Bush Never Lied About WMD/Join In The Arguement
I Love to watch Bill Oreilly, I dont always agree with him but I do about this
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Oreilly:
Talking Points Memo:
Bill Oreilly
Good & bad news for Pres. Bush
"The New York Times' two-part series about what really happened in the run-up to deposing Saddam is a great piece of reporting. According to the article, Saddam's top generals were shocked when he told them that he destroyed his WMD arsenal. Saddam wanted the USA, Iran and other perceived enemies to believe he had WMDs. So we now know why the CIA, British intelligence, and many other countries believed Saddam did possess deadly weapons, because his own generals believed it. Therefore those people who have accused President Bush of lying owe him an apology, do they not? The liars list includes Senators Reid, Edwards, Obama, Durbin, Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd and Dayton; also, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Al Sharpton, Howard Dean and a bunch of congressmen. The president should also be getting apologetic notes from at least four New York Times columnists, Ron Reagan Jr., Chevy Chase, Barbra Streisand, Ben Colwin, Jessica Lange, Johnny Depp, and Helen Thomas, just to name a few. Talking Points will let you know which of these people steps up and apologizes--does the right thing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont hold your breath Bill, I bet not one of these nutjobs will apologize to the President!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UPDATE:
Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration's argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone.
Read Full Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Oreilly:
Talking Points Memo:
Bill Oreilly
Good & bad news for Pres. Bush
"The New York Times' two-part series about what really happened in the run-up to deposing Saddam is a great piece of reporting. According to the article, Saddam's top generals were shocked when he told them that he destroyed his WMD arsenal. Saddam wanted the USA, Iran and other perceived enemies to believe he had WMDs. So we now know why the CIA, British intelligence, and many other countries believed Saddam did possess deadly weapons, because his own generals believed it. Therefore those people who have accused President Bush of lying owe him an apology, do they not? The liars list includes Senators Reid, Edwards, Obama, Durbin, Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd and Dayton; also, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Al Sharpton, Howard Dean and a bunch of congressmen. The president should also be getting apologetic notes from at least four New York Times columnists, Ron Reagan Jr., Chevy Chase, Barbra Streisand, Ben Colwin, Jessica Lange, Johnny Depp, and Helen Thomas, just to name a few. Talking Points will let you know which of these people steps up and apologizes--does the right thing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont hold your breath Bill, I bet not one of these nutjobs will apologize to the President!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UPDATE:
Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration's argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone.
Read Full Story Here
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 9:52 AM
27 Comments:
Saddam wanted the USA, Iran and other perceived enemies to believe he had WMDs. So we now know why the CIA, British intelligence, and many other countries believed Saddam did possess deadly weapons, because his own generals believed it.
So the US under Bush was as stupid and gullible as Saddam's generals?
Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration's argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone.
Um. Bush and Co. insisted that the US was in imminent IMMINENT danger of being nuked by Saddam. Not DETERMINED, but IMMINENT.
LIARS.
And anyone who defends them are traitors.
claudia what is wrong with you, you know sadam had weapond of destruction why do you call bush stupid? they are translating audiotapes of sadam and his conversations with his generals about wmd what is it with you people that you just dont get it. he will or would have used tham agin he was an imidiate threat. do you not want us to be safe?
Apparently, Marie,
You and your ilk are in the decline.
You can call me all the junior-high school playground names you want, but it won't change the fact that the American people see Bush as incompetent.
Several recent polls, including the AP-Ipsos poll, have found Bush's approval ratings in the 30s. The Pew poll found Bush's job approval at 33 percent, the lowest ever in that poll.
_Bush's approval on handling terrorism was at 42 percent, down 20 points from the start of his second term.
The telephone poll of 1,405 adults was conducted from March 8-12 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Currently, 48% use a negative word to describe Bush compared with just 28% who use a positive term, and 10% who use neutral language.
Until now, the most frequently offered word to describe the president was "honest," but this comes up far less often today than in the past. Other positive traits such as "integrity" are also cited less, and virtually no respondent used superlatives such as "excellent" or "great" terms that came up fairly often in previous surveys.
The single word most frequently associated with George W. Bush today is "incompetent,"and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: "idiot" and "liar." All three are mentioned far more often today than a year ago.
With the numbers of Americans waking up to the mess George Bush has made of Iraq, and his handling of Katrina and Social Security, I'd be careful of who you call crazy.
So 70% of the American people are crazy, and you and your declining numbers are sane as you continue to idolize an incompetent?
Okay, dear. If you say so.
That's nice.
Claudia,
Despite your bold font Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat. He said "gathering" threat. Go read the 2003 SOTU if you don't believe it.
As to the Joint Forces report, sure it's possible Saddam had done away with his larger weapons. But what was being loaded in the trucks shown on satellite was no doubt WMD equipment he was trying to salvage so he could begin production again when the storm passed.
We would never have known the status of these weapons if not for American troops. It was the American troops en masse who pressured Saddam to allow UN inspectors back in before the war.
Follow the logic here. If Bush had backed down after Blix's team didn't find anything, Saddam would have pushed his friends in the UNSC (the ones he was bribing with OFFP) into voting for the removal of sanctions.
This is not real hard.
Cheers. Thanks for letting me rant, Marie.
"A.C. said...
Claudia,
Despite your bold font Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat. He said "gathering" threat. Go read the 2003 SOTU if you don't believe it."
Okay. So mindful of being ever-helpful, I present this little historical refresher:
"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question.“is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
******************************
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
***************************
"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
********************************
"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
********************************
Okay, fine, we know Scottie doesn't speak for anybody, he's just David Gregory and Terry Moran's puffy pinata. So what about Preznit Remedial Reading himself?
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02
"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
You're right. Bush didn't use the specific word "imminent."
Too many syllables.
This is what is known as the "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" defense.
A.C.
You can rant here anytime you like! This is a "Free Rant Zone"
Besides you put things much more in perspective than I can.
However, those that cant rant here are: Those that come in with a name like "TerrorChrist" and post hate sites and crud. I refuse to be held hostage to "Comment Moderation" so I just Zap them!
Well Tom, right off the bat you blew it by thinking Oreilly was who I was quoting. I posted him because HE was quoting a two part article in the New York Times (Probably buried in page 16), I was agreeing with him because I also think apologies should be given to the President!
Dave,
You have a good point, they are translating audio tapes of Saddam and His Generals or top members of his Baath Party about what went on with what he told them about the WMD, however what he may have told them may not be accurate from some new information comming out.
It will be interesting to find out what it is he is telling his people on those tapes and how that whole thing plays out.
Claudia,
We are on the decline, well that's news to me when all your party can do is whine and moan about poll numbers. We still have 2 and a half years left of this President and all you guys do is rant and rave about him and all he is trying to do is keep you and I safe. You guys are unbelievable.
As much as you would like to pound it into the ground that President Bush is incompetant, it just isnt true. And you know this and it infuriates you. You act as if President Bush went off shore and huffed and puffed and blew hurricane Katrina in himself! Do you not think the state and local governments in Louisiana have no blame in this? Why werent the buses out evacuating people BEFORE the storm hit? The Mayor could have had that done. The Governor of Louisiana knew what was comming 5 days before the Hurricane hit. She did NOTHING! Somehow Louisiana lost millions of dollars that was suppose to go for rebuilding efforts, 9000+ mobile homes from FEMA are still sitting in Hope, Arkansas waiting for the go ahead from local authorities where to put them, and the Army corp of engineers are still waiting for local authorities to give them the go ahead to get started on re-building the levees! So you cant blame the entire Katrina mess on the President! Social Security never got off the ground because your ilk started whining and crying about other crap so I guess SSI will just go bankrupt because instead of letting a good idea pass, you all would wrather see the country fail than to give Bush just one little iota of credit for a good plan.
And as far as Iraq:
They have had 3 elections, are in the process of putting together an entire government, this has taken less time than any other country in History. They have seen the terrorists reek havok and try to get a civil war started, and it hasnt worked. And it isnt going to. Every life is precious but we havent lost 3000 soldiers in 3 years!!! How many did we lose in Viet Nam in 3 years? You remember that little war that your hero JFK got us into? Yeah we werent attacked by them either! And if you paid any attention at all you would see the Iraqi forces stepping up more every day as we are stepping back. But then again your ilk would wrather see this country fail, talking to you people is like talking to a brick wall.
And polls? I never get polled, hell alot of Republicans I have heard never get polled so it does seem to me to be some creepy thing you on the left have going so it appears the polls are declining, well maybe they are but so what? If polls were correct your guy would be President!!! Yes I think you guys are crazy as hell straight out lunatics!!! If you dont want to be treated as a child, dont act like one! How about rooting for America for a change? Yeah that would be nice!
Poll Statistics 3-06
Dear Christian Pundit,
Those are nice quotes. Problem is, it was Bush who decided to go to war, not the people you quoted.
Yes, they saw Saddam as a threat, but we'll never know what they would have done. However, we do know that Bush brought the country to war based on deception and lies.
And three years later the military has had to launch the deadliest attack on Iraq since President Bunnypants declared all major combat was over.
No one, except the crazy die-hard goopers, believe this war was planned and executed well.
We'll be there longer than we were in WWII, and in that war we had to fight on two fronts.
We should have adopted the Powell Doctrine--gone in with 500,000 troops, secured the country after the fall of Baghdad and NOT fire the Iraqi army.
Keeping to Rumsfeld's policies has been an unmitigated disaster.
Everyone I know supports the men and women who have to carry out the policies of a mad man.
Bush supported the war in Viet Nam, believed in it, but didn't have the cajones to go over there and actually do the dirty work of fighting for what he believe in. Easier for his Daddy to get him into the TANG.
And no matter how you guys spin his service, it's pretty clear what Bush really is.
A moral coward.
And watching his falling numbers suggests that Americans are catching on to what kind of a man he really is.
Christian Pundit, I love the way you present the facts, and quotes, it's to bad Claudia is so closed minded she refuses to see!
Claudia:
Those are nice quotes. Problem is, it was Bush who decided to go to war, not the people you quoted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry Claudia wrong again it was the United Nations. After 17 resolutions, and 13 years later. Diplomacy failed, and force was a last resort. And it sailed through the House and The Senate. As Christian Pundit pointed out her statistics of the vote. The Resolution if you recall was 1441<~~
I suggest you read it.
And 33 other countries agreed.
It was the United Nations that said Saddam had to go. The US being the only "Super Power" left are the only ones with the capability of initiating the First stages, as in acheiving Air Superiority first. That is why we are what the UN calls "The Lead Country" the other 33 countries are not to be undersold either they all have done a fantastic job. It's just that they dont have the Superior Military Capability we have. As far a Air Superiority goes. But as for Ground forces the other 33 countries have pulled thier weight and have been fantastic in Iraqi Freedom. And as far as I am concerned never get enough credit in the MSM.
Yes, they saw Saddam as a threat, but we'll never know what they would have done. However, we do know that Bush brought the country to war based on deception and lies.
~~~~~~~~~~~
That's strange Claudia we do know what they would have done. They voted for the war.
As far as deception and lies, the UN lied to the world is that what you are saying? The IAEA? The British? 33 Countries all lied? And to us especially? If you are going to have a debate it would be nice if you had actual facts to back up these claims.
And three years later the military has had to launch the deadliest attack on Iraq since President Bunnypants declared all major combat was over.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Claudia do you pay any attention? The Iraqi Military lead the charge into Sammarra, without one bomb dropped, and not 1 shot fired, the terrorists that were found were detained. I fail to see how that was a deadly operation! And I am very proud of how the Iraqi Army handled themselves. They make a fine ally in the war on terrorism.
And you slap the 33 other coalition countries in the face when you pretty much accuse them of lieing also.
I am sure they appreciate your gratitude.
Dear Christian Pundit,
So you're comparing Bush FAVORABLY with Clinton, Gore and Kerry?
Good job.
But your logical fallacy doesn't hold up. Even if those people said Saddam was a threat, they didn't take the country to war.
Clinton, Gore and Kerry didn't take the country to war on "deceitful lies." Bush did.
There are other ways of handling threats. The Bush administration has demonstrated this in their reaction to the nuclear threat from North Korea. They didn't invade nor bomb them, and Kim Jong Il is a muderous dictator with nuclear weapons.
Go back and read what happened in the Clinton administration vis-a-vis Iraq.
"And you really don't want to get into a discussion about the military service of baby boomer presidents do you?".--Christian Pundit
Clinton, like Cheney, received legal deferments. But unlike Cheney, Clinton did not believe in the war, so he was morally consistent.
Cheney and Bush, on the contrary, believed in the Vietnam war, but were too cowardly to put their asses on the line for it. Moral cowards, both of them.
And I thought you and Marie didn't think polls meant anything. So what about the CBS poll?
And you slap the 33 other coalition countries in the face when you pretty much accuse them of lieing also.
I am sure they appreciate your gratitude.--Marie
Well, I'm guessing they don't give a flying noodle what you or I think.
Claudia,
Well I am assuming they do give a flying noodle and I support the Coalition all the way! They deserve our encouragement as well.
Christian Pundits,
And you do a great job of it I might add :-)
Dear Christian Pundit,
I was going to continue the debate with you.
I especially was interested in the "declassified" documents that mystically show up now, three years into the war. Yeah. Right.
But I will not continue with a so-called "Christian" who, at the end of his twisted logic, implies that I desire blow jobs from the president.
Sir,
You are wrong.
I have absolutely no desire to give President Bush a blow job.
Patoohey!
And good-bye.
You lose your argument as soon as you imply that I'm a whore just because I do not share your point of view.
Typical of your kind, though.
I will bush is a hottie
Claudia,
How convienient of you to run away when facts are presented straight up for you to read, comments are made and you completely ignore them, and your false statements are blown completely out of the water. (No pun intended) In the very first post you made you said:
Um. Bush and Co. insisted that the US was in imminent IMMINENT danger of being nuked by Saddam. Not DETERMINED, but IMMINENT.
LIARS.
And anyone who defends them are traitors.
I think everyone who has posted in defense of President Bush and his administration would take offence at that remark.
But instead we chose to present you with facts that you have twisted, falsified, or never read. You chose not to be enlightened by facts.
I especially was interested in the "declassified" documents that mystically show up now, three years into the war. Yeah. Right.
3 years is a very short time considering the audio tapes and documents have to be "De-classified" first, as not to incriminate our good pals the French and the Germans! And anyone else who has been involved in the "Oil For Food" Scandal" which is an ongoing CRIMINAL investigation! You know that little investigation paid for with our tax payer dollars to find out where our other taxpayer dollars have gone to? Cough, Saddam, France, Germany, Russia, etc.
Also considering the fact that the "Classified Documents" on the JFK assasination wont be available till 2038, the Documents that have been "De-Classified" from WW2 are still comming out, and some of the "De-Classified" documents from that good ol boy who just croaked Milosevitch are slowly pouring out.
You remember that one, where Clinton sent our troops to a Country that never attacked us either? But it was alright for him I guess, to you guys Clinton was God. Where was the outcry for Clinton sending our troops over there? You have made some pretty crazy statements on this whole subject, and one little remark to you about Monica chaces you off?
You lose your argument as soon as you imply that I'm a whore just because I do not share your point of view.
I never saw anyone imply that you were a whore! Crazy as hell and a straight out Lunatic is what I said and Monica is the one that gets ya? lol
Sorry dear you lost the arguement long ago when you couldnt prove one thing you said, and used Monica as an excuse to get while the getting was good because you ran out of things to argue about because you couldnt prove anything!
Typical of your kind though!
Christian Pundits,
I wouldnt worry about Claudia. She did understand what you ment by Monica, I got it. And she did too. She is just another left wing Loon who makes up names and posts her left wing crap all over the place. She was losing the arguement, she knew it, and picked that Monica statement as a time to hit the road. As for Monica Lewinski, any woman that gives a married man a blow job IS a whore! Especially if it's the President of the United States. And that particular President was whore also.
I shrugged off the traitor remark also and tried to give her facts as well as you did but she is a left wing loon who has her mind made up and is a hopeless case. I wouldnt worry about it. She's on here somewhere now under a different name lol.
Well Claudia, if you want to get into nitpicking your original comment was "imminent danger of being NUKED".
Funny, like you I was around for the pre-war SOTU addresses and his many speeches, and what I heard was that Saddam was a "gathering" threat for nukes. Never did I think he had a-bombs sitting on ready and aimed at America. If you heard that you need to listen closer next time.
But, anywho, we already knew Saddam had WMDs. His govt had meetings with AQ and other terror groups. He harbored Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas and supported Palestinian suicide families. He attacked 3 countries. EVEN CLINTON DIDN'T TRUST HIM. Then we had 9/11.
Now you folks act like he was a old-fart sitting in the park feeding pigeons.
Look -- I understand the left's desire to GET BACK at the conservatives for Clinton's impeachment. The desire must burn hot. But, couldn't y'all have been adult enough to suspend it after we were attacked and while we still fight? I mean, that's really the point of all this, isn't it? You guys were gearing up for 4 years of pay-back before 9/11 messed up the party. But instead of canceling the party in deference, you just had it anyway. One day you'll regret it.
Brilliant A.C., Very very well said :-)
At what point did I lose control? lol
I'm not even sure anyone reads my stories anymore lol, it's all turned into a "Poll" session and a "Let's Bash bush" Love Fest.
Marie, sadly the dialog has been that way on blogs and message boards since about 2002, which I'm sure you're well aware.
I used to think the back and forth would accomplish something, but now both sides just flail away at each other like punch drunk fighters, neither scoring many points.
As Bush and Rice have said, history will be their judge. To me that suggests there are things that can't be told to the public at this moment in time, but one day will.
I still trust Bush's leadership on the war, and a small part of the reason is this--if the far left hates him so, he's gotta be doing something right.
Wow, Marie...this was quite a read. Good job all- especially Christian Pundit.
Too bad about Claudia. I think she wanted an "out" and latched onto CP's blowjob comment to throw in the towel.
As a small addition to the "imminent threat"-Gotcha moment language nit-picking, President Bush is often quoted as saying it; but the words he actually used were that we must act before the threat becomes imminent. Which is absolutely right. In the case of North Korea, which Claud brought up, it's too late to act without engaging ourselves in nuclear retaliation. It's something we're not ready for; and as Marie pointed out, we had 12 years of diplomacy and UN Resolutions already under our belt and Saddam was in constant violation of cease-fire agreements.
I noticed some ranting on message boards A.C., that was before I was blogging, actually that's why I started blogging. That and I didnt want Kerry to win.
I know I just join in on the "Neither side wins" parts of the arguement but sometimes these people have to be shown articles, and facts, and have everything explained to them like they were 5 years old. But your right they dont really pay any attention anyway.
I'm not sure I want to know what is going on behind the seens as far as protecting us, but when released I will probably be very impressed.
I also trust our President and yes he has got under some people's skin (That's an understatement)so I agree he is doing something right :-)
LOL Word, you dont think it had anything to do with Oreilly's Picture do you?
Oh yes Claudia wanted that out and chose Lewinski, yet we sat by and let her call us traitors, among all kinds of other names.
Poor misguided child.
Anonymous,
Dont waste your time posting spam.
I wont be held hostage to "Comment Moderation" but I will just remove it. You are wasting your type!
If you have some point you are trying to get across, by all means be my guest.
Post a Comment
<< Home