President Bush: Is He a Liar?

What the hell do you mean, afraid to answer?!? I did answer.





Cycloptichorn

I stand corrected.


No it doesn't, but it might warrant invasion of a specific country with a very, very evil dictatator, who had a history of trying to annex his neighbors, were it given that he did have or had had bioweapons development programs, and there was a 20% chance that in 3 years he would have very deadly bioweapons.


You are mistakenly assuming that WMD in Saddam Hussein's hands would pose no more of a risk than WMD in the hands of the American government. You seem to be implying in fact, that if anyone prsents a certain level of risk in possession of a gun, everyone else presents exactly that same level of risk in possession of a gun.

It is only a matter of personal opinion on how much the risks differ. You cannot know the heart of the person holding the gun, their true intentions, therefore, you cannot say with certainty that one is a greater risk than another or not.

Also, it doesn't have to be 'official' US policy to use the bioweapons for them to escape or to be actively used in a covert fashion. The only way another country can guarantee their safety is by removing the possible problem. Remember, even a 1% chance that we would use the weapons is too high. Right? That's the mindset used by those who advocated attacking Iraq.

This whole tack is asinine, however, since there was never any credible evidence that Saddam was developing Bioweapons. Just more fearmongering from the Right.

Cycloptichorn

9-11 dominates today's headlines, and prompts many Americans to wonder, "Are we any safer five years later?" As the week presses on, we can expect the news will shift back to the chaos and security threats that have grown globally as Washington conservatives "stay the course" they charted just after September 11th, 2001. Today's national and global insecurity compels us to ask what's gone wrong and how we can chart a new direction?

How have conservatives made us less safe in the five years since 9-11? What progressive strategies can provide real security for America? Answers to these questions are the focus of this week's Straight Talk Live.

As news coverage unfolds this week, we wanted to provide a progressive lens from which to evaluate information and shape the discussions that follow from it.

For example, consider this take on the root causes of conservative failure post 9-11 from Campaign for America's Future Co-Director, Robert Borosage:

"The neo-conservatives that dominated administration policy-making got the threat wrong, the strategy wrong, and the priorities wrong. They scorned the threat posed by Bin Laden and stateless terrorists both before September 11th and after, focusing instead on rogue states. They disdained international alliance and the United Nations, believing that the US could act alone and others would follow. They believed that the ?'shock and awe' of US military power would suffice to cow the terrorists..." more »

Alternatively, consider the host of strategies that progressives can champion to chart a new course for real security:

* Isolate the terrorists, don't inflate them. Focus on Bin Laden and the stateless terrorist cells. Isolate them from Muslim nationalism...
* End the occupation of Iraq which is weakening our military, isolating our nation, and generating recruits for al Qaeda...
* Launch a crash drive for energy independence. Free us from our dependence on Persian Gulf oil, the leading source of funding for Islamic extremism across the world...
* Provide greater security here at home, by implementing the 9-11 Commission recommendations...
* Make America a source of hope, not of hatred. Spread democracy by example, not by force of arms...

Click here for more on progressive security strategies.

Consider the results of conservative rule since September 11th, 2001: the Bin Laden trail has gone cold, we've fanned radical Islamic hatred, alienated our allies, weakened our military, and failed to focus fully on strengthening homeland security.

Progressives stand ready to chart a new course, with concrete solutions to these failures. Please join us in learning more, and helping to share some straight talk on five years since 9-11 and our prospects for a brighter future.

Thanks for your continued support.

Sincerely,


Ian Mishalove, Director Online Communications
Campaign for America's Future

Of course he is afraid to answer, Brandon. And he dismisses the following quotes as quotes from People who did not have access>

What a laugh!!

The President of the United States did not have access!

The Vice President of the United States did not have access!

The Secretary of State of the United States did not have access!

The National Security Director did not have access!

The Senators on the Intelligence Committee did not have access!

Hillary Rodham Clinton did not have access( She has and had access to EVERYTHING!

The Secretary of DEFENSE( for God's sake) did not have access!



Cyclopitchorn cannot show that the following quotes were LIES. They were conclusions reached on the basis of EVIDENCE AVAILABLE

IN SOME CASES, EVIDENCE AVAILABLE BEFORE BUSH BECAME PRESIDENT.





I DEFY CYCLOPITCHORN TO READ THE FOLLOWING AND STATE THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE ACCESS.

Only left wingers who are almost completely IGNORANT about the events before and after 9/11 would say that.

Quote from Norman Podhoretz- "Who is lying about Iraq"





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

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.

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk 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.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Finally, Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained "absolutely convinced" of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President

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.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

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.

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

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.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush's benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

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.

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush's opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Gore again, in that same year:

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.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 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.




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

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

Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.2

Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that

without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again.

The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was

hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country's salvation.

So, too, the Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 with the admonition that

[o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous?-or more urgent?-than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.3

************************************************************

Cyclopitchorn is almost always mistaken. He knows very little about the US Economy, He posts ridiculous conclusions about median family income--leaving out vital facts. He is not, obviously, well read concerning Iraq and the murderous Islamic Fascist.

He won't even try to rebut the material above. But that's fine because it STANDS UNREBUTTED AS A TESTIMONY TO THE CLUELESSNESS OF THE LEFT WING.

Left wingers are so detached from reality that they cannot marshall arguments against data like that provided above!

Robert Borosage? The "cow" quotes Robert Borosage??????????

I do hope that she knows who Robert Borosage is.

He writes for the "Nation". That magazine was once known as Pravda West. I am going to assume that if the "cow" can quote from the "Nation", I can also quote from National Review. I rarely quote from National Review because I know it is too far right wing and unbalanced in its views AS THE NATION IS IN ITS PRONOUNCEMENTS.

Calling upon Norman Podhoretz on matters of the current state of affairs is like asking a methhead to explain the positives of using crystal meth.
Podhoretz, or his wife, are hardly what any of us would call unbiased specimen.

I thought that many of the neoconservative PNAC spokesmen have lost their credibility in the eyes of the majority of Americans.
Apparently a select few still validate their tripe.

Bush on the TEEVEE now lying his ass off. They hate us for our freedom, still trying to link 9/11 with Iraq. It's all just one BIG LIE.

If we leave Iraq, "the terrorists" will follow us here. Liar !

But they love our freedom too!

Candidone wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling upon Norman Podhoretz on matters of the current state of affairs is like asking a methhead to explain the positives of using crystal meth.
Podhoretz, or his wife, are hardly what any of us would call unbiased specimen.
**********************************************************

A typical answer from a highly IGNORANT poster. He did not read my post and did not read the quotes in that post. Candidone is a fraud!
Podhoretz did not make up the quotes. If Candidone thinks so, he should point that out. He can't so he uses the weak argumentum ad hominem ploy.

How Ignorant and predictable!!

Well, now, Candidone 1 , I will give you some quotes that the Democrats made about WMD's. Either show that the quotes are not correct or admit that you are IGNORANT about the fact that even the Democratic leadership believed that Saddam had WMD's.


quote

Bill Clinton( who. of course,. had NO access to intelligence on WMD's) in 1998.

"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 W E A P O N S O F M A S S D E S T R U C T I O N
P R O G R A M"

Secretary of State Madeline Albright( in 1998) who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on WMD's

"Iraq is a long way from (the USA),but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL, OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AGAINST US OR OUR ALLIES IS THE G R E A T E S T S E C U R I T Y T H R E A T T H A T W E F A C E"

Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on WMD's

"Saddam will use those weapons of Mass Destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983"

Hillary Rodham Clinton, who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on WMD's( IN 2002)

"In the four years since the inspectors left, INTELLIGENCE REPORTS show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS STOCK, HIS MISSILE DELIVERY CAPABILITY, AND HIS NUCLEAR PROGRAM. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN AID, COMFORT AND SANCTUARY TO TERRORISTS, INCLUDING AL-QUADA MEMBERS"

Al Gore, who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on Wmd's in 2002

"We KNOW that Saddam has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country"

and, last but not least, John Kerry who had no access to intelligence on Wmd's(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 the country"






These are the quotes from Podhoretz's piece which it is apparent Candidone was either too lazy to read or too dismissive of Podhoretz's evidence.

I therefore challenge Candidone( I know he can't do it) to show that the DEMOCRAT LEADERS ABOVE did not say what I quoted.

It is clear from the quotes that Democratic Leaders did believe that Saddam had WMD's.

So I am to gather that it is Clinton's fault that Bush is a liar?

Candidone wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling upon Norman Podhoretz on matters of the current state of affairs is like asking a methhead to explain the positives of using crystal meth.
Podhoretz, or his wife, are hardly what any of us would call unbiased specimen.
**********************************************************

A typical answer from a highly IGNORANT poster. He did not read my post and did not read the quotes in that post. Candidone is a fraud!
Podhoretz did not make up the quotes. If Candidone thinks so, he should point that out. He can't so he uses the weak argumentum ad hominem ploy.

How Ignorant and predictable!!

Well, now, Candidone 1 , I will give you some quotes that the Democrats made about WMD's. Either show that the quotes are not correct or admit that you are IGNORANT about the fact that even the Democratic leadership believed that Saddam had WMD's.


quote

Bill Clinton( who. of course,. had NO access to intelligence on WMD's) in 1998.

"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 W E A P O N S O F M A S S D E S T R U C T I O N
P R O G R A M"

Secretary of State Madeline Albright( in 1998) who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on WMD's

"Iraq is a long way from (the USA),but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL, OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AGAINST US OR OUR ALLIES IS THE G R E A T E S T S E C U R I T Y T H R E A T T H A T W E F A C E"

Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on WMD's

"Saddam will use those weapons of Mass Destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983"

Hillary Rodham Clinton, who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on WMD's( IN 2002)

"In the four years since the inspectors left, INTELLIGENCE REPORTS show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS STOCK, HIS MISSILE DELIVERY CAPABILITY, AND HIS NUCLEAR PROGRAM. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN AID, COMFORT AND SANCTUARY TO TERRORISTS, INCLUDING AL-QUADA MEMBERS"

Al Gore, who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on Wmd's in 2002

"We KNOW that Saddam has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country"

and, last but not least, John Kerry who had no access to intelligence on Wmd's(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 the country"

This one is still open, Brandon.

blatham writes
.

Or, given that there are existing war plans on file for just about any scenario you can imagine, it could very well be that the President was simply saying he had not received any specific plans for any specific scenario and there were no such plans literally on his desk.

Going back to an earlier post of mine this week, I reposted a looooooooong list of specific quotes by people who were saying a lot of brave things about what must be done in Iraq including many urging the use of force. I would guess that every single one of those people, if asked, would have said there were no war plans on his or her desk.

To make the leap that the President engaged in his Constitutional role as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces extrapolates to an intention to go to war is a huge leap of faith that appears to be based on a dislike of a person rather than on any reasonable opinion. And it is certainly no proof that the President lied.

On the other hand, for any President to telegraph such an intention before a decision was made would have been irresponsible and a dereliction of his Constitutional responsibility.

I am willing to concede that the necessity for government to not telegraph certain components of national security, including the safety and welfare of people engaged in necessary clandestine operations, could easily result in a necessary lie. I would imagine that most high ranking officials do have to sidestep a clear truth to avoid putting people's lives or a critical mission in jeopardy.

But I don't think that is the kind of lie Brandon meant when he started this thread.

Amazing. The Bush apologists will dance on the head of a pin to try to defend Bush's lies.

Bernard, aside from your incessant ad hominem attacks please be reminded that much of your drivel goes unread.
I have seen those quotations before and I immediately went to Podhoretz's essay "Who is Lying in Iraq"
If you are quoting an author, I assume it's fair to make judgements about their affiliations, as you have so frequently done with my alleged affiliations.

I'm curious Bernard, why you are citing individuals who had no access to intelligence as authoratative. What they offer is merely an hypothesis and not anything grounded by empirical evidence.
The "clueless left wing" made the same flawed judgements about Saddam's weapons program as the informed right wing.

Do you have a point?
If so, cease the puerile name calling and make it.

Who cares? Brandon doesn't set the agenda here. Brandon's every waking moment seems to be devoted to defnding the lying war criminal Bush. Pathetic!

It's always interesting to see who gets called on ad hominem attacks around here. If you want to call someone on it, why not call everyone on it instead of only those that disagree with your point of view?

Alright, then, give a citation to his statement, and at least one citation to evidence that it was false.

Respectfully McG, he was speaking to me and I responded to his direct insults.
I'm certainly in no position to police this board in that manner, nor is it my responsibility to speak up for those under personal attack from other members.