PDA

View Full Version : It's all Bush's fault


DustyBottoms
February 7th, 2004, 03:33 PM
I know - I'm breaking the rules... (Copy/Paste) ... But I could not figure out another way to give all these examples of democratic support for the actions taken.

I stand by with bowed head to receive your wrath! :o



"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."

Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 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."
Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from USA 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

"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

"We 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."
Letter to Ex-President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"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

"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

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace 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

"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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

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

"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

"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

"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

"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."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"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

"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

"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.
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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 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."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. 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. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

w1che
February 8th, 2004, 01:01 AM
Man DB, You can't get liberals to post to a thread like this. They don't have anything to say.. Oh wait. I guess Bush lied to Clinton also... :lol

Dumbie
February 8th, 2004, 06:19 AM
There is no doubt that he had programs and he had desires but he did not present a threat to US or the world when we were pushed into war.

The WMD acronym has got an itch to expand, loud politicians can also qualify for that distinguished handle, and they just happen to run the farm.

We need diplomats not psychopaths in that office. Sacrificing other peoples children and murdering civilians from the air is not a solution when the threat is not real. Blaming anyone other than the total failures in that office is ridiculous. Many good people told them that there was no threat, the rest of NATO told them there was no threat, the UN said NO, but in his need to play with power he went forward and now we have a mess on our hands, and he has blood on his. Anyone who backs this Police Action Christian Crusade should be ashamed of themselves. :smash

aclu14
February 8th, 2004, 08:02 PM
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003



See, there's a little word that's been circulating that has no indication here, and that word is imminent

DustyBottoms
February 8th, 2004, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by aclu14
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003



See, there's a little word that's been circulating that has no indication here, and that word is imminent

Please show me the actual quote where Bush used the words "imminent threat".

Anyone! - I can't find it anywhere...:question

Ateo
February 8th, 2004, 10:08 PM
If it wasn't an imminent threat, why was Bush in such a hurry that he couldn't even wait for the UN inspectors to finish their job?

His people used the word "imminent". Bush himself implied it in just about every way possible short of actually saying it.

sinecure
February 8th, 2004, 10:36 PM
originally hissed by aclu14:
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

See, there's a little word that's been circulating that has no indication here, and that word is imminent

Well.... if the threat wasn't "imminent" please explain why Kerry would even bring it up. Give me a couple of antonyms or whatever descriptive adjective Kerry would have used for a "real" but non-imminent "threat". Wouldn't you suppose, had he thought that the "threat" was "real" but believed it was very far in the future, he wouldn't have even bothered to mention it? Doesn't make sense to me...

Face it, it looks as though Kerry got on the war-wagon early-on, but jumped-ship [to thoroughly mix a metaphor :) ] when the going got rough for Bush and Company.

Originally posted by tigsnort
If it wasn't an imminent threat, why was Bush in such a hurry that he couldn't even wait for the UN inspectors to finish their job?

And what would that take??...Another TWELVE YEARS?? :rolleyes: :p

His people used the word "imminent". Bush himself implied it in just about every way possible short of actually saying it.

Then why are you libs all running around with your thongs in a bowline over "imminent" threat??

This whole liberal "imminent threat" drumbeat is absurd!! If he DIDN'T say it... let it drop and criticize him for what he DID SAY!

Sheesh!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Ateo
February 9th, 2004, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by sinecure
And what would that take??...Another TWELVE YEARS?? :rolleyes: :pSix months, or a year maybe. Bush didn't want to wait & find out. Didn't have the patience (or interest) to analyze the intelligence properly, either.

Dumbie
February 9th, 2004, 04:09 AM
Here’s just a few for the road, but there are many more out there.

The Bush Administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat before the war – not that it would "become imminent."

Specifically, White House communications director Dan Bartlett was asked on CNN: "Is [Saddam Hussein] an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" Bartlett replied, "Well, of course he is."

When White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether America went to war in Iraq because of an imminent threat, he replied, "Absolutely."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the reason NATO allies – including the U.S. – should support the defense of one of its members from Iraq was because "this is about an imminent threat." Additionally, the Administration used "immediate," "urgent" and "mortal" to describe the Iraq threat to the United States.

The President did call Iraq a "grave and gathering" threat, but that was not all he said.

On 11/23/02, he said Iraq posed a "unique and urgent threat."

On 1/3/03 he said "Iraq is a threat to any American."

On 10/28/02 he said Iraq was "a real and dangerous threat" to America.

On 10/2/02 he said, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency" and that Iraq posed "a grave threat" to America.

Does this or does this not convey a sense of urgency?

Did he have the data to back up his position? NO

You know there's a hidden agenda behind a guy from Missouri who doesn't say "show me". Folks like him couldn't give a rats rump about the truth, their agenda is to kill the democratic process and give it to Evangelical Christians.

Ateo
February 9th, 2004, 04:18 AM
For an audio version: right-click, Save Target As:

http://www.mikemalloy.com/audio/lies.mp3

2MB.

King Solomon
February 9th, 2004, 09:11 AM
That was one hellova song and dance and I didn't even have to pay admission to hear the show :lol

Good one tig :clap

DEAD ZONE
February 9th, 2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Dumbie
Here’s just a few for the road, but there are many more out there.

The Bush Administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat before the war – not that it would "become imminent."

Specifically, White House communications director Dan Bartlett was asked on CNN: "Is [Saddam Hussein] an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" Bartlett replied, "Well, of course he is."

When White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether America went to war in Iraq because of an imminent threat, he replied, "Absolutely."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the reason NATO allies – including the U.S. – should support the defense of one of its members from Iraq was because "this is about an imminent threat." Additionally, the Administration used "immediate," "urgent" and "mortal" to describe the Iraq threat to the United States.

The President did call Iraq a "grave and gathering" threat, but that was not all he said.

On 11/23/02, he said Iraq posed a "unique and urgent threat."

On 1/3/03 he said "Iraq is a threat to any American."

On 10/28/02 he said Iraq was "a real and dangerous threat" to America.

On 10/2/02 he said, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency" and that Iraq posed "a grave threat" to America.

Does this or does this not convey a sense of urgency?

Did he have the data to back up his position? NO

You know there's a hidden agenda behind a guy from Missouri who doesn't say "show me". Folks like him couldn't give a rats rump about the truth, their agenda is to kill the democratic process and give it to Evangelical Christians. This has all been refuted already. search the archives i am tired of repeating it.

King Solomon
February 11th, 2004, 10:44 AM
Dang tig, it sure did get quite here in this thread once you posted that link. Do you think the RepubliNazis are home licking their wounds now :smash :lol :lol :clap :lol :lol :wave

sinecure
February 11th, 2004, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by King Solomon
Dang tig, it sure did get quite here in this thread once you posted that link. Do you think the RepubliNazis are home licking their wounds now :smash :lol :lol :clap :wave

Two megs of "cherry-picked" [don't you libs just love that descriptive? :p ] and out-of-context clips....

MOST of which are of GWB and various Cabinet members stating that Saddam "is a threat."

You don't believe that he was a threat?

No... Self-Anointed One... the silence isn't because we "RepubliNazis" [I see Godwin's Law has been invoked by a lib in 12 posts. That must be a board record for The-Man-Who-Would-Be-King!!] are tending to our "wounds".
:rolleyes:

How can you respond to somebody who tells you the basic truth [via the recordings] but sees it and presents it as a lie?

...it's like listening to a senile old uncle tell you the same story for the hundredth time... you just let him ramble on... :p

King Solomon
February 11th, 2004, 04:12 PM
We're just using the RepubliNazi tactics that we learned from you guys in 2000, and it's working :p

sinecure
February 11th, 2004, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by King Solomon
We're just using the RepubliNazi tactics that we learned from you guys in 2000, and it's working :p

You actually SEE evidence that your lib crap is "working?" :question

You really ought to get out more...

Better buy that hybrid Japanese car [you DO realize that the Japanese didn't start building cars until shortly after we produced the 16 oz beer can.] and drive it around a little. Just watch out for me and my SUV! :eek:

DEAD ZONE
February 12th, 2004, 08:07 AM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/rauch2004-02-11.htm

A policeman shoots a robber who has killed in the past and who brandishes what seems to be a gun. The gun turns out to be a cellphone. The policeman expects a thorough investigation (and ought to cooperate). In the end, if he is exonerated, it is not because he made no mistake but because his mistake was justified. Reasonable people, facing uncertainty, would have thought they saw a gun.
George W. Bush and the CIA thought they saw a gun. So did French President Jacques Chirac, who last February warned of Iraq's "probable possession of weapons of mass destruction." So did Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, a former Vermont governor, who last February said, "My personal belief is that Saddam may well possess anthrax and chemical weapons. That being the case, he must be disarmed."

Get it yet.
:smash

King Solomon
February 12th, 2004, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by sinecure

...Just watch out for me and my SUV! :eek:

No problem, I'll just drive under you and cut your brake lines :lol :lol :lol *is that enough smilies? Nope, better put some more just in case* :lol :lol

sinecure
February 12th, 2004, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by King Solomon


No problem, I'll just drive under you and cut your brake lines :lol :lol :lol *is that enough smilies? Nope, better put some more just in case* :lol :lol

Hmmm... I'll have to get a Plexiglas floorboard installed so I can wave back at you as you go under..

Conversation in my SUV:

"What was that, a speed bump?"

"No... just one of those hybrid Hondas. Didn't you see him frantically waving?" :wink

DEAD ZONE
February 17th, 2004, 09:30 AM
http://boortz.com/images/funny/anybody_but_bush.gif

Its just that simple.:p

AWPrime
February 17th, 2004, 09:44 AM
And what did Bush have to do the deseve this?:wink

King Solomon
February 17th, 2004, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by AWPrime
And what did Bush have to do the deseve this?:wink

He was born :lol :lol :clap :lol :lol

DEAD ZONE
February 17th, 2004, 02:14 PM
electoral votes. He got them. Its calld leadership and plicies. Kerry ...They dont even know really what he stands for except he is against BUSH. they admit iot from the exit pols.They want someone that they think is electable and can beat bush{who cares what he rally stands for}.

sinecure
February 17th, 2004, 06:47 PM
Kerry's got the Democratically-electable HAIR!....

As in Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Kerry... what a tonsorial team!

Shut-down the airport, the Prez needs a little off the top!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

AWPrime
February 18th, 2004, 04:27 AM
At least they look alive.