here is the link to a document made for rep henry waxman.
it documents 237 lies used by bush et al to pave the road to a war w iraq.
just right click on it, then save as, or left click to go there directly.
realist-
anything is possible......what my post said was that anyone who truly believes bush lied, also has to believe kerry lied....so it leaves that person with a dilemna come voting time. imo, they both believed saddam had wmds.......it makes the most sense when you look at saddams past actions and unwillingness to comply with the u.n. resolution. if you believe they both lied, thats works too, and doesnt change the fact my post pointed out.
aa
here is the link to a document made for rep henry waxman.
it documents 237 lies used by bush et al to pave the road to a war w iraq.
just right click on it, then save as, or left click to go there directly.
Doesn't look like anything new. The problem for Americans that believe Bush "lied", is, who do they vote for? Kerry claimed all the same things about Iraq and Saddam before the war, so he also "lied". I guess there's always Nader.
six-
The intelligence did not call for a war.
john kerry thought it did....see my above quotes.
aa
patio-
But that doesn't mean they've continued to blindly support a cause when evidence is failing to support it.
are you saying that bush still "blindly" supports the faulty intelligence? heres a link for you:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3450151.stm
also, what does it really matter what the dems are saying now? does their backtracking somehow justify their earlier support for the war (in your opinion)? by changing their stance, can they somehow reverse the actions they voted for (invading iraq)? is the blood, in your mind, somehow wiped off of their hands because they now have a new view?
aa
waiting-
here you go (bold/italic mine):
Second, without question, we 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. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. 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.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html
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 does Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection team previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM (U.N. Special Commission) identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all those things and more because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy the world should trust?
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.htmlI have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein's record bears this out. He has continually failed to meet the obligations imposed by the international community on Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf War to declare and destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and to forego the development of nuclear weapons. During the seven years of weapons inspections, the Iraqi regime repeatedly frustrated the work of the UNSCOM (UN Special Commission) inspectors, culminating in 1998 in their ouster. Even during the period of inspections, Iraq never fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of its pre-Gulf War WMD programs nor did the Iraqi regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure.
It is clear that in the four years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to the CIA's unclassified report released last Friday, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last four years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the last four years, with the result that all key aspects of this program - R&D, production and weaponization - are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program - probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.
now, im not stating that kerry agreed with every aspect of the presidents policies on iraq or the war, but its obvious (especially from that last quote) that he indeed believed the same intelligence reports that bush believed about iraqs wmd. so, if by using these intelligence reports bush "lied", then obviously so did kerry (not to mention a litany of other democrats......ill dig for more quotes if youd like them).
aa
william-
If one criticizes President Bush for his lies of WMD
if you truly believe bush "lied" about wmd, this puts you in a real bind come voting time (unless you dont vote). at this point, it sure looks like its going to be bush vs. kerry, and as im sure you know, kerry believed, just as bush did, that saddam had wmd......that fact is well documented. so, which "liar" do you vote for, bush or kerry?
aa
i think this is a fascinating website.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/.
it has totals from every presidential election and maps of the electoral college.you can look up the county you lived in as a child and see how your parents as well as your friend's parents and neighbors voted.
badger-
And bush won that by taking Florida...and therein lies most of the dispute over the 2000 result.
you do realize that an idependent count (after the smoke cleared) showed that bush was the clear winner of florida, right? just in case anyone missed it:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/22/160828.shtml
aa
i think this is a fascinating website.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/.
it has totals from every presidential election and maps of the electoral college.you can look up the county you lived in as a child and see how your parents as well as your friend's parents and neighbors voted.
To those that say that Bush "lost" the election, look at this.
yeah, its a tired and completely ludicrous argument, isnt it? anyone who falsely claims this either doesnt agree with the electoral system, or is a complete moron. it's one thing to say bush lost the "popular" vote by a very slim margin....it's another thing to claim he "lost the election", or "didnt get elected", which is simply not true.
aa
the bush administration has quietly withdrawn a 400-member military team.
it sent to baghdad to scour iraq for evidence of unconventional weapons.... .
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/0109/901262949hm1iraq.html.
rob-
The problem is that WMD keeps changing definition.
you must not have read my entire post....go back and read my response to six. the definition of "wmd", as supplied by the u.n. in 1991 doesnt keep "changing", and the inclusion of checmical weapons in that definition is nothing new.
As far as chemical WMD, everybody knew that Iraq had them because we had sold it to them.
which ones exactly? and do you have some proof of this? again, see my response above to six. this is a common and fallacious argument tossed around ad nauseum with little or no backing.
BTW, where is the proof of the chemical weapons? For that matter, any sort of WMD?
when did i say there was new proof? im certainly not arguing that, nor have i ever been.
aa
the bush administration has quietly withdrawn a 400-member military team.
it sent to baghdad to scour iraq for evidence of unconventional weapons.... .
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/0109/901262949hm1iraq.html.
simon-
I think it's clear that they didn't have them and never had them since their capability was destroyed.
youre entitled to that opinion, and you could be right. if so, it was awfully silly of saddam to play games for as long as he did, wasnt it? simply baffling. maybe he was just growing tired of the murdering dictator role, and wanted his country to be taken by force. if that was the case, his wish was granted.
aa
