Rattling the skeletons in Mitt's closet

[gabosaurus]

The first primary is six months away. The big question is whether Mitt Romney will make it there. My guess is no.
I can't see conservatives supporting a candidate who was once openly pro-choice. There is no way around that. Plus, the core of the GOP are evangelical Christians, many of whom still believe that the Mormons are a cult.
Romney's prominent investments are another sore spot. He has amassed a total worth of over $250 million through various investments. Romney companies once did business with Iran. His oil stock still does business with Sudan. His other investments include a cigarette manufacturer and a casino.
So long Mitt.

[red states rule]

The first primary is six months away. The big question is whether Mitt Romney will make it there. My guess is no.
I can't see conservatives supporting a candidate who was once openly pro-choice. There is no way around that. Plus, the core of the GOP are evangelical Christians, many of whom still believe that the Mormons are a cult.
Romney's prominent investments are another sore spot. He has amassed a total worth of over $250 million through various investments. Romney companies once did business with Iran. His oil stock still does business with Sudan. His other investments include a cigarette manufacturer and a casino.
So long Mitt.

Since libs are going to be stuck with Hillary, the only thing you have left is to attack the opposition

[glockmail]

The first primary is six months away. The big question is whether Mitt Romney will make it there. My guess is no...... If Jesus can forgive sinners than so can I.

[red states rule]

If Jesus can forgive sinners than so can I.

Well said. If only the oh so tolerant left felt the same way

[glockmail]

Well said. If only the oh so tolerant left felt the same way
They don't think its a sin.

[red states rule]

They don't think its a sin.

To some libs, the Ten Commandments are looked at as the Ten Suggestions

[darin]

Not to just libs - a lot of conservatives feel that way too.

[truthmatters]

Well said. If only the oh so tolerant left felt the same way


We wont be voting for him in the primary will we?

You see this is about predicting who YOU will choose.

Is Mitt your guy?

[darin]

Mitt absolutely is one of the best-qualified folk running.

[Hagbard Celine]

The first primary is six months away. The big question is whether Mitt Romney will make it there. My guess is no.
I can't see conservatives supporting a candidate who was once openly pro-choice. There is no way around that. Plus, the core of the GOP are evangelical Christians, many of whom still believe that the Mormons are a cult.
Romney's prominent investments are another sore spot. He has amassed a total worth of over $250 million through various investments. Romney companies once did business with Iran. His oil stock still does business with Sudan. His other investments include a cigarette manufacturer and a casino.
So long Mitt.

Don't bet on it. Facts don't amount to a hill of beans in US politics. A candidate's success depends on the success of his rhetoric.

[truthmatters]

Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol
Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Honor thy Mother and Father
Thou shalt not murder
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.

[darin]

Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol
Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Honor thy Mother and Father
Thou shalt not murder
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.


Have a point in there somewhere? Or are you just other-wise throwing out the King's English for us to read?

[Pale Rider]

Since libs are going to be stuck with Hillary, the only thing you have left is to attack the opposition

It's a predictable liberal trait. You could have bet your bottom dollar on it.

But for what it's worth, I don't want to vote for Romney either. I think he's full of business as usual, and just a little too slick. I'll stick with Tancredo / Huckabee / Hunter. The only way I will vote for Romney is if he's the republican candidate, and then it will more of a vote against the libs than a vote for him.

[red states rule]

Not to just libs - a lot of conservatives feel that way too.

But more are on the left - libs can't be judgemental you know

[red states rule]

Don't bet on it. Facts don't amount to a hill of beans in US politics. A candidate's success depends on the success of his rhetoric.

It did work for Bill - and Hillary is trying the same scam

[red states rule]

It's a predictable liberal trait. You could have bet your bottom dollar on it.

But for what it's worth, I don't want to vote for Romney either. I think he's full of business as usual, and just a little too slick. I'll stick with Tancredo / Huckabee / Hunter. The only way I will vote for Romney is if he's the republican candidate, and then it will more of a vote against the libs than a vote for him.

So you are willing to stay home, don;t vote, and run the risk of hearing the words "Pres elect Hillary" the next morning?

[darin]

ugh...vile words.

[red states rule]

ugh...vile words.

It will happen if enough people stay home and do not vote for anyone

Having a temper tantrum does have consequences

[Hagbard Celine]

It did work for Bill - and Hillary is trying the same scam

Nobody seemed to care that George W. Bush ran three businesses into the ground, is a recovering alcoholic, has done cocaine, had his license revoked in Maine for crashing his car into a telephone pole while driving under the influence, went AWOL during his reserve service, had a "C" average in college, was a cheerleader, executed more inmates during his term as governor than any other US governor--ever I think, and started an illegal war during his first presidency either. :dunno: The American public is pretty thick.

[darin]

You read a lot of Fiction, don't ya?

[red states rule]

You read a lot of Fiction, don't ya?

Yea, it is called the NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times


Nobody seemed to care that George W. Bush ran three businesses into the ground, is a recovering alcoholic, has done cocaine, had his license revoked in Maine for crashing his car into a telephone pole while driving under the influence, went AWOL during his reserve service, had a "C" average in college, was a cheerleader, executed more inmates during his term as governor than any other US governor--ever I think, and started an illegal war during his first presidency either. :dunno: The American public is pretty thick.

I can see why you work at CNN - to them this is factual news.

Then again, that is why nobody watches your employer/network

[avatar4321]

skeletons in the closet? And this is all you got? wow Mitts in better shape they I thought.

[darin]

That's not all, Avatar - I heard Mit once pulled a girl's hair in 2nd grade, AND stole a cookie from the cookie jar!

Oh the Huge Manatee!

[red states rule]

skeletons in the closet? And this is all you got? wow Mitts in better shape they I thought.

Now we can talk about Hillary's

We may overload the board's server with the list

[Hagbard Celine]

skeletons in the closet? And this is all you got? wow Mitts in better shape they I thought.

I don't get it either. He's a rich Mormon? That's it? 75 percent of the population probably doesn't even know what a Mormon is, let alone that Mitt Romney is one--that's even if they know who Mitt Romney is to begin with (doubtful). The bovine herd that is the American public isn't going to care about anything that isn't overseen by Simon Cowell.

[red states rule]

I don't get it either. He's a rich Mormon? That's it? 75 percent of the population probably doesn't even know what a Mormon is, let alone that Mitt Romney is one--that's even if they know who Mitt Romney is to begin with (doubtful). The bovine herd that is the American public isn't going to care about anything that isn't overseen by Simon Cowell.

I am sure CNN will do a special report on it - of course nobody will see it given CNN's ratings

[Hagbard Celine]

You read a lot of Fiction, don't ya?

Prove me wrong. :dunno: These are all verifiable facts give or take the number of businesses he bankrupted. It was either two or three. I don't care enough to actually look it up. I'll leave that to you.

[Hagbard Celine]

I am sure CNN will do a special report on it - of course nobody will see it given CNN's ratings

Do you really think I care about CNN's ratings? Every network is the same, conservative, propaganda bs. They all get their stories from either Reuters or AP. Are you really dumb enough to believe that one is superior to the other?

[red states rule]

Prove me wrong. :dunno: These are all verifiable facts give or take the number of businesses he bankrupted. It was either two or three. I don't care enough to actually look it up. I'll leave that to you.

The liberal media "reported" this crap as facts in 2000 and 2004 - and you lost both elections

Get some new "facts"

[Hagbard Celine]

The liberal media "reported" this crap as facts in 2000 and 2004 - and you lost both elections

Get some new "facts"

I'm guessing you still believe that those Iraq WMD's are still over there just a'waitin' for our troops to uncover right? I swear to God it's a waste of time for me to reply to your nonsense.

[red states rule]

I'm guessing you still believe that those Iraq WMD's are still over there just a'waitin' for our troops to uncover right? I swear to God it's a waste of time for me to reply to your nonsense.

Did CNN report these quotes from Dems on WMD's as they "reported" how Pres Bush lied about Saddam and WMD"S?


"[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

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 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

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, 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

"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

"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

"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"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

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

[Hagbard Celine]

Do you seriously expect me to read a diatribe from "rightwingnews.com?" Have we met?

[red states rule]

Do you seriously expect me to read a diatribe from "rightwingnews.com?" Have we met?

That is why CNN never mentioned the quotes - it goes against the liberal media's aganda

Dems were mistaken about WMD's

Bush lied about WMD's

Do you deny the Dems made those statements?

[Hagbard Celine]

That is why CNN never mentioned the quotes - it goes against the liberal media's aganda

Dems were mistaken about WMD's

Bush lied about WMD's

Do you deny the Dems made those statements?

Like I said, I'm not going to even consider looking at the garbage you've slapped onto the wall of the message board. The fact is that no WMD have been found to date in Iraq. Good job Republican Party! Thanks for leading the charge on that one!

Also: there is no liberal media. It's a lie that Rush and BOR have fed you and you've lapped it up like the crazed Chihuahua that you are. All media outlets are owned and operated by mega-rich conservatives. Once again, you deserve to wear the genius cap!

[red states rule]

Like I said, I'm not going to even consider looking at the garbage you've slapped onto the wall of the message board. The fact is that no WMD have been found to date in Iraq. Good job Republican Party! Thanks for leading the charge on that one!

So you refuse to address the facts Dems said the same thing about WMD's as Pres Bush?

BTW even CNN is a source to the quotes

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Quoted on CNN


"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." — President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Quoted on CNN


Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." — Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio — from USIA


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." — Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998

Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall Meeting in Columbus, Ohio — From USIA


"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US 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." — Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D — MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

See letter to Clinton by Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others


"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." — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Statement by Rep. Nancy Pelosi — House of Representatives website


"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Answer to a question at the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs


"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." — Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Letter to President George W. Bush signed by 9 Congressmen, including Democrats Harold Ford, Jr., Joseph Lieberman, and Benjamin Gilman.


" We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002

Online with Jim Lehrer — Public Broadcasting Service


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

U.S. Senate — Ted Kennedy


"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..." — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

Congressional Record — Robert Byrd


"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." —Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

Congressional Record — Sen. John F. Kerry


"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 .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Jay Rockefeller


"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" — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Rep. Henry Waxman


"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, 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-Qaida 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 wiill continue to increase his capability 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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Hillary Clinton


"The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

"Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Ted Kennedy


"There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He has disregarded United Nations resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities and research and development programs. His forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south of his country. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons... — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. Bob Graham


But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families.

"To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ''a defection agency,' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — Sen. Joseph Biden

Congressional Record — Sen. Joseph Biden


"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. John F. Kerry


"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.

"Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. — Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. John Edwards
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/040816

[darin]

Like I said, I'm not going to even consider looking at the garbage you've slapped onto the wall of the message board. The fact is that no WMD have been found to date in Iraq. Good job Republican Party! Thanks for leading the charge on that one!


Do you know the US and many other countries never went into Iraq to find WMDs? The job of the US and others was o ENSURE Saddam didn't have the WMDs he bragged about having. Sooooooooooooooo......That means, to that end, we were quite successful.



. All media outlets are owned and operated by mega-rich conservatives. Once again, you deserve to wear the genius cap!


lmao :) Don't make me move this to the conspiracy theory forum :)

[Hagbard Celine]

So you refuse to address the facts Dems said the same thing about WMD's as Pres Bush?

BTW even CNN is a source to the quotes No, you're mistaking "refusal" with "I DO NOT CARE." This isn't about dems and repubs for me because I'm smart enough to see that they're the same damn thing.

[red states rule]

lmao :) Don't make me move this to the conspiracy theory forum :)

That would happen if we found WMD's - he would say Karl Rove planted WMD's in Iraq so they would be found



No, you're mistaking "refusal" with "I DO NOT CARE." This isn't about dems and repubs for me because I'm smart enough to see that they're the same damn thing.

Still doing the Liberal Two Step to avoid being hit by incoming facts

[Hagbard Celine]

Do you know the US and many other countries never went into Iraq to find WMDs? The job of the US and others was o ENSURE Saddam didn't have the WMDs he bragged about having. Sooooooooooooooo......That means, to that end, we were quite successful.




lmao :) Don't make me move this to the conspiracy theory forum :)

In 2003, the reason for us to go into Iraq was to preemptively take-out Saddam before he used his "WMDs" against us. There was no other reason to drastically depart from over 200 years of US military policy and attack another sovereign nation before they'd attacked us. The administration got public support for this war by parading Colin Powell on tv with satellite images of Saddam's alleged "mobile chemical weapons factories," which he supposedly kept mobile so that UN inspectors couldn't find them. Next you'll be saying that our original mission in Iraq was to "spread democracy." Ha! The only success I can see is that Saddam is dead. Everything else, including the country itself as well as our "reasons" for going to war have degraded into something that can only be described as parody.

[red states rule]

In 2003, the reason for us to go into Iraq was to preemptively take-out Saddam before he used his "WMDs" against us. There was no other reason to drastically depart from over 200 years of US military policy and attack another sovereign nation before they'd attacked us. The administration got public support for this war by parading Colin Powell on tv with satellite images of Saddam's alleged "mobile chemical weapons factories," which he supposedly kept mobile so that UN inspectors couldn't find them. Next you'll be saying that our original mission in Iraq was to "spread democracy." Ha!

Why were libs so silent when Dems said Saddam had WMD's and had to be delt with?

Perhaps they are outraged because a Republican President took him out (and now the surge is making progress?)

[darin]

In 2003, the reason for us to go into Iraq was to preemptively take-out Saddam before he used his "WMDs" against us.

That is absolutely a half-truth. Saddam Claimed he had weapons to use against folk. EVERY credible intelligence agency in the world agreed. Saddam refused to prove he was lying. We took care of it.


There was no other reason to drastically depart from over 200 years of US military policy and attack another sovereign nation before they'd attacked us.

Check your history.




The administration got public support for this war by parading Colin Powell on tv with satellite images of Saddam's alleged "mobile chemical weapons factories," which he supposedly kept mobile so that UN inspectors couldn't find them. Next you'll be saying that our original mission in Iraq was to "spread democracy." Ha!


You're a partisan Hack.

[red states rule]

I like the way he addressed the Dems quotes about WMD's - he ignored them

[Hagbard Celine]

That is absolutely a half-truth. Saddam Claimed he had weapons to use against folk. EVERY credible intelligence agency in the world agreed. Saddam refused to prove he was lying. We took care of it.Where are the weapons dmp? If we went in to get them, where are they? And why did we have to destroy the country to get them?


Check your history.Checked it. I'm right.


You're a partisan Hack.Ooh, namecalling. I guess the fact that I clearly remember personally watching the exact news conference I described has absolutely no bearing on anything then. I must have misinterpreted Colin's little f.y.i. session. I guess he came on-air to tell America about Saddam's ludicrous mobile chemical weapons factories because he had some free time. :dunno:

[red states rule]

The WMD's probably went to Syria.

Still ducking what Dems said about Saddam and WMD's?

[truthmatters]

Do you know the US and many other countries never went into Iraq to find WMDs? The job of the US and others was o ENSURE Saddam didn't have the WMDs he bragged about having. Sooooooooooooooo......That means, to that end, we were quite successful.




lmao :) Don't make me move this to the conspiracy theory forum :)

Then what is with the quotes from this admin saying there was NO DOUBT Sadam had WMDs and that we KNOW where they are?

[darin]

Where are the weapons dmp? If we went in to get them, where are they? And why did we have to destroy the country to get them?


Dude - that is a logical fallacy in somuch that you are changing the question.

We went in - we = the United Nations - to ENSURE He had no weapons. C'mon now...try harder.



Checked it. I'm right.


No you didn't.



Ooh, namecalling. I guess the fact that I clearly remember personally watching the exact news conference I described has absolutely no bearing on anything then. I must have misinterpreted Colin's little f.y.i. session. I guess he came on-air to tell America about Saddam's ludicrous mobile chemical weapons factories because he had some free time. :dunno:


It's just that you are SOO F'ing intellectually dishonest. It's sickening and laughable.

[Hagbard Celine]

I like the way he addressed the Dems quotes about WMD's - he ignored them

Who cares about what the dems said? Were they the ruling party? What the f*ck is up with your hangup about the dems? The Republican party led the assault on this one pal. I'm not a dem so f*ck-off with your partisan bullsh*t. You're like a gnat flying in my face constantly. Dems, dems, dems, dems, demy's, dems, who fucking cares. I'm an American, not a fucking Rush Limbaugh fan or an Al Franken wingnut, so I'm going to call this sh*t the way I see it, not the way my favorite pundit tells me to call it. The fact is that we're in this war because our representatives and military leaders have incompetently managed it. If Bill Clinton had led us into this war, I'd hold him accountable. It happens that GWBush led us into it, so I hold him accountable. If democratic representatives supported the war, then fuck them too! I'm sick of listening to your partisan bullsh*t as if the Republican party is flawless and the dems are the reason behind all evil and wrong in the world. You're a joke man!

[red states rule]

Who cares about what the dems said? Were they the ruling party? What the f*ck is up with your hangup about the dems? The Republican party led the assault on this one pal. I'm not a dem so f*ck-off with your partisan bullsh*t. You're like a gnat flying in my face constantly. Dems, dems, dems, dems, demy's, dems, who fucking cares. I'm an American, not a fucking Rush Limbaugh fan or an Al Franken wingnut, so I'm going to call this sh*t the way I see it, not the way my favorite pundit tells me to call it. The fact is that we're in this war because our representatives and military leaders have incompetently managed it. If Bill Clinton had led us into this war, I'd hold him accountable. It happens that GWBush led us into it, so I hold him accountable. If democratic representatives supported the war, then fuck them too! I'm sick of listening to your partisan bullsh*t as if the Republican party is flawless and the dems are the reason behind all evil and wrong in the world. You're a joke man!

the point is Dems say Bush lied about WMD's and ignore what Dems said

mostly the liberal media keeps pushing this fairy tale

[Hagbard Celine]

Dude - that is a logical fallacy in somuch that you are changing the question.

We went in - we = the United Nations - to ENSURE He had no weapons. C'mon now...try harder.



No you didn't.




It's just that you are SOO F'ing intellectually dishonest. It's sickening and laughable.

The UN didn't go in dmp. The UN ruled that it would be illegal to attack Iraq on questionable intelligence before they actually attacked anyone. WE attacked Iraq along with our pitiful "coalition of the willing."

Yes I did.

What's sickening is the level of partisanship on this board--you included. What's sickening is that you see nothing wrong with mismanaging a war from the very beginning and basing the war on unfounded intelligence to begin with.

[truthmatters]

Dude - that is a logical fallacy in somuch that you are changing the question.

We went in - we = the United Nations - to ENSURE He had no weapons. C'mon now...try harder.



No you didn't.




It's just that you are SOO F'ing intellectually dishonest. It's sickening and laughable.





You want me to get the tape of them saying there is no doubt Sadam has weapons adn we KNOW where they are?

[red states rule]

You want me to get the tape of them saying there is no doubt Sadam has weapons adn we KNOW where they are?

Take you pick............


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

"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

"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

"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

"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

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

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, 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

"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

"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

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"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


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/931783/posts

[Hagbard Celine]

the point is Dems say Bush lied about WMD's and ignore what Dems said

mostly the liberal media keeps pushing this fairy tale

No they don't. CNN mentioned that Hillary among others was in favor of the war just now. Everybody knows which candidates voted for the war. It even came up on the infamous CNN Youtube debate.

The reason Bush gets more heat than the democrats AND republicans who voted for the war is because he was the ring leader. He petitioned the UN for permission to attack Iraq. He asked Congress for permission to invade Iraq. He led the effort to assemble the "coalition of the willing." His office presented the intelligence to support an invasion. He has been the public face of the war from the very beginning. Obviously he's the one who gets the heat after it has gone so terribly wrong.

[red states rule]

No they don't. CNN mentioned that Hillary among others was in favor of the war just now. Everybody knows which candidates voted for the war. It even came up on the infamous CNN Youtube debate.

The reason Bush gets more heat than the democrats AND republicans who voted for the war is because he was the ring leader. He petitioned the UN for permission to attack Iraq. He asked Congress for permission to invade Iraq. He led the effort to assemble the "coalition of the willing." His office presented the intelligence to support an invasion. He has been the public face of the war from the very beginning. Obviously he's the one who gets the heat after it has gone so terribly wrong.

and with the surge working - the Dems and the liberal media now has a big shit burger to eat

If Pres Bush gets the heat while things were not going well - I wil not wait for the liberal media to give him the credit when things are going well

[truthmatters]

And who is are the ones who Told them those lies and convienced these people that the WMDs still exisisted in 2002?

It was those people who Cherrry picked the INTELL and Made it LOOK like he still had them.

They said things like Cheney: "There is NO DOUBT Sadam still has WMDs"

Rummy: " we know where they are ,they are near Trikrit and north south and east of it."

You see that is why the congress trusted Bush and NOW they dont!

[truthmatters]

and with the surge working - the Dems and the liberal media now has a big shit burger to eat

If Pres Bush gets the heat while things were not going well - I wil not wait for the liberal media to give him the credit when things are going well

Where is your proof its working?

[red states rule]

And who is are the ones who Told them those lies and convienced these people that the WMDs still exisisted in 2002?

It was those people who Cherrry picked the INTELL and Made it LOOK like he still had them.

They said things like Cheney: "There is NO DOUBT Sadam still has WMDs"

Rummy: " we know where they are ,they are near Trikrit and north south and east of it."

You see that is why the congress trusted Bush and NOW they dont!

Dems were saying Saddam had WMD's in the 1990's

Was Bush to blame for that as well?

[truthmatters]

And he DID and the Clinton admin put him in a box so he couldnt use them huh?

[truthmatters]

Dems were saying Saddam had WMD's in the 1990's

Was Bush to blame for that as well?

Get it straight!

Bush is responsible for LYING about the WMDs not for the ones Sadam had before Clinton put him in a box.

[red states rule]

Get it straight!

Bush is responsible for LYING about the WMDs not for the ones Sadam had before Clinton put him in a box.

Oh, now the WMD's are different? LOL!!

Hell, most of the Dems did NOT read the intle reports before they voted

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44837-2004Apr26?language=printer

[darin]

Then what is with the quotes from this admin saying there was NO DOUBT Sadam had WMDs and that we KNOW where they are?


means our Intelligence agencies - and those of the free world, may have been mistaken?

[red states rule]

means our Intelligence agencies - and those of the free world, may have been mistaken?

libs are so desperate to defend their own

[truthmatters]

Over and Over again people out of our intell have come out and said the Bush team wanted only the intell which fit their goals, they then ignored the vast majority of the intell which did not fit their goals.

For some reason you chose to believe the people with political agendas instead of the experts.

[red states rule]

Over and Over again people out of our intell have come out and said the Bush team wanted only the intell which fit their goals, they then ignored the vast majority of the intell which did not fit their goals.

For some reason you chose to believe the people with political agendas instead of the experts.

No, I go by what the Dems SAID for many years before the war

[truthmatters]

Do you remember how the Bush admin and the Republicans treated the countries who Intell did get it right?

[red states rule]

Do you remember how the Bush admin and the Republicans treated the countries who Intell did get it right?

:link:

[truthmatters]

No, I go by what the Dems SAID for many years before the war


The problem with your theory here is things were DONE to stop him.

You will believe aything this admin tells you to believe and I dont know why?

can you tell me why?

Why do you chooose Bush over the intell people?

Why do you flail to blame the people who were lied to instead of the liars?

[truthmatters]

Do Freedom Fries ring a bell?

[darin]

Over and Over again people out of our intell have come out and said the Bush team wanted only the intell which fit their goals, they then ignored the vast majority of the intell which did not fit their goals.

For some reason you chose to believe the people with political agendas instead of the experts.


I thought truth mattered to you? weird.

[red states rule]

The problem with your theory here is things were DONE to stop him.

You will believe aything this admin tells you to believe and I dont know why?

can you tell me why?

Why do you chooose Bush over the intell people?

Why do you flail to blame the people who were lied to instead of the liars?

Botom line - if Bush lied about the WMD's so did alot of Dems (including the Clintons)

[red states rule]

I thought truth mattered to you? weird.

You thought wrong

[red states rule]

Do Freedom Fries ring a bell?

France was taking bribes from Saddam and they double crossed Sec Powell at the UN

[truthmatters]

Link?

[truthmatters]

Botom line - if Bush lied about the WMD's so did alot of Dems (including the Clintons)

What is so hard to understand about at one time he had them , we put him n a box and destroyed them then Bush used the intell to convience people he had more even though the UN inspectors at the time said he didnt?

This is the part where your complete lack of belief in truth shines bright for all to see.

[red states rule]

Link?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4333678.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/06/woil06.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/10/06/ixportaltop.html

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DebraJSaunders/2003/03/20/fickle_finger_of_france

[truthmatters]

I thought truth mattered to you? weird.

Please point out just what in there is not truth?

[red states rule]

What is so hard to understand about at one time he had them , we put him n a box and destroyed them then Bush used the intell to convience people he had more even though the UN inspectors at the time said he didnt?

This is the part where your complete lack of belief in truth shines bright for all to see.

I see libs ducking from the facts and trying to rpvide cover for their own

[darin]

Please point out just what in there is not truth?


Over and Over again people out of our intell have come out and said the Bush team wanted only the intell which fit their goals, they then ignored the vast majority of the intell which did not fit their goals.


That's one.

[truthmatters]

Jean-Bernard Merimee, the French ambassador to the UN from 1991 to 1995, was detained on Monday, on the orders of Paris magistrate Philippe Courroye.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4333678.stm
Note he is not the French government now is he.
Look at the years he was ambassador?

When the whole freedom fries thing was being done thia guy was long gone huh?

[red states rule]

That's one.

DMP you are sooooooo bad

[truthmatters]

That's one.


You dont read the papers?

[darin]

You dont read the papers?

Not often. The problem is, IMO, you don't know the difference between an op/ed and a real, honest, story. Not your fault - SOO MANY news papers today print their 'stories' AS Op/Eds.

I get my news from a place who simply reports - then lets ME decide :)

[red states rule]

You dont read the papers?

The liberal media reports what they want to happen - not what happened

[avatar4321]

Please point out just what in there is not truth?

There isnt enough space to quote everything you have said.

The French werent being honest in the intell. Quite the opposite.

[avatar4321]

You dont read the papers?

Why would any searcher for truth read such blatant nonsense?

[truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/kz36c


This is about an Intell report which says Bush Ignored them on the intell.

GET IT!

It is the Intell community saying in writing in a REPORT that Bush ignored them.

[truthmatters]

There isnt enough space to quote everything you have said.

The French werent being honest in the intell. Quite the opposite.

Then how is it they turned out to be right about Iraq we our President turned out to be wrong???????

[truthmatters]

Why would any searcher for truth read such blatant nonsense?


Where pray tell do you get your information?

[red states rule]

http://tinyurl.com/kz36c


This is about an Intell report which says Bush Ignored them on the intell.

GET IT!

It is the Intell community saying in writing in a REPORT that Bush ignored them.

So how could an idiot like Bush fool the intellectually superior Dems? Of course, I posted how France was taking bribes, double crossed Sec Powell, and how most Dems never read the intel reports

None of that matters to you of course

[truthmatters]

So how could an idiot like Bush fool the intellectually superior Dems? Of course, I posted how France was taking bribes, double crossed Sec Powell, and how most Dems never read the intel reports

None of that matters to you of course


Bush was president and used his power to gleen from the intell anything that bolstered his plan, even some which had been completely discredited like the Yellow cake bit.

I gave you An governmet intell report where they Itell people have said this much.

The Dems and the honest Rs at the time including you and me were Played by this admin.

France did not take bribes , a french diplomat did back in 1991-1995.

Now would you like to say America took bribes because Bob Ney , Cunningham did?

They are guilty of one huge mistake and that was Trusting this admin right after 911.

[red states rule]

You posted a link for a unreliable source. I posted three links from different sources to make my points

Dems are so desperate. They cannot prove their charges, they are seeing the US military making progress in Iraq, and they are terrified over the success being made in Iraq

Dems put their party ahead of the country - and they are going to pay for it.

Libs keep fighting battles they lost in the last election - and showing they care nothing about solving the issues

[avatar4321]

Then how is it they turned out to be right about Iraq we our President turned out to be wrong???????

They werent right. They even admitted they lied.

[red states rule]

They werent right. They even admitted they lied.

To libs -that was a lie

[glockmail]

http://tinyurl.com/kz36c


This is about an Intell report which says Bush Ignored them on the intell.

GET IT!

It is the Intell community saying in writing in a REPORT that Bush ignored them.

With thousands of reports he has to find a consensus. That means one or several are going to be given zero weight. That's simple reality.

[red states rule]

With thousands of reports he has to find a consensus. That means one or several are going to be given zero weight. That's simple reality.

and Dems had access to the same intel reports - and they did not bother to read them before they voted

[truthmatters]

You posted a link for a unreliable source. I posted three links from different sources to make my points

Dems are so desperate. They cannot prove their charges, they are seeing the US military making progress in Iraq, and they are terrified over the success being made in Iraq

Dems put their party ahead of the country - and they are going to pay for it.

Libs keep fighting battles they lost in the last election - and showing they care nothing about solving the issues

looked at all three of your links and the first was one diplomat ,the second was the same and the third offered nothing

[red states rule]

looked at all three of your links and the first was one diplomat ,the second was the same and the third offered nothing

I did not think for a moment the facts and truth would mean anythng to you

I tried

[truthmatters]

Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War
Links Were Cited to Justify U.S. Invasion, Report Says

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 9, 2006; Page A01

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."



A Senate report on prewar intelligence found no evidence of ties between al-Qaeda and former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, pictured here testifying in Baghdad on Aug. 21, 2006. (Daniel Berehulak - AP)


The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued.

http://tinyurl.com/kz36c


You people really should READ what is given you for a change

[red states rule]

So you had a group of people disagreeing - so what

A majority of the reports said Saddam had WMD's (as Dems had said for years)

Libs try to say Pres Bush changed the intel to say Saddam had WMD's - which he did not

[truthmatters]

The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities.After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued.



http://tinyurl.com/kz36c
By Jonathan Weisman

Please people realise you are saying the Intell people were lying.

Now were they ONLY telling the truth about the parts you and Bush liked?

[red states rule]

The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities.After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued.



http://tinyurl.com/kz36c
By Jonathan Weisman

Please people realise you are saying the Intell people were lying.

Now were they ONLY telling the truth about the parts you and Bush liked?


Please get some new talking points. This has been hashed over and pver - and it no longer holds water

Dems for years said Saddam had WMD's and libs made Pres Bush wait so long before going into Iraq Saddma had time to send them to Syria

Give it a rest.

[glockmail]

I did not think for a moment the facts and truth would mean anythng to you

I tried Apparently this is true, as no response to post 93. :pee:

[truthmatters]

Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War
Links Were Cited to Justify U.S. Invasion, Report Says

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 9, 2006; Page A01

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.


http://tinyurl.com/kz36c

Now lets get this straightUS intelligence analysts were strongly disputing

OK GET IT! OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY DISPUTED WHAT THEY WERE CLAIMING

You can pretend these are not the facts but that is what makes you people either extrememly mentally challenged or flat out LIARS!

[Missileman]

What is so hard to understand about at one time he had them , we put him n a box and destroyed them then Bush used the intell to convience people he had more even though the UN inspectors at the time said he didnt?

This is the part where your complete lack of belief in truth shines bright for all to see.

The UN inspectors that were allowed into Iraq could not find proof that any of the WMD he had were destroyed. Add that tidbit to the fact the Hussein continued to maintain that he was in possession of WMDs and tell me what conclusion you would arrive at.

[darin]

The UN inspectors that were allowed into Iraq could not find proof that any of the WMD he had were destroyed. Add that tidbit to the fact the Hussein continued to maintain that he was in possession of WMDs and tell me what conclusion you would arrive at.

shhhh....she likes taking stuff out of context to fit HER truth :)

[truthmatters]

The inspectors told Bush the inspections were working remember?

[Missileman]

The inspectors told Bush the inspections were working remember?

That doesn't answer my question...forget?

[truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

Please leave youre revisionist history at the Republican headquaters door

[glockmail]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

Please leave youre revisionist history at the Republican headquaters door
LOL and Wiki is not revisionist?

[truthmatters]

The UN inspectors that were allowed into Iraq could not find proof that any of the WMD he had were destroyed. Add that tidbit to the fact the Hussein continued to maintain that he was in possession of WMDs and tell me what conclusion you would arrive at.

The UN inspectors said the inspections were working.

They found no reason to believe he has reconstituted his weapons program.

They had no capability to use whatever they previously had because it was deteriorated beyond use.

[truthmatters]

LOL and Wiki is not revisionist?


Tell me what part of this wiki article is wrong?

[glockmail]

Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War.....flat out LIARS![commie red and huge font deleted]

"Some say...."

[glockmail]

Tell me what part of this wiki article is wrong? The part that you wrote.

But seriously, be specific.

[Missileman]

The UN inspectors said the inspections were working.

They were unable to determine that he had destroyed the weapons that you acknowledge he had.


They found no reason to believe he has reconstituted his weapons program.

They had no capability to use whatever they previously had because it was deteriorated beyond use.

Which is it? Did he have a bunch of badly deteriorated WMDs around or did he have none?

If you decide you want to run with the deteriorated weapons theory, I'd like you to provide a link that establishes that fact. To my knowledge, while they did find some old delapidated mustard gas shells, that would hardly be proof that his entire inventory had become useless in a few years. I ask this having worked on a weapon system in the USAF that is still going strong after 40 years.

[truthmatters]

He had NO WMDs other than the ones they found burried in the desert which we a threat to no one except they people who had to dig them up.

The WMD threat to the US and its allies by Sadam was NON exsistant.

The inspectors were mostly looking for evidence that he had reconstituted his WMD stash.

They found NO evidence of such which is why Hans Blix said so.

[truthmatters]

The part that you wrote.

But seriously, be specific.


http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

here this is probabably more your speed

[Missileman]

He had NO WMDs other than the ones they found burried in the desert which we a threat to no one except they people who had to dig them up.

The WMD threat to the US and its allies by Sadam was NON exsistant.

The inspectors were mostly looking for evidence that he had reconstituted his WMD stash.

They found NO evidence of such which is why Hans Blix said so.

This doesn't jive with the following:


Originally Posted by truthmatters
What is so hard to understand about at one time he had them , we put him n a box and destroyed them then Bush used the intell to convience people he had more even though the UN inspectors at the time said he didnt?

This is the part where your complete lack of belief in truth shines bright for all to see.

If you're going to keep switching your story, it's going to be very difficult to proceed.

[glockmail]

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

here this is probabably more your speed
A link is not specific. Pick one point and take a stand on it.

[truthmatters]

This doesn't jive with the following:



If you're going to keep switching your story, it's going to be very difficult to proceed.


So what you are saying is Bush took us to war for severely degraded unusable WMDs?


Please we had inspectors in Iraq to make sure they had not Reconstituted their WMD progam.

You can keep pretending this isnt true and that what I said in in congruient with the facts but it is not the case.

If its too hard for you to understand the complexities of the issue perhaps you should do something else with your time than discuss politics.

[truthmatters]

I already proved it to you people with facts.



Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War
Links Were Cited to Justify U.S. Invasion, Report Says

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 9, 2006; Page A01

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.


http://tinyurl.com/kz36c

Now lets get this straightUS intelligence analysts were strongly disputing

OK GET IT! OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY DISPUTED WHAT THEY WERE CLAIMING

You can pretend these are not the facts but that is what makes you people either extrememly mentally challenged or flat out LIARS!

[truthmatters]

Your refusal to face facts and accept the truths of the matter is why your party is about to take a shellacking

[avatar4321]

The UN inspectors said the inspections were working.

They found no reason to believe he has reconstituted his weapons program.

They had no capability to use whatever they previously had because it was deteriorated beyond use.

nevermind the post invasion documents showing Saddam was prepared to resume his nuclear program the second we stopped looking.

[Missileman]

So what you are saying is Bush took us to war for severely degraded unusable WMDs?

I've said no such thing. It is you that decided to suggest that they were unuseable after having said that Hussein had WMDs contrary to your original argument in which he had NONE. And you still didn't post any information that supports YOUR story that his entire stockpile was severely degraded.


If its too hard for you to understand the complexities of the issue perhaps you should do something else with your time than discuss politics.

The only thing making the discussion complex is your habit of switching arguments as soon as your previous one is blasted off the map. If you will stick to one argument, things will proceed more smoothly.

[truthmatters]

The only weapons he had were the degraded ones , the UN inspectors had pointed out that he had NOT reconstituted his weapons programs.

That is why they said the inspections were working.

You can pretend your clap trap means anything but it doesnt.

He had NO WMDs because WMDs means weapons of mass distruction.

He did have old unusable weapons and these were of no concern to us because they could not hurt us and our allies.

This is why the UN didnt go with us.

Now I have given you proof of the fact that the entire intell community tried to tell this admin it was not looking at the vast majority of the intell and were taking us a country which was no real threat.

Do you care about those facts or do you only want to pretend your arguement means anything to the policy of this country?

[Missileman]

The only weapons he had were the degraded ones , the UN inspectors had pointed out that he had NOT reconstituted his weapons programs.

You still haven't posted a single shred of evidence that this is true. We KNOW and you admit that he had serviceable, fully functional WMDs during Desert Storm. They were never accounted for. You don't have to go back into production if you're already sitting on a cache of WMDs. WMDs don't become useless overnite, and if properly maintained, even over the course of decades. If you think that the Iraqis were being fully cooperative and forthright when they took the inspectors to piles of old WWII mustard gas shells, you don't know shit.




Now I have given you proof of the fact that the entire intell community tried to tell this admin it was not looking at the vast majority of the intell and were taking us a country which was no real threat.

Do you care about those facts or do you only want to pretend your arguement means anything to the policy of this country?

You haven't given any proof, only your opinion. Iraq was a threat to the security of the U.S. Hussein had already used WMDs against his own citizens...you know, the ones that didn't exist...err weren't useable...err were magic and just vanished into thin air. He was a threat to provide WMDs to terrorists who in turn would attack.

[avatar4321]

You still haven't posted a single shred of evidence that this is true. We KNOW and you admit that he had serviceable, fully functional WMDs during Desert Storm. They were never accounted for. You don't have to go back into production if you're already sitting on a cache of WMDs. WMDs don't become useless overnite, and if properly maintained, even over the course of decades. If you think that the Iraqis were being fully cooperative and forthright when they took the inspectors to piles of old WWII mustard gas shells, you don't know shit.





You haven't given any proof, only your opinion. Iraq was a threat to the security of the U.S. Hussein had already used WMDs against his own citizens...you know, the ones that didn't exist...err weren't useable...err were magic and just vanished into thin air. He was a threat to provide WMDs to terrorists who in turn would attack.

What's more her argument really doesnt even matter if its true. We are there now and pulling out would mean genocide.

[emmett]

The only weapons he had were the degraded ones , the UN inspectors had pointed out that he had NOT reconstituted his weapons programs.

That is why they said the inspections were working.

You can pretend your clap trap means anything but it doesnt.

He had NO WMDs because WMDs means weapons of mass distruction.

He did have old unusable weapons and these were of no concern to us because they could not hurt us and our allies.

This is why the UN didnt go with us.

Now I have given you proof of the fact that the entire intell community tried to tell this admin it was not looking at the vast majority of the intell and were taking us a country which was no real threat.

Do you care about those facts or do you only want to pretend your arguement means anything to the policy of this country?

Once upon a time there was a really nice guy from Iraq. Unfortunately America didn't like him. One afternoon while sitting around in his multi million dollar castle he decided he wanted to beat up on and control the oil profits of his neighbor Kuwait. So, He sent his Republican guard, hundreds of tanks, airplanes and soldiers there to kill innocent folks (like the ones he did in Northern Iraq). America stopped him, COLD! They ran him out of little Kuwait, return instant rule to it's citizens and then proceeded to flank into Iaq and stop the nice man from killing his own people who didn't agree with him. This was very convincing as the nice man made a deal, called a treaty, that said if he indulged in any further behavior such as this he would be removed from power and his country would be infiltrated by the big bullies from America who wanted no rewards but only to see that innocent folks were not being killed fro their oil. Well, he didn't keep his promise. His ass was kicked, his country taken and handed over to it's citizens and the nice man was hung by his neck until he choked to death and basically whatever happens after that can't be that bad cause the nice man is dead!

[red states rule]

The only weapons he had were the degraded ones , the UN inspectors had pointed out that he had NOT reconstituted his weapons programs.

That is why they said the inspections were working.

You can pretend your clap trap means anything but it doesnt.

He had NO WMDs because WMDs means weapons of mass distruction.

He did have old unusable weapons and these were of no concern to us because they could not hurt us and our allies.

This is why the UN didnt go with us.

Now I have given you proof of the fact that the entire intell community tried to tell this admin it was not looking at the vast majority of the intell and were taking us a country which was no real threat.

Do you care about those facts or do you only want to pretend your arguement means anything to the policy of this country?

If Saddam was the innocent soul you make him out to be - what the hell did he ship off the Syria?

[glockmail]

Your refusal to face facts and accept the truths of the matter is why your party is about to take a shellackingpost 117 awaits

:pee:

[darin]

:)

[truthmatters]

Where did I say anthing about Sadam being a nice guy?

He was a shit hole!

He just did not have any WMDs or AQ ties and our Intell tried to tell Bush that before he took us to a war which has taken longer than WWII and we are still up to our eyeballs in shit.

This aint going right and anyone with ANY brains can see that.

[glockmail]

... taken longer than WWII ..... When did we move out our bases in Japan and Germany? Oh yeah, we're still there!

Get a grip, girl. :pee:

[avatar4321]

Where did I say anthing about Sadam being a nice guy?

He was a shit hole!

He just did not have any WMDs or AQ ties and our Intell tried to tell Bush that before he took us to a war which has taken longer than WWII and we are still up to our eyeballs in shit.

This aint going right and anyone with ANY brains can see that.

If we are going to measure any war in comparison with WWII, lets atleast do it on the number of casualties. because then its a fair reading.

Compared to WWII, this war hasnt even had the same amount of American losses as the training for D-Day.

This is a walk in the park in comparison. If you want it to end faster, im sure we could but it would likely end up with much more casualties. do you really want that?

[nevadamedic]

Can Gabby go more then 15 mins without getting banned? We need to make an award just for her. :laugh2::salute:

[red states rule]

If we are going to measure any war in comparison with WWII, lets atleast do it on the number of casualties. because then its a fair reading.

Compared to WWII, this war hasnt even had the same amount of American losses as the training for D-Day.

This is a walk in the park in comparison. If you want it to end faster, im sure we could but it would likely end up with much more casualties. do you really want that?

Also with WWII, the second worst attack on America united the nation into defeating our enemies.

The WORST attack on America has the left pushing for surrender and appeasement to our enemies

Go figure

[gabosaurus]

Can Gabby go more then 15 mins without getting banned? We need to make an award just for her.

I have never banned myself. That is the job of other people.

[MtnBiker]

Romney's prominent investments are another sore spot. He has amassed a total worth of over $250 million through various investments. Romney companies once did business with Iran. His oil stock still does business with Sudan. His other investments include a cigarette manufacturer and a casino.
So long Mitt.

This is a capitalistic country, Edwards has made millions on hedge funds that are foreclosing on subprime borrowers. Are you saying people should not make profit in business?