BS: So.....you say Bush lied?

Subject: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:34 PM

Where President Bush Got His Marching Orders for Iraq!

"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 [here], 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 President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), 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."
- Ma deline 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 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."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons througho ut 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 weapon 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

All I have to say is that if Bush lied then he sure had quite a few people to learn from.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:36 PM

What's your point?

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:38 PM

Nice post hubby.

brucie, the point I see is obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:38 PM

Sorry, Hubby. Since the quotes you give do not support the viewpoint of the people who argue with you, they are invalid, and of no significance. ONLY quotes that support them are permitted in this so-called open forum.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:39 PM

But Bush started the war. Over 1600 Anearicans dead. Hard to say how many others. That's the point.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:41 PM

SSDD.

Bush did go to Irag--well, he sent the military--and overthrew the Saddam Hussein gang. That's good. Hussein is now captured and jailed. SO, when's it time to go home?

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:41 PM

Well, to be precise, Saddam started the war by his non-comnpliance with the UN resolution. And his violation of the cease-fire agreements. And his illegal use of Oil for Food funds.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:42 PM

When we have all of the oil ?

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:44 PM

Show me where we have any of the oil. What I see in the facts is that we are buying oil FOR the Iraqis and selling it at below our cost.

The statement we are there for the oil has never been shown to be anything other than the imagination of a number of liberals.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:45 PM

So, when is the American military going to get out of the country they have freed?

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:45 PM

Thanks for clearing that up beardedbruce. I thought that I was among "reasonable" people.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:46 PM

so what. We'll pay them for their oil.

Sleepless Dad, I hear you drive a big SUV anyway.

Nice responses beardedbruce. a lot of common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:48 PM

Incidentally, I didn't say that Bush lied. He is a liar over many issues--no doubt due to fabricated or poorly interpreted information he receives from other liars--but I don't think of him as a liar. Simply a thoroughly incompetent guy who should not be leading what used to be the best country in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: jimmyt
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:50 PM

I do not think we want ALL the oil. It would be nice if we had a good supply of the Extra Virgin type but in my experience, if you try to horde it, it becomes rancid so I don not buy it in bulk. And as far as oil for food, well, if you have some bread to dip in the oil, and a bit of grated Parmesian, you are all set.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:51 PM

While I agree that there is enough blame to go around, Hubster (on both sides of the isle), I suspect that you would not be trying to shift blame away from the current administration if the situation in Iraq was going well.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:56 PM

bb, illegal use of Oil for Food funds is no reason for war. The UN was asying the day before the war began that Iraq was complying and cooperating fully - we all saw the announcement on the TV. Not sure which ceae-fire agreements you are referring to here.

There are two bodies of opinion here, and neither of us is going to persuade the other. That's OK - but do not insult the readers of your posts by using "after the fact" logic as if we were children. Let's not throw slogans at each other.

Did Bush lie or not? You thik he did not. I think he did. We'll both go to our graves with our own opinion. You feel the thousands of deaths in both camps were a price worth paying; I think it is not. I think of the US Government as the next Nazi threat; you think they are the saviours of America and the world.

I can live with that. Why can't you, and hubby too? why do you have to persuade me of your version of the truth? I am not trying to persuade you. I see facts and interpret them my way - you interpret them your way. And, to be honest, I cannot be bothered to convert you to my way of thinking. Live and die with your perception of the world, as I will with mine.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 06:03 PM

True, El Greko, there are definintely two points of view and neither will convince the other that they are wrong.

Thank you for posting this, though, hubby, it might still some voices here who still cry out in the night that no one other than Bush thought Saddam had WMD.

brucie: the U. S. will pull out it's troops (and the other coalition forces will also leave) when the Iraqis can defend themselves. Surely you are not suggesting that they are there yet?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 06:07 PM

"While I agree that there is enough blame to go around, Hubster (on both sides of the isle), I suspect that you would not be trying to shift blame away from the current administration if the situation in Iraq was going well."

CarolC,

As usual, I will explain my point to you as you have clearly missed it AGAIN.

The issue is NOT whether or not the situation is going well or not going well. (In my opinion, as long as the terror attacks keep happening, then we must be doing something right to keep them exposing themselves.)

The issue is NOT whether or not there is blame on both sides of the aisle.

The issue is watching all of you lefties backpedal from trying to paint our president as a horrible leader whenever the cornerstones of the left, at one time, were saying the same thing. The right has been forever constant on the issue. It's the left who is, continually, changing their philosophy to try and fit what they think the majority of Americans want to hear. So far, for at least the last five years, the left has, continuously, thought wrong.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 06:18 PM

Oh, say can you see . . . .

Don't be so flighty, Susu's Hubby. Fer the sake of the good Laird Jaysus. YOU keep pretending that Bush is competent. Many of the people who thought that about Saddam Hussein were right. Absolutely. Personally, I think the sonuvabitch should have received 150 grains of lead just above the bridge of the nose--fifteen years ago.

However, he has been 'taken down' and there were no WMDs.

Another ardent supporter of Bush said many months back that the US would be OUT of Iraq by Christmas, the one that just passed. So you tell me this: when will you be out of Iraq? The job is done. Time to go home. I mean, how long will you stretch the war out? Until when? Screw WHY Bush sent troops into Iraq--we've heard everything from he was avenging the Twin Towers to Saddam had WMDs. Just tell me when you'll leave? Is there a timeline in place that you know of, or just some vague 'we'll go when they can rule themselves' kinda plan? I'd like to know. But then, I suppose you'd like to know, also.

Must be a comfortable feeling to live in a country where the war you're fighting seems to have no PLAN to it, huh?

As to the people on your list, choose more carefully in future.

'"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'

Wasn't Saddam an American ally in the 1980s?

My, my, how times change.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 06:25 PM

Well, I haven't been doing that. I've been saying they're all liars right from the start.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 06:28 PM

And of course, your blanket generalizations about what people you dissagree with have and have not been doing and/or saying is completely fallacious and self-serving, as always (as well as being a lie). You're surprisingly dishonest for a Christian, Hubster.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 06:34 PM

I have a somewhat different take on this.

NOTE: From 2001 on, the legislators were taking the word of the administration on the threat from Saddam.

NOTE: Previous to that, when Clinton was president and his administration had that same view, that is why and -and when - they instated sanctions and installed overflights. There was not a lot going in Iraq that the West didn't know.

And SH, we all know how much credence the bush administration has given the Clinton administration... To the point that they ignored the warnings on terrorism they were given by the outgoing administration. And Americans paid the price for their arrogant indifference.

Worse yet, the very people who ignored the warnings and allowed 9/11 to happen are the same people who, instead of having to retire in disgrace, HAVE BEEN PROMOTED TO POSITIONS OF EQUAL OR GREATER SENSITIVITY. (The Japanese from time immemorial, conversely, would have fallen on their swords in contrition.)

When I listen to you guys, I despair- because I think you really do believe in something that I, on the other hand, consider the world's most dangerous government, a government with the potential of doing the most injury to us and to the world in generations, perhaps ever.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 06:34 PM

No WMD's? Jaysus! (Sorry, Martin.) The WMD were spirited out of the country so the US and Britain, who MADE them, couldn't find them. If they had found them, they would have had to destroy them. Much too costly. Better to hide them for another day. Can you say, "Syria"? Why do you think Lebannon is now free from Syrian control? Payoff? More spin and smoke and mirrors? Why did we see Tony and Mumar (spg?) snuggling right after the 'freeing' of Iraq? They never used to spoon.

I WAS a semi-supporter of the 'pre-emptive strikJe'. I was even supportive of the fact that Saddam should be punished for his part in the assasination attempt on Daddy Bush - and I know how atrocious that sounds, seriously, I do. But, the bullshit gets pretty hard to wade through. Seems like the rich and powerful can't be trusted. I am ashamed for trusting them to do the right thing.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 06:39 PM

I'm in the same boat as you, Gnu. Thought it was a good idea to nail Iraq. Overdue.

However, I no longer think this is really about Hussein and WMDs. Nor it seems does anyone else on this thread. Very curious.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 07:06 PM

I don't think anyone has said that Bush was the only one who believed in the existence of WMD's, Hub-me-lad. You're waving your arms and frothing just a little bit there.

The point about Bush's lies is that they come up on almost every important issue he talks about; he is an expert at disassembling the truth. And his assertions about WMDs were made full in the face of contrary information, unlike some of those you quote.

A

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 07:14 PM

"The UN was asying the day before the war began that Iraq was complying and cooperating fully - we all saw the announcement on the TV."

Actually, the UN stated in December that the Iraqi response to the FINAL RESOLUTION ( Last chance ) was NON-COMPLIANT with the resolution. At that point, the UN stated that Iraq had not fulfilled it's required actions for the cease-fire ending the fighting of the Kuwait war.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 07:23 PM

Please provide documentation to support that assertion in your 03 Jun 05 - 07:14 PM post, beardedbruce.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 07:29 PM

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441
"In early December, 2002, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The UN and the US said that this failed to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441. On January 30, 2003 Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, and the report was taken broadly negatively"

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 07:30 PM

Specific areas of noncompliance stated in this speech include:

"In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."
U.N. Commission on Human Rights found "extremely grave" human rights violations in 2001.
Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether. "

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 07:31 PM

On November 8, 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences". The resolution passed with a 15 to 0 vote, supported by Russia, China and France, and Arab countries like Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1992 Gulf War resolution. Although the Iraqi parliament voted against honoring the UN resolution, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein agreed to honor it.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 07:50 PM

Actually, the UN stated in December that the Iraqi response to the FINAL RESOLUTION ( Last chance ) was NON-COMPLIANT with the resolution. At that point, the UN stated that Iraq had not fulfilled it's required actions for the cease-fire ending the fighting of the Kuwait war.

Based on the documentation provided by you, beardedbruce, this statement is incorrect. The last chance to accept the resolution was November 15. Iraq accepted the resolution on November 13. I do not see any specific deadline in either of your links for full compliance with all of the details of the agreement.

The report from Hans Blix dated March 7 (after the report you cite from December) was "seen as broadly positive", and Blix requested more time ("months rather than weeks or days") to complete the disarmament and verification process. So prior to the war, the UN, through its representative, Hans Blix, was unequivocally stating that it wanted the inspections to continue and that it did not approve of any unilateral invasions of Iraq by any countries, either individually or collectively, outside of the authority of the UN.

The UN was very consistant in the language of its resolutions. Excerpted from the second of your two links:

10.    Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

14.    Decides to remain seized of the matter.

By invading Iraq, the US violated number 10 of that particular resolution, because the US invasion caused the inspectors to have to leave Iraq before they finished doing the job that they were mandated to do by the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 07:53 PM

Yawn.......
Now was all this before or after Colin Powell showed the photographic evidence of WMD's to the UN or after that!
..and considering that Bush went ahead and gave the green light to invade Iraq without the backing of the UN, why would anyone who supports Bush now need to use the UN's transcripts as a justification.

Talk about beating a dead horse with a stick.
Have fun searching for links in an attempt to backpedal on the truth. No matter how it's spun though... The Bush administration did Lie and are still.

Carry on though with the blue clickys and copy/paste game. It would appear your having fun and far be it for anyone to deny you that pleasure.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:05 PM

to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

          3.       Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

          4.       Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

          5.       Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please look at paragraphs 3 and 4 above. Your statement "Based on the documentation provided by you, beardedbruce, this statement is incorrect" is false.


"Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations"

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:12 PM

So, uh, SH, all THAT aside for a minute, when IS the US leaving Iraq? What's the PLAN?

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:16 PM

Under the UN rules, the US cannot leave until the civilian government is secure. Thus, as long as the terrorists are blowing up the Iraqi population, the US is required by the UN to stay as an occupying power.

I think we should just pull out and let them kill each other- but many out there would blame Bush for that, too.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:18 PM

Bullshit. The US didn't listen to the UN in the first place. Like, they want to listen now? Yeah, right!

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:25 PM

"Republicans Who Voted Against Iraq Resolution Tell Why
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Saturday, Oct. 12, 2002
In the U.S. House of Representatives six Republicans broke ranks and voted nay on the Iraq resolution. They were: Ron Paul of Texas, James A. Leach of Iowa, John N. Hostettler of Indiana, Constance A. Morella of Maryland, Amo Houghton of New York, and John J. Duncan of Tennessee."

Read why, here!

Of course, SH you won't. But hey, I expect you won't. You ain't too much interested in anyone's views but y'own, and those of the Bush admin.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:27 PM

So, since they were wrong in not listening in the first place, they would be right in ignoring the UN now?


Or were they right in ignoring the UN to begin with, and you agree the US should have invaded Iraq?

Bullshit back at you!





As I said, *I* would prefer that the US pull out right now, and leave the Iraqis to the regional powers to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:33 PM

Fuck off, bb. You are slingin' the same old shit. As usual. You like to pick and choose which of the UN's rules and regs your country follows. You sound like a bad used-car salesman.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:35 PM

from "Republicans Who Voted Against Iraq Resolution Tell Why"


Rep. James A. Leach: "When a cornered tyrant is confronted with the use or lose option with his weapons of mass destruction and is isolated in the Arab world unless he launches a jihad against Israel, it is not hard to imagine what he will choose …

"Israel has never faced a graver challenge to its survival. The likelihood is that weapons of mass destruction, including biological agents, will be immediately unleashed in the event of Western intervention in Iraq. In the Gulf War, Saddam launched some 40 Scud missiles against Israel, none with biological agents. Today, he has mobile labs, tons of such agents and an assortment of means to deliver them … "

-------note that the reason he decided to vote against the war was that Iraq HAD all those WMD.


Rep. John J. Duncan: "Ever since the Gulf War ended in 1991, the U.S. has been spending about $4 million a day enforcing a no-fly zone in Iraq, $4 million a day. This has been a tremendous waste of money and manpower.

"I believe almost all Americans would have preferred that this $12 or $13 billion that has been spent over these years would have been spent in almost any other good way. Most Americans have not even noticed that we have been dropping bombs and still shooting at missile sites all these years in Iraq."

---note combat had NOT ceased from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:36 PM

Republicans Against War in Iraq.


http://archive.democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=rawi

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:36 PM

Didn't even read that. Have a NICE day.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:43 PM

TAL AFAR, Iraq - U.S. Army officers in the badland deserts of northwest Iraq, near the Syrian border, say they don't have enough troops to hold the ground they take from insurgents in this transit point for weapons, money and foreign fighters.

From last October to the end of April, there were about 400 soldiers from the 25th Infantry Division patrolling the northwest region, which covers about 10,000 square miles.

"Resources are everything in combat . . . there's no way 400 people can cover that much ground," said Maj. John Wilwerding, of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is responsible for the northwest tract that includes Tal Afar.

Rest of story here!

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:49 PM

Favored Government Contracts

Vice President Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton got a contract for $7 billion for Iraq war repairs before the war began and without any bid. There is lots more that could be said about this but this one simple case is enough.

The UN Vote

We created the United Nations to be a democratic organization to help resolve disputes. We, the champions of democracy, went against a democratic vote of an organization we created and violated what the security council lawfully voted on. Whether we like it or not, we are players in an International community. We would not accept any other member of the UN or the world invading another country because they "felt threatened" when the world voted against it. This is an extremely dangerous precedent to set and one of the most compelling reasons that President George W. Bush's actions should not be supported by the American people.

Violation of UN Regulations

It has been pointed out by the administration that Iraq was in violations of UN Regulations. First of all, you can't have it both ways: either you support the UN or you do not you cannot go against their lawful vote yet use them as an excuse to wage war, the UN didn't support this war. Secondly, violation of UN regulations and reason to go to war are two entirely different things. Israel for example, a long time ally of the US, has violated UN regulations, this does not give the US or any other country the right to attack Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:51 PM

The Washington Jugglers.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:55 PM

1) Do you still believe Bush's claim that Iraq was a "direct threat" to America? Y / N
2) Before Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, did you ever say, "You know, honey, we really need to free those poor people in Iraq?" Y / N
3) With anti-Saddam Shi'ites now joining Sunnis in fighting U.S.-led occupation forces, do you still believe Bush when he says "terrorists" and "Saddam loyalists" are behind the resistance, and not nationalists? Y / N
4) With Iraqis now attacking Americans at a rate of 60 ambushes a day, do you still buy Bush's argument that Americans have to stay in Iraq to protect Iraqis, that we're the answer to the security problem and not the source of it? Y / N
5) Were any "terrorists" killing Americans in Iraq before Bush invaded Iraq? Y / N
6) Was capturing Saddam more urgent to the war on terrorism than capturing Osama bin Laden, as the president sold it? Y / N























If you answered Yes to all of the above, you support the war simply to support Bush.

From

http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=2689

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:58 PM

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: brucie - PM
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 08:49 PM

That post is also from the www.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Metchosin
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 09:03 PM

Not only do they not seem to have enough resources on the ground in Iraq, they are putting an unwarranted burden upon Canada regarding their "terrorist threat" in the US.

Today a regular flight from the UK? to New York had a terrorist alert warning go off in flight, just before it got to the US. The US closed their airspace to the commercial airliner and it was forced to land in Canada instead.

I can just imagine the senario....ooh! ooh, get 'em away from us! Go land the plane in Canada and let it blow up up their airports instead!

This was an American problem and the Canadians were left to deal with it in order to rescue the passengers and crew. Fortunately it turned out to be a false alarm and the Canadian team that borded the plane came to no harm either.

Can you imagine what would have happened if this flight had been bound for Canada and Canada had closed its airspace and sent the flight to the US instead? Yeah....right. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 09:08 PM

beardedbruce, please show me the language that specifically authorizes anyone other than the UN to take any action whatever, in particular, to invade Iraq, in order to remedy the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Metchosin
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 09:12 PM

and they didn't land this thing way off in the toolies either.....nope....Halifax. Maybe they figured that since Halifax had already gone through the largest pre-nuclear man-made explosion in the world, what's the problem with another little "boom".