America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 20 years ago by DrMaddVibe. 11 replies replies.
President Bush lied? What about these people?
usahog Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
"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

"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

"Iraq is a long way from [the 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

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. institution 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, 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 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

"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."
- 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 massdestruction."
- 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

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

Boy! Talk about two tongued philosophy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
doc sevrenson could triple tongue.

and i do remember some young lady, before i was married, but that's a different story.
pabloescabar Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 02-25-2005
Posts: 30,183
and bush never lies. and if, and I do mean if he has to bend the truth its a matter of national security and ment to protect us all, what you don't know wont hurt you, right? out of sight out of his mind.

Oh yea at least he has a mind, hes only trying to protect you Rick wether you like it or not.

you friend,
pablo.
calavera Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 01-26-2002
Posts: 1,868
Can't vote for Bush, won't vote for Kerry.

Maybe the winner of The Apprentice will run.

Who knows.

J
MACS Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,837
Ya got 2 choices. Select the lesser of 2 evils. That would be GW.
xibbumbero Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2002
Posts: 12,535
Yeah,right. X
Sylance Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-19-2003
Posts: 592
Hog,

Don't be silly. You know as well as I do that talk is cheap. The only difference is that Bush actually did something to back it up. It cracks me up when everyone complains about how our government is all talk, but as soon as someone acts... half the nation pounces and wants committees to investigate the action taken.

As a nation we don’t promote a courageous president that takes action on the information he alone is given. We promote a president who says he’ll take action, but waits until the next guy takes over. That way he can get re-elected. What we do is promote passing the buck. In the case of the Iraq war, that’s what happened and Bush said, “the buck stops here.”

dbguru Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
But in the war against Al Queda.... Buck stops at Richard Clarke.. right???
Sylance Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 06-19-2003
Posts: 592
Huh?

Explain please...
dbguru Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Condi Rice has continually made reference to the fact that Richard Clark was the anti-terror czar for years and years. Sh insinuates that he had major responsibilities in that capacity an yet failed to protect this country for terror attacks. Here is an example

CLAIM: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04
CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." – 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04
DrMaddVibe Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,516
Stick to post db.

We don't need the blah-blah-blah's from you when you can't even address the poster's original comments!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,516
Must be something in the Seattle water!

On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.

The congressional record; Senator Bennett:

"Before the committee comes to order, I have some information to share with you which I'm sure will cause some consternation and disappointment. We were scheduled -- at the beginning of this gathering we agreed not to call that portion of it a hearing, to have a briefing from Mr. Richard Clarke. And many of you have been notified that he would be here and as recently as yesterday afternoon when I was with him, we were looking forward to his appearance and he was sharing with me some of the areas that he planned to discuss while he was here.

"Mr. Clarke, as many of you know, is the national coordinator for security and infrastructure protection and counterterrorism on the National Security Council.

"Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.

"He apologized to me for their failure to tell us that in a way that would have prevented our putting out the press notice in advance. I do not, in any sense, attribute any improper motives to Mr. Clarke. We had understood that the briefing could be held as long as there was no record made of it so that it would not be part of the formal hearing. And we were prepared to receive his briefing with the court recorder being instructed not to make any record of it and that that would comply with the rule.

"As I say, last evening I received a call at home after the Senate had adjourned telling me that that arrangement would not be acceptable to the legal staff at the National Security Council and that Mr. Clarke, therefore, would not be here.

"He said in our phone conversation just a minute or two ago that he would be happy to come before the committee and give us whatever information we wanted in a closed briefing. I suppose we could have cleared the room here this morning and allowed him to give that briefing to the committee, but I felt given the fact that so many people had gathered it would be an inconvenience for them if we were to do that.

"So we will schedule a briefing with Mr. Clarke at some future time. And the members of the committee will disclose that which we feel is appropriate to disclose based on his briefing.

"We are disappointed. His conversation with me minutes ago make it clear that he is disappointed. I know he wanted to be here, but that is what has taken place in the last 10 to 12 hours. "So with that word of explanation and, as I say, disappointment to many of you, I will now officially call the committee to order..."

Users browsing this topic
Guest