception was revealed to them from their mentor, Bill Clinton, who after witnessing the last election told his party that if they want to regain power, they would have to somehow find some moral high ground (I am loosely paraphrasing here, but that is the gist of it). So the hatred for Bush, which is in part due to their dashed hopes for a power grab in the Florida election fiasco, is primarily a hatred for the conservative ideology--of which Bush is definitely not chief. In fact, if they would simply mimic Bush, they would quickly see that they can still retain much of their precious liberalism while garnering more public appeal.

Now to me, this can be compared to a child that gets grumpy before bedtime because they are tired and sleepy, but doesn't want to go to bed. The Democrats have been engaged in a socialist agenda for so long that, although they see and have been told that Americans as a whole are not interested in its leaders being mondo-liberal, they don't want to let go of it and adopt a more popular mindset as Clinton told them was vital for their success. Take Ted Kennedy for example. He is so incredibly desperate to regain the Democrat momentum by claiming victory over Bush that he is still pounding the podium, saying "Bush lied." He doesn't want to change. He doesn't want to appeal to the masses because in his perception the liberal agenda has generated votes for so long that it simply cannot be possible for there to be an ideological pole shift that requires leaders to espouse morality as the guiding light. The last election taught them nothing, with all the gay marriage votes ending with "no", and with all the Democrats being ousted from office. So yes, they do hate Bush, but they also hate the Republican party that has overwhelmed them.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Shamalama 
Posted: 15-Nov-2005, 02:41 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 2,165
Joined: 05-Feb-2004
ZodiacBirch

Realm: Conyers, GA

male





QUOTE (Fiddler @ 12-Nov-2005, 06:42 AM)

I think there is a much deeper and more sinister motive.  Anyone care to speculate?

First, Brothers Fiddler and SCShamrock, I generously thank you for your kind words. I fully realize I'm a long-winded bag of hot air, and many times I worry that my missives cause more sleep than thought.

As to Brother Fiddler's question, the "all about power" situation applies equally to both sides of the aisle in both positive and negative meanings. They cancel each other out.

As to "its just Bush bashing", this applies only to the entry-level Democrat as well as the glass-eyed crazies like Jihad Cindy. This also applies to the rank-and-file "journalist" and "talking head" in The Liberal's Media©.

But Brother Fiddler thinks there is a much deeper and more sinister motive, and maybe hints that he has the answer? tongue.gif

From The Armpit Of Shamalama, where everything stinks, comes his thoughts about this. Simply put it is the Left's utopian dream of worldwide Socialism. It fits their thoughts of complete equality. It fits their thoughts of workers winning over employers. It fits their thoughts of no rich and no poor. It fits their thoughts of a one-world government.

Clinton was a super-easy step in the right direction. Not too liberal, but certainly a change from Raygun Ronnie before him. Gore and his tree-hugger minions would have been a logical next step. Kerry was himself too elitist and money-hungry to be a good role model, but Comrade Hillary would have taken the US close to the European style of watered-down, "progressive" Socialism.

A graduated, progressive income tax, publicly funded medicine, and tuition-free university education are nothing new - they've been tried since the 1920's. And each country that tries it soon finds themselves under such a huge financial burden that poverty remains as strong as it was under capitalism. In order to tax the population enough to pay for all the social engineering programs the people demand you end up with two distinct classes: the very wealthy and the very poor, the exact two populations that your social programs were supposed to dismantle. Duh.

The Left's political ideology emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from supporters of Marxism who believed that the transition to a socialist society could be achieved through democratic evolutionary rather than revolutionary means (the Communists). It emphasized a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system in order to make it more equitable, usually with the goal of a socialist society as a theoretical endpoint. In their eyes it was a way to rid the planet of poverty, inequality, and social injustice. They've never stopped long enough to realize that those three elements are simply built into humanity - what they seek only manifests itself in Heaven, a place that (ironically) so many Leftists don't believe in.

The Left survived the threats of the Reagan and Gingrich eras. Then came Clinton and the New Camelot. But Clinton was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury. He was caught getting sex, in the Oval Office, from a 20-year-old intern (so much for 'family values'). Everyone knew that his own marriage was a sham and a pretense. He was slick and handsome, but he was nothing more than a lying snake-oil salesman. New Camelot crumbled, and with it so many of the Left's dreams.

Then came this cowboy from Texas, a guy who prayed to God, a guy who thought that taxes were the property of the taxpayer and not the government, a guy that wasn't scared of neighborhood bullies - none of that fits with what the Left wants from their government. They even trumped up a false story about stealing an election to try to sway public opinion. But by then the internet was too powerful, and The Liberal's Media© could no longer hide the truth.

Today they see the individual having too much power, too much information, too many facts, and they're scared. They wantonly manufacture lies and get their minions to repeat them often enough so as to pass for truth. They are now in the fight for their lives. Their utopia is vanishing like smoke - which is what it was based on anyway.

Anyway, that's my 2¢. Now where did I leave my chili dog with jalapenos?
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               
Top
Fiddler 
Posted: 15-Nov-2005, 08:44 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Chieftain of the Clan
*****

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 111
Joined: 19-Oct-2003
ZodiacAsh


male





Bingo Brother Shamalama! Once again the GREAT ONE nails it! It is world wide socialism mixed with elitism and a few other isms thrown in for good measure. Take a few minutes to view Free Congress Foundation William Lind has submitted a paper on political correctness that explains at least some of the left leaning liberals antics.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 








Celtic RadioTM broadcasts through Live365.com and StreamLicensing.com which are officially licensed under SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SOCAN.
©2014 Celtic Radio Network, Highlander Radio, Celtic Moon, Celtic Dance, Ye O' Celtic Pub and Celt-Rock-Radio.
All rights and trademarks reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.
Celtic Graphics ©2014, Cari Buziak


Link to CelticRadio.net!
Link to CelticRadio.net
View Broadcast Status and Statistics!

Best Viewed With IE 8.0 (1680 x 1050 Resolution), Javascript & Cookies Enabled.


[Home] [Top]

Celtic Hearts Gallery | Celtic Mates Dating | My Celtic Friends | Celtic Music Radio | Family Heraldry | Medival Kingdom | Top Celtic Sites | Web Celt Blog | Video Celt