Bush, a liar?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 30, 2004, 4:31 pm

I bumped into a fun read. (Not particularly conservative or liberal)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/opinion/30KRIS.html

Traz-KOE · Post by **Traz-KOE** » June 30, 2004, 4:47 pm

Text? I'm too lazy to sign up.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 30, 2004, 4:55 pm

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Calling Bush a Liar
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: June 30, 2004

Is Bush a liar?

Plenty of Americans think so. Bookshops are filled with titles about Mr. Bush like "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," "Big Lies," "Thieves in High Places" and "The Lies of George W. Bush."

A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil — a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11."

In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look more petty and simple-minded than their demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were even accused of spending their spare time killing Vince Foster and others. Mr. Clinton, in other words, left the right wing addled. Now Mr. Bush is doing the same to the left. For example, Mr. Moore hints that the real reason Mr. Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there.

"I'm just raising what I think is a legitimate question," Mr. Moore told me, a touch defensively, adding, "I'm just posing a question."

Right. And right-wing nuts were "just posing a question" about whether Mr. Clinton was a serial killer.

I'm against the "liar" label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding.

Lefties have been asking me whether Mr. Bush has already captured Osama bin Laden, and whether Mr. Bush will plant W.M.D. in Iraq. Those are the questions of a conspiracy theorist, for even if officials wanted to pull such stunts, they would be daunted by the fear of leaks.

Bob Woodward's latest book underscores that Mr. Bush actually believed that Saddam did have W.M.D. After one briefing, Mr. Bush turned to George Tenet and protested, "I've been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D., and this is the best we've got?" The same book also reports that Mr. Bush told Mr. Tenet several times, "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."

In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed, there's some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies — witness his meticulous descriptions of the periods in which he did not use illegal drugs.

True, Mr. Bush boasted that he doesn't normally read newspaper articles, when his wife said he does. And Mr. Bush wrongly claimed that he was watching on television on the morning of 9/11 as the first airplane hit the World Trade Center. But considering the odd things the president often says ("I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"), Mr. Bush always has available a prima facie defense of confusion.

Mr. Bush's central problem is not that he was lying about Iraq, but that he was overzealous and self-deluded. He surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues, and they all told one another that Saddam was a mortal threat to us. They deceived themselves along with the public — a more common problem in government than flat-out lying.

Some Democrats, like Mr. Clinton and Senator Joseph Lieberman, have pushed back against the impulse to demonize Mr. Bush. I salute them, for there are so many legitimate criticisms we can (and should) make about this president that we don't need to get into kindergarten epithets.

But the rush to sling mud is gaining momentum, and "Fahrenheit 9/11" marks the polarization of yet another form of media. One medium after another has found it profitable to turn from information to entertainment, from nuance to table-thumping.

Talk radio pioneered this strategy, then cable television. Political books have lately become as subtle as professional wrestling, and the Internet is adding to the polarization. Now, with the economic success of "Fahrenheit 9/11," look for more documentaries that shriek rather than explain.

It wasn't surprising when the right foamed at the mouth during the Clinton years, for conservatives have always been quick to detect evil empires. But liberals love subtlety and describe the world in a palette of grays — yet many have now dropped all nuance about this president.

Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots. How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistakes.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 30, 2004, 5:03 pm

http://www.overspun.com/video/DailyShow.cheneylies.rm

Pure gold.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 30, 2004, 5:21 pm

So basically the conservatives rebuke to people pointing out GWs lying is to say "Well we did it to Clinton, but I thought you were better than us?". Haha, fuckers can dish it out but they can't take it. At least the left isn't using 40milion+ of tax payer money to conduct their little witch hunt. At least Clinton could keep his bullshit consistant.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 30, 2004, 5:26 pm

I didn't have relations with that... well I didn't inhale er.... I guess it depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

Clinton is one of a kind.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 30, 2004, 5:38 pm

Well I will take a pot smoker who porks fat interns over the cokehead draft dodging war proffiteer. Why the repubs are still trying to fight the Clinton presidency is beyond me. Surely they have better uses for their time, like bullying more theatres into not showing F911, federally funding school prayer, preventing gays from living more normal lives, or something.

Post by **Sylvus** » June 30, 2004, 5:42 pm

You guys do realize that there are different degrees of lying. Perhaps you've heard the term "little white lie" before. Lying about smoking a joint or having sex outside your marriage or other facets of your personal life is a far cry from fleecing the country into thinking a war is justified for one reason, when the real reason is a personal vendetta or monetary game or some other nefarious reason.

I can't say with certainty that Bush lied for any of those reasons, and I'm not trying to argue that he did. I'm merely trying to point out that countering the accusations that he lied with the same accusations about clinton is severely distorting the scope of the lies. It's totally apples and oranges.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 30, 2004, 5:49 pm

Sylvus wrote:You guys do realize that there are different degrees of lying. Perhaps you've heard the term "little white lie" before. Lying about smoking a joint or having sex outside your marriage or other facets of your personal life is a far cry from fleecing the country into thinking a war is justified for one reason, when the real reason is a personal vendetta or monetary game or some other nefarious reason.

I can't say with certainty that Bush lied for any of those reasons, and I'm not trying to argue that he did. I'm merely trying to point out that countering the accusations that he lied with the same accusations about clinton is severely distorting the scope of the lies. It's totally apples and oranges.

Big difference. Clinton lied under oath. It is a fact.

You only speculate Bush lied. You have no proof. No one has any proof. Because it is only defamatory speculation to destroy a man's chance at re-election.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 30, 2004, 5:50 pm

One of the reasons Clinton is back in the news is that he's out selling his book. It reminds people.

The other reason is Clinton is always angling for the media spotlight.

He loves it.

Post by **Sylvus** » June 30, 2004, 6:04 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Big difference. Clinton lied under oath. It is a fact.

And I still think that what he was lying about had no business being asked of him in the first place, so I don't really give a shit that he lied about it.

You only speculate Bush lied. You have no proof. No one has any proof. Because it is only defamatory speculation to destroy a man's chance at re-election.

I'm not speculating shit, as I said, I am not arguing one way or the other. The argument is that he lied and the counter is that Clinton did too. I'm trying to evaluate which lie - assuming both actually lied - did more wrong. Suppose for one minute that it is true. Just suppose, all for the sake of argument, it won't make it any more or less true than it actually is and they aren't going to kick you out of the Bush fan club.

If it were true, that GW Bush did lie and caused innocent Iraqis and ~1000 US and allied troops to die all for the sake of making a dollar, would you say that his lie was still equal to Clinton's lie about banging someone other than that hag of a wife that he's got, or do you think that it is worse? Shit, take the names out of it and honestly tell me that a lie that causes the deaths of thousands of people is no worse than a lie a husband tells his wife about getting some strange. Try to think objectively for one minute, ignoring which party you support and answer honestly. Perhaps it'll help you see where the other side of the argument is coming from.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 30, 2004, 6:53 pm

curious wasnt Clinton impeached?
Only the 2nd president to have that honor?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 30, 2004, 7:00 pm

He was found not guilty. 45-55 where the 55 guilty verdicts came from all 55 republicans.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 30, 2004, 7:19 pm

Sylvus wrote:You guys do realize that there are different degrees of lying.

Bing-fucking-O

Really, it's the end of the story. You can bring up grand jury anything, but the fact remains, the grand jury thing was of no real importance to the country. The only thing I fault the Dems on is not being able to bring up lying fucking vermin to the stand about topics that truly effect each and every one of us for a similar "investigation".

They are filth. Just deal with it and move on. Justifying it only shows one of two things, partisanship or idiocy.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 30, 2004, 7:56 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Big difference. Clinton lied under oath. It is a fact.
And I still think that what he was lying about had no business being asked of him in the first place, so I don't really give a shit that he lied about it.

You only speculate Bush lied. You have no proof. No one has any proof. Because it is only defamatory speculation to destroy a man's chance at re-election.
I'm not speculating shit, as I said, I am not arguing one way or the other. The argument is that he lied and the counter is that Clinton did too. I'm trying to evaluate which lie - assuming both actually lied - did more wrong. Suppose for one minute that it is true. Just suppose, all for the sake of argument, it won't make it any more or less true than it actually is and they aren't going to kick you out of the Bush fan club.

If it were true, that GW Bush did lie and caused innocent Iraqis and ~1000 US and allied troops to die all for the sake of making a dollar, would you say that his lie was still equal to Clinton's lie about banging someone other than that hag of a wife that he's got, or do you think that it is worse? Shit, take the names out of it and honestly tell me that a lie that causes the deaths of thousands of people is no worse than a lie a husband tells his wife about getting some strange. Try to think objectively for one minute, ignoring which party you support and answer honestly. Perhaps it'll help you see where the other side of the argument is coming from.

Personally I don't care that Clinton got head. He was a ruler of the free world. He must have had sex thrown at him daily. I do however have a problem with him lying about it under oath. And a small problem with the fact he did it, because it taints the image of that office. That position is the most coveted in the land and it should be respected as such by those elected to hold it. Many on these boards obviously feel that way when it comes to Bush, but their double standards show when they don't feel the same way about Clinton. The bias and closemindedness is very transparent.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 30, 2004, 7:58 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:A few things.

I kind of agree with you. Not about the Clinton issue mind you, but about the fact that the image of the office shouldn't be tainted by someone who say didn't inhale, or snorted coke, or was AWOL from his military service.

I questioned Clinton's character when he was in office and I question Bush's character now.

Edit: Because typing is HARD.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 30, 2004, 8:03 pm

Its a forgone conclusion that Bush lied, one need only compare his statements to one another. I don't know how you can even compare a 40mil tax funded righty witch hunt over a blowjob to lying in the state of the union to push us into a war proffiteering conquest. Well, actually I do know, its your blind zealotry.

No one is saying Clinton should have lied, but christ there are degrees of deception ranging from the "I boffed an intern" to "Iraq is connected to 9/11 and AQ".

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 30, 2004, 8:07 pm

Jice Virago wrote:Its a forgone conclusion that Bush lied, one need only compare his statements to one another. I don't know how you can even compare a 40mil tax funded righty witch hunt over a blowjob to lying in the state of the union to push us into a war proffiteering conquest. Well, actually I do know, its your blind zealotry.

No one is saying Clinton should have lied, but christ there are degrees of deception ranging from the "I boffed an intern" to "Iraq is connected to 9/11 and AQ".

LOL My zealotry? You still insist Bush lied and you know it as a fact. It isn't a fact. It has already been determined by the same committee you quote to hang Bush, that there was a connection between Iraq and AQ. He never said 9/11. Fucking stop with your lies already. I find your continual lies and people like you way more offensive than Bush or Clintons.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 30, 2004, 8:10 pm

I see your Bush Blinders allow you to omit embarressing things that GW as said, as well as the damn lefties. His own statements contradict each other. Either he is lying or he is a fucking retard. Which prospect appeals to you more?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 30, 2004, 8:22 pm

You only speculate Bush lied. You have no proof. No one has any proof. Because it is only defamatory speculation to destroy a man's chance at re-election.

I'd call him a liar to his face without a second thought.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 30, 2004, 8:59 pm

Jice Virago wrote:I see your Bush Blinders allow you to omit embarressing things that GW as said, as well as the damn lefties. His own statements contradict each other. Either he is lying or he is a fucking retard. Which prospect appeals to you more?

Oh yeah? hmmm I haven't seen this. Could you post it for me?

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » July 1, 2004, 12:45 am

Mid...Even if you presentend them with certifiable evidence they will not see the truth. Not need to argue with a liberal cause all they will do is insult your personal character when they see that they are losing the arguement. G.W's Military records are public and where there was no absence of duty reported they still insist there was. Just about every country that knew something about Iraq has come out and said that the Saddam regime and AlQieda (sp I know) had contacts in Sudan atleast. It is public record that Bush said he would go after all that supported terrorism, didn't Saddam give money to suicide bombers via Al Asqa Martyrs in Isreal?(look it up for those that don't believe)

No matter how hard we try to show people what is going on; the truth is we all have our minds made up and set in stone and nothing will change that.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 1, 2004, 12:52 am

Bah, It's still fun to banter despite our unmovable opinions.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » July 1, 2004, 2:28 am

Arilain wrote:It is public record that Bush said he would go after all that supported terrorism, didn't Saddam give money to suicide bombers via Al Asqa Martyrs in Isreal?(look it up for those that don't believe)

Actually, no he didn't. He "offered" it to the families of suicide bombers, directly, not through al-Aqsa Martyrs, to aid the oppressed Palestinian people. Kind of like the (albeit much more significant) support we gave to Afghanistan in the 1980s, Bosnia in the 1990s, and countless other downtrodden people who committed acts no less "despicable" out of similar desperation.

That we refuse to recognize the plight of the Palestinian people, who we ourselves unrightfully displaced, does not mean that others who do so are "consorting with terrorists." It's a rather naive and Americentric opinion that our labelling Palestinian's as terrorists to cover our mishandling of the creation of an Israeli state and dislodgement, dispossession, and deportation of an entire nation of people. Pushed that far, any of use would be resorting to the same means.

We were wrong to exile the Palestinian people in creating an Israeli state, we are wrong to continue to support and perpetuate this exile, and wrong to invade Iraq on the pretense of labeling its support of Palestine's struggle against this exile as "evil." That we are the oppressors does not make their struggle against oppression wrong. Sadly, our politicians have so obfuscated and misrepresented the situation for their own gain that some lack the intelligence to see through the murk of propaganda to the truth - that, this time, we're the bad guys.

I guess it's much easier to bomb and kill than admit we were wrong...or at the very least, there's more money in it.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 1, 2004, 2:43 am

That clip was quite entertaining.. I particularly enjoyed the part where the interviewer was clearly reading a quote from her notes, meaning that it was very unlikely to be inaccurate, and yet Cheney denies every having said it; repeatedly and with great conviction. Leave it to the Daily Show to actually play the quote directly afterwards

I'm sure the republican shills will find a way to excuse it, but that's ok.

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » July 1, 2004, 9:58 am

Check the Text of the State of the Union Address after 9/11. or listen to some of his speeches to Congress etc after 9/11. He states it more than one time there.

The Palastinians were misplaced by the UN not the US. You could say that we were involved only though the merit of us supporting the UN. I have never seen US troops packing up Palastinians and shipping them out. I also find that the the current administration and the former administration have recognized the need for a Palastinian state in the region.The only reason why we are blamed in that region is because we are allied with Isreal. And the reasons are very clear for that. Our support of Isreal is a Catch 22, much like our support for the Saudi's.

Look at the history of the peace talks in that region. Whenever there seems to be a chance for peace Hamas or another group sends in a suicide bomber into a bus crowded with civilians or a nightclub. The reason why they do this is clearly stated. For example Hama's main principles is to "Push the zionists into the sea." They do not want any Jews there period, even if they were in a Palastinian state.

Don't forget that 241 marines died while under a UN banner peace keeping in Beruit due to a suicide bomber blowning up their barracks. We had forced Isreal to withdraw from there and the UN went in to help stabalize the mess they had made.

If we can fix the palastinian problem it would cut the fuel that people like Bin Laden use to recruit followers and would help in the entire region. With that said it needs to be done diplomaticly and not by a 20 year old disillusioned person strapping bombs onto his/her body. If stoping that sort of thing means war....so be it. Lets go after the leaders and supporters of these people and see just how quick they want to maryter themselves. I am willing to bet mad cash we get them alive.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » July 1, 2004, 10:53 am

I am still doing the research to see if and when Bush ever did directly lie or offer contradictory statements from pre-war to post-war. I am not convinced that he ever did lie, but people in his administration may have mislead people. In my mind the jury is still out, I will let you know what I dig up.

Here are the quotes I have found thus far:

Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address wrote:The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

George W. Bush, Radio Address Oct 5, 2002 wrote:Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush, Radio Address Feb 8, 2003 wrote:We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush, Address March 17, 2003 wrote:Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush, Remarks May 6, 2003 wrote:I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein – because he had a weapons program.

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » July 1, 2004, 10:54 am

haha, just watch the Daily Show to find his lies/goofups. Geez, even a cable show can see it.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 1, 2004, 11:18 am

Markulas wrote:haha, just watch the Daily Show to find his lies/goofups. Geez, even a cable show can see it.

FYI: The Daily Show is comedic political satire. /boggle

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » July 1, 2004, 11:34 am

They still take the truth and shove it back in the faces of those people so the world can laugh at them. Or do you think they make everything up?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 1, 2004, 11:39 am

they lied about the war, and you guys are dupes. accept it.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 1, 2004, 11:44 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Markulas wrote:haha, just watch the Daily Show to find his lies/goofups. Geez, even a cable show can see it.
FYI: The Daily Show is comedic political satire. /boggle

satire should not be confused with silly cartoons. because one of the intents is humor, that does not mean that the commentary is entirely frivolous or more to the point by definition inaccurate or uninformative.

They often let the persons they mock speak entirely for themselves and in context. For instance that instance in the link on this thread where Cheney lies right out of his ass to your face and doesn't give a fuck what you think about it.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » July 1, 2004, 11:51 am

More:

Dan Bartlett, CNN Jan 26, 2003 wrote:What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.

Ari Fleisher, Mar 21, 2003 wrote:Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly…..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Hmmm, I am starting to get enough quotes together to say that the current administration at the very least misrepresented the facts about WMD in Iraq prior to the war and used it as justification for the war. The post-war facts do not appear to match with the pre-war quotes...

I will keep looking.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 1, 2004, 12:01 pm

Don Rumsfeld said "we know where the weapons are"

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 1, 2004, 12:03 pm

Voronwë wrote:they lied about the war, and you guys are dupes. accept it.

LOL

Just because a large amount of people call someone a liar, doesn't make it true. Where's the proof? You play with semantics and twist them into what you perceive a lie. I don't see it and a majority of the rest of the world doesn't see it either. Don't get me wrong you have done a phenomenal job putting it out there in every form of media known to man, that he is a liar, but without proof it means jack shit.

"Oh, but, but it kinda sounds like he might be lying if you look his statement here and this one over here!"

Uh-huh. Keep grasping at anything you can it's fucking funny as hell to watch. It's as bad as what the christian right did with Clinton. Grasping at anything trying to make it into something to get him out. Too fucking funny.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » July 1, 2004, 12:08 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Voronwë wrote:they lied about the war, and you guys are dupes. accept it.
LOL

Just because a large amount of people call someone a liar, doesn't make it true. Where's the proof? You play with semantics and twist them into what you perceive a lie. I don't see it and a majority of the rest of the world doesn't see it either. Don't get me wrong you have done a phenomenal job putting it out there in every form of media known to man, that he is a liar, but without proof it means jack shit.

"Oh, but, but it kinda sounds like he might be lying if you look his statement here and this one over here!"

Uh-huh. Keep grasping at anything you can it's fucking funny as hell to watch. It's as bad as what the christian right did with Clinton. Grasping at anything trying to make it into something to get him out. Too fucking funny.

Read all the quotes I posted, Midnyte.

I am collecting more, but I am starting to become convinced that he really did lie not just seriously mislead.

Incidentally, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 21005.html is the source of one quote. In the left hand column, you can review press statements by month. It is a good way to dig up things the president did say in the past.

REPOSTED for Midnyte:

Here are the quotes I have found thus far:

Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address wrote:The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

George W. Bush, Radio Address Oct 5, 2002 wrote:Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush, Radio Address Feb 8, 2003 wrote:We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush, Address March 17, 2003 wrote:Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush, Remarks May 6, 2003 wrote:I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein – because he had a weapons program.

Dan Bartlett, CNN Jan 26, 2003 wrote:What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.

Ari Fleisher, Mar 21, 2003 wrote:Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly…..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

p.s. I will continue to post more comments as I find them. It is actually quite fun to read the white house press briefings. It gives me something to do today (slow, slow day today!

)

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 1, 2004, 12:13 pm

I bet Midnyte would say Cheney didn't lie in the video either!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 1, 2004, 12:14 pm

ROFL

I read the fuckign quotes. WHERE IS THE LYING????? WHERE???

I see reporting on information well known throughout the congress, UN, Russia, all the fuck over that intelligence showed what was being said. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, etc have all said the same things. Jesus Christ already.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » July 1, 2004, 12:18 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:ROFL

I read the fuckign quotes. WHERE IS THE LYING????? WHERE???

I see reporting on information well known throughout the congress, UN, Russia, all the fuck over that intelligence showed what was being said. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, etc have all said the same things. Jesus Christ already.

All of those quotes are pre-war quotes saying that we KNOW that Iraq has TONS of WMD and Chenney is quoted as saying that we know where they are...

If all of those quotes are true, then why don't we have the WMD as evidence now?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » July 1, 2004, 12:22 pm

Kelshara wrote:I bet Midnyte would say Cheney didn't lie in the video either!

Cheney is incapable of lieing, he is more perfect than jesus.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 1, 2004, 12:24 pm

archeiron wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:ROFL

I read the fuckign quotes. WHERE IS THE LYING????? WHERE???

I see reporting on information well known throughout the congress, UN, Russia, all the fuck over that intelligence showed what was being said. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, etc have all said the same things. Jesus Christ already.
All of those quotes are pre-war quotes saying that we KNOW that Iraq has TONS of WMD and Chenney is quoted as saying that we know where they are...

If all of those quotes are true, then why don't we have the WMD as evidence now?

Why do we have to keep goign over the same shit. Remember the UN inspectors who cataloged all the shit Iraq had? Remember he had to comply and show evidence of their destruction? Therefore they(the US) knew Iraq had them. It's was common knowledge. How you can pull a lie out of this stuff is amazing.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 1, 2004, 12:25 pm

so you are saying Hans Blix in his 2002-2003 inspections had found WMDs and the UN agreed that they were there?

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » July 1, 2004, 12:30 pm

Noone died
When Clinton Lied

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 1, 2004, 12:34 pm

Why do we have to keep goign over the same shit.

Answer his question and stop talking the same shit over and over and maybe we will stop dragging it up?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 1, 2004, 12:42 pm

archeiron wrote: If all of those quotes are true, then why don't we have the WMD as evidence now?

Hasn't this already been covered a million times as well? Didn't everyone come out and say the intelligence wasn't accurate? Haven't there been parts for these tagged weapons been found in scrap yards from shipments made this year to other countries? Stop the insanity already.

Kelshara go fuck yourself.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 1, 2004, 12:43 pm

Hey seems like you got something in common with your hero Cheney there!

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » July 1, 2004, 12:46 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Why do we have to keep goign over the same shit. Remember the UN inspectors who cataloged all the shit Iraq had? Remember he had to comply and show evidence of their destruction? Therefore they(the US) knew Iraq had them. It's was common knowledge. How you can pull a lie out of this stuff is amazing.

Your comment is invalid and does not logically follow.

FACT: The White House said on many occassions prior to the war that the US "knew" they had WMD at that time. The White House said they had TONS of biological and chemical agents as well as 20,000 warheads capable of deploying them, plus manned and unmanned aircraft able to deploy them.

FACT: The UN Inspectors found little or no evidence of WMDs.

FACT: Iraq did not prove that the WMDs were destroyed.

FACT: We haven't found the WMDs that the White House claimed were there prior to the war.

CONCLUSION: The White House was not accurate about what was said prior to the war regarding the confirmed presence of WMDs.

The fact that they couldn't prove that the WMDs were not destroyed is not evidence, on its own, that the WMDs still existed.

You could hand me a peice of paper. I could burn it and dispose of the ashes. You could ask me for proof that the paper was destroyed. I wouldn't be able to prove it. That is does not PROVE that I still have the paper.

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » July 1, 2004, 12:46 pm

pwned

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 1, 2004, 12:50 pm

archeiron wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Why do we have to keep goign over the same shit. Remember the UN inspectors who cataloged all the shit Iraq had? Remember he had to comply and show evidence of their destruction? Therefore they(the US) knew Iraq had them. It's was common knowledge. How you can pull a lie out of this stuff is amazing.
Your comment is invalid and does not logically follow.

FACT: The White House said on many occassions prior to the war that the US "knew" they had WMD at that time. The White House said they had TONS of biological and chemical agents as well as 20,000 warheads capable of deploying them, plus manned and unmanned aircraft able to deploy them.

FACT: The UN Inspectors found little or no evidence of WMDs.

FACT: Iraq did not prove that the WMDs were destroyed.

FACT: We haven't found the WMDs that the White House claimed were there prior to the war.

CONCLUSION: The White House was not accurate about what was said prior to the war regarding the confirmed presence of WMDs.

The fact that they couldn't prove that the WMDs were not destroyed is not evidence, on its own, that the WMDs still existed.

You could hand me a peice of paper. I could burn it and dispose of the ashes. You could ask me for proof that the paper was destroyed. I wouldn't be able to prove it. That is does not PROVE that I still have the paper.

But dont you think if your life hung on the fact that you proved you destroyed the paper you would make damn sure you proved you destroyed it?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 1, 2004, 12:51 pm

Markulas wrote:pwned

Not really. Iraq was obligated to show proof. They were to document the destruction of said weapons. They failed to do so. Keep twisting the facts to read them as you wish, but it won't actually change the facts.

Kelshara, I don't like Dick Cheney. I don't even like Bush all that much either. Give it up already.