posted
Democrats Were Lying to Us, At Least 56 Times!
By Ken Hughes of the American Chronicle November 6, 2005
That’s the number of statements made by prominent Democrats affirming WMDs leading up to the War in Iraq. It wasn’t just President Bush who said Saddam Hussein had lethal weapons it was every Democrat who could find a TV camera and a reporter to talk to. Between February 1998 and February 2003 no less than 56 times Democrats called for Saddam’s removal by force if need be.
October 9th 1999 the following Senators sent a letter to President Clinton urging him to request authority to remove Saddam from power by any means. Senators, Levin / Lieberman / Lautenberg / Dodd / Kerrey / Feinstein / Mikulski / Daschle / Breaux / Johnson / Inouye / Landrieu / Ford and Kerry, all Democrats. Their claim was Saddam possessed WMDs and was working to produce a nuclear device. According to the afore mentioned Senators Saddam was an imminent threat to Americas security. Before 9/11 and immediately after Democrats were on Saddam’s case like California Condors on road-kill.
The following prominent Democrats made public statements unequivocally stating Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was an imminent threat to America’s security.
Some names appear more than once, and some on the same day, Each is an individual statement documented by the EIB Network, N.Y.
Joe Biden – August 4. 2002, Bill Clinton – February 17, 1998, Madeleine Albright – February 17, 1998, Al Gore – December 16, 1998, John Kerry – January 23, 2003, Nancy Pelosi December 16, 1998, Sandy Berger – February 18, 1998, Al Gore – September 23, 2002, John Kerry – October 9, 2002, Carl Levin – September 19, 2002, Ted Kennedy – September 27, 2002, Hillary Clinton – October 10, 2002, Jay Rockefeller – October 10, 2002, Madeleine Albright – November 10, 1999, Joe Biden – August 4, 2002, Robert Byrd – October 3, 2002, Madeline Albright – February 18, 2002, Jane Hartman – August 27, 2002, Al Gore – September 23, 2002, Joe Biden – August 4, 2002, Dick Durbin – September 30, 1999, Bill Clinton – December 17, 1998, Bill Nelson – August 25, 2002, Hillary Clinton – October 10, 2002, Nancy Pelosi – December 10, 2002, Dick Gephardt – September 23, 2002, Evan Bayh – August 4, 2002, Russell Feingold – October 9, 2002, Bill Clinton – February 17, 1998, Johnny Edwards – January 7, 2003, Hillary Clinton – January 22, 2003, John Kerry – January 31, 2003, Joe Biden – August 24, 2002, Bill Nelson – September 14, 2002, Johnny Edwards – February 6, 2003, Al Gore – September 23, 2002, Joe Biden – August 4, 2002, Tom Daschle – February 11, 1998, Bob Graham – December 8, 2002, Bill Richardson – May 29, 1998, John Kerry – February 23, 1998, and Hillary Clinton – October 10, 2002.
These are but a few of the statements made by Democrats supporting the belief Saddam Hussein had WMDs leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Not only did these prominent Democrats claim Saddam had lethal weapons so did the CIA, UN, and every intelligence agency in the free world. This war wasn’t something George Bush and the Republicans dreamed up Clinton had been planning one for half his second term. Terrorists flew the planes into the towers not Republicans. No one lied about the 3000 that perished on 9/11. If Bush lied about WMDs then so did Democrats and half of the rest of the world.
The new charges Democrats are making will only serve to make them look even more foolish than they do now. Once George Bush Cowboy’s up again and lets the public know the truth things will start to become more clear and truth will prevail. There’re only so many ways Liberals can tell that old story, Bush led us into war for oil, and have people with any intelligence believe it. There comes a time when it begins to insult the public’s intelligence.
Buy.co
Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
George Bush is going to 'Cowboy up' and let the public know the truth??? What's the hold up, is he waiting for someone to let him know what the truth is before he passes it on to us?? When I worked in the roofing industry we called anyone who came up on the roof 'Cowboy' who obviously didn't have any business being up there.
Posts: 1235 | From: Anacortes, WA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
what was it you told me right after Bush won the election Kate? nah nah nah or something equally brilliant and witty?
i told you before then that the Plame affair would be bigger than watergate...
no matter how much you pray for him? you can't change what he has done, KNOWINGLY or not? it doesn't matter, cuz it was all on his watch..... he picked Cheney for his running mate, and he hired Rove himself....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Statements or votes in Congress by democrats about the need to go to war are not lies! It isn't a lie if you actually believe a thing you say to be true....mistakes don't make lies. Those statements and votes you are brandishing about, as if they were weapons to be used in a duel to the death, were made on the assumption that the information provided by the Bush White House was correct. The claim that any of them were made on "intel" from before 200 a nonsense.
ALL(and that's a bunch because they said it over and over and over) of the informatiojn given to the Congress claimed falshoods!
BUSH LIED AND HIS COLLECTION OF POLITICAL HACKS IN LOCKED GOOSE STEP AND IN SALUTE, LIED WITH HIM.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The truth is that intelligence on Iraq was a constant. The investigations went on continuously from the first Gulf War to the second and were built upon the intelligence of the past.
Bush and his administration did not create the intelligence on Iraq. It existed since before he took office and was reinforced by intelligence that took place after he took office by individuals in the intelligence field placed there long before he took office. The intelligence was also known and accepted by both Republicans and Democrats before Bush took office.
Some of you act as if Bush entered office and suddenly discovered Iraq had WMD's, told this to everyone (a LIE) and then went to war.
You ignore that the United Nations and nearly every nation in the world said Iraq had WMD's. The United Nations even documented and inventoried many of them.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
strider, you obviously don't understand how intel works...
most importantly? there are always just a few people that control what gets disseminated and de-classified....
many many people that looked at all the intel said the Bush group was effing up...they got fired...the list is long..... they were right and Bush was wrong...there is a price to pay. it's that simple.
if France, Germany, China and russia really thought sadam had wmd? we wouldn't have had to bypasss the vote onthe secutiry council..... Bush deliberately bypassd the UN, and that was my first beetch with them.... you are overlooking way too much evidence that suports conspiracy here...... the intel was de-bunked months before Bush presented it and that has been in the publice doamin for at least 6 months....
i wonder if you would be making these excuses if it was a democrat in the same positiion? i wouldn't, cuz its obvious the clintons supported this invasion too...and i was and am just as critical of them as i have been of this admin...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
France, Germany, China and Russia, if, if, if. If those countrys had not been on Sadamns payroll through the oil for food program and promises to develop Iraqs oil fields after the lifting of the sanctions, maybe there never would have been an issue at the UN.
I was making the same arguements for removing Sadamn from Bush Sr, through Clinton, to GW Bush.
Appeasement never works.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Articles like this about parties are stupid...
It's sad that people will uphold their "party" because they are part of the "group" they think actually cares about what they want.
The majority in congress and government are greedy worthless people who don't think for a second they act on the best interest of the people.
The Majority is self interest profitable decisions, not whats good for you or me or the country but what will make them more money.
Posts: 562 | From: NY | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I'd also like to add. The ONLY reason anyone in america knows who Saddam is because the government wants the media to tell you about people in this case to hate saddam.
Not that he was a good person, but you could say to takeout saddam was something that was started when we gave him money, weapons, toxic chemical gas in the early eighties.
Only to then later want to take him out.
This seems to have happened A LOT throughout history. We HELP someone in someway that they could use it against us, and then we say they will or let them then we have a reason to destroy them.
Posts: 562 | From: NY | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
France, Germany, China and Russia, if, if, if. If those countrys had not been on Sadamns payroll through the oil for food program and promises to develop Iraqs oil fields after the lifting of the sanctions, maybe there never would have been an issue at the UN.
I was making the same arguements for removing Sadamn from Bush Sr, through Clinton, to GW Bush.
Appeasement never works.
those aren't if's strider.... they weren't on sadam's payrol...in fact it was just the opposite...they had him under thier thumb and they liked it like that....
there were US interests in there too...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They had Sadamn under their thumbs. I have never heard that before.
If France Germany, China and Russia had him under their thumbs, why was he still in violation of the UN Resolutions?
They WERE on Sadamns payroll, so was much of the UN. Money bought votes for Hussein. It bought him support.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He also had weapons he was not supposed to have. He was in violation of a CEASE fire agreement. What happens when one breaks a CEASE fire agreement? Welcome back fire.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since the 50s, this nation has had the ability to fly over a place and, via various types of photography and a few other types of "collecting devices" know almost to the exact count how many nails and bricks were in each of the buildings and what was burried underground. Satellite and rockets were NOT sponcored, financially or otherwise, to further science or enhance the reputation and standing of the US....they were developed with the express purpose of extending what was already an ability to spy and survey around the world with an accuracy that would amaze even a well educated and modern engineer or scientist who had no familiarity with the capabilities. As was pointed out recently, the fly-overs of Iraq and views from satellites after the Gulf War and before the Iraq invasion enabledled the CIA to read books that had been left open on a table under the roofs of hangers.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think bdgee makes a very important point with this...
quote:Since the 50s, this nation has had the ability to fly over a place and, via various types of photography and a few other types of "collecting devices" know almost to the exact count how many nails and bricks were in each of the buildings and what was burried underground. Satellite and rockets were NOT sponcored, financially or otherwise, to further science or enhance the reputation and standing of the US....they were developed with the express purpose of extending what was already an ability to spy and survey around the world with an accuracy that would amaze even a well educated and modern engineer or scientist who had no familiarity with the capabilities. As was pointed out recently, the fly-overs of Iraq and views from satellites after the Gulf War and before the Iraq invasion enabledled the CIA to read books that had been left open on a table under the roofs of hangers.
People fail to use this information he stated when determining when the government is lying and not. When people disregard this type of information they are being ignorant to the real facts.
To the point...
We cant capture Osama? A guy who doesn't even have a house. He hides in caves, yet has 50 billion dollars. Some how communicates via a satellite phone (which could have been traced or blocked since 1970) and we still can't "capture" him.
We seem to have a real problem finding 60 year old men who wander the deserts in the middle east, but we have no problem locating and finding other criminals worldwide?
GIVE ME A BREAK.
Posts: 562 | From: NY | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Glass, if you hired an employee, that went behind your back and did stole something from someone, that would be YOUR fault, right? That is what you are saying about Cheney!
Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My daughter asked me a question the other day. After we had watched a a show of the Cuban Missle Crisis. If the intel was so good back in the early 60's to find and photograph missles in Cuba, why was the intel and photos so wrong on Iraq. Given our large advancement in resources and systems.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
People are under the impression that our satelite network can see everything all the time. That is not the case. While we can see things in great detail, it is only when the satelite is targeted at that specific target. We can aim satelite sensor devices at specific targets as they fly over. It is not constant surveilance and if the nation under surveilance can get access to the schedules of the satelite flyovers, they can schedule their movements, transfers, etc at those times. We still are using the U2 spy planes on occasion to fill in gaps or in areas where we have no satelites.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have one question. The thing that makes no sense to me, is that we have all this satelite spy capability that can read book print, yet we have all these atttacks in Iraq(car bombs, mines etc.) even on outside bases and we can't seem to locate these people. Do these capabilities only cover very small areas at a time.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
People are under the impression that our satelite network can see everything all the time. That is not the case. While we can see things in great detail, it is only when the satelite is targeted at that specific target. We can aim satelite sensor devices at specific targets as they fly over. It is not constant surveilance and if the nation under surveilance can get access to the schedules of the satelite flyovers, they can schedule their movements, transfers, etc at those times. We still are using the U2 spy planes on occasion to fill in gaps or in areas where we have no satelites.
LOL, so we went to war without doing our homework now?
the moon isn't even full yet is it?
this isn't funny any more... it's sad
you want it both ways all the time....
we flew missions over iraq all the time...those guys have all the intel anybody could ever want...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: I have one question. The thing that makes no sense to me, is that we have all this satelite spy capability that can read book print, yet we have all these atttacks in Iraq(car bombs, mines etc.) even on outside bases and we can't seem to locate these people. Do these capabilities only cover very small areas at a time.
anybody who answers that question should go to jail
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
You didn't imply that? Sure seems like you implied that. I mean the post you were responding to dealt directly with the impossibility of constant surveilance not being possible and not seeing everything happening on the ground in Iraq.
What was the purpose of your comment if it was not to imply that? The question mark on the end doesn't change the implication. It appears you were disagreeing with the content of my post.
You've dealt with better debators? LOL, I'm far from the best but you seem incapable of dealing with little old me.
First you've gotten condecending, then started with the small insults, then bdgees tactic of saying you never said what you said all the while saying I am doing the same thing when I am not, then changing the subject or simply ignoring it and finally the name calling and the statements that you are better than I. That doesn't make you the better debator.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
