Why do you still support Bush?

I would have worked the words "moron" and "kneejerk" into that paragraph, ci...but it ain't really all that bad as you wrote it.

I REALLY CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW ALL OF THE LEADING DEMOCRATS COULD BELIEVE THAT SADDAM HAD WMD'S. THEY ARE QUOTED IN THE POST BELOW AND, UP TO THIS TIME, NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THAT THEY DID NOT MAKE THOSE STATEMENTS__



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocate wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McG, your "good roundup" on WMD is all ancient history. Saddam ended his nuke phase in the late 1990s.
____________________________________________________________

I would really advise Advocate to apply for a job as a counselor to the leading Democrats in the Senate and House. Since Mr. Advocate KNEW that Saddam ending his nuke phrase in the late 1990's, it is clear that he fooled a great many Democrats who. according to the quotes below, believed that Saddam had WMD's as recently as 2002.

quote


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

end of quote.

I am sure that Advocate will not attempt to rebut the above which clearly shows how ridiculous his statement about Saddam ending his nuke phase in 1990 really is.

Advocate must not be able to understand a basic fact. When he makes a ridiculous statement, he must give evidence to back it up.

He did not do so.

I did show that Leading Democrats thought that Saddam had WMD's ever as recently as 2002.

Bernard, it is my theory that Bush secretly visited Iraq before the war, probably spirited there on an SR-71 by the CIA in the dead of night, and found out Hussein had no WMD. This could have happened before he became president. He therefore was the only guy in the U. S. that knew this for 100% certain, except maybe the pilot and a couple of other unnamed people in the CIA. Therefore, all the other people that said Hussein had WMD, lied unintentionally, they did not know the truth, Bernard. The CIA, all the Democrats, the Senate intelligence committee, the Dept. of Defense, and the Whitehouse staffers all said Hussein had WMD, but they did not lie because Bush fed them the information and they believed him. Of course, Bush knew better. He had been there secretly probably. That has to be it. Thats the only way I can figure out why he was apparently the only guy that really lied. He made it all up. Even before he became president, he was probably working with Republican moles in the CIA, which fed the info. to Clinton, who ignorantly made silly statements from information planted by Bush. Clinton was one sharp cookie, but in this instance, he was almost certainly duped by Bush behind the scenes. And the amazing thing is Bush also managed to get his moles in the CIA to pass the false information to the French, the British, the Russians, and other intelligence agencies around the world, and they were spreading the same nonsense about Hussein having WMD.

This man Bush has to be one of the slickest and most deceptive guys ever. I don't know how he found time to set this all up, considering he also helped the CIA plot 911. Yep, you wouldn't believe it, but another thread on this forum has that all documented too, Bernard.

How could that be,Okie? That's impossible. A lie like that, which had to take in so many intelligent people like the smartest woman in the world-Hillary Rodham Clinton( according to her quote, she believed that Saddam had WMD's in 2002- NO ONE FOOLS THE SMARTEST WOMAN IN THE WORLD--) Everyone knows, especially Frank Apisa--that Bush is subnormal in intelligence.

How could that be, Okie? Are you saying that the British,German, French and Chinese Intelligence services which said that Saddam had WMD's in 2002 cooperated with Bush because he bought them off? That would require some one with a massive intelligence. No, It couldn't have been Bush.. Maybe, just maybe, it was Bill Clinton, working under cover( he does most of his best work under cover) and, after being promised his choice of feminine pulchritude, he did the deed.

No, Okie, it wont wash. Bush just isn't smart enough to have pulled it off.

What I can't understand, though, is how such a guy,( Bush got C's at Yale, you know) was able to convince all of the players.

Do you think he is a hypnotist???

I don't know Bernard. Anything is possible. And something else I forgot, he has scores of oil cronies in Texas that could have helped him. They have ties to the Middle East oil magnates. And we all know they would do anything for oil. Yes that could be it Bernard, remember the oil for food program, maybe theres a connection there? Man, this gets confusing, I just don't know how the dumbest guy to ever be president, the youngest and dumbest Bushie of all, could have pulled this off. Maybe the CFR or the Masons just used the guy as a dupe or a front, and he doesn't even know it yet.

Something else I just thought of Bernard, my theory about the SR-71 taking Bush to Iraq. He was missing while in the guard, remember? That could have been where he went.

Bernard, I was so impressed with how the people on the 911 hoax thread was putting 2 and 2 together to solve that whole mess, I decided we should be able to employ some of the same methods of reason here to figure out how Bush fooled everybody. That has bugged me forever, and finally it is beginning to make sense.

Mag?

Are you there?

Hey, If I am too abrasive just tell me, then just kick me around.

I have crocodile skin.

I "evolved" it.

Well, you shouldn't be surprised, Okie. Everyone knows that President Wilson. who wanted a one world goverment, had the Grandduke assassinated at Sarajevo so that World War I could get under way.

And, it is not a secret that FDR had bombs planted in the holds of the ships in Pearl Harbor with, of course, compliance with the Japanese who he had bought off with promises of large plantations in the Phillipines.

And.Of course,Johnson added fuel to the fire when he concocted the Gulf of Tonkin Mess.

It's all a grand conspiracy of the rich against the poor, Okie. The only thing that will save is is Karl(Marx) or perhaps the reincarnation of William Z. Foster.

And don't forget there really weren't any death camps for the Jews. Stalin really had good intentions. And many very astute professors tell us Marxism will work if its done right.

P.S. I better quit joking around or Parados will start quoting me out of context in the next debate. He might not be able to tell the difference between fact and fiction.

As naive as some socialists are...

...compared with the some of the "capitalists" posting here, they are damn near perfectly realistic.

What a bunch of know-nothing, knee-jerk conservatives operate in this forum.

Laughable!

And they take themselves so seriously!

Ya know...

...it's part of their charm.

One of the things that makes them so much fun to watch...

...is that they do take themselves so seriously.

That...and the fact that they point fingers at the stupidity and naivete' of others.

Gad...what a hoot!

I love every one of them from the tips of their toes to the top of the point on their beady little heads.

BernardR wrote:


I would really advise Advocate to apply for a job as a counselor to the leading Democrats in the Senate and House. Since Mr. Advocate KNEW that Saddam ending his nuke phrase in the late 1990's, it is clear that he fooled a great many Democrats who. according to the quotes below, believed that Saddam had WMD's as recently as 2002.

quote


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

end of quote.

I am sure that Advocate will not attempt to rebut the above which clearly shows how ridiculous his statement about Saddam ending his nuke phase in 1990 really is.

Advocate must not be able to understand a basic fact. When he makes a ridiculous statement, he must give evidence to back it up.

He did not do so.

I did show that Leading Democrats thought that Saddam had WMD's ever as recently as 2002.




okie wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard, it is my theory that Bush secretly visited Iraq before the war, probably spirited there on an SR-71 by the CIA in the dead of night, and found out Hussein had no WMD. This could have happened before he became president. He therefore was the only guy in the U. S. that knew this for 100% certain, except maybe the pilot and a couple of other unnamed people in the CIA. Therefore, all the other people that said Hussein had WMD, lied unintentionally, they did not know the truth, Bernard. The CIA, all the Democrats, the Senate intelligence committee, the Dept. of Defense, and the Whitehouse staffers all said Hussein had WMD, but they did not lie because Bush fed them the information and they believed him. Of course, Bush knew better. He had been there secretly probably. That has to be it. Thats the only way I can figure out why he was apparently the only guy that really lied. He made it all up. Even before he became president, he was probably working with Republican moles in the CIA, which fed the info. to Clinton, who ignorantly made silly statements from information planted by Bush. Clinton was one sharp cookie, but in this instance, he was almost certainly duped by Bush behind the scenes. And the amazing thing is Bush also managed to get his moles in the CIA to pass the false information to the French, the British, the Russians, and other intelligence agencies around the world, and they were spreading the same nonsense about Hussein having WMD.

This man Bush has to be one of the slickest and most deceptive guys ever. I don't know how he found time to set this all up, considering he also helped the CIA plot 911. Yep, you wouldn't believe it, but another thread on this forum has that all documented too, Bernard.






BernardR wrote


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How could that be,Okie? That's impossible. A lie like that, which had to take in so many intelligent people like the smartest woman in the world-Hillary Rodham Clinton( according to her quote, she believed that Saddam had WMD's in 2002- NO ONE FOOLS THE SMARTEST WOMAN IN THE WORLD--) Everyone knows, especially Frank Apisa--that Bush is subnormal in intelligence.

How could that be, Okie? Are you saying that the British,German, French and Chinese Intelligence services which said that Saddam had WMD's in 2002 cooperated with Bush because he bought them off? That would require some one with a massive intelligence. No, It couldn't have been Bush.. Maybe, just maybe, it was Bill Clinton, working under cover( he does most of his best work under cover) and, after being promised his choice of feminine pulchritude, he did the deed.

No, Okie, it wont wash. Bush just isn't smart enough to have pulled it off.

What I can't understand, though, is how such a guy,( Bush got C's at Yale, you know) was able to convince all of the players.

Do you think he is a hypnotist???




okie wrote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know Bernard. Anything is possible. And something else I forgot, he has scores of oil cronies in Texas that could have helped him. They have ties to the Middle East oil magnates. And we all know they would do anything for oil. Yes that could be it Bernard, remember the oil for food program, maybe theres a connection there? Man, this gets confusing, I just don't know how the dumbest guy to ever be president, the youngest and dumbest Bushie of all, could have pulled this off. Maybe the CFR or the Masons just used the guy as a dupe or a front, and he doesn't even know it yet.

Something else I just thought of Bernard, my theory about the SR-71 taking Bush to Iraq. He was missing while in the guard, remember? That could have been where he went.

Bernard, I was so impressed with how the people on the 911 hoax thread was putting 2 and 2 together to solve that whole mess, I decided we should be able to employ some of the same methods of reason here to figure out how Bush fooled everybody. That has bugged me forever, and finally it is beginning to make sense.

Yep. That canny Saddam fooled everyone into attacking him rather than finding Osama bin Laden and destroying Al Queda. He got everyone to train their eyes on him rather than deal with the actual threat door in Iran. That whacko got everyone, including the NYT, to look closely at the UN inspector's vans and not at the North Korean's missile building plans. It was a shell game and we all fell for it, didn't we?

But, luckily for us, Bush has a clear plan for victory in Iraq, he has the Iranians in the palm of his hand and the North Koreans seem to be not as much of a problem as one might have thought. He has, as predicted, surrounded himself with finely tuned thinkers, and proceeded to lead this nation exceedingly well. Just look at the progress we have made on all these fronts! What a great leader.

Meanwhile, Osama is ,,,, well, we have him trapped, isolated in a distant cave, where he is only able to fully conduct his operations without any interruptions. That will teach him to attack the USA, boy.

So now we can turn our attention to the soaring incomes of middle Americans, flag-burning, gay marriage, tax relief for the incredibly rich and the rebuilding of whatever big city it was that got flooded or whatever last year down there in the South somewhere.

Everything will be all right by New Year's.


Joe(I know I will be ready for that)Nation

Uhhhh...

...uhhhh...

...and I wrong...

...or were you being sarcastic here????

i am drunk in a bar waiting for the Prince, those other dweebs have no excuse.

Joe(heh)Nation

When is the Prince due in?

I'm gonna be in town tomorrow. Do you want me to give you a call.

And what about Monday to meet Phoenix...about 6...6:30 at the Pan?

Last Monday.

He never called.

Joe(sniff)Nation


uh, just to stay on topic, ,,,,, Bush can kiss my arse.

Get in line, buddy.

Joe, your irony is unbeatable.

I guess the Democrats could not anticipate that Bush would lie the country into a war. They believed his claims, which he knew were false. Does that make Bush a war criminal? I think so.