An often-forgotten fact about George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech – UPDATED
Remember this? Most people don’t, at least not correctly.
Most people probably remember George W. Bush swooping down out of the sky in a fighter jet and alighting onto the deck of the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier to give a rousing war speech under a gigantic “Mission Accomplished” banner.
You probably remember that the USS Lincoln was in the Persian Gulf at the time and our “Wartime President” was there to celebrate the liberation of Iraq. Right?
Wrong.
After a week of listening to endless drivel from conservative war hawks/chicken hawks like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove and Mitt Romney tell us how egregious it was for President Obama to dare mention the killing of Osama bin Laden on the event’s one-year anniversary, it’s useful to remember the exact details of that day: May 1st, 2003.
The day Bush landed on the USS Lincoln, it was just 30 miles from shore near San Diego, California.
In other words, it was a completely staged theatrical display, designed to make a man who avoided military service look like the warrior he never was.
So, please, spare me the [p]outrage and faux indignation. That dog does NOT hunt.
I’m not even sure it will get up off the porch for dinner.
UPDATE: Turns out that one of the groups making the biggest stink about this is admitting that they are trying to “swift boat” the president:
Veterans for a Strong America describes itself “a grassroots action organization committed to ensuring that America remains a strong nation by advancing liberty, safeguarding freedom and opposing tyranny.” Founded in 2010, the ostensibly nonpartisan group kept a low profile until earlier this week, when it posted a splashy online ad that uses statements from President Barack Obama to suggest that the commander-in-chief boasted about his role in killing Osama bin Laden, dishonoring America’s military in the process. […] Karl Rove praised the ad on Twitter, calling it “powerful,” and it rapidly burned up the right-wing blogs. “The swift boating of Obama has begun,” The Atlantic announced. “One thing that’s clear from this advertisement, if more current and former SEALs decided to come out of the woodwork in opposition to Obama, it could do real damage to him.”
Joel Arends, Veterans for a Strong America’s founder, chairman, and sole staffer, tells me he’s proud of his organization’s viral video, even if it’s characterized as swift boating. “Yes, it’s the swift boating of the president, in the sense of using what’s perceived to be his greatest strength and making it his greatest weakness.”
And, with that, you have an admission from President Obama’s political opponents that his greatest strength is national security.
Game. Set. Match.
************
And the war...Bush's war...raged on. How did he stand in front of that group of faces knowing that his lies would lead to the deaths or maiming of some of the members of that audience? Four years would pass before the "surge". Four more years after the surge before the withdrawal. It was nothing but a cheap political photo op. He didn't fly the plane. The banner was set up by political operatives...not by the military.
Well I despise Bush but just for balance....it was the carrier whose mission was accomplished and Bush was in the National guard...they are not trained to land on carriers....
An often-forgotten fact about George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech – UPDATED
Remember this? Most people don’t, at least not correctly.
Most people probably remember George W. Bush swooping down out of the sky in a fighter jet and alighting onto the deck of the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier to give a rousing war speech under a gigantic “Mission Accomplished” banner.
You probably remember that the USS Lincoln was in the Persian Gulf at the time and our “Wartime President” was there to celebrate the liberation of Iraq. Right?
Wrong.
After a week of listening to endless drivel from conservative war hawks/chicken hawks like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove and Mitt Romney tell us how egregious it was for President Obama to dare mention the killing of Osama bin Laden on the event’s one-year anniversary, it’s useful to remember the exact details of that day: May 1st, 2003.
The day Bush landed on the USS Lincoln, it was just 30 miles from shore near San Diego, California.
In other words, it was a completely staged theatrical display, designed to make a man who avoided military service look like the warrior he never was.
So, please, spare me the [p]outrage and faux indignation. That dog does NOT hunt.
I’m not even sure it will get up off the porch for dinner.
UPDATE: Turns out that one of the groups making the biggest stink about this is admitting that they are trying to “swift boat” the president:
Veterans for a Strong America describes itself “a grassroots action organization committed to ensuring that America remains a strong nation by advancing liberty, safeguarding freedom and opposing tyranny.” Founded in 2010, the ostensibly nonpartisan group kept a low profile until earlier this week, when it posted a splashy online ad that uses statements from President Barack Obama to suggest that the commander-in-chief boasted about his role in killing Osama bin Laden, dishonoring America’s military in the process. […] Karl Rove praised the ad on Twitter, calling it “powerful,” and it rapidly burned up the right-wing blogs. “The swift boating of Obama has begun,” The Atlantic announced. “One thing that’s clear from this advertisement, if more current and former SEALs decided to come out of the woodwork in opposition to Obama, it could do real damage to him.”
Joel Arends, Veterans for a Strong America’s founder, chairman, and sole staffer, tells me he’s proud of his organization’s viral video, even if it’s characterized as swift boating. “Yes, it’s the swift boating of the president, in the sense of using what’s perceived to be his greatest strength and making it his greatest weakness.”
And, with that, you have an admission from President Obama’s political opponents that his greatest strength is national security.
Game. Set. Match.
************
And the war...Bush's war...raged on. How did he stand in front of that group of faces knowing that his lies would lead to the deaths or maiming of some of the members of that audience? Four years would pass before the "surge". Four more years after the surge before the withdrawal. It was nothing but a cheap political photo op. He didn't fly the plane. The banner was set up by political operatives...not by the military.
Well I despise Bush but just for balance....it was the carrier whose mission was accomplished and Bush was in the National guard...they are not trained to land on carriers....
Balance? That's what you're calling it? My FIL was trained to land on carriers. Do you really think the whole shebang wasn't staged...down to the flight gear and the MAGIC CUP? I do realize that the carrier had returned from deployment...but the military did NOT put up that banner...it was Rove.
An often-forgotten fact about George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech – UPDATED
Remember this? Most people don’t, at least not correctly.
Most people probably remember George W. Bush swooping down out of the sky in a fighter jet and alighting onto the deck of the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier to give a rousing war speech under a gigantic “Mission Accomplished” banner.
You probably remember that the USS Lincoln was in the Persian Gulf at the time and our “Wartime President” was there to celebrate the liberation of Iraq. Right?
Wrong.
After a week of listening to endless drivel from conservative war hawks/chicken hawks like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove and Mitt Romney tell us how egregious it was for President Obama to dare mention the killing of Osama bin Laden on the event’s one-year anniversary, it’s useful to remember the exact details of that day: May 1st, 2003.
The day Bush landed on the USS Lincoln, it was just 30 miles from shore near San Diego, California.
In other words, it was a completely staged theatrical display, designed to make a man who avoided military service look like the warrior he never was.
So, please, spare me the [p]outrage and faux indignation. That dog does NOT hunt.
I’m not even sure it will get up off the porch for dinner.
UPDATE: Turns out that one of the groups making the biggest stink about this is admitting that they are trying to “swift boat” the president:
Veterans for a Strong America describes itself “a grassroots action organization committed to ensuring that America remains a strong nation by advancing liberty, safeguarding freedom and opposing tyranny.” Founded in 2010, the ostensibly nonpartisan group kept a low profile until earlier this week, when it posted a splashy online ad that uses statements from President Barack Obama to suggest that the commander-in-chief boasted about his role in killing Osama bin Laden, dishonoring America’s military in the process. […] Karl Rove praised the ad on Twitter, calling it “powerful,” and it rapidly burned up the right-wing blogs. “The swift boating of Obama has begun,” The Atlantic announced. “One thing that’s clear from this advertisement, if more current and former SEALs decided to come out of the woodwork in opposition to Obama, it could do real damage to him.”
Joel Arends, Veterans for a Strong America’s founder, chairman, and sole staffer, tells me he’s proud of his organization’s viral video, even if it’s characterized as swift boating. “Yes, it’s the swift boating of the president, in the sense of using what’s perceived to be his greatest strength and making it his greatest weakness.”
And, with that, you have an admission from President Obama’s political opponents that his greatest strength is national security.
Game. Set. Match.
************
And the war...Bush's war...raged on. How did he stand in front of that group of faces knowing that his lies would lead to the deaths or maiming of some of the members of that audience? Four years would pass before the "surge". Four more years after the surge before the withdrawal. It was nothing but a cheap political photo op. He didn't fly the plane. The banner was set up by political operatives...not by the military.
Well I despise Bush but just for balance....it was the carrier whose mission was accomplished and Bush was in the National guard...they are not trained to land on carriers....
Balance? That's what you're calling it? My FIL was trained to land on carriers. Do you really think the whole shebang wasn't staged...down to the flight gear and the MAGIC CUP? I do realize that the carrier had returned from deployment...but the military did NOT put up that banner...it was Rove.
Well spin it I could care less...who needs the truth if it doesn't tell the story you want told ? Could actually argue EVERTHING in politics is staged...
An often-forgotten fact about George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech – UPDATED
Remember this? Most people don’t, at least not correctly.
Most people probably remember George W. Bush swooping down out of the sky in a fighter jet and alighting onto the deck of the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier to give a rousing war speech under a gigantic “Mission Accomplished” banner.
You probably remember that the USS Lincoln was in the Persian Gulf at the time and our “Wartime President” was there to celebrate the liberation of Iraq. Right?
Wrong.
After a week of listening to endless drivel from conservative war hawks/chicken hawks like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove and Mitt Romney tell us how egregious it was for President Obama to dare mention the killing of Osama bin Laden on the event’s one-year anniversary, it’s useful to remember the exact details of that day: May 1st, 2003.
The day Bush landed on the USS Lincoln, it was just 30 miles from shore near San Diego, California.
In other words, it was a completely staged theatrical display, designed to make a man who avoided military service look like the warrior he never was.
So, please, spare me the [p]outrage and faux indignation. That dog does NOT hunt.
I’m not even sure it will get up off the porch for dinner.
UPDATE: Turns out that one of the groups making the biggest stink about this is admitting that they are trying to “swift boat” the president:
Veterans for a Strong America describes itself “a grassroots action organization committed to ensuring that America remains a strong nation by advancing liberty, safeguarding freedom and opposing tyranny.” Founded in 2010, the ostensibly nonpartisan group kept a low profile until earlier this week, when it posted a splashy online ad that uses statements from President Barack Obama to suggest that the commander-in-chief boasted about his role in killing Osama bin Laden, dishonoring America’s military in the process. […] Karl Rove praised the ad on Twitter, calling it “powerful,” and it rapidly burned up the right-wing blogs. “The swift boating of Obama has begun,” The Atlantic announced. “One thing that’s clear from this advertisement, if more current and former SEALs decided to come out of the woodwork in opposition to Obama, it could do real damage to him.”
Joel Arends, Veterans for a Strong America’s founder, chairman, and sole staffer, tells me he’s proud of his organization’s viral video, even if it’s characterized as swift boating. “Yes, it’s the swift boating of the president, in the sense of using what’s perceived to be his greatest strength and making it his greatest weakness.”
And, with that, you have an admission from President Obama’s political opponents that his greatest strength is national security.
Game. Set. Match.
************
And the war...Bush's war...raged on. How did he stand in front of that group of faces knowing that his lies would lead to the deaths or maiming of some of the members of that audience? Four years would pass before the "surge". Four more years after the surge before the withdrawal. It was nothing but a cheap political photo op. He didn't fly the plane. The banner was set up by political operatives...not by the military.
Well I despise Bush but just for balance....it was the carrier whose mission was accomplished and Bush was in the National guard...they are not trained to land on carriers....
Balance? That's what you're calling it? My FIL was trained to land on carriers. Do you really think the whole shebang wasn't staged...down to the flight gear and the MAGIC CUP? I do realize that the carrier had returned from deployment...but the military did NOT put up that banner...it was Rove.
Well spin it I could care less...who needs the truth if it doesn't tell the story you want told ? Could actually argue EVERTHING in politics is staged...
It matters, Teo, when the cost is blood and treasure. It matters when the body politic is so corrupted by their own brainwashed, cowardly stupidity that they "elected" a psychopath...in a bloodless coup...to lead our country into the 21st Century...and in so doing, almost led to our collective downfall. IT MATTERS!!
Posts : 11865 Join date : 2012-06-14 Age : 72 Location : Pensacola, FL
The whole thing on the USS Lincoln was a sickening photo-op. Bush Impersonated a real Navy pilot, then he dressed up as a flight-deck hand for more photos, and his podium was strategically located under the ship's "Mission Accomplished" banner for more photos.
Dumbya's mission was accomplished all right--for today we have ISIL controlling a full third of Iraq and most of Syria. Refugees are fleeing the turmoil and landing everywhere.
If Dumbya had left the tired old dictator in place with sanctions and the no-fly zones held in tact, none of this would have happened, and we would be trillions of $$ better off.
Posts : 17531 Join date : 2012-06-16 Age : 79 Location : Tallahassee
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:The whole thing on the USS Lincoln was a sickening photo-op. Bush Impersonated a real Navy pilot, then he dressed up as a flight-deck hand for more photos, and his podium was strategically located under the ship's "Mission Accomplished" banner for more photos.
Dumbya's mission was accomplished all right--for today we have ISIL controlling a full third of Iraq and most of Syria. Refugees are fleeing the turmoil and landing everywhere.
If Dumbya had left the tired old dictator in place with sanctions and the no-fly zones held in tact, none of this would have happened, and we would be trillions of $$ better off.
And if a frog had wings he keep busting his ass every time he hit the ground.
Would you please list all the United Nations resolutions against Saddam Hussein?
Would you please show us the vote from Congress to use force on Saddam Hussein?
Let me remind you of all DEMOCRATS who favored invading Iraq. Including Hillary Clinton who voted FOR the invasion.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." - President Clinton in 1998 “
[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.” - President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 .
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”
“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.” - President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "
Update: September 8, 2005 - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 .
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 .
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 .
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 .
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 .
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 .
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." - John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." - John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003" (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)
I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." - Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.
"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.
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
How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.
And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….
Posts : 8802 Join date : 2012-06-23 Location : Pace
Markle wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:The whole thing on the USS Lincoln was a sickening photo-op. Bush Impersonated a real Navy pilot, then he dressed up as a flight-deck hand for more photos, and his podium was strategically located under the ship's "Mission Accomplished" banner for more photos.
Dumbya's mission was accomplished all right--for today we have ISIL controlling a full third of Iraq and most of Syria. Refugees are fleeing the turmoil and landing everywhere.
If Dumbya had left the tired old dictator in place with sanctions and the no-fly zones held in tact, none of this would have happened, and we would be trillions of $$ better off.
And if a frog had wings he keep busting his ass every time he hit the ground.
Would you please list all the United Nations resolutions against Saddam Hussein?
Would you please show us the vote from Congress to use force on Saddam Hussein?
Let me remind you of all DEMOCRATS who favored invading Iraq. Including Hillary Clinton who voted FOR the invasion.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." - President Clinton in 1998 “
[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.” - President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 .
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”
“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.” - President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "
Update: September 8, 2005 - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 .
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 .
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 .
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 .
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 .
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 .
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." - John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." - John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003" (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)
I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." - Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.
"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.
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
How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.
And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….
Fact: Virtually all the congressional support Bush garnered for his invasion of Iraq was based on the lies he and his gang promulgated. No senators or congress people were given the security agency reports that indicated Saddam had no ongoing nuclear weapons program. Reality. Bush and Darth Cheney lied us all into this costly, unending nightmare.!
Posts : 11865 Join date : 2012-06-14 Age : 72 Location : Pensacola, FL
Wordslinger wrote:Fact: Virtually all the congressional support Bush garnered for his invasion of Iraq was based on the lies he and his gang promulgated. No senators or congress people were given the security agency reports that indicated Saddam had no ongoing nuclear weapons program. Reality. Bush and Darth Cheney lied us all into this costly, unending nightmare.!
Semi-demented poster Markle's cut-and-pastes are not slick enough to counter those facts!
Posts : 17531 Join date : 2012-06-16 Age : 79 Location : Tallahassee
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:Virtually all the congressional support Bush garnered for his invasion of Iraq was based on the lies he and his gang promulgated. No senators or congress people were given the security agency reports that indicated Saddam had no ongoing nuclear weapons program. Reality. Bush and Darth Cheney lied us all into this costly, unending nightmare!
Semi-demented poster Markle's cut-and-pastes are not slick enough to counter those facts!
Posts : 8802 Join date : 2012-06-23 Location : Pace
Markle wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:Virtually all the congressional support Bush garnered for his invasion of Iraq was based on the lies he and his gang promulgated. No senators or congress people were given the security agency reports that indicated Saddam had no ongoing nuclear weapons program. Reality. Bush and Darth Cheney lied us all into this costly, unending nightmare!
Semi-demented poster Markle's cut-and-pastes are not slick enough to counter those facts!
What facts?
What facts? Markle cries. "Up is down! Dry is Wet! Cold is hot!"
Posts : 8802 Join date : 2012-06-23 Location : Pace
PkrBum wrote:It's the same intelligence that clinton acknowledged receiving and that the legislature and un used to support intervention.
The boogieman bush2 didn't create the intelligence. I guess I should be pleased that you've narrowed the topic to nukes.
Is that progress? There's no need to revise the reality of the time. It was an epic blunder all on it's own set of facts.
On this we both agree: " ... It was an epic blunder all on it's own set of facts."
But your perspective -- that Bush didn't create the intel -- is all wrong. There were, in fact, several reports from several security agencies which disputed the possibility of Saddam having an active program of WMD, including nuclear weapons development. Bush and gang all had access to these reports, which were promptly buried because the material conflicted with their desired goal: an invasion and conquering of Iraq. By burying intel that conflicted with his goal, bush2 did "create the intelligence."
Posts : 9062 Join date : 2010-01-02 Age : 44 Location : Pensacola, FL
PkrBum wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Well look at that. Our forum members unanimously agree republicans should be kept far away from foreign policy decisions.
And hillary... if one set of standards and facts are used.
Any level of military engagement in the middle east under Clinton will be considerately less than any level of military engagement in the middle east under any of the electable republican candidates.
boards of FL wrote:Well look at that. Our forum members unanimously agree republicans should be kept far away from foreign policy decisions.
And hillary... if one set of standards and facts are used.
Any level of military engagement in the middle east under Clinton will be considerately less than any level of military engagement in the middle east under any of the electable republican candidates.
You do agree with that statement, don't you?
No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.
Posts : 9062 Join date : 2010-01-02 Age : 44 Location : Pensacola, FL
PkrBum wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Well look at that. Our forum members unanimously agree republicans should be kept far away from foreign policy decisions.
And hillary... if one set of standards and facts are used.
Any level of military engagement in the middle east under Clinton will be considerately less than any level of military engagement in the middle east under any of the electable republican candidates.
You do agree with that statement, don't you?
No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.
Which electable republican candidates have presented a middle east policy that is less hawkish than Clinton's?
Here is a summary of Clinton's plan for reference.
Posts : 9062 Join date : 2010-01-02 Age : 44 Location : Pensacola, FL
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Well look at that. Our forum members unanimously agree republicans should be kept far away from foreign policy decisions.
And hillary... if one set of standards and facts are used.
Any level of military engagement in the middle east under Clinton will be considerately less than any level of military engagement in the middle east under any of the electable republican candidates.
You do agree with that statement, don't you?
No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.
Which electable republican candidates have presented a middle east policy that is less hawkish than Clinton's?
Here is a summary of Clinton's plan for reference.
Posts : 9062 Join date : 2010-01-02 Age : 44 Location : Pensacola, FL
PkrBum wrote:Yes... you've got nothing but a campaign promise. She has a record whether you choose to ignore it or not.
I see.
So when you said this...
PkrBum wrote:No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.
...you were essentially just talking out of your ass there? There is nothing in the real world that you can point to that would support that statement? Even when I helped you out and gave you the platform that Clinton is running on, it is still beyond your scope to be able to simply find a platform being offered by any of the electable republican candidates and then draw distinction by way of hawkishness?
Uh oh...it's happening again.
Let me ask you this, PkrBum, if you can't support your bullshit statement, can you at least identify for me the specific republican candidates you were referring to when you said this?
PkrBum wrote:No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.
I mean, how hard could that be? All you have to do is say the names of the republicans that you had in mind when you made that statement. Can you do that, PkrBum?
Posts : 9062 Join date : 2010-01-02 Age : 44 Location : Pensacola, FL
boards of FL wrote:Let me ask you this, PkrBum, if you can't support your bullshit statement, can you at least identify for me the specific republican candidates you were referring to when you said this?
PkrBum wrote:No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.
I mean, how hard could that be? All you have to do is say the names of the republicans that you had in mind when you made that statement. Can you do that, PkrBum?
So...did you not know who you had in mind when you made that statement? Can you not simply state - specifically - the republican candidates who you feel are less hawkish than Clinton?
Home
