Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bob Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

+7
VectorMan
Hospital Bob
KarlRove
2seaoat
polecat
Sal
gatorfan
11 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Floridatexan wrote:and I second Sal's motion.

I'll third it!!

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

Sal wrote:Anyone who doesn't understand that the utter insanity of invading and occupying a post-Ottoman, post-colonial, sectarian kleptocracy, with absolutely no plan of how to proceed after seizing the capital, in a region of artificial borders and eternal blood feuds, led directly to ALL of the chaos we're currently witnessing in the ME, should be disqualified from any discussions regarding foreign affairs.

That's a nice way of telling you to shut your ignorant piehole, Markie.

Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk&feature=related

He [President Clinton] praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."

Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.
- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration"


The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

Sal

Sal

Who gives a flying fuck, Markie?

Dubya has all the intelligence.

Dubya approved the strategy.

Dubya is solely responsible.

He was the President.

The "decider", remember?

Your spin is pathetic, even by your piss poor standard.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Sal wrote:Your spin is pathetic, even by your piss poor standard.

It is called desperation and it is only going to get worse as the election nears.......

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

2seaoat



disasters in Syria and Libya.

Define disaster. Israel is as happy as a pig in chit that two nation states which were a direct threat to their security have been neutralized. Tribal disputes in Libya will take years to resolve. In Syria, the 1973 war had them less than 24 hours from invading Israel and taking large chunks of the country as their tanks had tactical advantage in the Golan heights after the surprise attack, and the Syrians not realizing how successful the Egyptians had been in obliterating the Sinai defenses under the Russian air missile defense on the west side of the Suez caused the Israelis to lose almost 150 tanks in the first few days of the surprise attack. Syria now being neutralize will take a generation before it ever poses a conventional military threat. So define disaster. Two dangerous dictators have either been killed or neutralized as a threat to our ally in the middle east.........and as Tom Cotton has made abundantly clear......that IS our foreign policy in the middle east........and it is time to simply cut and run like Ronald Reagan did......the man had it figured out in foreign relations, but sadly dropped the ball in domestic.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

KarlRove wrote:She's as electable as Nixon would be right about now.

Nixon was elected twice. As I understand it, since Roosevelt that's the maximum time anyone can live in the White House.
So not sure that's the example you really wanted to use. lol

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

By the way,  as far as all of your comments in this thread,  Sal.

First,  according to you,  it's Seymour Hersh who's sold out.

And now,  it's the dude who bucked the system as much as any individual in the Third Estate ever did in the history of American government.  I lived through that one.  I was in my 20's when it happened and I took it all in.  And I come away from it saying the inventors of our country would be cheering him.

If it's true about Hersh what you say that's bad enough.  But I gotta have more than just your claims to convince me about Woodward.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Make that the Fourth Estate.  It turns out the Third Estate refers to "the common people of France".  lol

2seaoat



Bob Woodard is a smart man. He was born with a silver spoon and he has done extremely well going off on his own and not joining the family law firm. He is just wrong on this issue, but understands that he will make a great deal of money taking this position. "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." ......he has simply returned to his youth and the conservative values of his family.......and he will make a boatload of money.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

If you can no longer count on Woodward to be a watchdog then who can you count on.

What you and Sal are overlooking is,   that if we no longer have a viable press and it's all sold out for personal gain,  then our country is fucked.  It won't matter if Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders or whoever) are the smartest individuals and greatest leaders in all history.  We'll still be fucked.

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:By the way,  as far as all of your comments in this thread,  Sal.

First,  according to you,  it's Seymour Hersh who's sold out.

And now,  it's the dude who bucked the system as much as any individual in the Third Estate ever did in the history of American government.  I lived through that one.  I was in my 20's when it happened and I took it all in.  And I come away from it saying the inventors of our country would be cheering him.

If it's true about Hersh what you say that's bad enough.  But I gotta have more than just your claims to convince me about Woodward.

1) read

2) comprehend

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Sal hath spoketh. lol

2seaoat



I think it would be fair to say that the press has lost the battle to keep quality journalism alive in American Newspapers. This is an economic reality more than it is anybody being bought off. There are so few experienced quality newspaper people any more that is simply a numbers game. TV, radio, and cable never was the incubator for quality journalism but the incubator for eye candy, news readers, and loud voices.

VectorMan

VectorMan

You libs would really be singing a different tune had Woodward trashed Bush. You know I'm right. If he'd of called Bush an out and out liar yall would be agreeing with him no matter what, because the facts don't even matter to your kind.

2seaoat



I still respect President Bush and voted for him. I favored the invasion of Iraq. I was wrong and he was wrong. His Presidency was a huge disappointment for me, but I have no tolerance for people taking pot shots at former Presidents. So if Woodard did a personal attack piece on President Bush, I would not be happy, but Woodard never really shows that kind of crass behavior, and he is much more subtle in his writing, but nonetheless wrong. America does not have to repeat the mistake of Korea in Iraq pouring our resources down a rabbit hole. Iraq is not in our zone of critical American interests......I know that disappoints you because you live on dogma, but substantive differences with a journalist does not have to be about politics.

VectorMan

VectorMan

2seaoat wrote:I still respect President Bush and voted for him.  I favored the invasion of Iraq.  I was wrong and he was wrong.  His Presidency was a huge disappointment for me, but I have no tolerance for people taking pot shots at former Presidents.  So if Woodard did a personal attack piece on President Bush, I would not be happy, but Woodard never really shows that kind of crass behavior, and he is much more subtle in his writing, but nonetheless wrong.   America does not have to repeat the mistake of Korea in Iraq pouring our resources down a rabbit hole.   Iraq is not in our zone of critical American interests......I know that disappoints you because you live on dogma, but substantive differences with a journalist does not have to be about politics.

I guess this is aimed at me........You don't know me from Adam and you sure don't know what disappoints me. And as for dogma....well....LOL... Try again.

I voted for Bush both times. What the hell else was I going to do? Gore or Kerry......LOL.....no F-ing way! Liberal buffoons!

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Here's the interview...

Before we examine the part about Bush not lying about WMD, remember that in the same interview, Woodward emphasizes that a very good argument can be made that the war in Iraq was a mistake. He's not saying anything to support the decision to go to war. Quite the contrary.

So now let's take a look at what we're all arguing about.



Woodward said on the Sunday news show that his 18-month investigation showed Bush didn't believe Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's claims that he had WMDs, and told CIA Director George Tenet, "Don't let anyone stretch the case on WMD."

Woodward told show host Chris Wallace of his investigation, "there was no lie in this that I could find."


http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/05/bob_woodward_george_w_bush_did_1.html

Woodward appears to be basing this assessment on the one comment Bush made to Tenet: "don't let anyone stretch the case on WMD".
And from that, Woodward has reached a conclusion that Bush never lied.

Houston, we have a problem. Because I went back to see if Bush had told the same thing to the American people. Either with his own lips moving OR with any of his advisor's lips moving.
And while both his and his advisor's lips were definitely moving, I can find nothing coming out of those mouths which is consistent with what Bush supposedly told Tenet. But I did find this...
__________________________________________

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush
September 12, 2002


If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer
December 2, 2002

The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.
Ari Fleischer December 6, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
George W. Bush
January 28, 2003


We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell
February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush
February 8, 2003


So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
Colin Powell
March 7, 2003

We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Vice President Dick Chaney
March 16, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush
March 17, 2003


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher
March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks
March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld
March 30, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.
Ari Fleischer
April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George W. Bush
April 24, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush
May 3, 2003


I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell
May 4, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush
May 6, 2003


U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice
May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
May 13, 2003

I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
Donald Rumsfeld,
May 14, 2003


Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
May 30, 2003

2seaoat



I voted for Bush both times. What the hell else was I going to do? Gore or Kerry......LOL.....no F-ing way! Liberal buffoons!

I do know you.  Your writings define the person, and if the dogma you post here and confirm with the above is not who you are in the real world, you do a splendid job creating a dogmatic myopic fearful person.  I could have easily lived with Gore or Kerry as President, but I disagreed with more of their positions at the time than I did with President Bush and I am a member of the Republican Party.  You are the representative of strident dogmatic politics which is not working for the American people but the 1% because of these artificial divisions  in America.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

I voted against Gore in 2000.
I voted against Bush in 2004.
I voted against McCain in 2008.
I voted against Obama in 2012.
And in 2016,  I'll vote against the worst of those assholes again.

I doubt I'll ever have the chance to vote FOR someone from now until I croak.
Why?  Because we have no actual leaders to vote for anymore.  Only people pretending to be leaders who are not.  I guess that's to be expected with a nation in decline.

Sal

Sal

I know it's easy and feels good to pretend there's no difference between the two political parties, but the truth is there is a vast dichotomy in this country and our politics.

The actual dichotomy is between the crazies and the reality based community.

I often have differences with the Democrats, but I rarely have reason to doubt their grasp of reality.

I like to keep it simple.

I vote against the party that advocates secession and endless wars everywhere as sound domestic and foreign policies, and that doubts evolution, climate change, elementary economic theory, and seeks to deny basic civil rights to minorities.

And, I sleep well every night.



Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Sal wrote:[font=Arial Black]I know it's easy and feels good to pretend there's no difference between the two political parties, but the truth is there is a vast dichotomy in this country and our politics.

Oh I asbolutely agree. There are differences allright. Just like there's a difference between the ebola virus and the bubonic plague. The two are not the same.

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:
Sal wrote:I know it's easy and feels good to pretend there's no difference between the two political parties, but the truth is there is a vast dichotomy in this country and our politics.


Oh I asbolutely agree.  There are differences allright.  Just like there's a difference between the ebola virus and the bubonic plague.  The two are not the same.  

Is that where you stopped reading?



Last edited by Sal on 5/28/2015, 2:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Basically,  this is the philosophy of the democrat and the republican...

Democrat:  government is the solution to everything

Republican:  government is never the solution to anything

However,  both philosophies are so chock full of hypocrisy and inconsistency that it makes both philosophies become meaningless drivel.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

2seaoat wrote:disasters in Syria and Libya.

Define disaster.  Israel is as happy as a pig in chit that two nation states which were a direct threat to their security have been neutralized.  Tribal disputes in Libya will take years to resolve.   In Syria, the 1973 war had them less than 24 hours from invading Israel and taking large chunks of the country as their tanks had tactical advantage in the Golan heights after the surprise attack, and the Syrians not realizing how successful the Egyptians had been in obliterating the Sinai defenses under the Russian air missile defense on the west side of the Suez caused the Israelis to lose almost 150 tanks in the first few days of the surprise attack.   Syria now being neutralize will take a generation before it ever poses a conventional military threat.   So define disaster.  Two dangerous dictators have either been killed or neutralized as a threat to our ally in the middle east.........and as Tom Cotton has made abundantly clear......that IS our foreign policy in the middle east........and it is time to simply cut and run like Ronald Reagan did......the man had it figured out in foreign relations, but sadly dropped the ball in domestic.

Sorry, Seaoat, but Reagan doesn't get a pass on foreign policy either...Reagan had probably the worst foreign policy of any president until George W Bush stole the office.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

2seaoat wrote:Israel is as happy as a pig in chit that two nation states which were a direct threat to their security have been neutralized.

Israel is trying to build an empire in the Middle East. It is opportunistically using the U.S. as a geopolitical guardian (our foreign aid money, the advanced weapons we provide them, and our UN veto) to protect Israel from any possible threat to its continued dominance in the Middle East.

Israel is paranoid that other nations in the region will become a nuclear power in the same way Israel accomplished this, and this is the driving factor behind its relentless push to start a war with Iran. Israel wants to hold a nuclear sword over all of its potential enemies, and not have to face the same. The notion that Israel needs nuclear weapons to protect itself from non-nuclear nations is just a load of horseshit.

I am so thankful that President Obama will not bend over for Bibi. He sees things the way they are, and if the political fallout were not so great, there would be a lot he would change.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum