snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » SLC Central » War, What Is It Good For? » Bush Forcefully Attacks Iraq Critics (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Bush Forcefully Attacks Iraq Critics
Pogue Ma-humbug
Happy Christmas (Malls are Open)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Pogue Ma-humbug   E-mail Pogue Ma-humbug   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stan:
WOW! Do I have to cut and paste all of the quotes from the Democrats that said exactly the same things?

None of those Democrats was the Commander in Chief, responsible for the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses.

When will the president's supporters realize this?

Sens. Kennedy, Kerry, et. al. didn't bring the nations to war.

Oh, and Stan, how about responding to my previous post?

quote:
You're RIGHT! George Bush fabricated all of the intelligence...he wrote the reports, edited them and presented them to congress (part of the check and balance thing). He was smart enough to gain the vote of the Democrats in order to invade Iraq (not that he needed it). And he did it so as to gain political power! What a fucking genious!
More straw men and lies from you, huh?

Pogue

--------------------
Let's drink to the causes in your life:
Your family, your friends, the union, your wife.

Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 304 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stan:
Blix WHO? Who exactly was that idiot and where is he now?

"Idiot?"

The man's got pretty impressive credentials.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
So, it's not actually about the lying, then.

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
quote:
Originally posted by Stan:
Blix WHO? Who exactly was that idiot and where is he now?

"Idiot?"

The man's got pretty impressive credentials.

Including failing to detect Iraq's pre- Gulf War nuclear program.

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
quote:
Originally posted by Stan:
Blix WHO? Who exactly was that idiot and where is he now?

"Idiot?"

The man's got pretty impressive credentials.

Including failing to detect Iraq's pre- Gulf War nuclear program.
It was in the 70s, so it was a bit pre- pre-Gulf War.

But, so? It's not as if you all have anybody better.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
quote:
Originally posted by Stan:
Blix WHO? Who exactly was that idiot and where is he now?

"Idiot?"

The man's got pretty impressive credentials.

Including failing to detect Iraq's pre- Gulf War nuclear program.
It was in the 70s, so it was a bit pre- pre-Gulf War.

BZZT.

Testimony of Paul Leventhal, President, Nuclear Control Institute

quote:
In September 1992, after destruction of the nuclear-weapons plants found in the war's aftermath, Mauricio Zifferero, head of the IAEA's "Action Team" in Iraq, declared Iraq's nuclear program to be "at zero now. . . totally dormant." Zifferero explained that the Iraqis "have stated many times to us that they have decided at the higher political levels to stop these activities. This we have verified."

But it eventually became clear that Iraq had concealed evidence of its continuing nuclear bomb program. In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Gen. Hussein Kamel, fled to Jordan and revealed that he had led a "crash program" just before the Gulf War to build a crude nuclear weapon out of IAEA-safeguarded, civilian nuclear fuel, as well as a program after the war to refine the design of nuclear warheads to fit Scud missiles. Iraqi officials insisted that Kamel's work was unauthorized, and they led IAEA officials to a large cache of documents at Kamel's farm that, the Iraqis said, proved Kamel had directed the projects without their knowledge.

But the Kamel revelations refuted an IAEA claim, made by then-Director General Hans Blix in 1993, that "the Iraqis never touched the nuclear highly enriched uranium which was under our safeguards." In fact, they had cut the ends off of some fuel rods and were preparing to remove the material from French- and Russian-supplied research reactors for use in weapons when the allied bombing campaign interrupted the project. The IAEA accepted a technically flawed claim by Iraqi officials that the bomb project would have been delayed by the need to further enrich the bomb-grade fuel for use in weapons, but defector Hamza later made clear that Iraq could have made direct use of the material in a bomb within a few months.

quote:
But, so? It's not as if you all have anybody better.
BZZT. Rolf Ekeus.

quote:
The United States originally supported Ambassador Ekeus to head up UNMOVIC, but fell in line behind Dr. Blix after France and Russia, Iraq’s original nuclear suppliers, opposed Ekeus with strong backing from China and Iraq. Given his record, it is fair to ask how good a job Dr. Blix can be expected to do.

Dr. Blix’s 16-year record at the IAEA offers mixed signals. He was an intelligent manager and skillful diplomat, but often failed to stand up to national nuclear interests in the agency’s Board of Governors. The Board always had statutory authority to impose far more intrusive inspections on national nuclear programs than it did, but Dr. Blix did not urge the Board to do so until after the humiliation of Iraq’s hidden nuclear-weapons program. An improved IAEA safeguards system for which Dr. Blix takes credit, in place since 1997, is still far from universal or foolproof.

In 1987, Dr. Blix failed to blow the whistle when North Korea refused to enter into an inspection agreement with the IAEA within the required 18-month period after North Korea ratified the NPT in 1985. The Soviet Union had prevailed on the United States in the Board of Governors not to make an issue of it, and Dr. Blix followed suit. North Korea did not permit nuclear inspections until 1992, by which time U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that the North Koreans had begun extracting plutonium for weapons from its uninspected plants. The high marks Dr. Blix received for his agency’s subsequent inspections in North Korea were, in fact, attributable to technical assistance received from U.S. and other nuclear weapons experts.

Under pressure from the IAEA board, Dr. Blix also failed to draw attention to large measurement uncertainties in commercial plutonium processing plants which make it impossible for IAEA inspectors to determine with confidence that none of this fuel is being siphoned off for nuclear weapons. At first he refused to acknowledge what U.S. weapons designers had told the IAEA---that plutonium separated in these plants from the spent fuel of electrical generating nuclear reactors could be made into weapons. Dr. Blix’s pliant stance on plutonium has made possible a commercial industry that already has processed more plutonium for civilian fuel than the superpowers have produced for weapons.

As I have detailed in my testimony, the IAEA under Dr. Blix’s tenure was forced to backtrack on rosy conclusions about Iraq’s nuclear program. Dr. Blix brings to his new post considerable managerial and diplomatic skills, but a flawed record on Iraq. His reluctance to stand up to the IAEA Board of Governors also raises questions as to whether he will be able to withstand strong pressures from within the Security Council to give Iraq a clean bill of health and lift economic sanctions.

Blix's problem (as well as that of many others) was that he tended to view absence of evidence as evidence of absence. While this is somewhat logical in science, due to the understanding that the universe does not deliberately work against one, it is not a particularly wise belief when one is looking for the intentionally hidden.

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
BZZT.

Testimony of Paul Leventhal, President, Nuclear Control Institute

quote:
In September 1992, after destruction of the nuclear-weapons plants found in the war's aftermath, Mauricio Zifferero, head of the IAEA's "Action Team" in Iraq, declared Iraq's nuclear program to be "at zero now. . . totally dormant." Zifferero explained that the Iraqis "have stated many times to us that they have decided at the higher political levels to stop these activities. This we have verified."

But it eventually became clear that Iraq had concealed evidence of its continuing nuclear bomb program. In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Gen. Hussein Kamel, fled to Jordan and revealed that he had led a "crash program" just before the Gulf War to build a crude nuclear weapon out of IAEA-safeguarded, civilian nuclear fuel, as well as a program after the war to refine the design of nuclear warheads to fit Scud missiles. Iraqi officials insisted that Kamel's work was unauthorized, and they led IAEA officials to a large cache of documents at Kamel's farm that, the Iraqis said, proved Kamel had directed the projects without their knowledge.

But the Kamel revelations refuted an IAEA claim, made by then-Director General Hans Blix in 1993, that "the Iraqis never touched the nuclear highly enriched uranium which was under our safeguards." In fact, they had cut the ends off of some fuel rods and were preparing to remove the material from French- and Russian-supplied research reactors for use in weapons when the allied bombing campaign interrupted the project. The IAEA accepted a technically flawed claim by Iraqi officials that the bomb project would have been delayed by the need to further enrich the bomb-grade fuel for use in weapons, but defector Hamza later made clear that Iraq could have made direct use of the material in a bomb within a few months.


I am curious how, in 2000, NCI was in possession of intelligence the US intelligence apparatus did not.

That said, none of the "weapons" that had been described in Leventhal's testimony have been found, have they?

quote:

But, so? It's not as if you all have anybody better.

BZZT. Rolf Ekeus.

Eh..."Better?" Blix certainly is more qualified in the field than Ekeus, but Ekeus would've done just fine, too.

quote:
Blix's problem (as well as that of many others) was that he tended to view absence of evidence as evidence of absence. While this is somewhat logical in science, due to the understanding that the universe does not deliberately work against one, it is not a particularly wise belief when one is looking for the intentionally hidden.
Actually, he said we cannot presume either that Iraq had WMDs, or that they did not. He drew no conclusions.

[ETA: You've failed to answer a critical question:
Now, *after* inspections had resumed and Blix said we should not presume that Iraq either has or does not have WMDs, why did Bush forcibly, unequivocally state that Iraq did, in fact, have WMD?]

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Billion
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Billion   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Billion   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
Blix's problem (as well as that of many others) was that he tended to view absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

False. Blix's 2003 report said:

quote:
"[UNMOVIC] reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise."
Blix isn't jumping to conclusions one way or the other. He was saying there that they'd seen no evidence of the vast arsenal over which Bush would soon go to war.

ETA: What Anglrdr said.

--------------------
"For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire." ~Dick Cheney.

Posts: 747 | From: Kansas | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Archangel
Spider Cider


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Archangel     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
You know, it seems to me that for President Bush to satisfy rational people of his integrity, he needs more than a negative case.

"It cannot be proven beyond any that I am in fact the largest liar ever to walk this earth." falls a little short of generating the desired interigty halo. While this position appears to satisfy many supporters, I for one would prefer to be shown that President Bush's dealings with the public were open, balanced and fair throughout these recent events. Seems a fair sort of target.

Pity that target cannot be reached though. No-one has seriously suggested the most important policy decision of this administration was presented to the public in an open and candid manner, plainly disclosing its reasoning. Such a suggestion would be absurd. So it's rather puzzling to observe arguments that this administration can somehow be characterised as good and decent.

Posts: 1749 | From: -> Canberra <-/ Hong Kong / London | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
trollface
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for trollface   Author's Homepage   E-mail trollface   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stan:
What a fucking genious![sic]

Indeed.

--------------------
seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears.

Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Richard W   E-mail Richard W   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
For what it's worth, Hans Blix also personally suspected that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction (see his book, Disarming Iraq: The Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction).

It's just that he knew the difference between "suspicion" and "evidence", and refused to say that he had evidence - under quite some pressure to do so, from predictable quarters - when he didn't.

He also says that he's extremely glad that he didn't succumb to that pressure because if he had it would have destroyed his credibility, and that of weapons inspections in general.

Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
evilbeard
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for evilbeard   E-mail evilbeard   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hagel Defends Criticisms of Iraq Policy
quote:
Rumsfeld described an evolution of U.S. policy toward Iraq embraced by Democrats and Republicans. He read several quotes from 1998 from then-President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger. They predicted that Hussein, if unchecked, would again use weapons of mass destruction.

However, many of the comments cited by Rumsfeld were used to justify continued sanctions on Iraq, not to invade it. Moreover, the Clinton administration officials did not cite the problematic intelligence that formed the core of the Bush administration's case for an invasion, such as allegations that Iraq sought uranium in Africa and tried to obtain aluminum tubes as part of a resurgent nuclear program.

Rumsfeld also pointed to congressional actions in 1998 and 2002 calling for Hussein's removal. But the 1998 law, signed by Clinton, said "nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to use of United States Armed Forces" to implement it.



--------------------
rex linum occisor et erronis

But Jimmy has fancy plans... and pants to match. The monkey clown horrible karate round and yummy like cute small baby chick would beat the donkey."

Posts: 1022 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Open Mike Night
Little Sales Drummer Boy


Icon 200 posted      Profile for Open Mike Night     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I thought i would add a website I stumbled across for those that would like to look back on Iraq during the Clinton Administration.

It's an index of Iraq stories from USA today-

October 1998-August 1999

February 1998-October 1998

November 1997-February 1998

it's pretty enlightening on what the Clinton Administration said.

--------------------
On the crusade to eliminate Moral Asshattery wherever it exists
Member: AAMAH

Posts: 2940 | From: Michigan | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Grumpy
Deck the Malls


Icon 15 posted      Profile for Grumpy         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
I'll deal with those after you tell me what the modified vehicle was and what had to be evacuated, and why.

Whatever it was, I'm sure we blowed it up good.

But you have to admit, that's not even close to Maine, Lusitania, or Gulf of freakin' Tonkin for a casus belli, if it can even be called that.

Posts: 389 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Open Mike Night
Little Sales Drummer Boy


Icon 200 posted      Profile for Open Mike Night     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The VP joins in: Cheney Latest to Lash Out at Critics

quote:
Cheney said Wednesday the accusation is "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."


quote:
Following up on that theme, Cheney said Wednesday that "these are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions. They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq's capabilities and intentions that was made by this administration and by the previous administration."


quote:
Cheney's speech was part of a GOP effort to push back against criticism on Iraq that presidential counselor Dan Bartlett said will continue.



--------------------
On the crusade to eliminate Moral Asshattery wherever it exists
Member: AAMAH

Posts: 2940 | From: Michigan | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
evilbeard
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for evilbeard   E-mail evilbeard   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
IRAQ ON THE RECORD THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
quote:
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY STAFF
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION
MARCH 16, 2004

IRAQ ON THE RECORD
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ

The Special Investigations Division compiled a database of statements about Iraq
made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary
Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. All of the statements in the database
were drawn from speeches, press conferences and briefings, interviews, written
statements, and testimony by the five officials.
This Iraq on the Record database contains statements made by the five officials
that were misleading at the time they were made. The database does not include
statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections
of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made. The entire
database is accessible to members of Congress and the public at
www.reform.house.gov/min.
This report is a summary of the Iraq on the Record database. Because the
officials’ statements have been compiled into a searchable database, the report can
make new observations about the topics that were the subject of misleading
claims, the timing of these claims, and the officials who were responsible. To
ensure objectivity, the report was peer reviewed for fairness and accuracy by twoleading experts: Joseph Cirincione, senior associate and director of the Non-
Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and
Greg Thielmann, former acting director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation,
and Military Affairs in the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and
Research.

Number of Misleading Statements. The Iraq on the Record database contains
237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell,
and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate
appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53
interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the
statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty
where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials.
Ten of the statements were simply false.



--------------------
rex linum occisor et erronis

But Jimmy has fancy plans... and pants to match. The monkey clown horrible karate round and yummy like cute small baby chick would beat the donkey."

Posts: 1022 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
evilbeard
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for evilbeard   E-mail evilbeard   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
If Cheney is vowing to, to paraphrase, "throw their words back in the democrats faces," shouldn't he make sure people cant do the same to him. Waxman's report has him caught in lies or misleading statemtns 51 times. and there's lots others:

June 17, 2004. Vice President Cheney talking to CNBC's Gloria Borger:
quote:
Borger: 'Well, let's go to Mohamed Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed.' '

Cheney: 'No, I never said that.'

Borger: 'Okay.'

Cheney: 'Never said that.'

Borger: 'I think that is . . . '

Cheney: 'Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down.'

On Dec. 9, 2001. Cheney talking to NBC's Tim Russert:
quote:
Cheney: 'Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that -- it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.'
Cheney during the debates, said that he NEVER had publicly connected Iraq and 9/11.

Cheney on Meet the Press
quote:
Cheney: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Cheney pushed Al-libi stories months after Al-Libi recanted.

Glass Houses, Thrown Stones.

--------------------
rex linum occisor et erronis

But Jimmy has fancy plans... and pants to match. The monkey clown horrible karate round and yummy like cute small baby chick would beat the donkey."

Posts: 1022 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
evilbeard
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for evilbeard   E-mail evilbeard   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
by the way, mister cheney:
quote:
In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation in 1992, Cheney said: “If we’d gone to Baghdad and got rid of Saddam Hussein — assuming we could have found him — we’d have had to put a lot of forces in and run him to ground someplace…Then you’ve got to put a new government in his place, and then you’re faced with the question of what kind of government are you going to establish in Iraq? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shia government or a Sunni government?” Mr. Cheney continued. “How many forces are you going to have to leave there to keep it propped up, how many casualties are you going to take through the course of this operation?” [New York Times, 12/16/03]
Cheney changed his view on Iraq He said in '92 Saddam not worth U.S. casualties
quote:
WASHINGTON -- In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time, made the observations answering audience questions after a speech to the Discovery Institute in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait.



--------------------
rex linum occisor et erronis

But Jimmy has fancy plans... and pants to match. The monkey clown horrible karate round and yummy like cute small baby chick would beat the donkey."

Posts: 1022 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
evilbeard
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for evilbeard   E-mail evilbeard   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
In challenging war's critics, administration tinkers with truth
quote:
But Bush, Cheney, and other senior officials have added several other arguments in recent days that distort the factual record. Below, Knight Ridder addresses the administration's main assertions


--------------------
rex linum occisor et erronis

But Jimmy has fancy plans... and pants to match. The monkey clown horrible karate round and yummy like cute small baby chick would beat the donkey."

Posts: 1022 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Grumpy
Deck the Malls


Icon 216 posted      Profile for Grumpy         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
On Thursday, Senator Ted "They don't need to be sworn in" Stevens echoed the WH push-back on the Senate floor. I don't know if the WH actually gave him the talking points, or if he thought them up himself.

Stevens accused critics of "rewriting history," and pointed out that the Clinton administration believed Saddam was a threat in February 1998. And then...

...Then Stevens neglected to mention that the Desert Fox airstrikes of December 1998 eliminated that threat. True, that fact wasn't known until the UN inspectors went back into Iraq in 2002 -- a bit of history which Stevens also failed to mention in his speech. The White House hasn't been mentioning those things either, for that matter.

Stevens' unique contribution was the insistence that WMD could still be found. He neglected to mention (as is his habit) that the WMD search has ended, and that nobody is looking anymore.

When they say "rewriting history," maybe they mean rewrite in the sense of writing again, reprinting the history they'd rather forget. Because the other kind, in the sense of revising or distorting, is clearly something they hold dear.

Posts: 389 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grumpy:
the Desert Fox airstrikes of December 1998 eliminated that threat. True, that fact wasn't known until the UN inspectors went back into Iraq in 2002 -- a bit of history which Stevens also failed to mention in his speech.

Hm. This would seem to contradict other "facts" which state that Hussein unilaterally destroyed his weapons in the early 90's.

How can you blow something up in 1998 if it was destroyed in 1994?

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Grumpy
Deck the Malls


Icon 500 posted      Profile for Grumpy         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Has somebody been saying Saddam Hussein destroyed his chemical & biological weapons before 1998? Because UN inspectors were chasing them down right up until they left in 1998.

And then there was Desert Fox, which everyone forgets because the impeachment vote came the following day.

Posts: 389 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:
Originally posted by Grumpy:
the Desert Fox airstrikes of December 1998 eliminated that threat. True, that fact wasn't known until the UN inspectors went back into Iraq in 2002 -- a bit of history which Stevens also failed to mention in his speech.

Hm. This would seem to contradict other "facts" which state that Hussein unilaterally destroyed his weapons in the early 90's.

How can you blow something up in 1998 if it was destroyed in 1994?

Maybe they only blew up the "Program aimed at obtaining" the weapons.

You know, like Reagan's "Sub-Sub-Assemblies," which he claimed were exempt from treaty obligations against "Sub-Assemblies."

Hey, if Reagan can get away with lying about having weapons of mass destruction, why can't Saddam Hussein? Hypocrite!

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grumpy:
Has somebody been saying Saddam Hussein destroyed his chemical & biological weapons before 1998? Because UN inspectors were chasing them down right up until they left in 1998.

USA Today says that the ISG says so...

quote:
Using the research of the 1,700-member Iraq Survey Group, Duelfer concluded that Saddam ordered his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons destroyed in 1991 and 1992 and halted nuclear weapons development, all in hopes of lifting crippling economic sanctions.

"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War," the report states.

The findings were similarly definitive concerning chemical and biological weapons: "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991" and the survey team found "no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production."



--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Grumpy
Deck the Malls


Icon 500 posted      Profile for Grumpy         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting. I assume then that what UNSCOM was chasing in 1998 was the declared chemical weapons stockpile.
Posts: 389 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Billion
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Billion   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Billion   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I like how Two is now presenting evidence against Iraq having WMD.

--------------------
"For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire." ~Dick Cheney.

Posts: 747 | From: Kansas | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Senior
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Senior   E-mail Senior       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Since WMD are not longer the administration's excuse for the Iraq War, it's not unreasonable that a Bushite like First of Two is flip-flopping.

--------------------
Ad astra per asparagus.

Posts: 4806 | From: Groton, CT | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Senior:
Since WMD are not longer the administration's excuse for the Iraq War, it's not unreasonable that a Bushite like First of Two is flip-flopping.

I'm not. I'm just reporting what ISG said, for those who are both of the "Bush Lied but the Dems didn't" and the "the ISG is absolutely right" crowd. Since obviously, one can't hold both views... unless one is a balseraph.

Myself, I still have my own theory which, despite being unconfirmable (without a whole lot of work that no one is ever going to do,) better fits all the known facts... especially the largely-ignored ones, such as the presence on military Russian advisors in Iraq in the last few weeks before the war.

Also, I see you're back to using terms like "Bushite" and "Bush-worshippers" again. Since I provided evidence debunking this name-calling in the past, I must conclude that you've had a memory malfunction. Aricept may help.

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
First, you calling anybody out on etiquette breaches is ironic.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Senior
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Senior   E-mail Senior       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
Also, I see you're back to using terms like "Bushite" and "Bush-worshippers" again. Since I provided evidence debunking this name-calling in the past, I must conclude that you've had a memory malfunction. Aricept may help.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and has feathers like a duck, then it's a duck.

So remind me, what's the difference between you and a Bushite? You don't wear the hat?

--------------------
Ad astra per asparagus.

Posts: 4806 | From: Groton, CT | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I've been listening to the clips from Cheney's speech and the spin surrounding it. Mary Matalin (saw her on CNN) is spinning like a tornado saying that Cheney is trusted by the American people but speaks to the Hill.

Cheney is standing there claiming that the administration is truthful and the Democtats are lying.

Is this the same Cheney who obviously didn't "fully cooperated" with the investigation into Plamegate? Is this the same Cheney whose chief of staff is under indictment for lying to a grand jury? Why does anyone think this administration should have any credibility, let alone Cheney specifically?

Doesn't mean the Dems ain't lying but there is no reason to believe Cheney.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Open Mike Night
Little Sales Drummer Boy


Icon 200 posted      Profile for Open Mike Night     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Cheney Accuses Iraq Critics of Revisionism

quote:
Cheney also denounced proposals for a quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "a dangerous illusion" and shrugged off the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. "We never had the burden of proof," he said, adding that it had been up to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to prove to the world that he didn't have such weapons.

"We never had the burden of proof," Wha? We didn't have the burden of proof to start a war? We didn't have to prove a positive assertion, but Saddam had to prove a negative?

quote:
However, Cheney said, "It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that another retreat by the civilized world would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone."

"Those who advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq should answer a few simple questions," Cheney said, such as whether the United States would be "better off or worse off" with terror leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri in control of Iraq.

Bin Laden scare again.

--------------------
On the crusade to eliminate Moral Asshattery wherever it exists
Member: AAMAH

Posts: 2940 | From: Michigan | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Senior:
So remind me, what's the difference between you and a Bushite?

First of Two occasionally tells the truth.

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mickey Blue
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mickey Blue     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Open Mike Night:
Cheney Accuses Iraq Critics of Revisionism

quote:
Cheney also denounced proposals for a quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "a dangerous illusion" and shrugged off the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. "We never had the burden of proof," he said, adding that it had been up to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to prove to the world that he didn't have such weapons.

"We never had the burden of proof," Wha? We didn't have the burden of proof to start a war? We didn't have to prove a positive assertion, but Saddam had to prove a negative?

quote:
However, Cheney said, "It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that another retreat by the civilized world would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone."

"Those who advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq should answer a few simple questions," Cheney said, such as whether the United States would be "better off or worse off" with terror leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri in control of Iraq.

Bin Laden scare again.

For an administration that was able to pull the wool over the bulk of the countries eyes for so long, you'd think they'd come up with some new tricks besides "WMD" "Saddam was bad" and "Bin Laden! Ooooooohhh Scary!"..

--------------------
"All people are responsible for the good that they didn't do"

Posts: 4774 | From: Virginia | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Monkeyhead
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Monkeyhead   E-mail Monkeyhead   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Was the United States' invasion of Iraq morally justified? Was it strategically sound? As an avid sports fan I do not care because for a while there it made for some great television.

Of course this was way back in 2003. You don't see any night vision lighted running gun battles anymore really. No fancy maps on the news detailing the course of the invasion like a weatherman indicating some such low pressure trough. These days I'm lucky if I get to see some dodgy security footage of a suicide bomber's last few seconds of life. I personally would like things to move on. You gotta bet US @ North Korea is going to be worth a pay per view. But no, all I hear is Iraq, Iraq, and sometimes Afghanistan. I mean, WTF? Isn't the match over already? Something about a mission being accomplished? My point is: how much overtime does this thing require??

Mr Armed Forces Officer Sir, might I respectfully ask: how long do you think this little engagement will be continuing? 2 years? 5? "As long as it takes?" It's getting old now and I would appreciate it if you could perform a pre-emptive strike on my approaching boredom. Maybe you could leave Iraq and then invade all over again but do it more slowly this time with a D-Day type setpiece. That would be cool.

A lament for the end of conventional warfare. The chief crime of the terrorists is their utter failure to entertain.

Posts: 3 | From: Wollongong, Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2