Help me debunk this repuke email!

[IH8_Bush]

I got this today from a repuke, it makes me sick but how do we debunk it? How can we say that Bush* lied?
---------------------------------------------
"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from , but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"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

"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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"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 destrution and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"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 seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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..."
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.

"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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 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

"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. "ithout 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 has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!

[rumguy]

1. Tricky...ha ha

Bush lied and used phony intel, or don't you remember those sixteen little words in the SOTU speech?

Democrats were concerned, some got swept up in Bush's lies - but Dems never outright lied they way Bush did.

[IH8_Bush]

2. so are you saying they did have/had WMD?

Or are all these prominent dems lying as well?
Very confusing, we need to change strategy fast.
These quotes will be used I guarantee.

[rumguy]

Bush used phony intel - that's the bottom line...

And anyone with have a brain knows they knew it was sketchy...

Bush used phony intel and inflamatory rhetoric to make it seem the threat was so immenant it was worth diverting our forces from Afghanistan and Al-Queda.

Dems, for the most part, were wary and concerned, and yes, quite frankly some were more than happy to jump on the war bandwagon...but the smart ones knew better!

Ha ha...

[Liberal Veteran]

11. They did at one time. That's known...

But by all accounts, including Weapons Inspectors Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, and David Kay, it appears that Saddam was not in possession of WMD at the time of our invasion.



BTW, it is interesting that you want to debunk this in message while you were posting it as exoneration for Bush's going to war in another thread.

Also, you might want to take into account that Congress was lied to by the Bush administration. About half of those quotes come from that briefing of Congress by the Bush administration.

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryN1216NELSON.htm

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.

Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.

Nelson said he couldn't reveal who in the administration gave the briefing.

The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department of Defense. Defense officials had no comment on Nelson's claim.

Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.

[uhhuh]

3. Hi Ih8_Bush

So nice to see you again! Alert #4

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uhhuh]

10. Kiss kiss

I love you too!! :hug:

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sasquatch]

4. The Dems aired their concerns and got them taken care of through....

the UN. The BCF never had the proof of WMD's to begin with and the UN knew it was BS. Now he has invaded ask your RW friend this-

WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THAT YOU TOLD EVERYONE ABOUT?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rumguy]

8. They weren't stupid enough to go to war over it....

concerned is different that the phony crap the admin. used...

[sasquatch]

12. First of all I just alerted the mods on you and second

Not all Dems are true Dems. These people are DLC, republican lite democrats.

[K-W]

16. DLC is not republican lite

The simple fact is that before we went in and found none, it was very possible that saddam did have weapons and there was some reason to believe he did. So, these democrats had to take the information they had and the pressures that were on them and try and make the best policy statements.

The fact that none of them were responsible for invasion basically makes the whole email null. None of them made a garuntee that there were WMD and based invasion on it. Only bush did.

[sasquatch]

28. DLC is Repug lite no matter how you say it

It's not real bad it's just not true Democrat. You only get half a Democrat instead of a whole Democrat. They voted for that because if they voted against it they would've lost corporate campaign donations. Which is sick because you use our troops for political gains like the republicans do which is disgusting beyond belief. Anyone with the sense God gave a Cockroach knows you can't trust evil people like Bush with unlimited powers. Hell it's unconstitutional to give a President that much power.

[K-W]

29. No it isnt.

Democrats now are just like democrats before. They are politicians who have to worry about winning elections. A politician out of office has zero power. That doesnt mean they always make the best choices, but thier choices are always motivated by the same things.

They gave Bush the powers because they viewed it as the right move to make. They were given good reason to believe that Saddam was a threat, including lies. The democrats were the underdogs and if they voted against the war resoultion and the war turned out to be very popular, they would have signed the death certificate on the democratic party and we would be heading into 2004 with a garuntee of 4 more years of bush, a senate we couldnt even filibuster, and no chance of any say whatsoever.

If I was in congress, and not from some very liberal district, id have probably voted for it too. It was the smart thing to do for the advancement of our agenda.

[sasquatch]

30. Giving a complete and total moron like Bush powers is a good move?

For Christsakes no wonder we're out of power right now. Those people are not from Alabama they're from the liberal Northeast(most of them). Any person with the enough brains to piss their pants can figure out that's a retarded move. They did it because their retarded advisors told that those troops are just Generation X and if they get killed no one will care. That's why we lose elections because we let the Repugs put up their bad ideas and go along with it like a bunch of god damned sheep. I also think it's sad that Dems think getting are troops killed for lies was a good idea.

[K-W]

36. It was the right political move

no offense, but if you ran the dem party, there wouldnt be a dem in congress to vote on any resolutions. The republicans were going to win that fight not matter what, AND Bush could have gone to war anyway. They werent going to stop the war, so they had two choices.

1. Vote against it, not stop the war and at the same time risk the entire future of thier seats and the democratic party

or

2. Vote for the resolution, give defendable reasons, that way if the war goes well for Bush, you havent committed political suicide and if it goes badly, you can simply say that you gave him the power to make war under the right circumstances and he made them under the wrong ones.

Guess what, we all know the war was wrong. The country certainly hasnt made up thier minds yet. It is still entirely feasible that by the 2004 election a solid faction of America feels good about Iraq. If that happens, anyone who took option 1 has zero chance to win the presidency and has given republicans looking to unseat them good ammo.

Democrats have to stay in office to have any effect on anything. I applaud them for making the right decision to stay in office and I think any democrat who complains about it should rethink what in the heck they want our politicians to do if they have to be unbending idealogues to get democratic support.

[IH8_Bush]

17. OK so all DLC are liars as well

at least we are on the same page.
Methinks they might all have been telling the truth, but at least we agree that they were all in agreement!

[Liberal Veteran]

15. Interesting Freudian slip you had in that message.

"Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Hitlery, (et al) told everyone about?
hmm?"

Who would that 4th person be? Hmm.....I wonder.

[liberalnurse]

6. You just posted this ......

in response to one of my replies.....

Funny, now you state this was an email?

Actually, you are posting this same shit all over the f'en place....

[tkmorris]

9. Very simple

Yes all of those things were said by Democrats, many within Clintons cabinet. And in fact, when force was deemed necessary to back up the "no WMD" resolutions it was used, by President Clinton.

No, Clinton did NOT declare full-scale war on Iraq. He did not invade the country, killing thousands of innocent Iraqis, including women and children. He did not cause 500 American soldiers to die needlessly, and more will come. He did not spend 87 Billion plus that his economy could ill-afford.

But his policy of using exactly the amount of force needed was effective. This is borne out by the fact that there are NO significant (or insignificant) WMD's to have been found in Iraq. What Clinton and his people did was markedly different and was definately effective. The only good thing Bush's invasion has accomplished is to prove that Clinton's policies were in fact an effective and humane approach to the problem.

NEXT!

[IH8_Bush]

13. you are avoiding the issue

If you insist that Bush lied about WMDs, they all these people whom you respect so dearly also lied through their teeth.
So which is it?
Did Bush tell the truth?
Or did the aforementioned "great ones" lie as well?

[rumguy]

18. They were concerned, but no stupid enough to go to war over it

and don't forget those sixteen phony words about Iraq seeking uranium..that alone is enough to get bush impeached.

[LoZoccolo]

20. Those two choices are disingenuous (to put it more politely).

If someone you trust lies to you about something, and there's no evidence to the contrary yet, and you repeat it, you have not lied.

[Liberal Veteran]

I'm not...

But by all accounts, including Weapons Inspectors Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, and David Kay, it appears that Saddam was not in possession of WMD at the time of our invasion and indeed was cooperating with weapons inspectors quite well at the time of our invasion.



BTW, it is interesting that you want to debunk this in message while you were posting it as exoneration for Bush's going to war in another thread.

Also, you might want to take into account that Congress was lied to by the Bush administration. About half of those quotes come from that briefing of Congress by the Bush administration.

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryN1216NELSON.htm

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.

Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.

Nelson said he couldn't reveal who in the administration gave the briefing.

The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department of Defense. Defense officials had no comment on Nelson's claim.

Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.


The bottom line becomes, how did these so called weapons and active programs mysteriously vanish without a trace while the weapons inspectors were in country and we were busy flying spy planes and satellites over the country?

[rumguy]

25. Great point!

[uhhuh]

24. You should pet a kitty cat

It's much more pleasant than repeating yourself over and over and not reading the replies that address your single, much repeated point.

:hug:

[tkmorris]

32. Oh please

Sorry folks, took this guy at face value. I oughtta know better.

[ermoore]

34. Dude, I kinda hate to say this, but . . .

I'm gonna have to disagree with you. Now, IH8_Bush is probably a lurker (sorry dude, you just have too few posts and argue a bit too enthusiastically for the repub party line), but Clinton doesn't totally deserve all that credit. True, Clinton didn't go to war, but he did kill civilians in his airstrikes and he also didn't try to get rid of Saddam. Clinton's airstrikes, for that matter, were (with the exception of the strike in Sudan) aimed at Saddam's anti-aircraft defenses that were targeting American jets enforcing the No-Fly Zone, not anything having to do with limiting his WMD programs. Also, I'm not sure that what Clinton did was effective. I guess Saddam was still stuck in Iraq, but a lot of innocent Iraqis were stuck with him.

I think the main point here is that the remarks by Kerry might have been made based on intelligence given by the WH. Furthermore, I think we can say now that our intelligence on Iraq's WMD has proven to be less than ideal, but the repub point is to show that this faulty intelligence also fooled the Clinton administration and that, I guess, it was just an honest mistake. I dunno what to say to this. I reckon that the Bushies should have gotten better intelligence since they took power, but I dunno if that's good enough. I don't know what context Bob Graham's (or the other people's) remarks were made in.

[LastKnight]

14. top 40 bush lies

number 1, (paraphrased)
bush has been bent on war since 9/11

in march 2002, about a full year before the invasion. bush said "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out." (bush quoted in a closed door meeting to condi rice, from TIME magazine)

rummy's own meeting notes from 9/11 read: "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. at same time. Not only UBL .... Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not." (obtained by CBS news)

these are just a few useful tidbits from the TOP 40 BUSH LIES ON WAR AND TERRORISM site i found. found here:

http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/sperry/stories/storyReader$526

you can surely use this against them

-LK

[K-W]

19. everyone stop responding to this troll

please, while the quotes themselves may be good for a discussion topic, the poster is simply trying to attack the democratic party, let this thread die and wait till someone comes around and ends the trolling

[IH8_Bush]

22. yes, we wouldn't want the word to get out!

*hush hush*

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Undertaker]

23. Amen to that...

damn trolls...always looking for trouble.

[rumguy]

21. And let's not forget the most recent revealed lie

Bush telling Senators that Saddam had missles ready to launch...ha ha what a phony trip this has all been!

[yowzayowzayowza]

31. Simple...

SHOW ME THE WINNEBAGOES OF DEATH!!!! If ya caint, then ya gotz sum splainen to due....

[Skip Intro]

33. Oh, the buck never stops with little hitler, does it?

From his failure to protect the nation on 9*11*01 to his failure to bring to justice those responsible to his failure to bring to justice the anthrax terrorist to the SOTU Niger uranium lies/forgeries to the outing of an undercover CIA agent to the murder of tens of thousands, including many of the troops the bloody bushbots claim to support, to the "mission accomplished" banner/photo-op/vegas show to the phony turkey snuck into Iraq in the middle of the night, the "man" has never stood up and said "I am responsible, the buck stops with me," the slimy coward.

But that's what the repuke party has become hasn't it. Just listen to buzzy limbaugh as he crawls around like a roach with the lights on. A party of cowards and crybabies - irresponsible liars. You and the rest of the hive should find a nice dark spiderhole to tuck yourselves away in, because the light is coming.

[Liberal Veteran]

35. Coming out of the woodwork tonight aren't they?

Props to the mods for their diligence this fine night.

[0rganism]

37. This deserves a rebuttal, at the very least

First of all, what we have here is a list of out-of-context quotations from various Dems, with respect to Saddam's alleged stockpiles of WMDs. For the moment, let's assume that ALL the statements are quoted exactly, without doctoring or invention. The premise here is that if the Democrats can be shown to have concerns about the WMDs, then bush's actions are supposedly exonerated.

The important attack occurs here:
> How can we say that Bush* lied?

Very simply: he lied. Not only did he lie to the American people in his SOTU speech, he and/or his cabinet members lied to the UN, and to congressional intelligence committees. In fact, those lies account for some of the quotations cited starting about halfway down the list.

As for the pre-2000 comments by Mr. Clinton, we absolutely have to consider
(1) methodology for resolution, and
(2) circumstance of allegation

For example,
> "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.

What method did Bill Clinton use? Full scale invasion? No. He relied on the UN inspectors, an embargo (which was itself questionable), and occasional "surgical strikes" (also questionable). But NEVER did he risk the regional instability and loss of life that the invasion has caused.

> "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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

Very Clintonian. However, the premise of this statement is, "if Saddam rejects peace." There is no indication that he did so, after 1992. Furthermore, Clinton refers to a "program", not a stockpile. Keep in mind that inspectors were in Iraq until the USA opted to remove them in 1998. Saddam did not kick out the inspecetors, as has been all-too-often bandied about.

> "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.

Indeed, Nancy is right on the money. However, whether those weapons technologies were successfully developed, or ever constituted a serious threat to the United States, is now a resolved question: no, and no. She is correct in stating that the Iraqis were not completely cooperative with the UN weapons inspectors, but THEY WERE NOT EXPECTED TO BE. It is the job of the inspectors to get around those inconveniences.

As for everything south of the letter Bob Graham signed, excepting the comments by Al Gore, we can safely presume that it occurs in the scope of the defective intelligence briefings the bush administration fed to congress for over a year prior to the invasion. Why? There WERE no such weapons found. Supposed stockpiles of potential chemical and biological weapons turn out not to be. Scott Ritter, for all his personal flaws, was apparently correct in his assessment.

We are left with a question, tho, and it is IMHO a reasonable one. Why, if Saddam's regime HAD disarmed, did they continue to give the impression of non-compliance? My hypothesis is twofold: such an impression was a useful deterrent to invasion, and gave them additional power and prestige in the region. I happen to think the USA invaded precisely because we had reliable intelligence that any WMDs were not in a position to be deployed. Would we really have risked the potential bloodbath -- tens of thousands of American troop casualties, not to mention the potential civilian casualties in Kuwait -- had such weapons been high-probability? No, that would have been insane.

Iraq was invaded precisely because their deterrent bluff failed. Furthermore, in order to justify the war, congresspeople were led to believe that the WMDs existed by deception. And THAT is your answer.

[ermoore]

38. Dude, well said.

Nice post. Well done. Thank you.

[0rganism]

41. The tombstoner was right about one thing tho

Those quotes will be used against the Democrats. In fact, as we can see, they already are. It'd be mildly interesting to check for the source of that collection, which think-tank came up with it and handled the mass distribution, so we can refer to the source.

[joncofey1]

40. Wow

That one is tricky. I don't really believe all of those
intelligent and moral Dem's really said all of those things.

DOWN WITH THE RIGHT

[Moderator]

42. Locking this thread

it was started by a disruptor