Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JBA on June 06, 2003, 09:06:33 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/2
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
Letter from Senate Democrats to Clinton urging attack on Iraq over WMD
And now they say there aren’t any?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/gen/Document.jpg
-
Anyone got Tim Robbins' Email address?
Fantastic.
-
Gotta love Rush... passing that letter off as if it were written by Democrats when half of the people on the list are GOP.
It's not even the official letter. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Gotta love Rush... passing that letter off as if it were written by Democrats when half of the people on the list are GOP.
It's not even the official letter. :rolleyes:
That might be true if Rush worked for the New York Times
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Gotta love Rush... passing that letter off as if it were written by Democrats when half of the people on the list are GOP.
It's not even the official letter. :rolleyes:
But Sandyman, what about the CNN stuff. RUSH didn't fabricate that did he? Hmmmmm???
Why don't you put the official letter out there for all to see, or would that pose a problem?
Typical Lib tactic! Distort with partially relevant statement but don't offer alternative or proof. sheesh! I expected better from you San!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
It's your link, but I'm pretty sure, it's not the New York Times...
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/gen/Document.jpg
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
But Sandyman, what about the CNN stuff. RUSH didn't fabricate that did he? Hmmmmm???
Why don't you put the official letter out there for all to see, or would that pose a problem?
Typical Lib tactic! Distort with partially relevant statement but don't offer alternative or proof. sheesh! I expected better form you San!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
When I replied there were no links to the CNN stuff. Only the Rush Limbaugh letter.
-
(http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/gen/Document.jpg)
Followed by a cruise missle attack (as requested) followed by Republican admonitions about wagging the dog.
More of the same old BS.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Gotta love Rush... passing that letter off as if it were written by Democrats when half of the people on the list are GOP.
It's not even the official letter. :rolleyes:
How can you lie so boldly? A total 14 well known Democratic senators, a majority of the list, signed that thing and somehow to you it does not impart at least part democratic ownership to the stated opinions wrt iraq posseision of illegal WMD and a statement of support for military action in responbse to non compliance . I think this tells us a lot about your mindset when the commitments by signature of you Democratic leaders are taken as worthless as the situation demands...
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
When I replied there were no links to the CNN stuff. Only the Rush Limbaugh letter.
Er.... uh.... oh......
Well as Roseanne Rosannandana said:
Never Mind!
:D
ROFL
Dang, I thought I had ya there Sand!
Shoot! I still gotta figure out how I can agree with a liberal, cause he's a Rook. Hmmmmmm???:cool:
-
Oh cool... Now we know where Colin Powell got his "figures" from:
The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:
5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs
LOL
-
the dumbacrats didn't want bush to attack Iraq as Bush was not receiving oral sex from a fat intern young enough to be his daughter in the oral office (and got caught) thus they and the country did not need the distraction...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Followed by a cruise missle attack (as requested) followed by Republican admonitions about wagging the dog.
More of the same old BS.
Ironic huh and now some of the undersigned Democrats are doing the same thing, I hate politics...
You know I've been in this country for 14 years and three presidents. I seem to remember some discord between congressional democrats and Bush Sr. when it came to the first gulf war - but I dont recall it being particulary personal.
Now obviously with Clinton the attacks did become viciouly personal and it has continues with President Bush today.
Is this normal for the Presidecy or is it a recent development or a throwback to old style dirty politics as often seen on the 19th century?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
[IMG]
Followed by a cruise missle attack (as requested) followed by Republican admonitions about wagging the dog.
More of the same old BS.
I know this is OT for this thread, which is why did they belive Iraq had WND then but not now. But, wasn't the big issue with the cruise missle attack that it took place on the day of his impeachment? Tahg, does that timing give you any pause?
And, back to the point, do the Demos think their prior words can't be held against them now? Has anyone seen any argument as to why it was okay for them to belive Iraq had WMD then but not now?
Or is it a mater of degree. Belief or fear of WMD is enough to justifiy a surprise missle attack but not a people liberating invasion?
:D :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How can you lie so boldly? A total 14 well known Democratic senators, a majority of the list, signed that thing and somehow to you it does not impart at least part democratic ownership to the stated opinions wrt iraq posseision of illegal WMD and a statement of support for military action in responbse to non compliance . I think this tells us a lot about your mindset when the commitments by signature of you Democratic leaders are taken as worthless as the situation demands...
Did you see a signature? Hell, did you see the official letter head?
Nevermind that it's SEVEN years old. It's irrelevant. Supposedly, Saddam Hussein represented a heinous threat capable of striking U.S. troops within 45 minutes and evidently he's had this capability for SEVEN years!
The horror!
For the record... I'm not a democrat nor am I pro-democrat. I'm anti-GOP. :D
-
Which of those 'signers' of the above have come out saying that there are no WMD. Please provide a link.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Ironic huh and now some of the undersigned Democrats are doing the same thing, I hate politics...
You know I've been in this country for 14 years and three presidents. I seem to remember some discord between congressional democrats and Bush Sr. when it came to the first gulf war - but I dont recall it being particulary personal.
Now obviously with Clinton the attacks did become viciouly personal and it has continues with President Bush today.
Is this normal for the Presidecy or is it a recent development or a throwback to old style dirty politics as often seen on the 19th century?
I believe your observation is a good one and is one I've been noticing my self. It is more recent. There have been plenty of scandals this century...Tea Pot Dome, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Whitewater/Monica. Things got a little testy in Iran-Contra. But it seems that the Whitewater investigation, which led to the Monica scandal, was filled with the most partisan politics I can recall in my lifetime. I'm not a huge fan of Clinton...I voted for Bush, Sr who I think was probably one of the best presidents we've ever had. But the Starr investigation and the repleblican back-biting really was embarrassing. We spent $52 million taxpayer dollars to find out that Clinton, or rather his wife, did not have a significant enough role in the Whitewater S&L to convict, but it did uncover that the President was getting a blow job now and then...big whoop...if I had to stoop to get a blow job from someone that looks like Monica, I'd lie about it too. ;) $52 million to conclude that Billy got blown. I do think what he did was wrong and he should have come clean (no pun intended) with the truth...hell it works for evangelists. But instead of wasting more money on an impeachment trial, he should have gotten a sympathetic pat on the back and an issue of Playboy for the next time Monica went down so he could at least fanaticize that he was getting a hummer from a hottie. :rolleyes:
I think that episode gave Dems the incentive to play tit-for-tat.
Just my guess, but I think some of this partisan politics has been due to the disappearance of the Southern Democrats. These conservative fellows balanced Congress. The liberals could not get too liberal or the Southern Democrats would vote with the Republicans. And the Republicans could get some conservative legislation passed using the Southern Democrat cross-overs. They were a moderating influence, which is now gone. This leaves a very polarized Congress that sees every issue as a zero-sum game.
-
Which is surprising, because the Dems have yet go after Bush with the same voracity as the Republicans and Clinton.
That's the real problem with the Dems... they lack energy, they lack focus. They are weak and irrelevant and the Republicans have done a marvelous job exploiting it.
Of course... Clinton was weak also. If had any balls at all he wouldn't have lied. He would have simply refused to answer the question.
-
They're all politicians. They all lie, steal, cheat, and will send our kids off to a stupid war for 2 points in the polls or a few campaign contributions. Aren't we lucky?
-
Of course... Clinton was weak also. If had any balls at all he wouldn't have lied. He would have simply refused to answer the question.
Not to sound sarcastic, but which one of his lies are you talking about here?
-
Originally posted by Arfann
They're all politicians. They all lie, steal, cheat, and will send our kids off to a stupid war for 2 points in the polls or a few campaign contributions. Aren't we lucky?
The cynicism of your post, and of the sentiments of much of these threads for that matter, is terribly terribly sad. I am curious though, why you all feel so poorly served by those that were elected to govern us? Do you feel that there is anyone out there, in or out of office, would not be subject to the broad brush you use in your post? If so, please share your thoughts. If not, what are you all whining about? Is it some sort of "I complain therefore I am" type of political pholosophy. Afterall, some of us think that with all its warts, it's still the best game on the planet.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
-
Originally posted by ra
Not to sound sarcastic, but which one of his lies are you talking about here?
Pick one. :D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Which of those 'signers' of the above have come out saying that there are no WMD. Please provide a link.
Nothing huh?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Nothing huh?
MT, no disprespect, but I don't really think that is the inquiry and to make it so politicizes the issue unwisely. That ought not be the inquiry. IIRC, the worldwide concensus in January, amoungst the WHOLE world, even France, was that Iraq had WMD. THe battle then was to have the UN inspectors find them.
Now, there are no WMD's found! So, was the whole world simply wrong? We're they all deluded? Were they the victim of bad intelligence too? I think not. What I also think is that what we ought to be worried about is where did those weapons go that the world knew about in January?
:D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Nothing huh?
I believe the intent of the original post is to show that while the Democrat political machine is trying to accuse Bush of lying about WMD to trump up an excuse to invade Iraq, many senior Democrats on the Armed Services Committee believed that Iraq was indeed a WMD threat. Therefore, one cannot take the Democrat Party seriously.
ra
-
I guess I wasn't being clear...
The point of this thread was something like "Those hypocritical Democrats...look how they say there are WMD one minute then change their minds later."
I'm just askin for some information on any Dem who has actually changed his or her tune...
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
I am curious though, why you all feel so poorly served by those that were elected to govern us?
They're elected to govern us?!?! I thought they were supposed to simply be representatives of the people?... a means to concentrate several million voices into a couple hundred.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
The cynicism of your post, and of the sentiments of much of these threads for that matter, is terribly terribly sad. I am curious though, why you all feel so poorly served by those that were elected to govern us? Do you feel that there is anyone out there, in or out of office, would not be subject to the broad brush you use in your post? If so, please share your thoughts. If not, what are you all whining about? Is it some sort of "I complain therefore I am" type of political pholosophy. Afterall, some of us think that with all its warts, it's still the best game on the planet.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
I agree with the "terribly sad" part. Terribly sad that the American people are so easily led by politicians instead of demanding it be the other way around.
-
Originally posted by ra
I believe the intent of the original post is to show that while the Democrat political machine is trying to accuse Bush of lying about WMD to trump up an excuse to invade Iraq, many senior Democrats on the Armed Services Committee believed that Iraq was indeed a WMD threat. Therefore, one cannot take the Democrat Party seriously.
So does that imply that Sen. John Warner, R-VA, and Sen. Pat Roberts, R-KS, are either part of or capitulating to the Democratic political machine? :D
And does it mean that if there are Republicans who believed that Saddam did have WMD but are now calling for investigations, then the Republican Party cannot be taken seriously? Sen. John McCain, R-AZ made these two statements recently:
"I think that it's very appropriate for the Congress to have hearings on the whole issue."
"I'm satisfied that Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction, but if we had not overthrown him, he would have went back to pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction."
This is what is so surprising about this investigation...it is not just Democrats, but there are senior Republicans that are wondering if they were duped by the Administration and/or bad intelligence as well.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
I agree with the "terribly sad" part. Terribly sad that the American people are so easily led by politicians instead of demanding it be the other way around.
And how, prey tell, do 280,000,000 people lead?
-
This is what is so surprising about this investigation...it is not just Democrats, but there are senior Republicans that are wondering if they were duped by the Administration and/or bad intelligence as well.
What investigation? Bad intel is not the issue here.
There are Democratic politicians saying the the war was based on a WMD lie invented by the Bush administration. Then, there's a 1998 memo signed by senior Democrat senators on the Armed Serviced Committee saying that they believe Iraq poses a WMD threat.
Sen. John McCain, R-AZ made these two statements recently:
"I think that it's very appropriate for the Congress to have hearings on the whole issue."
"I'm satisfied that Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction, but if we had not overthrown him, he would have went back to pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction."
OK, how does this support the Democrats 2-faced approach to this war?
-
Once again.... who are these 2 faced Dems??????
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Once again.... who are these 2 faced Dems??????
Chis Dodd appears to be one.
From the UK - Middle East Online -
WASHINGTON - Senior US lawmakers from both major political parties Sunday defended their support for the war on Iraq despite doubts about the intelligence used to justify the US-led assault.
.....
He and Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut however said a congressional investigation may be needed to determine whether US intelligence sources hyped information regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify the war.
"Obviously it's going to be important for us to get the answer to the question of whether or not those weapons were there," Dodd said.
In that quote, the He is John MCCain.
Is he backtracking on h is statements in 1998 or is he just jumpoing on the bad intel bandwagon? I can't tell.
Still checking on others MT.
:D
-
Originally posted by ra
What investigation? Bad intel is not the issue here.
Com'on Ra...don't be obtuse. Republicans and Democrats are calling for hearings that will investigate why WMDs have not yet been found when the Administration was using certainty of their existence, based on intelligence, as the primary reason to invade Iraq. Have the hearings been scheduled...no. Have Senate committees begun to investigate the intel...yes...Sen Warner, chair of the Armed Services Committee has asked the CIA to send "detailed information on the intelligence that led to the agency's assessment of Iraq's weapons program" for the committee to review (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/03/sprj.irq.main/index.html)
OK, how does this support the Democrats 2-faced approach to this war? [/B]
Ummm...it doesn't support it...it supports that it appears that Republicans are also being 2-faced. There are Dems on the record saying that they believed that Saddam had WMDs and now there are Dems saying that there should be hearings to investigate the why WMDs were not found. There are Pubs on the record saying that they believe that Saddam had WMDs and now there are Pubs saying that there should be hearings to investigate why WMDs were not found.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Once again.... who are these 2 faced Dems??????
Here's an interesting aspect to John Kerry who also signed the 1998 letter.
On Feb. 23, 1998, as then-President Bill Clinton made Iraqi regime change an issue, Sen. Kerry said the following:
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
But, now, without actually bringing up specifically WMD, Kerry says the following:
''What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.''
''I believe it deeply, that it will take a new president of the United States, declaring a new day for our relationship with the world, to clear the air and turn a new page on American history.'' he said.
I would call that two faced MT. Wouldn't you?
:D
Ihaven't got any more time to look up senatorial flip flops but, MY, your point is well taken and we should be careful to ascribe positions to those that actually have taken that position. But, I submit that the Democratic party, as a group, is looking to the WMD issue and trying to make an issue out of it with GWB. I don't think they can do that legitimately.
-
If Clinton thought he could get the support he probably would have invaded Iraq, but that would have been 'nation building'.
-
Sorry Syz... and you know that the point was not made with your quote.
Kerry may have called for a regime change in 98, but he also called for one in 2003. The only difference is that he called for 2 regime changes in 2003. Not 2-faced at all.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
If Clinton thought he could get the support he probably would have invaded Iraq, but that would have been 'nation building'.
Invading Iraq is 'nation building'? How can this be? During the presidential campaign, Dubya said he would not be doing any nation building. It must be something else.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Once again.... who are these 2 faced Dems??????
I am referring to the entire Democrat congress. One question mark would have sufficed.
-
Oh I see.
So we are generalizing.
Sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry Syz... and you know that the point was not made with your quote.
Kerry may have called for a regime change in 98, but he also called for one in 2003. The only difference is that he called for 2 regime changes in 2003. Not 2-faced at all.
If he believed there were WMD in 1998, and supported military action as a result, and now opposes a president who gave us military action to get the WMD's Kerry knows were there, then that's being politically two faced in my book
Nah Nah Nah!
And what about the quote from Chris Dodd? Huih, what about that?
:D
You flyin tonight's SquadOps?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Invading Iraq is 'nation building'? How can this be? During the presidential campaign, Dubya said he would not be doing any nation building. It must be something else.
You are eggsakly right Sandy! Hurray for you!
Iraq was not NATION BUILDING! It was NATION LIBERATION or better put, NATION REBUILDIING!
Keep tryin' though. It's entertaining!:D :D
-
Squad Ops...
Gonna try. Lots of honey do's and packing to do. On the road for a week starting tomorrow.
DC and Northeast Oregon.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Squad Ops...
Gonna try. Lots of honey do's and packing to do. On the road for a week starting tomorrow.
DC and Northeast Oregon.
GL on your trip!
I look for ya tonight!
:D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Did you see a signature? Hell, did you see the official letter head?
Nevermind that it's SEVEN years old. It's irrelevant. Supposedly, Saddam Hussein represented a heinous threat capable of striking U.S. troops within 45 minutes and evidently he's had this capability for SEVEN years!
The horror!
For the record... I'm not a democrat nor am I pro-democrat. I'm anti-GOP. :D
Yes of course it a fake.. The powerful politicans jyst let their nmaes be used on that dicument even though they did not support it...
Not only is it fake according to you, but it's also irellevant just like you are gonna say for any WMD evidence that comes out of iraq... :rolleyes:
-
"Not only is it fake according to you, but it's also irellevant just like you are gonna say for any WMD evidence that comes out of iraq..." - Grunherz
Grun - If WMD evidence does NOT come out of Iraq, would that be irrelevant to you?
It bugs ya if someone says "Well, it must be planted by the CIA", if found. But if not found, are you going to be one of the people that says "Well, they must have shipped it all to Syria" or something along those lines?
So, again, an honest question to you before you can criticize other people's rationalizations of what happens over there: If WMD does not turn up, is that irrelevant or will it matter?... And if it does matter - how much? How important will that be to you?
-
we kicked a murdering oppressive dictator's arse ... Iraq and the region are better for it.
let's move on to the next one - we can come up with a reason "why" later - if we really need to ...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
we kicked a murdering oppressive dictator's arse ... Iraq and the region are better for it.
let's move on to the next one - we can come up with a reason "why" later - if we really need to ...
I think we need a rock solid "why" before we do anything.... ever.
-
Nash so far we have found the truck labs just like Colin Powell said. We are interviewing Iraqi WMD scientists without Iraqi intelligence agents minding the show and they are failing polygraphs en masse, they are hiding something.
As for the CIA planted thing I'm just going with what some of the more exhuberant USA-Haters stated months ago - that they have allready decied that any WMD evidece will be a fake CIOA plant just like Sandman thinks that letter is somehow fake because its inconvenient to his predetrmined judgement.
-
Still didn't answer my question... if you care to....
If they don't find WMD are you going to come up with a pre-fabricated excuse for that just like the guys on the other side who are going to claim a CIA conspiracy if weapons *are* found?
Yer asking the other guys to be reasonable... Are you prepared to be?
-
They are allready finding illegal WMD material so you have no case... But of course hidden mobile chemical labs in camuflaged military trucks dont count..
-
Are mobile labs, with no trace of biological agent[/i][/u], ready to fire WMD equipped munitions at 45 minutes notice as claimed by the Blair-Bush axis?
They need to keep looking as far I'm concerned.
-
Can you give me a link for that Grun?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Can you give me a link for that Grun?
I think Grun is quoting from "Grasping at Straws.com"
-
Ahh Dowding the Blair-Bush axis, why cant you whoopeeed people lay off the idiotic Hitler references...
-
hell how can you avoid um. he has the same mix of charisma for by pandering to their most base hates and disgust to others.
he involved the usa in a war that was totaly unnessisary and lied to get the populace on his side. created concentration camps to torture people to death in the name of freedom. ect ect ect
the comparisons to hitler stand up. enjoy
time to pay.
-
Yes ldv you are right - hopefully then the secret police will be knocking on your door at midnight, arresting you and the other Bush hating saddam lovers, torturing you and then killing you.... Weeeee! Right - just like good old hitler!! WWOHOOO - bring that watermelon on! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
time to pay.
How ironic!
Keep that in mind as the Bush/Hiler secret police are beathing your face in with baseball bats. Enjoy!
-
:)
GScholz if thase guys are gonna childishly eqaute bush to hitler why not go all the way and fully accept the implications of that? In other words the security police is on the way and they are screwed....